A Rhetorical Analysis On The Effect Violent Video Games Have On Children

Throughout their writing, authors may incorporate a plethora of strategies to inform, persuade, or provoke some response from the readers. In technical writing, there is little room for wordplay or subjective understanding. As technical writers, we aim to make our work as clear and concise as possible; therefore, it may be hard to grab readers’ attention. Sometimes, the writing can seem emotionless and stiff without the proper technique. I chose to review three lab reports. First, “Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play” by Tobias Greitemeyer et al. aimed to provide a “meta-analytical” test on whether or not violent video games affected social behaviors of the children who consumed them. The Second was “Mediators and Moderators of Long-term Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior Practice, Thinking, and Action” by Douglas Gentile et al., which aimed to find out whether or not video games played a role in the phycological development of young children; the study dove deep into possible variables like age, gender, and game types and documented how that affected the children. The third study, “The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression” by John L. Sherry, intended to find a relation between the types of games played and the time kids spent playing those games and how they affected their behavior. Though these three lab reports tackled very similar issues, each author used different strategies in their writing to connect with their intended audiences. After reviewing and dissecting these three articles, it is clear that “Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play” by Tobias Greitemeyer et al. is the superior lab report due to its exemplary diction, structure, and presentation of evidence.

Word choice

Word choice is one of the most critical parts of any piece of literature; as writers, we must understand that our choice of words can become a barrier of understanding for many readers. Throughout the lab reports selected, despite researching similar topics, each author relayed their findings in very different ways. One example of good word choice came from Greitemeyer’s (2014) piece: “playing violent video games appears to evoke cognitive and affective variables that are associated with the violent content of the video game played.” This was a good word choice because it was clear and concise, with little room for misinterpretation. Clarity is the essence of technical writing, and authors must make their work easy to understand; this is only possible through good diction. One instance of poor word choice can be seen in Gentile’s (2014) piece in which he states, “violent gameplay (VGP) were consistent across design (experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal), age, culture (Eastern or Western), and outcome (aggressive cognitions [ACs], aggressive feelings, and aggressive behaviors [ABs]), but there were relatively few longitudinal studies.” This excerpt exemplified poor word choice because the author introduced abbreviations; though they make it easier for the writer to get the point across quickly, they make the writing less clear because if you didn’t read the part with the definitions, you couldn’t understand what the author was trying to say. For example, try reading this excerpt from page two without knowing the abbreviations, “We hypothesized that habitually playing video games with violent content would lead to increases in AB over time and that this effect would be mediated by cognitive and affective changes (increases in different kinds of ACs and decreases in empathy).” The abbreviations ruin this part because this would otherwise be an excellent statement of their hypothesis, but the points are almost blurred by the use of  “AB” and “AC.”

Audience

When writing anything, we must have an audience in mind, whether family, colleagues, or even ourselves; we must write to capture the audience’s attention and cater to them. A clear statement of who the audience is was a common feature in the lab reports, as it was typically mentioned in the abstract of the lab report and throughout the piece. One example is Sherry’s (2001) article, which states, “Violent content video games such as Mortal Kombat and Doom have become very popular among children and adolescents, causing great concern for parents, teachers, and policymakers.” This sentence is a great audience establishment as it clarifies who this is made for before the report begins and who provoked this study. Furthermore, having a clear vision of who your audience is may enable you to better cater to their needs, like how Sherry caters to this audience by stating, “Parents’ intuitive reaction to limit playing time may actually be counterproductive, pulling the child from the game at a time when the largest aggressive effects are likely” Sherry directly calls out the audience and, in his analysis, draws a conclusion based on what they may be doing wrong.

Similarly, “Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play” (2014, Gentile) had an excellent establishment of audience and test subjects. Gentile’s article states, “Video game play has become an integral part of the lives of many people. A representative national survey indicated that about 97% of American teens play video games (Lenhart, Kahne, et al., 2008), with the average amount of playing time being around 13 hr per week (Gentile, 2009). Other surveys show that over half of American adults play video games (e.g., Lenhart, Jones, & Macgill, 2008),” which clearly states the subjects being tested are American gamers. This clear declaration of the subject(s) of interest is exemplary for technical writing since it cuts straight to the point and cuts confusion.

Structure

The structure of your writing can serve as a make-or-break feature of one’s writing; with good structure, your writing will flow beautifully, and all your interconnecting points will be clear. Linear compilation of information is a structure that best allows the reader to understand the interconnected parts of the research. One great use of structure came from Greitemeyer because he utilized a lot of repetition. An author’s use of repetition can help make a point clear or serve to be only nuanced. Greitemeyer’s use of repetition was good because it gave continuity to his points without sounding too redundant. The nature of these lab reports is that information will be repetitive, and if unchecked, it can lead to writing that sounds robotic and meaningless. For example, in Greitemeyer’s (2014) article, his use of abbreviations like “AB” and “AC” led to some parts feeling too repetitive at times; the use of acronyms feels like it devalues whatever the author may be trying to say as it gets buried in the redundancy of the sentence. But, the linear presentation of information in Greitemeyer’s article gave it a leg up when compared to the other two pieces. For example, the article starts by presenting the research topic, discusses some hypotheses, and dives straight into the data. This linear path and presentation gave little room for misinterpretation and redundancy. “The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression” was notoriously bad regarding its structure. When it came time to read the report, I couldn’t bear to read 28 pages of blocks of paragraphs; this article’s presentation was severely lacking compared to the other two.

In conclusion, authors may incorporate a plethora of strategies to inform, persuade or provoke some reaction in the reader; these rhetorical strategies are the backbone of any piece of literature and set the tone for what the author intends to convey. Some rhetorical strategies used throughout Greitemeyer’s article, “Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Play,” have allowed him to better connect with his intended audience and more effectively communicate his findings. Most notably, using good structure, word choice, and catering to his audience allowed for more clarity in what could have been a repetitive and overly wordy article. Now knowing what worked and what didn’t in these labs gives us a foundation for good technical writing and what we can incorporate into our writing in the future.