Violent Video Games and Cyberbullying: Why Education Is Better than Regulation

  • Sarah Genner
Part of the Information Technology and Law Series book series (ITLS, volume 24)


Online safety for youth is a growing concern for parents, educators, and policymakers. Legal regulation of online risks and youth protection are often well intentioned, but not effective as this chapter shows using the example of violent shooter games and cyberbullying in Switzerland. Politicians demand bans and regulations in spite of the limited success of previous youth protection laws. A closer look at Swiss public debates on the ban on “killer games” unveils that regulation concerning youth and media is very complex and influenced by political interests of certain policymakers. Research on media effects shows that risks are highly interconnected with psychological resilience. Resilient youth are less susceptible to negative effects of media violence and cyberbullying. The chapter summarizes research to date on violent games (which are increasingly played online) and cyberbullying, analyses the political public debate and, finally, emphasizes why educational measures and focusing on fostering psychological resilience are more effective than legal regulation in the long run to reduce online risks.


Computer Game Youth Violence School Shooting Violent Computer Game Traditional Bully 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Beckedahl M, Lüke F (2012) Die digitale Gesellschaft. Recht & Freiheit im Internet. dtv premiumGoogle Scholar
  2. Bonfadelli H (2004) Medienwirkungen II: Anwendungen in Politik, Wirtschaft und Kultur. UVK UTB 2615Google Scholar
  3. Brooks R, Goldstein S (2002) Raising resilient children. McGraw-Hill, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  4. Colzato LS, van Leeuwen PJA, van den Wildenberg W, Hommel B (2010) DOOM’d to switch: superior cognitive flexibility in players of first person shooter games. Frontiers in cognition 1:Article 8.
  5. Cross D, Shaw T, Hearn L, Epstein M, Monks H, Lester L, Thomas L (2009) Australian covert bullying prevalence study (ACBPS). Child Health Promotion Research Centre, Edith Cowan University, Perth.
  6. Federal Council (2010) Report Schutz vor Cyberbullying.
  7. Feierabend S, Karg U, Rathgeb T (2012) JIM 2012. Jugend, Information, (Multi-)Media Basisstudie zum Medienumgang 12- bis 19-jähriger in Deutschland. Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Südwest.
  8. Friedman TL (2013) Judgment not included. New York Times.
  9. Gentile DA, Saleem M, Anderson CA (2007) Public policy and the effects of media violence on children. Soc Issues Policy Rev 1:15–61CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hartmann T (2006) Gewaltspiele und Aggression. Aktuelle Forschung und Implikationen. In: Kaminski W, Lorber M (eds) Clash of realities: Computerspiele und soziale Wirklichkeit. Kopäd, pp 81–99Google Scholar
  11. Hermida M (2013) EU kids online: Schweiz. Schweizer Kinder und Jugendliche im Internet: Risikoerfahrungen und Umgang mit Risiken.
  12. Hopf W, Huber G, Weiß R (2008) Media violence and youth violence. A 2-year longitudinal study. J Media Psychol 20(3):79–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson JG, Cohen P, Smailes EM, Kasen S, Brook JS (2002) Television viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood. Science 295:2468–2471. Google Scholar
  14. Kunczik M, Zipfel A (2006) Gewalt und Medien. Ein Studienhandbuch. UTBGoogle Scholar
  15. Levy N, Cortesi S, Gasser U, Crowley E, Beaton M, Casey JA, Nolan C (2012) Bullying in a networked era: a literature review. Harvard Berkman Center Research Publication no. 2012-17.
  16. Merz-Abt T (2009) Killerspiele und ihre Herausforderungen für Schule und Eltern. Theoretische Reflexion und medienpädagogische Handlungsempfehlungen.
  17. Perren S, Dooley J, Shaw T, Cross D (2010) Bullying in school and cyberspace: associations with depressive symptoms in Swiss and Australian adolescents. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Mental Health 4:28.
  18. Schmid-Federer B (2008) Postulat ‘Schutz vor Cyberbullying’.
  19. Schmid-Federer B (2010) Einsetzung eines eidgenössischen Mobbing- und Cyberbullying-Beauftragten.
  20. Steiner O (2009) Neue Medien und Gewalt. Beiträge zur sozialen Sicherheit. Expertenbericht 04/09 des Eidgenössischen Departements des Innern., Bern.
  21. Sticca F, Perren S (2012) Is cyberbullying worse than traditionional bullying? Examining the differential roles of medium, publicity, and anonymity for the perceived severity of bullying. J Youth Adolescence. doi: 10.1007/s10964-012-9867-3
  22. Sticca F, Ruggieri S, Alsaker F, Perren S (2012) Longitudinal risk factors for cyberbullying in adolecence. J Commun Appl Soc Psychol. doi: 10.1002/casp.2136
  23. Szoka BM, Thierer AD (2009) Cyberbullying Legislation: why education is preferable to regulation. Progress & freedom foundation progress on point paper 16(12).
  24. Taub J, Pearrow M (2013) Resilience through violence and bullying prevention in schools. In: Goldstein S, Brooks R (eds) Handbook of resilience in children. Springer Science and Business Media, New York, pp 371–386CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Tokunaga RS (2010) Following you home from school: a critical review and synthesis of literature on cyberbullying victimization. Comput Hum Behav 26(3):277–287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Willemse I, Waller G, Süss D, Genner S, Huber A (2012) JAMES 2012. Youth, activities media—survey Switzerland. Zurich University of Applied Sciences.
  27. Ybarra ML, boyd d, Korchmaros JD, Oppenheim J (2012) Defining and measuring cyberbullying within the larger context of bullying victimization. J Adolesc Health 51:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© © T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Zurich University for Applied SciencesZurichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations