Dissertation: Investigating the Effects of Violent Video Game Exposure on Scales of Aggression and Hostility

James Grant - ‘21141979’
Investigating the Effects of Playing Violent Video Games
on Scales of Aggression and Hostility
———— James Grant ————
A report presented in the School of Psychology, Social Work & Human Sciences, University of West
London, towards the degree of Bachelor of Science with Honours in Psychology
Monday 11th April 2016
Supervisor: Lee Usher
Word Count: 10,682

— Abstract —
“Playing on violent video games will make individuals more aggressive”. A debate as to whether
there is any truth in this statement has been ongoing ever since the creation of the very first
computer games, more than 40 years ago. This is partly due to conflicting research findings
resulting in difficulties backing either side of the argument. Over 85% of video games available
today display some kind of violent behaviour. It is crucial to decipher whether these fictional worlds
are having an impact on the way we behave and interact in the real world.
60 Psychology undergraduate students (29 males and 31 females) with a combined average age of
22.28 years old participated in this laboratory study. The objective was to identify what effect, if
any, playing on violet video games and exposure to such content has on scales of aggression and
hostility. All participants were allocated to play either the; violent, non-violent or control game with
each group totalling 20 participants. The Buss-Perry Aggression questionnaire and the State
Hostility Scale were used both before and after gameplay as indications of aggression and hostility.
The Experimental hypothesis (H1
) was; The greatest increase in scores of aggression & hostility
will be seen within the participants who played on the violent video game.
Results suggest that playing on violent video games does not significantly increase levels of
aggression and in some cases seem to actually provide therapeutic measures in lowering levels.
However the results seem to suggest violent gameplay increases levels of hostility. Findings are
discussed along with future recommendations.

— Introduction —
The phenomenally rapid enhancement and sophistication of computer technology, over the past 20
years especially, has inevitably given way to the rise of both realistic and immersive video games of
all genres. As well as television shows and films this entertainment medium has infiltrated its way
into the vast majority of homes across the country, shaping the way people spend their leisure and
relaxation time. The large variety of gaming consoles and capable devices available from handheld
devices to dedicated gaming consoles allows “gamers” the freedom to play more than ever and is
estimated there are 32.9 million active “gamers” in the United Kingdom. Many titles now boast an
interactive and social element through its internet connectivity capabilities, making this a popular
way to stay in contact with friends and family. The ever-growing industry, now worth an estimated
£7.3 billion has been reported to have overtaken the American film industry in terms of gross profits
(Battelle & Johnstone, 1993) and it’s not surprising that numerous studies have confirmed that
video games now have a significant presence in our lives (Buchman & Funk, 1996; Gentile &
Walsh, 2002; Roberts, Foehr, Rideout, & Brodie, 1999; Wright et al., 2001).
The debate as to whether exposure to violent video games (VVG’s) causes an increase in levels of
aggression and hostility is one that has been raging for more than 40 years amongst communities,
policy makers and academic circles and has remained a topic of great public and scientific interest
to this day. The controversy continues as a result of several conflicting findings in the research,
failing to provide a one way argument. There are those who claim that playing on VVG’s leads to
antisocial behavioural problems (Anderson & Ford; Ballard & Wiest, 1995; Irwin & Gross, 1995;
Schotte, Malouff, Post-Gordon, & Roadasta, 1988; Silvern & Williamson, 1987) with contradictory
analysis suggesting there is no plausible link (Cooper & Mackie, 1986; Graybill, Kirsch, &
Page !1

Esselman, 1985; Graybill, Strawniak, Hunter, & O’leary, 1987; Scott, 1995; Winkel, Novak, &
Hopson, 1987).
Over 85% of video games on the market today contain some form of violence with approximately
half including behaviours that are considered to be ‘seriously violent’. A survey of middle-class
adolescents identified that 88% of boys and 64% of girls reported playing video games for at least
an hour a week. When asked which type of games they preferred it was discovered 17% preferred
human violence, 31.9% preferred fantasy violence, 29.4% preferred non-violent categories of
sports, 19.7% preferred educational themes and 1.8% preferred the remainder (Funk, 1993).
Research into video game media, up until recently has been minimal with more of a focus on the
effects of violent television programmes (Andison, 1977; Berkowitz, 1984; Eron, 1982; Gunther,
1981; Pearl, Bouthilet & Lazar, 1982) and films (Murray, 1993 [screen violence]). The technology
was simply not sufficient enough to create realistic characters/worlds up until now. Decades of
research has revealed that viewing television and film violence can have short-term consequences
of increased aggressiveness and also long-term changes in trait aggressiveness (e.g., Bushman &
Anderson, 2001; Bushman & Huesmann, 2001; Hearold, 1986; Huesmann & Miller, 1994; Paik &
Comstock, 1994; Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991). Dominick (1984) made the argument that
although there are some common characteristics between television and video games, the medium is
different in many ways. He suggests that television is essentially a passive experience, whereas
video games require intense concentration and physical activity resulting in full emersion into the
fictional world, just one of the reasons separate research was initiated.
Page !2

Although there are age restricting rating systems in place such as PEGI (Pan-European game
information) to help parents decide whether games are appropriate for their children, there have
been cases of minors obtaining inaaprioate material.
The Federal Trade Commission reported that many game manufacturers purposefully market
violent games to children causing both parents and media watchdog organisations to voice their
concerns about possible negative ramifications (e.g., Buchman & Funk, 1996; Federal Trade
Commission, 2000; Walsh, 1999). The mayor of Indianapolis resorted to drastic measures by
introducing a law banning children under the age of 18 from playing on video games without the
supervision of an adult (Halladay & Wolf, 2000).
The Impact of Games on Aggression & Hostility
“Human aggression is any behaviour directed toward another individual that is carried out with the
proximate intent to cause harm. In addition, the perpetrator must believe that the behaviour will
harm the target, and the target is motivated to avoid the behaviour". (Bushman & Anderson, 2001,
Baron & Richardson 1994, Berkowitz 1993, Green 2001).
“Hostility” refers to a strong impulse inspired by feelings of anger or resentment and can be a
contributing factor in acts of aggression.
The American Psychological Association (2003) released an agenda concerning the myths, facts and
unanswered questions surrounding VVG’s suggesting a strong link between high levels of video
game violence and aggressive tendencies. It includes statements detailing the signifiant associations
found between playing these games and increased aggressive behaviour, thoughts, and affect;
increased physiological arousal and decreased prosocial behaviour. They also go on to mention the
fact that exposure to such media has been related to delinquency including fighting at school and
also violent criminal behaviour.
Page !3

As is the case with every new communication technology there is initial concern, especially when
young children are concerned (Wartella & Reeves, 1985) but it is likely the general public first
voiced their concerns about the prevalence of violence in video games as a result of school
shootings by individuals who were known to spend a lot of their time playing on such games. Such
instances include; Springfield, Oregon (May, 1998), Jonesboro, Arkansas (March, 1998), Littleton,
Colorado (April, 1999) and the most calamitous of all, the Columbine High School shootings
(1999). This undoubtedly raises many questions but the connections have been disputed by many
scholars (Olson, 2004; Williams & Skoric, 2005) and even though the shootings mentioned have
some connections with VVG’s there are of course examples that do not, such as the Virginia Tech
school shootings (2007).
There are those who believe there is a causal link between violent gameplay and real world
aggression and hearing about high school shootings will only add to this belief. However the
relationship between the two may be far more complex than first thought.
Theories Explaining Link Between Gaming and Aggression/Violence
-Social Learning Theory (SLT)
The viewpoint brought forward by social learning theorists (e.g., Bandura 1983, 2001; Mischel
1973, 1999; Mischel & Shoda 1995) says that the acquisition of aggressive behaviours is learnt and
not due to instincts, as was originally proposed by Freudian and Ethological theorists. Also the
acquisition of aggressive tendencies develops in the same way other complex forms of social
behaviour develop, either by direct experience or via observing others, taking note of what
situations these sorts of behaviours are rewarded (Vicarious reinforcement). Rewarding behaviours
increases the likelihood that they will be repeated and in terms of video games, if aggression is used
successfully then this will result in a growth in the confidence of the ability to use it again (self-
efficacy). Important research such as the Bobo doll experiment (Bandura et al., 1961) showed how
Page !4

young children would observe the behaviours of models and later go on to imitate witnessed
behaviour. There is much supporting evidence of this theory (Perry et al. 1979) as well as real world
applications (observing a rise in murder and assault rates in the United States of America following
a major televised boxing event). Its important to note that video games are built upon the concept of
achievement with constant positive reinforcement for behaving in the manor in which the game
demands.
-Script Theory
Huesmann (1986, 1998) suggested that when children observe violence in the media they learn
aggressive scripts they can return to for guidance on how to behave. These script have roles and
individuals can assume them in circumstances according to their personal script.
Script theory can be thought of as a more detailed and specific explanation of the social learning
processes. Scripts become well-rehearsed, unitary concepts stored as semantic memories and
become associated with situations that often involve causal links, goals and action plans (Abelson
1981; Schank & Abelson 1977). It has been found that it only requires a few rehearsals for
intentions of important social behaviours to change (Anderson 1983; Anderson & Godfrey 1987;
Marsh et al. 1988). The strength and connectivity to other concepts in memory is created when a
script is frequently rehearsed (e.g., frequently playing on VVG’s from a young age).
-Excitation Transfer Theory
This theory suggests that physiological arousal dissipates slowly after an event (Zillmann, 1983).
This level of arousal can also be extended to longer periods of anger if the individual attributes their
arousal in that way. Additionally if two instances of arousal occur simultaneously then they may
feed into each and make the individual even more angry as a result. Even after a period of time has
Page !5

passed and the levels of arousal have dissipated the person remains ready to aggress for as long as
their self-generated label of anger persists.
-The Catharsis Hypothesis
Catharsis is a concept that’s part of the psychoanalytic theory, where any emotions that are
associated with traumatic events present themselves. In terms of aggression, the theory suggests that
it’s a biological drive which requires release (Lorenz, 1963). Playing on VVG’s helps individuals to
‘vent’ the build up of their aggressive emotions and therefore avoid taking it out on others around
them. Problems with this theory have also been raised and one such problem is the fact that if you
are resorting to playing on VVG’s when you are feeling angry, those games are actually promoting
that feeling of anger and not diminishing it.
-Mood Management
The concept of mood management suggests that individuals will select certain types of media that
match their current mood in the attempt to reduce their depressed mood (Zillman, 1988). For
example someone who is feeling slightly angry may choose a violent action film to suit their mood
and this will reduced those negative feelings. Escapism is the overriding concept behind mood
management as video games allow individuals to assume control over the fictional world they are
presented with which is in contrast to the helplessness they may feel within their own (Dillman
Carpentier et al., 2008). Some research has suggested that depressed individuals will be more likely
to choose media that has a darker theme such as a violent video game (Chen, Zhou & Bryant, 2007;
Nabi, Finnerty, Domschke & Hull, 2006).
Page !6

-The General Aggression Model (GAM)
The General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) is a framework integrating many
smaller theories of aggression into a single one. The model focusses primarily on the development
of scripts, in relation to violent media these scripts are aggression constructs. The model suggests
that aggressive behaviours can be predicted by considering both the individuals characteristics and
their immediate environment. These multiple factors contribute to whether the outcome of a social
encounter is one of a display of aggressive behaviour to not.
Figure 1: General aggression model episodic processes flow diagram, Source: Anderson and
Bushman (2002).
-Personality Factors
There are certain personality traits which can cause individuals to have a predisposition to high
levels of aggression. There is the theory that individuals can have either a “Type A” or a “Type B”
personality. “Type A” personalities generally have higher levels of stress and are driven by factors
such as high competitiveness, time urgency and hostility.
Page !7

“Type B” personalities generally have lower levels of stress and deal better with competition, often
reflective, thinking about both their outer and inner worlds. Bartlett & Anderson (2011) looked at
the links between the “Big 5” personality traits and aggressive behaviour and found that outcomes
depend on both specific type of aggression and the trait being measured. These individual
differences can result in misunderstanding of others intentions when they are ambiguous. The
Hostile Attribution Bias (Nasby, Hayden & Depaulo, 1980) is the tendency to interpret others
behaviours as having hostile intent, even when the behaviour is ambiguous. Individuals tend to be
sensation seekers and narcissistic, reacting with high levels of aggression when feedback from other
threatens three self image. Gender differences can also be a factor with aggression, with males more
likely to use direct forms of aggression (physical assaults) and females more likely to use indirect
forms of aggression (gossiping).
-Desensitisation
“Desensitisation is the process of attenuation or elimination of cognitive, emotional and behavioural
responses to a stimulus, which would normally elicit a significant response" (Rule & Ferguson,
1986). In terms of VVG’s a desensitisation to violence has been described as one of the effects of
long-term exposure (Bushman & Huesmann, 2001). In order for the desensitisation process to
occur, cognitive alternations are required transforming the belief that violence is uncommon and
unlikely to happen into the belief that violence is mundane and inexorable.
Irwin & Gross (1995) conducted a study looking at the associations between cognitive tempo,
VVG’s and aggressive behaviour in young boys. Overall 60 2nd-grade boys (14 African-American
and 46 Caucasian) aged between 7 and 8 were recruited from two elementary schools.
The purpose of the study was to examine the impact of VVG’s on the behaviour of both impulsive
and reflective children for comparison. The experimental hypothesis (H1
) was; Exposure to VVG’s
Page !8

would result in increased aggression from the children in free-play and frustrating situations. Also
they expected that those children who are considered to be impulsive would exhibit more aggressive
responding than those who are considered reflective. The measures used during the free-play were;
a matching familiar test, aggressive behaviours measure, toy preference and heart rate. A between
subjects 2 x 2 (aggressive video game vs non aggressive video game x impulsive versus reflective)
factorial design was used. The video game system used was a Nintendo® with the games “Double
Dragon” (violent) and “Excitebike” (non-violent) as between subjects factors. Impulsivity and
reflexiveness were measured using of the Matching familiar figures test, MFFT (Kagen et al. 1964).
Observation and video-recording of the children’s free-play was initiated for ten minutes and
children were told they could play with whichever toys they wished. Prior to the experiment the
toys were categories as being either aggressive or non-aggressive depending on whether they were
designed to elicit acts of physical aggression or not. A frustration manipulation task was then used
consisting of a colouring challenge in which subjects were instructed to colour in a picture as fast as
possible without going over the boundaries. A confederate child had been coached prior to the
experiment to grab the only pen available thus frustrating the subject. The video tape recordings of
the free-play sessions were rated by two independent observers who were not aware of experimental
conditions.
It was found that the video game condition significantly affected four measures of aggression, but
not the toy preference. The most robust effect of video game condition was the increased aggression
towards objects displayed by subjects who had played the aggressive video game.
The behaviours that were displayed by the subject during free-play suggest an imitation of the
characters in the video games. Subjects would engage in fantasy play pretending to harm their
opponent. The levels of arousal remain constant across all video game types as heart rate was not
Page !9

affected. Along with subjects displaying more aggressive behaviours they also observed an increase
in verbal aggression. Interestingly those subjects who played the non-violent video games displayed
no such behaviours.
This research suggests that children do imitate the behaviours they observe in video games (SLT).
However the games used in this study were old and unrealistic. “Double dragon” was developed in
1987 and “Excitebike” in 1984 and the graphics are pixelated. They are primarily arcade games that
have basic controls and use a birds eye viewpoint, not connecting with the player in a meaningful
way they can easily relate to.
Ecological validity must be examined with this study and although the time spent playing the game
has high validity, as twenty minutes is on average a normal playing time for video games, the
laboratory/office setting is not a natural environment for playing on the Nintendo®. Because of this
it must be conjectured that the behaviours observed may not be true to that of the individual in a
more natural setting.
Bartholow & Anderson (2002) looked at the effects VVG’s have on aggressive behaviour with an
additional insight into any potential sex differences. This laboratory study involved the participation
of 43 undergraduate students (22 men and 21 women). Random assigned to play on either the
violent video game, Mortal Kombat or the non-violent, PGA Tournament Golf was conducted and
10 minutes of gameplay ensued. They were told that the experiment was looking at whether playing
video games influences reaction times.Afterwards a coin toss between the participant and the
confederate decided who would enter which experiment room (fixed result) and were asked to
compete with a confederate in a reaction time task that allowed for provocation and retaliation. The
measure of aggression used here was the level of punishment given by the participant for the
confederate to receive if they lost (total of 2 phases).
Page !10

Those who played on the violent video game administered a much higher level of punishment
compared to those who played the non-violent game suggesting higher levels of aggression. In
regard to the sex differences within this study it was found that the effect found was larger for men
than for women.
The small number of participants (n= 43 undergraduates) used in the study makes it difficult to
generalise to the general population and additionally there was no control group used in this
experiment so there is a certain lack of scientific control through comparison.
Much of the current research has focussed on immediate post-game effects of VVG’s but some
studies have investigated whether there are any long-term effects.
A longitudinal, cross-cultural study looking at the effects of playing on VVG’s on aggression was
initiated in both Japan and the America (Anderson, Sakamoto, Gentile, Ihori, Shibuya, Yukawa,
Naito & Kobayashi, 2008). Participants made up three independent samples, one sample contained
181 Japanese high students ranging in age from 12 to 15 years, a second Japanese sample consisting
of 1050 students ranging in age from 13 to 18 years old and a third sample consisting of 364
American 3rd, 4th and 5th graders ranging in age from 9 to 12 years old. The video gaming habits
and physically aggressive behaviour tendencies of all participants were assessed at 2 points in time
which were separated by 3 to 6 months periods.
It was found that habitual violent video game play in early schooling years was a good predictor of
later aggressive tendencies in the real world. Additionally gender and previous aggressiveness was
controlled for in each sample. The results were of a similar magnitude in both Japan and the
America and the researchers suggest that exposure to VVG’s should be drastically reduced to
prevent such consequences.
This research is indeed insightful, strongly suggesting playing of these video games in the early
years can have a great behavioural influence in adulthood. However this is assuming a link is
Page !11

directly applicable as other factors for the formation of aggressiveness are not considered. It would
have been more useful if a case study had been done wherein a more in-depth account of
individuals personalities and lifestyles were assessed.
The effect of video games on feelings of aggression was studied (Scott, 1995) at the University of
Strathclyde, Scotland in which 117 students (42 men and 75 women) participated. Split half
versions of the EPQ and Buss-Durke inventories were created with half the participants initially
being administered “version A” and half “version B”. They were told that the study concerned a
hand-eye coordination task in relation to personality. Once they had completed the first half of the
inventory (either “A” or “B”) they were given ten minutes of gameplay on either the non-aggressive
game, (Tetrisc) the moderately aggressive game (Overkill) or the highly aggressive game (Fatal
Fury). Afterwards they were asked briefly about previous gaming habits and experiences and were
then asked to comment on the aggressiveness of the game they had just played on in terms of
aggressive content.
The results indicated no increase in aggression from non-aggressive to highly aggressive games
although participants did comment on the fact that they found games differed in aggressiveness. The
greatest change found was with the men who participated in the non-aggressive game group
showing substantially more aggressiveness afterwards. Additionally no interaction was found
between gender, aggression level and personality. It was concluded that pre-existing differences in
personality and hostility aggressive personality tendencies were more important determinants of
aggressive feelings, postally, than the short-term exposure to VVG’s.
The differences between the moderately aggressive and the highly aggressive games used in this
study may have not been great enough with both containing ample amounts of violent behaviours
Page !12

and gore. Instead of using a modernly aggressive game, a game of a different genre may have been
more useful.
Funk, Buchman, Jenks & Bechtold (2003) looked at the concept of children becoming desensitised
to the content they are viewing as a result of playing VVG’s by looking at their moral evaluations of
vignettes.
Participants consisted of thirty-five, 8-12 year-olds (25 males and 10 females) and thirty-one 5-7
year olds (14 males and 17 females) took part in the study. The socioeconomic status (SES) of each
participant was examined by the use of occupational codes (Nakao & Treas, 1992) and the sample
was deemed diverse. Children were administered questionnaires measuring attitudes towards
violence and empathy and the order in which they were given were counterbalanced. The older
children were given the incomplete attitudes towards violence scale (ATVC) which consisted of 9
one-sentence items e.g. “Parents should tell their kids to fight if they have to”. The younger children
were given the completed, 16-item version of the ATVC (Funk, Elliot, Myers et al., 2003). An
example of an item added to the revised ATVC is “It’s okay to do whatever it takes to protect
myself”. For both ATVC’s there are four possible responses being; “1= no”, “2= maybe”, “3=
probably” and “4= yes”. The total scores are calculated for each questionnaire with higher scores
indicating a more accepting attitude towards violence.
Empathy was also measured using the Index for Empathy for Children and Adolescence (Bryant,
1982) with the older children, a 22-item scale with “yes/no” answers for each. The same scale used
to measure the ATVC’s was used for the CEQ with higher scores indicating higher levels of
empathy.
Upon completion of the questionnaires, the heart rate of the children providing a general measure of
arousal. Both age groups were then instructed to play on either a relatively non-violent or a
Page !13

relatively violent video game for a duration of 15 minutes. The group containing the older children
played on either the non-violent game “Marble drop” (n=17) or the relatively violent game “Terra
Nova” (n=18). The games the younger children were given to play were “Croc: Legends of the
Gobbos” (n=15) or “Earthworm Jim: New Junk City” (n=16). Once the five minute practice time
had elapsed the researcher left the room for the participant to play the remaining 10 minutes
independently.
Immediately after gameplay, heart rates were taken given a pre and post pulse rate comparison
indicating arousal levels. Children were asked to comment on how frustrating the game they play on
was, using a scale of 1-10 with 10 being the most frustrating. Following this children were
presented with the 10 vignettes of which they were asked follow-up questions about e.g. “was
happens next?”. Responses to the vignettes were given scores on empathy and aggressiveness.
The frustration scores were related to game played, gender and type of vignettes shown and no
significant relationships were deciphered. In terms of the physiological responses measured, no
signifiant difference in pulse rates pre and post gameplay was seen suggesting arousal was not
affected by gameplay of any type of game. However it was found that long-term exposure to VVG’s
may be associated with desensitisation as empathy sores were much lower in participants who
played the violent video game.
The games used in this study are outdated both dating back to the mid 90’s when graphic
capabilities and realism were not comparable to what is available today. The game used in the
relatively violent game group (Terra Nova) would not be considered a violent game by the
standards of today and although there is use of lasers and fire the characters do not bear
resemblance to real life.
Page !14

Ferguson & Rueda (2010) studied violent video game exposure effects on aggressive behaviour,
hostile feelings and depression. 103 young adults recruited from a Hispanic-serving public
university in Texas (62 men and 41 women) with a mean age of 23.6 participated over a year long
period. Participants were told the study was investigating reaction time performance and would
involve playing a reaction time test against a human opponent in the adjacent room.
Group randomisation ensured participants were equally split into one of four groups; “The Hitman
group”, “the Medal of Honour group”, “the Madden group” or the “no game group". Demographic
information, video game habits and the aggression questionnaire short-form (Buss-Warren, 2000),
measuring trait aggressiveness were completed in each group prior to commencing the gameplay.
A paced auditory serial addition task (PASAT; Gronwell, 1977) was then administered and then
participants were asked to rate their levels of hostility and depression. 45 minutes of gameplay
followed. The Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Test (TCRTT) in which the participant was told
they were playing against another human in an adjoining room then began. Wining the task allowed
them to set a noise punishment that could be controlled by intensity and duration. In fact they were
playing against a computer and the patterns of wins and losses were preset.
Following completion of this task all participants were asked to fill out the “follow up
questionnaire” and post evaluation of hostile feelings and depression (Beck depression inventory
post and State hostility post). Finally a debrief of the true nature of the experiment was given.
It was found that hostile and depressive feelings pre-test were the best predictor of hostile and
depressive feelings post-test. Also violent video game exposure was a significant predictor of
reduced hostile and depressive feelings scores indicating those more experienced with VVG’s were
better at avoiding these feelings following a stressful event. Overall no evidence was found that
short-term exposure to VVG’s either increases or decreases levels of aggressiveness and no
Page !15

evidence was found that supported to theory that exposure to VVG’s increases or decreases feelings
of hostility or depression.
There is a lack of ecological validity as the experiment took place in a laboratory and may not be
true to how individuals would behave in a more natural setting. Secondly how valid the measures of
aggression were and generalising results taken from the TCRTT to real acts of physical aggression
could be disputed.
-Aims of the Study and Hypotheses
As with any study, those reported have their drawbacks but there was one reoccurring theme, the
age of the games used for both the violent and non-violent groups were too dated. This current
study will use a more up to date gaming console (Xbox 360®) which is more representative of how
the majority of games are played. Also newer games will be used in each of the conditions which
are more representative of the types of games being played on today.
The fundamental objective of this study is to identify what effect, if any, playing on VVG’s and
exposure to such content has on scales of aggression and hostility. The Experimental hypothesis
(H1
) was; The greatest increases in scores of aggression & hostility will be seen within the
participants who played on the violent video game.
Page !16

— Method —
-Design
The design of the experiment was 3 x 2 mixed groups as involves both within and between subject
factors. The Independent variable (IV) was the type of video game payed; violent (Wolfenstein: The
New Order), non-violent (Forza: Horizon 2 Demo) or the control, a simple puzzle game (Hextic
HD).
The Dependent variables (DV) were the scores of aggression and hostility as measured using the
Bus-Perry Aggression questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1995) and the State Hostility Scale (Anderson,
2012).
The entirety of the procedure was in accordance with University of West London (UWL) ethical
standards and approval was granted from the board before any data collected commenced. The
video games chosen were checked by the ethical board prior to the study commencing and deemed
acceptable. Control measures that were in place included making sure each participant played the
same part (level) of the games each time and that they only did so for the designated amount of time
(length of exposure). The researcher remained present to ensure there were no outside distractions
from the game and to help if it was needed. The only help that was given was making participants
aware of what was on the control sheets.
-Participants
Participants consisted of 60 (n=60) University of West London Psychology undergraduates, 29
males (M age=22.66 , SD=3.467) and 31 females (M age=29.94 , SD=3.425) with a combined
mean age of 22.28 (min=18, max=32, SD=3.435). The participants were recruited by use of the
university sona-system in which a participant pool was created. This process allowed student to sign
up to the advertised study in an available time slot, receiving 4 participant points for participation.
Page !17

Students need a total of 20 points to use the system themselves so this was the incentive. The
experiment took place in a laboratory room at the university with participants taking part one at a
time taking on average 40 minutes to complete.
-Procedure
Participants were first asked to read through and fully understand a participant information sheet
which displayed the aims of the study, the eligibility requirements, what they will be required to do/
how long it will take and also reassurance of confidentiality of their data.
Once they understood what they were taking part in, the research informed consent form was
completed. This form requires participants to initial boxes indicating that; they have read and
understood everything and have asked any questions they need to, understanding that participation
is voluntary so they don't feel obligated in any way to participate, a clear understanding that all data
will be kept confidential and also that they willingly agree to participate. Additionally all
participants were asked to complete a demographic data collection form which asked for their
gender, their age, how much video games experience they already have and also a K10 depression
and anxiety screening tool.
An inquiry into gaming habits was made because this may be a factor that altering how individuals
are affected by computer games. They were presented with a five-point likert scale from 0-4 hours
and were asked to circle how much they have played on computer games in the past week.
They were then allowed as long as they needed to complete the forms and questionnaires so did not
feel pressurised to complete them within an allotted time which could have given false answers. The
completion of the post-experimentation measures commenced immediately after gameplay in order
to gain a more accurate measure of immediate effects of playing the games.
Page !18

Participants were informed by way of advertisement on a sona-system with the title; “looking at the
effects of playing on VVG’s”. No further information was given about the true nature at this stage
and wouldn't be notified that it was ‘levels of aggression’ in particular that was being observed until
the debrief.
Full informed consent was given by every participant prior to starting the experiment and the
knowledge that they could withdraw at any time by notifying the researcher was made clear.
Participants were also told that if at any time (during the experiment or post-experimentation) they
felt unhappy with the use of their personal data it could be withdrawn immediately with no further
questions.
The personal data collected was anonymised once input for analysis into SPSS with only a
participant number remaining which could not be traced back to the individual. Physical copies of
completed forms and questionnaires were kept secure in a bound folder which only the researcher
had access to.
-Materials
The K10 depression and anxiety screening tool (Kessler, Andrews, Colpe., et al. 2002) was included
to look for an indication of anxious or depressed individuals. They were presented with ten
questions asking them about how they have been feeling over the past four weeks, e.g., “About how
often did you feel tired out for no good reason?”. The available responses were; “None of the time”,
“A little of the time”, “Some of the time”, “Most of the time” or “All of the time”. They would
receive one point for the first answer and two for the second ect. Answers were totalled and
participants received an overall score. Generally scores under 20 indicate good mental health,
scores 20-24 likely have to indicate mild mental disorder, 25-29 likely to indicate moderate mental
disorder and scores 30 and above likely indicate severe mental disorder (Andrews & Slade, 2001).
Page !19

Overall there were three stages with the first stage involving the completion of a pre-
experimentation Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire and State Hostility Scale.
The second stage saw participants play on the Xbox-360® gaming console on one of three games
for 15 minutes. The violent game, Wolfenstein: The new order, the Non-violent game, Forza:
Horizon 2 [Demo] or the control game, Hexic HD.
Wolfenstein: the new order is an action-adventure first-person shooter video game developed by
machine games released in 2014. The story is set in alternative history 1960s Europe in a world
where the Nazi’s won the Second World War. It follows war veteran William “B.J” Blazkowicz in
his efforts to stop Nazi’s from taking over the world. Within the game players have access to a wide
range of weaponry including machine guns, rocket launchers and knives which are used to battle
through enemy lines and halt advancements. This game has been awarded a PEGI rating of 18+.
Forza: Horizon 2 (Demo) released in 2014 is an open-world racing video game taking place at the
fictional “Horizon Festival” which is held in southern Europe, focussing on southern France and
northern Italy. Players take controls of cars of their choice taking part in races and special events
while exploring regions in order to advance through the game. This game has been awarded a PEGI
rating of 3+.
Hexic HD is a 2003 tile-matching puzzle game developed by Carbonated Games. The object of the
game is to rotate hexagonal tiles to create matching patterns. Once certain tile combinations are
made they disappear from the board and the player receives points. The object of the game is to get
enough points to move up to the next level. This game has been awarded a PEGI rating of 3+.
The third stage was the completion of the post-experimental Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire
and the state hostility scale once the 15 minutes gaming time had elapsed.
Page !20

-Stage One: Pre-Experimentation Base Scales.
The Buss-Perry aggression questionnaire consists of 29 statements e.g. “once in a while I get the
urge to strike another person” and participants are required to use a five-point likert scale ranging
from 1 (Extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (Extremely characteristic of me).
Statements 1-9 are measuring levels of physical aggression, statements 10-14 are measuring verbal
aggression, statements 15-21 are measuring aggression and 22-29 are measuring levels of hostility.
On this scale a total of just two statements are reversed scored these being; “I can think of no good
reason for ever hitting another person” and “I am an even tempered person”. Each section was
totalled giving participants scores for each with higher scores indicating higher levels of aggression.
The State Hostility scale involved participants giving a number on a scale rating to their current
mood. The scale is 35 statements such as; “I feel like banging on a table”. Each statement requires a
number depending on how accurate the statement is to how they actually feel at that moment in
time. The rating scale was a five point-likert scale of 1-5 with 1 being “strongly disagree” and 5
being “strongly agree”. On this measure a total of eleven of the statements were reversed scored
these being (I feel); Tender, polite, kindly, agreeable, tame, friendly, understanding, cooperative,
good-natured and sympathetic. All answers were totalled to give a pre-State Hostility score with
higher scores indicating higher levels of hostility.
-Stage Two: Video Gameplay
The completion of all of the pre-experimentation paper work meant that participants could then
immerse themselves in a 15 minutes gameplay of one of the three games. Participants were assigned
which game they would be playing by way of when they took part in the study; the first 20 played
on the violent video game (Wolfenstein: The new order), next 20 played on the non-violent video
game (Forza: Horizon 2) and the last 20 played on the control game (Hextic HD). The setup in the
Page !21

laboratory was a Microsoft Xbox-360® console/Xbox® wireless controller with a 10 inch
television, accompanied by external speakers.
Control sheets were provided for each participant to study before they began the gaming period so
they could familiarise themselves with what the buttons did so they knew how to play the game
(one sheet for each game). These were laid out in an easy to understand format with an illustration
of an Xbox® console controller in the centre of the page with arrows pointing and describing what
the buttons do. Additionally the first 2 minutes of gameplay was set aside for the participant to
familiarise themselves with the game.
-Stage Three: Post-Experimentation Scales.
Once the 15 minute gaming process was complete the Xbox-360® console was turned off and
participants were immediately handed post-experimentation versions of the Buss-Perry aggression
questionnaire and State-hostility scale. These measures had the same layout and looked to be
exactly the same, however the order in which the questions were displayed had been changed
slightly to give the illusion that they were filling in a different measure to avoid practice effects.
Once again the necessary statements were reversed scored and were then totalled giving scores for
post-experimentation physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger and hostility as well as a state
hostility measure.
After all of the measures were completed, participants were finally debriefed on the true nature of
the experiment and informed about why a level of deception was necessary. Also more information
was provided about the current research on the topic as well as the aims and hypotheses of this
study. Participants were given an official debrief form which contained important information
regarding contact numbers of the researcher and supervisor. Additionally the UWL well-being
Page !22

support team contact details were provided should they feel they need assistance with their
experiences of the experiment.
Finally participants were awarded their participation points and thanked again for their time. All
data collected was entered directly into the SPSS software and analysed accordingly.
Below is a flow digram visually representing the entire procedure (see figure 2).
Page !23

Figure 2: Flow diagram displaying a visual representation of the experiment procedure.
Page !24
Debrief Form
Post-experimental State Hostility Scale
Post-experimental Buss-Perry
Aggression Questionnaire
Pre-experimental State Hostility
Scale
Pre-experimental Buss-Perry
Aggression Questionnaire
Demographics Sheet
Participant Information Sheet Informed Consent Form
N=20
15 Minutes Gameplay
Control Group/Simple Video
Game (Hextic HD)
N=20
15 Minutes Gameplay
Violent Video Game
Condition: (Wolfenstein:
The new order)
N=20
15 Minutes Gameplay
Non-Violent Video Game
Condition: (Forza: Horizon 2
[Demo])

— Results —
The main aim of the experiment was to identify what effect, if any, playing VVG’s and exposure to
such content has on individual levels of aggression and hostility. In this section of the report the
results of the experiment will be presented using tables of descriptive statistics, mixed ANOVA
output and multiple graphs.
SPSS analysis was carried out with each within subjects factor against the between subjects factor
separately for a more comprehensive breakdown of categories of aggression measured. Multiple, 3
(type of game played; violent, non-violent or control) x 2 (measure of aggression; pre and post)
mixed design ANOVA’s were performed on the type of video game played; violent, non-violent or
control (between-subjects factor) against the scores obtained on the Buss-Perry Aggression
questionnaire and the State Hostility scale (within-subjects factors) both before and after
experimentation (gameplay). The effect size is also reported, indicated the strength of relationship
between two variables being either; weak (.10), moderate (.30) or strong (.50).
29 males and 31 females (M age= 22.28) participated in the experiment and indicated they played
1.85 hours of video games per week. The anxiety and depression screening tool, K10 indicated that
participants are likely to have a mild mental disorder with a mean score of 22.28 (as interpreted
using Interpretation of K10, Andrews & Slade [2001]).
Page !25

Physical Aggression Scale:
Table 1: Descriptive statistics showing the mean pre and post experimentation physical aggression
scores and standard deviations in each of the three gaming conditions.
The table above shows descriptive statistics collected before and after for physical aggression
against the type of game played (see table 1).
To test for changes in physical aggression a mixed ANOVA was conducted on the pre and post
experimentation scores against the type of game that was played. The main effect of the within-
subjects factor physical aggression was found to be statistically significant: F(2,57) = 11.45 , p = .
00, partial ηp2 = .17. The main effect of the between-subjects factor, the type of game played was
found to not be statistically significant; F(2,57) = 1.19 , p = .31, partial ηp2 = .04. These main
effects were qualified by an interaction between physical aggression and the type of game played;
F(2,57) = 6.11 , p = .00, partial ηp2 = .18. The violent video game group saw a decrease of -.15, the
non violent an increase of +1.35, the control group an increase of +5.05 and overall scores an
increase of +2.06. A line graph has been used to visually represent the results reported (see figure
3).
Physical
Aggression
Type of Video Game
Played; Violent, Non-
Violent or Control
Mean (M) Standard Deviation
(SD)
Number (N)
Pre-Experimentation-
Physical Aggression
Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
21.85
23.35
20.55
21.92
3.03
6.86
2.72
4.67
20
20
20
60
Post-
Experimentation-
Physical Aggression
Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
21.70
24.75
25.50
23.98
4.13
6.92
5.97
5.93
20
20
20
60
Page !26

Figure 3: A Line graph showing the mean pre and post experimentation physical aggression scores
in each of the three gaming conditions.
Page !27

Verbal Aggression Scale:
Table 2: Descriptive statistics showing the mean pre and post experimentation verbal aggression
The table above shows descriptive statistics collected for the within subjects group verbal
aggression against the between subjects group of type of game played (see table 2).
To test for changes in verbal aggression a mixed ANOVA was conducted on the pre and post scores
against the type of game played. The main effect of the within-subjects factor verbal aggression was
not statistically significant: F(2,57) = .55, p = .46 , partial ηp2 = .00. The main effect of the
between subjects factor, the type of game played was found to not be statistically significant;
F(2,57) = .84, p = .44 , partial ηp2 = .03. These main effects were not qualified by an interaction
between verbal aggression and the type of game played; F(2,57) = 1.03 , p = .36, partial ηp2 = .04.
The violent video game group saw a decrease of -1.5, the non-violent group a decrease of -.20, the
control group an increase of +.45 and overall scores a decrease of -.42. A line graph has been used
to visually represent the results reported (see figure 4).
Verbal Aggression Type of Video Game
Violent or Control
(SD)
Number (N)
Verbal Aggression
Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
18.00
17.80
18.40
18.07
4.61
3.93
2.64
3.76
20
20
20
60
Post-
Experimentation-
Verbal Aggression
Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
16.50
17.60
18.85
17.65
4.43
4.90
3.41
4.33
20
20
20
60
Page !28

Figure 4: A Line Graph showing the mean pre and post experimentation verbal aggression scores in
each of the three gaming conditions.
Page !29

Anger Scale:
Table 3: Descriptive statistics showing the mean pre and post experimentation anger scores and
standard deviations in each of the three gaming conditions.
The table above shows the overall descriptive statistics collected for the within subjects group anger
against the between subjects group of type of game played (see table 3).
To test for changes in anger a mixed ANOVA was conducted on the pre and post scores against the
type of game played. The main effect of the within-subjects factor anger was statistically
significant: F(2,57) = 8.76, p = .00 , partial ηp2 =.13. The main effect of the between subjects
factor, the type of game played was found to not be statistically significant; F(2,57) = .1.40, p = .
26, partial ηp2 = .48. These main effects were not qualified by an interaction between anger and the
type of game played; F(2,57) = .98 , p = .38, partial ηp2 = .03. The violent video game saw an
increase of +2.1, the non-violent video game group an increase of +.5, the control group an increase
of 1.85 and overall scores an increase of +1.48. A line graph has been used to visually represent the
results reported (see figure 5).
Anger Type of Video Game
Violent or Control
(SD)
Number (N)
Anger Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
15.85
17.75
18.00
17.20
4.22
3.93
2.94
3.80
20
20
20
60
Post-
Experimentation-
Anger Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
17.95
18.25
19.85
18.68
5.37
5.01
3.86
4.78
20
20
20
60
Page !30

Figure 5: A Line Graph showing the mean pre and post experimentation anger scores in each of the
three gaming conditions.
Page !31

Hostility Scale:
Table 4: Descriptive statistics showing the mean pre and post experimentation hostility scores and
standard deviations in each of the three gaming conditions.
The table above shows the descriptive statistics collected for the within subjects group hostility
against the between subjects group of type of game played (see table 4).
To test for changes in hostility a mixed ANOVA was conducted on the pre and post scores against
the type of game played. The main effect of the within-subjects factor hostility was not statistically
significant: F(2,57) = 2.12, p = .15 , partial ηp2 = .04. The main effect of the between subjects
factor, the type of game played was found to not be statistically significant; F(2,57) = .85, p = .01,
partial ηp2 = .01. These main effects were not qualified by an interaction between hostility and the
type of game played; F(2,57) = .1.25 , p = .29, partial ηp2 = .04. The violent video game group saw
an increase of +3.3, the non-violent video game group a decrease of -.55, the control group an
increase of +1.6 and overall scores an increase of +1.45. A line graph has been used to visually
represent the results reported (see figure 6).
Hostility Type of Video Game
Violent or Control
(SD)
Number (N)
Hostility Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
21.85
22.80
22.55
22.40
5.83
5.92
3.52
5.14
20
20
20
60
Post-
Experimentation-
Hostility Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
25.15
22.25
24.15
23.85
8.60
7.32
8.99
8.28
20
20
20
60
Page !32

Figure 6: A Line Graph showing the overall mean pre and post experimentation hostility scores in
each of the three gaming conditions.
Page !33

State Hostility Scale:
Table 5: Descriptive statistics showing the mean pre and post experimentation state hostility scale
The table above shows the descriptive statistics collected for the within subjects group state hostility
scale against the between subjects group of type of game played (see table 5).
To test for changes on the State hostility scale a mixed ANOVA was conducted on the pre and post
scores against the type of game played. The main effect of the within-subjects factor state hostility
was not statistically significant: F(2,57) = .73, p = .40 , partial ηp2 = .01. The main effect of the
between subjects factor, the type of game played was found to not be statistically significant;
F(2,57) = 3.00, p = .06, partial ηp2 = .01. These main effects were not qualified by an interaction
between the State hostility scale and the type of game played; F(2,57) = .21 , p = .81, partial ηp2 = .
01. The violent video game group saw an increase of +3.2, the non-violent video game group an
increase of +1.6, the control group an increase of +.15 and overall scores an increase of +1.65. A
line graph has been used to visually represent the results reported (see figure 7).
State Hostility
Scale
Type of Video Game
Violent or Control
(SD)
Number (N)
State Hostility Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
77.35
72.75
85.00
78.37
22.29
16.76
15.19
18.73
20
20
20
60
Post-
Experimentation-
State Hostility Score
Violent
Non-Violent
Control
Overall
80.55
74.35
85.15
80.02
14.34
16.04
14.01
15.24
20
20
20
60
Page !34

Figure 7: A Line Graph showing the mean pre and post experimentation state hostility scale scores
in each of the three gaming conditions.
Page !35

— Discussion —
The experimental hypothesis (H1
); The greatest increases in scores of aggression & hostility will be
seen within the participants who played on the violent video game, must be rejected as results make
no suggestion that levels of aggression increase as a result on playing on violent games. However it
was observed that feelings of anger and hostility did increase. The fundamental objective of this
study was to identify what effect, if any, playing on VVG’s and exposure to such content has on
individual scales of aggression and hostility. In this section of the report findings of this study are
compared to that of existing research providing possible explanations using related theories.
It was found that participants became less ‘physically aggressive’ as a result of playing on the VVG,
the opposite of what was expected to be seen and what the experimental hypothesis (H1
) declared.
Social learning theory (SLT) would predict that players would observe and then imitate behaviours,
as positive reinforcement has taken place though credits/points within in game for violent acts
resulting in advancements to higher levels. However the evidence presented in this study does not
concur with SLT. The Catharsis hypothesis could provide a possible explanation for this decrease in
physical aggression. It states that aggression is a biological drive that requires release (Lorenz,
1963). It is possible that aggression can be primed by external factors but the main cause for this
‘need for release’ is biological and evolutionary adaptation (Ellis & Walsh, 1997). If individuals do
not have a way in which to release the build up of aggression (e.g., violent gameplay) within
themselves, they may take it out on another person. Olson, Kuttner & Warner (2008) reported
young boys felt calmer, less aggressive and less angry after playing VVG’s and Ryan, Rigby &
Przybylski (2006) found leisure activities such as video games can help to reduce stress. However
this current study did not directly study catharsis as participants were not irritated or frustrated
before gameplay commenced. This may be something that could be considered for future research.
Page !36

The observation that the pre and post-experimentation scores for physical aggression were relatively
similar could possibly mean participants were desensitised to the violent content they were exposed
to. This could occur by becoming familiar with it, over time reducing their cognitive, emotional and
behavioural responses to the stimuli (Rule & Ferguson, 1986).
Scott (1995) reported that the greatest change was seen with the men who participated in the non-
aggressive group showing substantially more aggressiveness afterwards. Similarly in this study the
non-violent group increased in physical aggressiveness but the greatest increase was seen in the
control group. A possible explanation could come from the fact participants signed up to play a
video game and may have been disappointed or even frustrated to find out they would only be
playing on a simple puzzle game when they had something better in mind.
Initial, pre-experimentation scores were relatively high suggesting a possibility of aggressive
personality traits within participants but with no personality questionnaires used it’s difficult to say
for sure. Scott (1995) concluded that it is in fact pre-existing differences in personality that were
more important determinants of aggressive feelings than short term exposure to VVG’s.
Furthermore Ferguson & Rueda (2010) found that hostile and depressive feelings in the pre-
experimentation stage were the best predictors of hostile and depressive feelings. With the pre-
experimental scores in this measure being high initially and remaining so one is swayed towards the
same conclusions.
Participants became less ‘verbally aggressive’ as a result of playing on the VVG and also the non-
violent video game. The mood management theory suggests individuals will choose certain types of
media that best match their current mood in an attempt to tolerate stress and reduce their depressed
state (Zillman, 1988). This is achieved by providing a mechanism by which players can assert
control over a virtual environment, forgetting the powerless feelings experienced in their real life.
Although participants did not get the freedom of choice as to which video game they would play on,
Page !37

it may have been the case that the violent video game did in fact match how they were feeling at the
time. This could also account for the decrease in scores seen in the non-violent video game group.
It has even been suggested that playing on video games of all types can result in improved self-
esteem and psychological well-being (Ryan et al., 2006).
Irwin & Gross (1995) found that those who played on the VVG displayed more verbal aggression
with no such behaviour seen in the non-violent game group. In this current study it wasn't the VVG
group but the control group that experienced the increase in verbal aggression as was seen with
physical aggression scale, which is again the opposite of what was expected.
Relating these finding to Script theory (Huesmann, 1986, 1998) it may have been the case that
participants felt more verbal aggressive because of the frustration generated by the somewhat
challenging control group game (Hextic HD). This is something that was reported during gameplay
by many of the participants. A script of orally expressing their feelings when they are faced with
frustrating tasks may have been assimilated here.
Results suggest that participants become more ‘angry’ as a result of playing the VVG, however
participants levels of anger also increased in the non-violent and control groups. Bartholow &
Anderson (2002) reported an increase in levels of aggression after playing the VVG but they differ
in the way that in this case all gaming conditions saw increased levels and not just the violent game
condition. These results suggest that all genres of video games will increase levels of anger. The
Excitation transfer theory (Zillman, 1983) focusses on how levels of arousal take time to dissipate
after an event which could be used to explain these findings. Arousal was not measured in the study
but may have been the case that participants were aroused during all conditions and continued to be
during the post-experimentation stage as adequate dissipation hadn't had time to occur.
Page !38

Observing the mean scores pre and post experimentation for both ‘Hostility’ and ‘State Hostility
Scale’ it seems that playing on the VVG increases hostility on each scale. This correlates with the
findings of Irwin & Gross (1995) as they found VVG exposure to increase four measures of
aggression. Social learning theory suggests that the acquisition of aggressive behaviours is learnt
and not due to instincts. By looking at the sizeable increases in levels of hostility, across both scales
after exposure to the VVG it could be argued that the violent/aggressive actions observed have had
an influence on participants as they learn the behaviours through imitation. Of course only paper
and pencil measures of aggression were used and so the extent of truth in this is difficult to
decipher. The violent video game; Wolfenstein; the new order, involves shooting, stabbing and
taking down enemy opponents in any way possible. Every character that you come across in the
game is a hostile one and so the significant increases in these feelings of hostility could very well be
an imitation of what has been observed (SLT). The General Aggression Model (GAM) could
possibly explain the increases seen in levels of anger and hostility. The model takes personal and
situational factors into consideration and it may have been the case that there were personality
characteristics within participants meaning they were predisposed to higher levels of anger and
hostility in particular.
-Evaluation
A relatively low number (n=60) of participants made it difficult to see significant increases/
decreases in measures, but another, maybe more important issue was the demographics. The study
used solely UWL Psychology undergraduate students with an average age of participants was 22.28
years old and when you take into consideration that the average “gamer” is 35 years old it is clear to
see that a large proportion of the gaming community was not included in the study. Caution should
be used when relating these findings to the general population.
Page !39

A second discovery was that the average anxiety and depression screening score (K10) was high
enough to warrant a possibility that the average participant has a mild mental disorder. High
aggression and hostility scores may purely be a result of their mental disorder and not related to the
video game play.
Laboratory experiments allow for easy replication and precise control of extraneous and
independent variables. However it is an unnatural environment meaning the ecological validity of
the experiment has been compromised as the natural setting for playing on video games is usually
alone at home. Playing on the Xbox® in a University building is not usual as so this could result in
unnatural behaviour that does not reflect real life. The presence of a researcher may have been cause
for social anxiety and a lack of total natural immersion in the video game experience. This means it
would not be very scientific to generalise the findings to real life settings.
Demand characteristics could have been an issue even though some preventative measures were
taken. Participants were deceived of the true nature of the experiment but it may have been the case
that participants determined what was being studied and changed their behaviour accordingly.
Aligned with the expected outcome or detoured from it would have resulted in a confounding
variable.
Free choice as to the type of video game individuals play on in a setting they feel comfortable with
(not being observed/potentially critiqued) may have produced different results. An idea for potential
future research could be finding a way to measure levels of aggression in the natural home setting
with a variety of games to choose from.
Differences in the scales used to investigate levels of aggression in video games studies has
potentially caused threats to construct validity of effect. External validity of measures of aggression
Page !40

has also been a problem (Ferguson & Rueda, 2009). The paper and pencil measures used (Buss-
Perry aggression questionnaire and the State Hostility scale) have drawbacks as to all measures of
this kind such as participants may not feel comfortable with providing accurate and honest answers
out of fear of being presented in an unfavourable manor. Measuring physiological changes in
participants may have given a second viewpoint on the levels of cardiovascular arousal (which has
long been related to aggression) using techniques such as measuring pulse rate, blood pressure
(Systolic and Diastolic) or electrodermal conductance before and after experimentation.
Additionally it is interesting to have two different measures of hostility reporting quite different
results which reiterates the point made here. For example the BPAQ measure of hostility saw a
decrease post-experimentation but the State hostility scale saw an increase.
Although slight changes were made to the post-experimentation scales (Buss-Perry aggression
questionnaire & the State hostility scale) by way of altering the order in which questions were
presented, practice effects may have been an issue. There is certainly a lack of variation in the
measures used to collect aggression & hostility data.
Irwin & Gross (1995) used a play room in order to observe the free-play of children after video
game play. The general aggression model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) suggests that aggressive
behaviours can be predicted by taking into consideration the characteristics of the individual and
also the environment they are in. It would have been interesting to observe participants in different
environments after playing on the different types of video games instead of just in the laboratory.
The short-term effects of exposure to VVG’s were measured but it is unclear as to how long said
effects will last as no time-elapsed follow up procedure with participants was conducted. More
research could be done on how playing on violent videos could potentially affect the long-term
development of individuals similar to what was done by Craig A. Anderson, Akira Sakamoto,
Douglas A. Gentile, Nobuko Ihori, Akiko Shibuya, Shintaro Yukawa, Mayumi Naito, Kumiko
Page !41

Kobayashi in 2008. A case study-like piece of research with experimentation intervals of months at
a time would provide an invaluable insight into long-term effects of VVG’s.
Much of the previous research on the topic came to the conclusion that it was in fact pre-existing
differences in personality traits that are of paramount importance when determining the outcome of
aggression scores and not the short-term exposure to VVG’s (e.g., Scott, 1995). It feels a shame that
personality characteristics were not accounted for in this study as one does feel as if it would
insightful information on personality characteristics as determinants of feelings and behaviour.
In order for video game research to be most relevant, recent and advanced video game technology
must be used. An Xbox® 360 console was used with games that were 2 years old in this study
which, considering how fast moving the gaming industry is would now be considered out of date.
We are now on the advent of a new era in gaming technology and is a critical time to start the
research on virtual reality gaming. This is designed to provide the most immersive and realistic
games to date and is bound to be the direction all video games are headed. The Oculus Rift, a
virtual reality headset was released March 2016 which has a OLED display with 1080p resolution
that provides a 110 degree field of view completely taking over players field of vision and part
hearing. It will be interesting to compare results of existing studies with that of studies looking at
virtual reality gaming to see if players are affected more in terms of behavioural and mood changes.
-Conclusion
The principle question here is whether exposure to VVG’s should be a cause for concern. This study
has taken multiple measures of aggression and hostility, observing how the scores on each of these
scales differ after playing on a video game containing violent images.
The results have not been overly surprising as it seems it does not affect everyone in the same way
and does look as if some individuals have a predisposition to aggressive tendencies whereas others
Page !42

are not so affected. It cannot be said with any certainty that aggressive behaviours are a result of
recreational violent video game play but does seem to increase some scales of anger and hostility.
It seems although the debate over VVG’s has become more of a political issue with little real
evidence to suggest a causal link. Although effect sizes for this research are relatively weak,
findings do concur with many previous studies. It may indeed to be case that games do not affect
individuals in the way that is portrayed in the media with positive applications often overshadowed.
Educational training, social connectivity and visuospatial skills (Green & Raveller, 2007) are just
some of said applications.
In the future how will people spend their leisure time? Will it be the case that even more advanced
and immersive technology allows for complete transportation into a fictional world where the
boundaries between what is real and fake become blurred? Virtual reality will more than ever make
it seem as if you are actually experiencing the content instead of just observing. Applications for
this technology are already becoming known with most notably, providing an escape for children
with debilitating illnesses. This allows bed ridden individuals to really feel like they have had a day
out making research into virtual reality hugely anticipated.
Page !43

— References — 
Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American psychologist, 36(7),
715.
Buss AH & Perry. MP (1992) The Aggression Questionnaire. 63 Journal of Personality & Social
Psychology 452-459.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Psychology, 53(1), 27.
Anderson, C. A., & Godfrey, S. S. (1987). Thoughts about actions: The effects of specificity and
availability of imagined behavioural scripts on expectations about oneself and others. Social
cognition, 5(3), 238.
Anderson, C. A., Sakamoto, A., Gentile, D. A., Ihori, N., Shibuya, A., Yukawa, S., & Kobayashi, K.
(2008). Longitudinal effects of VVG’s on aggression in Japan and the United States. Paediatrics,
122(5).
Andison, F. S. (1977). TV violence and viewer aggression: A cumulation of study results 1956–
1976. Public Opinion Quarterly, 41(3), 314-331.
Andrews & Slade (2001). Interpreting scores on the Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10).
Australian and New Zealand Journal of Public Health, 25, pp. 494-497.
Berkowitz, L. (1984). Some effects of thoughts on anti-and prosocial influences of media events: a
cognitive neo-association analysis. Psychological bulletin, 95(3), 410.
Bandura, A. (1983). Self-efficacy determinants of anticipated fears and calamities. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 464.
Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (1994). Human aggression (2nd edition).
Bartholow, B. D., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behaviour: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 283-290.
Battelle, J., & Johnstone, B. (1993). Seizing the next level: Sega’s plan for world domination. Wired
I, 6, 8-10.
Page !44

Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation of threatened egotism to violence and
aggression: the dark side of high self-esteem. Psychological review, 103(1), 5.
Bushman, B. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (1998). Threatened egotism, narcissism, self-esteem, and direct
and displaced aggression: does self-love or self-hate lead to violence?. Journal of personality and
social psychology, 75(1), 219.
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised violence on aggression. Handbook
of children and the media, 223-254.
Bushman, B. J., & Whitaker, J. L. (2010). Like a Magnet Catharsis Beliefs Attract Angry People to
Violent Video Games. Psychological Science, 21(6), 790-792.
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. L. (2000). Aggression questionnaire manual. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services.
Chen, L., Zhou, S., & Bryant, J. (2007). Temporal changes in mood repair through music
consumption: Effects of mood, mood salience, and individual differences. Media Psychology, 9(3),
695-713.
Dillman Carpentier, F. R., Brown, J. D., Bertocci, M., Silk, J. S., Forbes, E. E., & Dahl, R. E.
(2008). Sad kids, sad media? Applying mood management theory to depressed adolescents' use of
media. Media Psychology, 11(1), 143-166.
Dill, K. E., & Dill, J. C. (1999). Video game violence: A review of the empirical literature.
Aggression and violent behaviour, 3(4), 407-428.
Dill, K. E., Gentile, D. A., Richter, W. A., & Dill, J. C. (2005). Violence, sex, race and age in
popular video games: A content analysis. Featuring females: Feminist analyses of the media.
Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Dominick, J. R. (1984). Videogames, television violence, and aggression in teenagers. Journal of
Communication, 34(2), 136-147.
Eron, L. D. (1982). Parent–child interaction, television violence, and aggression of children.
American psychologist, 37(2), 197.
Page !45

Friedman, M. (1996). Type A Behavior: Its Diagnosis and Treatment. New York: Plenum Press
(Kluwer Academic Press).
Funk, J. B., & Buchman, D. D. (1996). Children's perceptions of gender differences in social
approval for playing electronic games. Sex Roles, 35(3-4), 219-231.
Funk, J., Elliott, R., Bechtoldt, H., Pasold, T., & Tsavoussis, A. (2003). The attitudes toward
violence scale child version. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 18(2), 186-196.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game
habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal of
adolescence, 27(1), 5-22.
Guerra, N. G., Nucci, L., & Huesmann, L. R. (1994). Moral cognition and childhood aggression. In
Aggressive Behaviour (pp. 13-33). Springer US.
Halladay, J., & Wolf, R. (2000). Indianapolis OKs restrictions on violent video game usage. USA
Today A, 5.
Hearold, S. (1986). A synthesis of 1043 effects of television on social behaviour. Public
communication and behaviour, 1, 65-133.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. L., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations
between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behaviour in young
adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental psychology, 39(2), 201.
Irwin, A. R., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Cognitive tempo, violent video games, and aggressive
behaviour in young boys. Journal of family violence, 10(3), 337-350.
Jenkins, C.D., Zyzanski, S.J., & Rosenman, R.H. (1971). Progress toward validation of computer-
scored test for the type A coronary-prone behaviour pattern. Psychosomatic Medicine, 33, 193-202.
Kagen, L. J. (1964). Some biochemical and physical properties of the human permeability
globulins. British journal of experimental pathology, 45(6), 604.
Kernis, M. H., Grannemann, B. D., & Barclay, L. C. (1989). Stability and level of self-esteem as
predictors of anger arousal and hostility. Journal of personality and social psychology, 56(6), 1013.
Page !46

Kessler, Andews, Colpe., et al, (2002) Short Screening scales to monitor population prevalences and
trends in non-specific psychological distress. Psychological Medicine, 32, pp. 959-956.
Koop, C. E. (1982). Surgeon general sees danger in video games. New York Times, 10.
Leerhsen, C., Zabarsky, M., & McDonald, D. (1983). Video games zap Harvard. Newsweek, 101,
92.
Lorenz, K. (1963). On aggression. New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace and World.
Malone, T. (1981). What makes computer games fun? (Vol. 13, No. 2-3, p. 143). ACM.
Mischel, W., & Mischel, H. N. (1976). A cognitive social-learning approach to morality and self-
regulation. Moral development and behaviour: Theory, research, and social issues, 84-107.
Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive-affective system theory of personality:
reconceptualising situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure.
Psychological review, 102(2), 246.
Murray, J. P. (1993). Impact of Televised Violence, The. Hofstra L. Rev., 22, 809.
Nabi, R. L., Finnerty, K., Domschke, T., & Hull, S. (2006). Does misery love company? Exploring
the therapeutic effects of TV viewing on regretted experiences. Journal of Communication, 56(4),
689-706.
Nakao, K., & Treas, J. (1992). The 1989 socioeconomic index of occupations: Construction from
the 1989 occupational prestige scores. Chicago: National Opinion Research Centre.
Nasby, W., Hayden, B., & DePaulo, B. M. (1980). Attributional bias among aggressive boys to
interpret unambiguous social stimuli as displays of hostility. Journal of abnormal psychology,
89(3), 459.
Olson, C. K. (2004). Media violence research and youth violence data: why do they conflict?.
Academic Psychiatry, 28(2), 144-150.
Page !47

Olson, C., Kuttner, L., & Warner, D. (2008). The role of violent video game play in adolescent
development: Boy’s perspective. Journal of Adolescence Research, 23, 55-75.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial behaviour: a meta-
analysis1. Communication Research, 21(4), 516-546.
Pearl, D., Bouthilet, L., & Lazar, J. B. (1982). Television and behaviour: Ten years of scientific
progress and implications for the eighties (Vol. 1). US Dept. of Health and Human Services, Public
Health Service, Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration, National Institute of
Mental Health.
Roberts, D. F., Foehr, U. G., Rideout, V. J., & Brodie, M. (1999). The Henry J. Menlo Park, CA:
Kaiser Family Foundation.
Rule, B. G., & Ferguson, T. J. (1986). The effects of media violence on attitudes, emotions, and
cognitions. Journal of Social Issues, 42(3), 29-50.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, C. S., & Przybylski, A. (2006). The motivational pull of video games: A self-
determination theory approach. Motivation and emotion, 30(4), 344-360.
Schank, R. C., Abelson, R. P., & Scripts, P. (1977). Goals and understanding. Erlbanum: Eksevier
Science.
Scott, D. (1995). The effect of video games on feelings of aggression. Journal of Psychology,
129(2), 121.
Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression. Human communication
research, 27(3), 409-431.
Silvern, S. B., & Williamson, P. A. (1987). The effects of video game play on young children's
aggression, fantasy, and prosocial behaviour. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8(4),
453-462.
Wartella, E., & Reeves, B. (1985). Historical trends in research on children and the media: 1900–
1960. Journal of Communication, 35(2), 118-133.
Page !48

Williams, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). Internet fantasy violence: A test of aggression in an online
game. Communication monographs, 72(2), 217-233.
Winkel, M., Novak, D. M., & Hopson, H. (1987). Personality factors, subject gender, and the effects
of aggressive video games on aggression in adolescents. Journal of Research in Personality, 21(2),
211-223.
Zimbardo, P. (1982). Understanding psychological man: A State of the science report.
Page !49

Dissertation: Investigating the Effects of Violent Video Game Exposure on Scales of Aggression and Hostility

More Related Content

Similar to Dissertation: Investigating the Effects of Violent Video Game Exposure on Scales of Aggression and Hostility (20)

Dissertation: Investigating the Effects of Violent Video Game Exposure on Scales of Aggression and Hostility