California State University, Northridge the Effects of Videogame

California State University, Northridge

The Effects of Videogame Playing, Watching, and Realism on a Person’s Level of Aggression

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements For the degree of Master of Arts in Psychology, General Experimental

Solo Deloatch

May 2014

The thesis of Solo Deloatch is approved:

______Dr. Jill Quilici Date

______Dr. Gary Katz Date

______Dr. Shannon Morgan, Chair Date

California State University, Northridge

Table of Contents Signature Page ii

Abstract iv

SECTION 1: INTRODUCTION 1

SECTION 2: STUDY 1METHOD 12

STUDY 1 RESULTS 17

SECTION 3: STUDY 2 METHOD 22

STUDY 2 RESULTS 23

SECTION 4: DISCUSSION 26

REFERENCES 30

Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire 33

Appendix B: Aggression Questionnaires 36

iii

ABSTRACT

The Effects of Videogame Playing, Watching, and Realism

On a Person’s Level of Aggression

Solo Deloatch

Master of Arts in Psychology, General Experimental

Previous studies have investigated the effects of playing violent videogames on aggression by having participants play either non-violent games or extremely violent games and then attaining a measure of aggression. Some research has concluded that a strong association exists between playing violent games and aggression (e.g. Anderson et al., 2010). Other research has indicated that realism plays some mediating role in the relationship between playing violent videogames and aggression (Farrar, Krcmar, Mcgloin, 2011). However, despite the tendency for researchers to claim that exposure to violent videogames makes people more aggressive, there is a tendency amongst researchers in this domain to dismiss the use of pretest/posttest paradigms. Also, research has yet to be conducted on what possible effects watching violent videogame play can have on a person’s level of aggression. This experiment used a pretest/posttest paradigm to test if playing or watching a moderately violent videogame could make someone more aggressive and whether the level of realism of the game would have an effect on aggression as well. Results did not show any significant change in participants’ level of aggression as a result of either watching or playing a moderately violent videogame, or as a result of how realistic the videogame looked. Results indicate that exposure to violent videogames may not directly impact a person’s level of aggression. However a significant order effect found in the experiment may imply that a pretest/posttest paradigm may not be reliable in the field of aggression research.

SECTION 1

INTRODUCTION

The gaming industry has come a long way over a fairly short period of time. In the last few decades, videogames have gone from 8-bit graphics and characters that roughly resemble human beings to displaying beautifully rendered backgrounds, jaw dropping environments, and vividly realistic looking characters. As the industry has grown, it seems as if it has become determined to make videogames look as realistic as possible. This brings up a key question: By making videogames, even only moderately violent videogames, appear more realistic, is the industry unintentionally causing harm? In this study, I will determine whether playing moderately violent videogames can raise a participant’s level of aggression. I will also determine whether simply watching a moderately violent videogame can raise a participant’s level of aggression. Finally, I will determine whether videogame realism plays a part in altering aggression levels when people either play or watch moderately violent videogames.

Important Cases

An important reason behind the need for research in the field of violent videogame research is that there have been a number of prominent incidents in which people have actually been killed where videogames were blamed. One such incident was the Wilson v. Midway

Games case. On November 22, 1997, a 13-year-old boy named Noah Wilson died after his friend stabbed him in the chest with a kitchen knife. The friend had been playing Mortal Kombat, an extremely violent videogame. Noah’s mother, Andrea Wilson, filed a lawsuit against Midway

Games, Inc., the publisher of Mortal Kombat. In her lawsuit, she alleged that the friend who killed her son was so obsessed with the game that he believed he was one of the characters at the time of the incident (itlaw.wikia.com).

Another incident involving Mortal Kombat occurred approximately 10 years later. In

2007, a then 17-year-old named Lamar Roberts was at his 17-year-old girlfriend Heather

Trujillo’s house babysitting her 7-year-old half-sister Zoe Garcia. During the night, Lamar and his girlfriend assaulted the child, which resulted in her death. Lamar claimed that he was acting out moves from Mortal Kombat as part of his defense and pled guilty. He was sentenced to 36 years in prison, and during this trial was given the moniker of the “Mortal Kombat Murderer”

(The Escapist).

The final and possibly most disturbing incident where videogames were implicated in a murder occurred in Thailand in 2008. An 18-year-old named Polwat Chino was arrested after he stabbed a taxi driver to death and attempted to steal his taxi. Polwat claimed that he was imitating the game Grand Theft Auto 4 during the incident. This case led to a fervor that resulted in the game being pulled off of shelves in Thailand (dailymail.co.uk).

Short-term Effects of Violent Videogame Exposure on Aggression

There is a breadth of research in the field looking at how playing violent videogames can affect a person’s aggression. While some studies set out to explore the long-term ramifications of exposure to violent videogames over a lengthy period, other studies set out to determine the immediate effects of violent videogame exposure. Craig Anderson, one of the more prominent names in the field of videogame research, has conducted numerous studies on the immediate effects of playing violent videogames (e.g., Anderson & Barthalow, 2002; Anderson & Dill,

2000; Anderson & Swing, 2007).

Anderson and Dill (2000) conducted two experiments investigating the effects violent videogames can have on aggressive thoughts, feelings and behavior. In the first study, they used self-report surveys to collect data about the participant’s five favorite videogames, such as how

often they played those games, and how much time they spent playing videogames in general.

They also used a self-report survey to collect other data such as measures of aggressive behavior, trait aggression, irritability, and delinquency. They concluded that playing violent videogames was positively related to both delinquency and aggressive behavior.

In their second study, they had participants play either the violent videogame Wolfenstein

3D, or the nonviolent videogame Myst, and used a competitive reaction time trial to measure the amount of time participants would subject a loser to a loud noise as their measure of aggression.

They found that participants who played the violent videogame blasted their opponent for a significantly longer duration than those who played the nonviolent game (Anderson & Dill,

2000). Their conclusion was that exposure to violent videogames makes people aggressive in both the short term and the long term.

Another study tested the hypothesis that exposure to violent videogames affects short- term aggression. In this study, 47 undergrads were randomly assigned to play either Mortal

Kombat or PGA Tournament Golf (a non-violent videogame) for 10 minutes. After this exposure, participants competed with a confederate in a reaction time task where the participant set the level of punishment to be dealt to the confederate. The results showed that participants who played Mortal Kombat subjected the confederate to a higher mean level of punishment than those who played PGA Tournament Golf (Anderson & Barthalow, 2002).

In a 2003 study, Anderson and Murphy conducted an experiment to see if violent videogame exposure affects the short-term aggression of women. In this experiment, 91 undergraduate women were randomly assigned to either play the nonviolent videogame Oh No!

More Lemmings, or the violent videogame Street Fighter playing as either a female character, or a male character. After playing the game for 20 minutes, the participants performed a

competitive reaction time task to assess their level of aggression and also completed a questionnaire created to measure both instrumentation and revenge motivation. The study showed that that women who played one of the two Street Fighter conditions showed higher aggressive motivation than those who played the nonviolent game, also that women who played a female character reported higher levels of aggressive motivation than those who played a male character. These results not only indicate that violent videogame exposure is related to short- term aggression in women, but also that the gender of the character played likely mediates this association.

In 2007, Anderson and Swing published a review article to illuminate how both experimental and cross-sectional studies were showing that violent videogame exposure is highly associated with aggression. This review article showed a number of different published articles and argued that regardless of what methodology was used, or what the measurement criterion was, the research consistently shows that violent videogame exposure makes people more aggressive.

It is not just Anderson and his colleagues who have shown these effects. In a study where participants either played the violent videogame Doom, a 2-D first person shooter game, or the non-violent videogame Mahjongg: Clicks for 10 minutes, those who played Doom showed a much greater tendency to associate with aggressive traits on an Implicit Association Task than those who played the Mahjongg game (Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). Uhlmann and Swanson’s study shows that exposure to violent videogames seems to increase the automatic aggressiveness of those who play them. A study conducted by Bijvank, Bushman, and Konijn (2007) tested to see if identifying with the character played in a violent videogame would make a player more aggressive. The study not only showed that a link between violent videogame exposure and

aggression exists, but that identifying with the characters in a violent videogame seems to make participants more aggressive than if they do not.

Not only can brief exposure to violent videogames increase one’s aggression, but it may have the capacity to desensitize players to real-life violence. As shown by Anderson, Bushman and Carnagey (2007), while watching a 10-minute tape of real-life violence, participants who previously played 20 minutes of a violent videogame had lower heart rates and galvanic skin responses than those who played a non-violent game for 20 minutes. It is therefore possible that the short-term effects of playing violent videogames expand beyond the realms of aggression.

Most past research in this area has focused on the after effects of playing extremely violent videogames. In this present research, I will focus on moderately violent videogames. I will determine whether playing moderately violent videogames can make participants more aggressive by comparing pretest to posttest aggression measurements. I expect that my results will be similar to past findings involving violent videogames, in that participants who are assigned to play a moderately violent videogame should score significantly higher on their posttest aggression measure than on their baseline aggression measure.

Long-Term Effects of Exposure to Violent Videogames

In a recent longitudinal study that assessed the relationship between exposure to violent videogames and acts of aggression throughout the high school careers of 1,492 Canadian students, the authors concluded that participants who reportedly played violent videogames more often throughout their years in high school reported higher increases in aggression overtime than those who reportedly played violent videogames less often (Aldachi, Good, & Willoughby,

2012). In a study investigating the effects of exposure to violent videogames on German second year (high school) students over a 2 year long period, the authors concluded that their findings

provided support that exposure to violent media showed a clear effect over this 2 year period, even when other risk factors are taken into account (Busching, Krahe´, & Möller, 2012). In both of these longitudinal studies, violent videogame play showed to be a strong predictor of aggression over a period of at least 2 years. While my study does not look into the long-term effects of violent videogame exposure, it is still very important to keep in mind that there is a basis to believe that the effects of exposure to violent videogames could be more chronic than what studies testing for the short-term effects on aggression show.

Theories behind the Relationship between Violent Videogame Exposure and Aggression

Two theories that may explain both the short and long-term effects of playing violent videogames on aggression found in the prior research are the General Aggression Model (GAM) and Albert Bandura’s Social Learning Theory of Aggression (2006).

According to the GAM there are three critical stages involved in any single violent incident: (1) person and social inputs; (2) current internal states including cognition, affect, and arousal; and (3) decision making processes and the outcomes from appraisal (Anderson,

Bushman, and DeWall, 2011). According to the GAM, exposure to violent media (e.g., violent videogames) primes aggressive thoughts and feelings, which are then reflected on in terms of personal and societally placed morals. According to this model, if one were to attribute the aggressive feelings evoked by exposure to violent media to personal characteristics, they are likely to behave more aggressively; but if a person reflects heavily on societal norms then that person is unlikely to behave aggressively. Therefore the model proposes that although exposure to violent media primes aggression, those who attribute the aggressive feelings to themselves are likely to behave more aggressively while those who focus on the punishments that may come from acting out on their aggressive feelings are unlikely to behave in an aggressive manner.

The Social Learning Theory of Aggression (SLT) postulates that people are not naturally born aggressive, but learn it by watching others engaged in aggressive/violent acts (Bandura

2006). Based on Bandura’s theory, the aggressive/violent acts that gamers view when playing a violent videogame may very well be learned and imitated. If either theory holds true, participants in my study would be expected to respond more aggressively on their post-test measure of aggression than at their baseline measure. This theory may also imply that watching violent videogame play may be more impactful than actually playing a violent videogame if people do learn aggression from the actions of others.

The Potential Issue of “Second-hand Gaming”

One aspect of the field that has gone unnoticed is the issue of people simply watching violent or moderately violent videogames. As Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) found, children tend to mimic aggressive acts that they witness. With the advances in technology that have taken place since the ‘60s, there are new ways that one can be exposed to acts of aggression other than watching an elder display them in a lab experiment. With sites like YouTube.com, it is not unfathomable that someone could spend several hours per day watching the video clips that others post. By posting clips on line and receiving money from advertising on their accounts, the prospect of turning gaming into a job has become a reality for some YouTubers.

One key gamer who posts gameplay from various first person shooter games goes by the moniker of Levelcap Gaming. He has posted over 800 gaming videos on his YouTube page, has over 440,000 subscribers, and his channel has received over 33,000,000 views to date (Levelcap,

YouTube.com). However, this man is not the only prominent example.

A Swedish YouTuber that goes by the moniker of AnderZel posts a variety of gameplay videos, mostly from the games Minecraft, Battlefield 3, Black Ops 2, and Farcry 3. AnderZel’s

channel currently has over 1500 videos posted, 305,000 subscribers, and over 28,000,000 views to date (ImAnderZel, YouTube.com).

It is not just individual gamers who have developed prominent followings on YouTube.

Many videogame tournaments eventually end up posting their events on YouTube. One major tournament that does this is the Evolution Championship Series (EVO), which is an annual videogame tournament strictly for fighting games. The 2012 EVO tournament held competitions for several fighting games including,Super Street Fighter 4, King of Fighters XIII, Virtua Fighter

5, Street Fighter X Tekken, Soul Calibur 5, Ultimate Marvel vs. Capcom 3, and Mortal Kombat.

Tournament gameplay from each of these games was posted on YouTube by various sources.

The most watched of these clips has been the 2012 Mortal Kombat Grand Finals, which has received over 1,078,720 views since it was posted on July 18th, 2012 (IGN, YouTube).

It is not merely this online component that needs to be addressed. What about group situations which lead to people watching others play videogames? When one goes to an arcade, it is fairly a common practice to watch as one gamer competes against another. At fighting game tournaments, such as EVO, the audience will watch the matches displayed on giant screens. In a more personal setting, such as one’s own home, one might watch a friend or sibling play a videogame. A child might watch their parent play. Thus, a vital question at hand concerns whether “second-hand gaming” has negative effects on the millions of gamers who spend their time watching violent videogame play.

My research will determine whether aggression levels can be increased by virtue of simply watching moderately violent videogames. Based on both the GAM and SLT, I predict that the posttest aggression score of “second-hand gamers” will be higher than their pretest

aggression scores. Likewise, the Social Learning Theory of Aggression also suggests that simply watching violent behavior can lead to higher levels of aggression.

Realism’s Effect on Aggression

In 2012, Biocca, Bohil and Jeong assigned participants to play the videogame Half-life in which characters bleed when they are injured. They assigned participants to play either a version of the game with the blood colored red as it would usually be, or to play a version where the blood appeared as the color blue. Participants ended up scoring significantly higher on a hostility measure in the red blood condition than those in the blue blood condition. In their experiment, the act of decreasing the realism of just one aspect of the game led to a noticeable increase in the hostility of the participants. If making a single aspect of a violent videogame more realistic can lead to more hostility, then what happens when you manipulate how realistic the games themselves look?

In 2011, Farrarr, Krcmar, and McGloin tested the effect realism has on gamers. They assigned participants to play Doom 1(a 16-Bit first person shooter game from the 90s), Doom 3(a realistic looking three dimensional sequel released in 2004) , or to a control group where participants did not play a videogame. Both the groups who played Doom 1 and Doom 3 scored higher on aggression than those in the control group. This study also showed that physically aggressive intentions were higher for participants who played the more realistic looking game

Doom 3 (Doom 3 was rated as looking more realistic than Doom 1 by participants) than those who played Doom 1. This study looks to provide some deeper insight into how making violent videogames more realistic looking could have a negative impact on those who play them by using three levels of realism (low, medium, and high) instead of just comparing a realistic

looking game to a non-realistic looking game.

In the present study, I will determine the effects that realism may have when people play or watch moderately violent videogames. Based on the findings from Farrarr et al.’s 2011 study,

I predict that as realism increases, levels of posttest aggression will also increase.

I will test the previously stated hypotheses by asking participants to either play or watch one of three moderately violent videogames. The games will differ in their levels of realism, with realism levels of low, medium and high.

Research Refuting the Link between Violent Videogame Exposure and Aggression

Perhaps the biggest opposition to the claims that there is a strong relationship between violent videogame exposure and aggression comes from a researcher named Christopher

Ferguson. In a response to Anderson et al.’s 2010 meta-analysis, Ferguson and Kilburn (2010) brought up several key issues they had with the paper and the field of research as a whole. Some of the issues brought up include: the use of a biased sample of unpublished studies, the focus on bivariate correlations, a lack of thought towards how the use of unstandardized aggression measurement methods could have inflated the effect size estimates, and how the data seems to completely contrast with how real life data on youth violence looks like (Ferguson & Kilburn,

2010).

Cruz, Ferguson, Ferguson, Fritz, Rueda, and Smith (2008), looked at not only how well several factors including violent videogame exposure, family violence exposure, gender, and trait aggression predicted violent crimes. The Structural Equation Model they used suggested that exposure to violent videogames was not a significant predictor of violent crimes, but exposure to family violence, trait aggression, and gender (males) were significant predictors.

Ferguson has not only questioned the validity of the findings from other studies, but has

also questioned the validity of The General Aggression Model itself. In a fairly recent publication he claimed that the data that has been used to support the GAM hasn’t been conclusive and that the GAM does not provide a sufficient job at explaining aggressive incidents

(Dyck & Ferguson, 2012).

SECTION 2

STUDY 1: METHOD

Participants and Design

Participants consisted of 124 undergraduates from the participant pool at California State

University, Northridge. Four participants had to be removed from the analysis either due to equipment failures during the session, or because of a failure to answer questions measuring aggression. Using a between-subjects design, participants were randomly assigned to either play or watch one of the following videogames: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Double Dragon Neon, or

Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown. Difference scores were calculated for the 3 groups by subtracting their pretest level of aggression from their posttest level of aggression.

I used a 2 (Immersion: playing or watching a videogame) × 3 (level of game Realism: low, medium, high) between-subjects design. Using a pre/posttest paradigm, I measured aggression levels for the 124 participants. Counterbalancing was used for the order of the two aggression measures. I also looked for differences in aggression amongst demographic factors such as gender, videogame play experience, preferred console, and competitiveness.

Materials

The materials used consisted of 3 videogames, XBOX 360 gaming systems, computers, pretest and posttest aggression questionnaires, a demographic questionnaire, and a relaxation video.

For the watching condition, I used a video camera to record game play from the following games: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Double Dragon Neon, and Virtua Fighter 5 Final

Showdown. I recorded 15 minutes of game play from each game. For each game in the watching

condition, game play was recorded on the same television and in the same room. For each game in the watching condition, video was taken from the same distance, the same angle, and with an equivalent level of lighting. Computer monitors were be used to show the game play clips to participants.

For the playing condition, I used an XBOX 360 videogame system to allow participants to play one of the games. The systems were attached to televisions at an equivalent height. All participants in the play condition used the same style of controller.

Video Games. The three games, Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, Double Dragon Neon, and

Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown, were all rated prior to the study as “moderately violent” on a scale from 1 (nonviolent) to 5 (extremely violent) in a series of pretest screenings; Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (M = 3.10, SD = .93), Double Dragon Neon (M = 2.90, SD = .74), and Virtua

Fighter 5 Final Showdown (M = 3.40, SD = .76).

Of the 24 participants involved in the pretest screening all but one participant ranked the games from least to most realistic in the following order: 1) Scott Pilgrim vs. the World, 2)

Double Dragon Neon, and 3) Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown. Figure 1 shows screen shots to give a clear example of the distinctions between the games. The left panel shows Scott Pilgrim vs. The World, which was rated as the least realistic. The center panel shows Double Dragon

Neon. The right panel shows Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown, which was rated as the most realistic.

Figure1.Screenshots from each of three videogames. From left to right: Scott Pilgrim vs. the World (the low realism game), Double Dragon Neon (the medium realism game), and Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown (the high realism game).

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World has a “Teen” rating by the Entertainment Software Rating

Board (ESRB). The game is a downloadable side scrolling fighter game that is available for both the XBOX 360 and Playstation 3. The game has the following content descriptors: Animated

Blood, Cartoon Violence, Language, Mild Suggestive Themes

(http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp).

Double Dragon Neon also has a “Teen” rating by the ESRB, and is also a downloadable side scrolling fighter game that is available for both the XBOX 360 and the Playstation 3. The game has the following content descriptors: Suggestive Themes, Partial Nudity, Fantasy

Violence (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp).

Likewise, Virtua Fighter 5 Final Showdown has a Teen rating by the ESRB. However, this game is a downloadable arena fighter game. It is available for both the XBOX 360 and the

Playstation 3. The game has the following content descriptors: Suggestive Themes, Violence,

Use of Alcohol (http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp).

Demographic Questionnaire. The demographic questionnaire, shown in Appendix A, was used to assess several key factors that could play a role in how aggressive participants score.

This questionnaire asked participants for their languages spoken, age, gender, ethnicity, culture,

frequency of videogame play, primary gaming platform, competitiveness while playing videogames and sports, and familiarity with the games used in the experiment.

Aggression Questionnaires. Pre and posttest aggression questionnaires, shown in

Appendix B, were adapted from the Bryant and Smith 12- item short form Aggression

Questionnaire (Bryant & Smith, 2001). Each questionnaire contained 2 items from each of the 4 dimensions of aggression: Physical, Verbal, Anger, and Hostility first used in the original Buss and Perry Aggression Questionnaire (Buss &Perry, 1992). Both pre- and posttests contained 7 distracter questions to disguise the nature of the questionnaire.

Relaxation Video. Immediately following the completion of the posttest aggression measurement, participants were shown a short relaxation video. This video clip was approximately 2 minutes long in length and consisted of a montage of numerous scenes showing various cats hugging (Funnycatsandnicefish, YouTube.com). The video was used to relax participants and counteract the possible spikes in aggression that the experiment may have caused.

Procedure

After gaining their informed consent, participants were randomly assigned to either play or watch one of the three videogames. There were six main parts to this experiment. First, participants filled out the main portion of the demographic questionnaire. Next, participants completed a pretest aggression questionnaire. Then, participants either played or watched their respective videogame, and then took the posttest aggression questionnaire. Finally, participants completed the remainder of the demographic questionnaire.

Upon entering the experiment, participants were given a consent form followed by the main portion of the demographic questionnaire to fill out. This main portion contained the

questions meant to assess how often they play videogames, which console they mainly play on, and how often they watch and play the games used in this experiment. The other demographic questions were not administered until the end of the trial to mitigate any possible priming effects.

After completing the demographic questionnaire, participants were tested independently in groups of two. They were positioned such that they could not see each other and were given the pretest aggression questionnaire to complete.

After the pretest questionnaire was completed and collected, participants assigned to one of the three watching conditions were seated in front of a computer. They were then instructed to watch the clip for the entire 15 minute length, and were instructed to not turn on any other devices or to open any websites or programs.

Participants assigned to one of the three playing conditions were seated in front of one of the two televisions attached to an XBOX 360. Participants in the playing condition were then told to play the game for 15 minutes, and in the case of losing or finishing the level prior to the end of 15 min, were instructed to restart and continue playing.

After the 15 minutes were over, the television or computer monitors were turned off.

Participants were then given the posttest questionnaire and asked to complete it, and then the remaining portion of the demographic questionnaire. Participants were then shown the 2 minute relaxation video. Finally, the researcher debriefed the participants and then released them.

STUDY 1: RESULTS

Scoring

Aggression Assessment

Using a pretest/posttest paradigm, I used a split-half aggression questionnaire in order to determine the level of aggression for each participant both prior to and following videogame exposure. Both pretest and posttest questionnaires consisted of 8 items from the Bryant and

Smith 12 item short form aggression questionnaire as well as 7 distracter items used to hide the nature of the questionnaires. For each of the items, the participant rated how characteristic the statement is of him/her on a scale of 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me). The scores from the 8 aggression questions were added up to a total aggression score ranging from a minimum possible score of 8 to a maximum possible score of

40. A strict cut off of 32 points was determined, meaning that any participant who scored above a 35 ( listing a 4 or higher on each of the 8 pretest aggression questions) would be excluded from the analysis on the basis that there would not be much show much of an increase. However, no participant exceeded this cut off and none were thrown out of that analysis.

Gaming Experience

Overall Videogame experience. The amount of time participants spend playing videogames on a weekly basis was scored by having participants mark one of the following categories: 1) I do not generally play videogames, 2) less than 5 hours per week, 3) between 5 and 10 hours per week, 4) between 11 and 20 hours per week, and 5) more than 20 hours per week. This information was used primarily in post-hoc analysis to determine if gaming experience plays some sort of mediating role in this experiment.

Does Watching have the Same Effect on Aggression as Playing?

Does watching videogames affect aggression levels as much as playing videogames? Using the difference scores of the participant’s pre and posttest aggression scores, I ran a two-way between subjects ANOVA to determine three things: a main effect of activity type (playing vs. watching) on aggression, a main effect of level of realism (high, medium, and low) on aggression, and a possible interaction between activity type and level of realism on aggression.

Analysis showed that a main effect of activity type was not found, in that participants in the playing condition (M = .05, SD = 4.90) had similar changes in aggression to those in the watching condition (M = -.74, SD = 4.26), F(1,118) = .848 , p = .359. This result is shown in Figure

Was there a Difference in Pretest to Posttest Changes

1 0.5 0

-0.5 for Aggression for -1

MeanDifference Scores Played Watched Activity Type

Figure 2. Shows the difference in mean difference-scores between participants who watched a violent videogame and participants who played a violent videogame. Scores are collapsed across the three levels of realism (low, medium, and high) used in the experiment. When comparing watching to playing videogames does realism affect levels of aggression?

Analysis showed no main effect of realism on participants’ aggression. Participants that played the high realism game experience changes in aggression (M = -.26, SD = 4.70), similar to both participants that interacted with the medium realism game (M = -.08, SD = 4.96), and participants that interacted with the low realism game (M = -.68, SD = 4.19), F(2,118)= .190, p =

.827. This result is shown in Figure 3.

Was there a Difference in Pretest to Posttest Aggression

Scores as a Function of Realism?

-0.5

-1 Low (Scott Pilgrim) Medium (Double High (Virtua Fighter)

forAggression Dragon)

Level of Realism MeanDifference Scores

Figure 3. Shows the difference in mean difference-scores between the three levels of realism when collapsed across activity type (playing/watching). Is there an interaction between Type of Activity and Realism on level of aggression? The analysis showed no interaction between Activity Type (playing, watching) and Realism (high, medium, low) in regards to participants’ aggression change F(2,118) = .085, p = .919. This result is shown in Figure 4.

Aggression Difference Scores as a Function of Activity Type and Levels of Realism 0.5 0 -0.5 Watched the Game -1 Played the Game

-1.5 ofAggression Low (Scott Pilgrim) Medium (Double High (Virtua Fighter)

MeanDifference Scores Dragon) Level of Realism

Figure 4. Shows the interaction between activity type (playing/watching) and level of realism (low, medium, and high) in regards to mean aggression difference scores. Will the order in which the aggression questionnaires were presented have an effect?

An order effect was found, F(1,22) = 13.05, p < .001. A statistically significant difference in Difference scores was found between the original order of the forms (M = 1.02, SD = 4.48), and after the order was counterbalanced (M = -1.83, SD = 4.26). This result is shown in figure 5.

Did the Order of Presentation of the Aggression Questionnaires make a

Difference?

-1 of Aggression of -2 Mean Difference Scores Scores Difference Mean Original Order Reversed order Order of Aggression Questionnaires

Figure 5. Shows the difference in mean difference-scores between the original order in which the 2 aggression questionnaire forms were presented and the reversed order.

Post-hoc Analyses

Post-hoc analyses where conducted for the following demographic factors: gender, competitiveness, gaming experience, and primary gaming system. These post-hoc analyses did not produce any significant results, however.

Did men and women differ in their reaction to moderately-violent videogames? An

Independent sample T-test showed no major difference between men (M = -1.00, SD = 4.01) and women (M = .23, SD = 5.17) in their pre-to-posttest aggression change. Men and women did not really differ in change in aggression following exposure to a moderately-violent videogame, t(125)

= -1.31, p = .194.

Did the amount of experience someone has playing videogames effect their reaction to a moderately-violent videogame? A one-way between subject analysis of variance showed no main effect of gaming experience, F(4,119) = .730, p = .573. Gaming experience did not have any real impact on how much participants’ aggression changed following their exposure to a moderately-violent videogame.

Did the preferred console have an effect on aggression change? A one-way between subjects

ANOVA shoed no main effect of preferred console, F(2, 121) = .416, p = .661. Those who preferred to play videogames on an X-BOX did not differ in their aggression change from those who do not play videogames of those who play on a different console.

Did a participants’ competitiveness effect their aggressive change? A one-way between subjects ANOVA showed no main effect of competitiveness, F(2,121) = .546, p = .580. The participants’ level of competitiveness did not influence their aggression change following exposure to a moderately-violent videogame.

SECTION 3

STUDY 2: METHOD

One particular issue that arose was the possibility that administering 2 separate aggression questionnaires could create its own issue. In order to address this concern I ran a study identical to the first study except that participants were given both aggression questionnaires after interaction with the game took place. This study intended to determine if there would be an order effect (if there would be a change in aggression simply due to order in which the forms were presented).

Participants and Design

Participants consisted of 124 undergraduates from the participant pool at California State

University, Northridge. A one-way between subjects ANOVA was run to determine if there was an order effect.

Materials and Procedure

Study 2 used the same materials that were used in Study 1. This study also used an identical procedure to Study 1 except for both aggression questionnaires being administered after participants interacted with one of the 3 games for 15 minutes.

STUDY 2: RESULTS

Will the order in which the aggression questionnaires were presented have an effect?

The results of study 2 showed that there was an order effect was found, F(1,119) = 19.90, p

< .001. A statistically significant difference in Difference scores was found between the original order of the forms (M = 1.60, SD = 3.57), and after the order was counterbalanced (M = -1.70,

SD = 4.52). The results of study 2 indicate that even though I pre-tested my aggression measures, the two aggression measures were not equally effective at measuring aggression. This result is shown in figure 6.

Did the Order of Presentation of the Aggression Questionnaires make a Difference?

2 1 0 -1

of Aggression of -2 Original Order Reversed order

Mean Difference Scores Scores Difference Mean Order of Aggression Questionnaires

Figure 6. Shows the difference in mean difference-scores between the original order in which the 2 aggression questionnaire forms were presented and the reversed order. Does Watching have the Same Effect on Aggression as Playing on Aggression

Totals? Since an order effect was found, the scores for both aggression questionnaires were added into an aggression total. A two-way between subjects analysis of variance was then run to determine if main effects of activity type and realism would be found for aggression totals.

Does watching videogames affect aggression totals as much as playing videogames?

Analysis showed that a main effect of activity type was not found, in that participants in the playing condition (M = 39.91, SD = 9.80) had similar aggression totals to those in the

watching condition (M = 38.08, SD = 8.90), F(1,115) = 1.104 , p = .296. This result is shown in

Figure 7.

Was there a Difference in Aggression Totals Between Watchers and Players? 80

60 50 40 30

Aggression Aggression Totals 20 10 0 Played Watched Activity Type

Figure 7. Shows the difference in aggression totals between participants who watched a violent videogame and participants who played a violent videogame. Scores are collapsed across the three levels of realism (low, medium, and high) used in the experiment. When comparing watching to playing videogames does realism affect levels of aggression?

Analysis showed no main effect of realism on participants’ aggression. Participants that played the high realism game showed aggression totals (M = 41.95, SD = 8.86) similar to both participants that interacted with the medium realism game (M = 37.58, SD = 8.87), and participants that interacted with the low realism game (M = 37.66, SD = 9.81), F(2,115) = 2.756, p

= .068. This result is shown in Figure 8.

Was there a Difference in Pretest to Posttest Aggression Scores as a Function of Realism?

20 for Aggression 0

MeanDifference Scores Low (Scott Pilgrim) Medium (Double High (Virtua Fighter) Dragon) Level of Realism

Figure 8. Shows the difference in aggression totals between the three levels of realism when collapsed across activity type (playing/watching). Is there an interaction between Type of Activity and Realism on level of aggression? The analysis showed no interaction between Activity Type (playing, watching) and Realism (high, medium, low) in regards to participants’ aggression total, F(2,115) = .774, p = .464. This result is shown in Figure 9.

Aggression Totals as a Function of Activity Type and Levels of Realism

40 Watched the Game Played the Game

20 Aggression Aggression Totals 0 Low (Scott Pilgrim) Medium (Double High (Virtua Fighter) Dragon) Level of Realism

Figure 9. Shows the interaction between activity type (playing/watching) and level of realism (low, medium, and high) in regards to aggression totals.

SECTION 4

DISCUSSION

Taken independently, the results of Study 1 would indicate that interacting with violent videogames (both playing and watching) does not actually affect a person’s aggression. The results of the two studies taken together indicate that neither watching nor playing a moderately- violent videogame seem to have any real impact on a person’s post-play level of aggression.

The result of study 2 seems to show that using a pretest/posttest paradigm might not be feasible for this field of research. In their 2010 Meta-analysis, Anderson et al. defend the lack of a pre-test/post-test paradigm in the research by saying the very nature of measuring aggression before and after creates an issue in regards to the accuracy of your measurement. The order effects found in both Studies 1 and 2 would indicate that collecting self-reported measures of aggression twice may not be a viable method of accounting for aggression.

Theoretical Implications

The results of study 1 seem to provide support for those who argue that playing violent videogames has no real effect on aggression. The absence of either a main effect of interaction type or level of realism combined with no significant post-hoc effects imply that the finding of significant effects in prior research may be due to the tasks they use to measure aggression and the lack of pre/posttest comparisons. The main implication of this research is that we might not have to worry about interacting with violent videogames.

The results of the two studies seem to contradict what you would expect to find based off of either the GAM, or the Social Learning Theory. Each theory states that people become more aggressive when exposed to violent media, so it would be expected that the participants’ aggression would be higher after interaction with a moderately-violent videogame took place,

but this was not the case. Those who played a game did not show any increase at all while those who watched a game had a slight decrease in aggression. The results imply that simply interacting with violent media may not directly affect aggression. However, being asked about aggression twice might!

Practical Applications

The current research is important for practical reasons. This study tested the claims of prior researchers that playing violent videogames can increase a person’s aggression through the use of a pre/posttest design. Participants who played a moderately-violent videogame did not become more aggressive after playing the game than at their baseline measure. Therefore, it may not prove necessarily true that exposure to violent media has any direct impact on aggression. In addition, the results of this present research did not validate the implications made in other studies on whether exposure to violent videogames can actually make people more aggressive.

The current research also attempted to investigate the effects of watching violent videogames on aggression. Contrary to predictions, participants who watched a moderately- violent videogame did not show more aggression on their posttest than on their pretest measurement. Therefore, this study supports the idea that perhaps we do not need to worry about the effects of ‘second-hand gaming”. Apparently, watching moderately-violent videogame play does not raise levels of aggression.

The current research also intended to contribute to research on the effect realism plays in violent videogames and aggression. The results indicate, that making videogames look more realistic will not likely exacerbate the effects that violent videogame exposure has on aggression.

Limitations and Future Research

Participants in this study were taken from the student pool at the University. Therefore,

the results of this study might not be directly applicable to populations other than college students. Also, these results are limited to people 18 years or older. Due to this age restriction, it would be ill advised to directly apply these predicted results to adolescents or children.

The results may be limited to the particular system that was used in this study.

Participants in this study who played a videogame played exclusively on the X-BOX 360 console. This system is very different from other systems in regards to not only the controller, but also possibly in the culture/associations tied to this particular gaming console. It is possible that differences in the X-BOX 360 controller and those of other consoles could lead to different results. Since I used this particular console as a control to eliminate potential confounds that could potentially arise due to differences amongst the different consoles, the results obtained might not be applicable to all videogame consoles.

Another limitation of this study lies in the solitary use of videogames specifically from the fighting genre. It is possible that the fighting genre may bring about different results in regards to aggression than other videogame genres such as first person shooters, platformers, racing, and puzzle games would. Since I used videogames specifically from the fighting genre to control for potential conflicts due to differences between various genres of videogames, the results obtained might not be applicable to other genres of videogames.

The most prominent limitation of this study lies with the results of a significant order effect found in Study 2. Results may not extend beyond this study to other studies using different methods to measure aggression. Future research may need to refine a more accurate method of designing a pretest and posttest measures of aggression.

Another limitation is that a participant’s level of identifying with the characters they play/watch may influence their aggression. Future research is needed to address this potential

issue.

We need to continue studying the effects of interacting with videogames because children and young adults alike are not only playing them, but are also watching others play them.

Videogames are a very popular medium and if playing these games can make a gamer more aggressive than parents could unintentionally be causing a great deal of harm to their children. If watching videogames could raise aggression than sites like YouTube.com may end up having a significant detrimental effect on those gamers who frequent the site. The need to not only continue research into the possible negative effects of playing violent videogames, but the uninvestigated potential harms of watching violent videogames remains vital do to the possible harm to not only this generation of gamers, but to future generations as well.

REFERENCES

Aldachi, P. J. C., Good, M., & Willoughby, T. (2012). A longitudinal study of the association between violent video game play and aggression among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 48 (4), 1044-1057.

Anderson, C.A., & Bartholow, B.D. (2002). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: Potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283- 290.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359.

Anderson, C.A., Bushman, B. J., & Carnagey, N. L. (2007). The effects of video game violence on physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43 (3), 489-496.

Anderson, C. A., Bushman, B. J., DeWall, C. N. (2011). The general aggression model: Theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 1 (3), 245-258.

Anderson, C. A., Bushman, B. J., Ihori, N., Rothstein, H. R., Sakamoto, A., Saleem, M., Shibuya, A., & Swing, E. L. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 151-173.

Anderson,C.A., & Dill, K.E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.

Anderson, C.A., & Murphy, C.R. (2003). Violent video games and aggressive behavior in young women. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 423-429.

Anderson, C.A., & Swing, E.L. (2007).The unintended negative consequences of exposure to violent video games. Cognitive Technology, 12, 3-13.

Bandura, A. (2006). Social learning theory of aggression. Journal of Communication, 28, (3), 12- 28.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (3), 575-582.

Bijvank, M. N., Bushman, B. J., & Konijn, E. A. (2007). I wish I were a warrior: The role of wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent boys. Developmental Psychology, 43 (4), 1038-1044.

Biocca, F. A., Bohil, C. J., & Jeong, E. J. (2012). Sensory realism and mediated aggression in video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1840-1848.

Bryant, F. B., & Smith, B. D. (2001). Refining the architecture of aggression: A measurement model for the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 138-167.

Busching, R., Krahe´, B., & Möller, I. (2012). Media violence use and aggression among German adolescents: Associations and trajectories of change in a three-wave longitudinal study. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1 (3), 152-166.

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 452–459.

Cruz, A. M., Ferguson, C. A., Ferguson, D. E., Fritz, S., Rueda, S. M., & Smith, S. M. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35 (3), 311-332.

Dailymail. (2008, August 4). Grand Theft Auto pulled from sale after Bangkok teen murders taxi driver 'to see if it was as easy as in the game'. Retrieved September 13, 2013, from http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041407/Grand-Theft-Auto-pulled-sale- Bangkok-teen-murders-taxi-driver-easy-game.html

Dyck, D., & Ferguson, C. J. (2012). Paradigm change in aggression research: The time has come to retire the general aggression model. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 17, 220-228.

Entertainment Software Rating Board (n.d.) Rating Information. Retrieved December 4th, 2012 from http://www.esrb.org/ratings/search.jsp

Farrar, K. M., Krcmar, M., & McGloin, R. (2011). The effects of video game realism on attention, retention and aggressive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 432- 439.

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and over interpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 174-178.

Funnycatsandnicefish. (2013, Feb 11). Cutest Cat Moments. Top 20 Kitten and Cat Hugs [Video File]. Retrieved on July 16, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLcwC66_- No&list=FLJU-tvy92SMWpIX5tmPY5jg

IGN. (2013, July 8). Mortal Kombat – EVO 2012 Grand Finals [Video file]. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SNI8NN0roek

ImAnderZEL. (n.d.). AnderZEL King of PC Gaming [Video file]. Retrieved April 30, 2013, from http://www.youtube.com/user/ImAnderZEL

It Law Wiki. (n.d.). Wilson v. Midway Games. Retrieved September 13, 2013, from http://itlaw.wikia.com/wiki/Wilson_v._Midway_Games

LevelCapGaming. (n.d.). LevelCap – Tactical Shooter [Video file]. Retrieved April 30, 2012, from http://www.youtube.com/user/LevelCapGaming?feature=fvst

The Escapist. (2009, January 19). "Mortal Kombat Murderer" gets 36 years. Retrieved September 13, 2013, from http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.84490- Mortal-Kombat-Murderer-Gets-36-Years

Uhlmann, E., & Swanson, J. (2004). Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 27 (1), 41-52.

Appendix A: Demographic Questionnaire

Age_____

Gender: (Male/Female)

Is English your Primary language? (Yes/No)

If English is not your primary language, then at what age did you start reading/writing in English? _____ years old

Please list all languages that you can speak, read, and write fluently.

Write Answer Here:______

______

What culture do you most identify with as your own?

Write Answer Here:______

______

What ethnicity do you identify yourself as?

Write Answer Here:______

______

How competitive are you when playing sports/games? (mark only one)

____Not competitive

____Somewhat competitive

____Very competitive

On average how many hours a week do you play videogames?

1) ____I do not generally play videogames 2) ____Less than 5 hours per week 3) ____Between 5 and 10 hours per week 4) ____Between 11 and 20 hours per week 5) ____More than 20 hours per week Which of the following is the MAIN system that you play videogames on (mark only one)

I do not play Computer with ______videogames keyboard Computer with ______Playstation3 ______controller

______Nintendo Wii ______Nintendo DS/3DS

______X-BOX 360 ______Playstation Vita/PSP

______Cellphone/Tablet ______Other (specify below)

(Other

System)______

For each of the following games please indicate how familiar you are with it by placing an X in the box that best applies.

I have never I have played I play/used to I play/ used to I play/ used to played this this game play this play this play this game. once or twice. game at least game at least game almost once a month. once a week. daily. Mortal Kombat Halo 4

World of Warcraft Skyrim

Double Dragon Neon Doom 3

Farmville

Virtua Fighter 5 Wii Sports

Scott Pilgrim vs. the World Angry Birds

Epic Mickey 2 Call of Duty Black Ops 2 Pokémon Black/White 2

Appendix B: Aggression Questionnaires

List of questions from both the pretest and posttest Aggression surveys

Pretest Questions

1) I have threatened to hit people I know. 2) I feel utterly useless. 3) I often find myself disagreeing with people. 4) I sleep most of the day. 5) I have trouble controlling my temper. 6) I cry over every little thing. 7) I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers. 8) I expect the best from life. 9) Given enough provocation, I may hit another person. 10) I often feel afraid as if something awful might happen. 11) I can’t help getting into disagreements when people argue with me. 12) I generally think in a positive manner. 13) I flare up quickly but get over it quickly. 14) I feel that better things are coming. 15) At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.  The 8 red items are items used to measure the baseline level of aggression for the participant, the 7 black items simply serve as distracters masking the nature of what is being measured.

Posttest Questions

1) If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will. 2) I feel sad most of the time. 3) I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them. 4) I can’t get any pleasure from the things I used to enjoy. 5) When frustrated, I let my irritation show. 6) I think very optimistically about my future. 7) Other people always seem to get the breaks. 8) I have trouble making any decision. 9) There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows. 10) I am irritable most of the time. 11) My friends say that I am argumentative. 12) I have lost all interest in sex. 13) Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason. 14) I find it hard to concentrate on anything. 15) When people are especially nice, I wonder what they want.  The 8 red items are items used to measure the level of aggression for the participant following exposure; the 7 black items simply serve as distracters masking the nature of what is being measured.