FOREIGN

[1]

The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior and the

Relationship to School Shootings David Bond University of South Florida
Thesis Director. Objectives The impact of playing violent video games on the
manifestation of aggressive behaviors in young people is controversial. The
objectives of this research project were as follows: (1) to review scientific
studies of the effects of violent video games on aggressiveness; and (2) to
examine the evidence that playing violent video games plays a role in the
behaviors of school shooters. Video games occupied a large amount of my
time as a child, and I found that the experience of playing largely nonviolent
games was a cognitively stimulating exercise that increased my perceptual-
motor, learning, memory, problem-solving, and executive functioning
abilities and skills. As an adult, I have been fascinated by public beliefs that
violent video games are related to assaultive and sometimes lethal behaviors
(1), and I wanted to examine the evidence touted in the media that playing
violent video games may contribute to aggressive behavior. II. Background
and Significance A. Growth of Video Game Industry The video game industry
has evolved into a dominant player in the entertainment industry, and video
games of all genres have quickly become one of the most popular forms of
media (3). The average age of video game players has increased to age 34
(4), and about 60% of Americans play interactive games on a regular basis
(2). However, researchers suspect that younger children are more
susceptible to the negative effects of playing violent video games compared
to older teenagers and adults (5). Furthermore, games that include violence
have raised serious concerns among parents, educators, medical
professionals, and policy makers about their potentially harmful effects on
abnormal child development and behavior (6). Public concerns about youth
violence, including school shootings, have escalated since the 1999
Columbine shootings in Littleton, Colorado (2). Table 1 provides a timeline for
the evolution of video games with increasing violent content. Many violent
games became popular in the years prior to Columbine, including Doom and
Resident Evil, two games well-known for their use of guns, brutality and gore.
The two Columbine perpetrators, Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris, were fans of
Doom (7), and many media features speculated about a connection between
playing the violent game and the massacre. 4 Following Columbine,
President Bill Clinton ordered the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to conduct
a study, and the results were critical of practices in the video game industry.
Many companies were marketing games with parental warnings or age
restrictions to children, and the marketing plans of some companies included
children ages 12-17 in their Mature (M) video products (6). Implementation
of study recommendations to monitor and restrict sales to children
significantly reduced their availability. Children were able to buy "M" games
85% of the time in 2000, that number was reduced to 20% in 2010 (8).
Although only 5% of games released in 2010 were given the "M" rating,
those same "M" games accounted for 26% of video games sales. The
popularity of these "M" titles is disturbing, because it is likely that children
are playing them without adult supervision, even if they did not buy them
directly. C. Impact of Violent Video Games on Young Players Video games,
including those with violence, have become a significant pastime of children
and adolescents. They may provide an escape from school work and social
activities with family and peers (5), or they may offer opportunities to display
gaming proficiencies, increase cognitive skills, and promote self-confidence.
Violent video games may also have negative consequences for youth with
aggressive or violent tendencies who find these games enjoyable, especially
when they actively allow the player to play active killer roles with blood and
gore. Significant increases in computer processing speed have led to
graphic realism that makes the video game appear very real (1). Over the
past several decades, the association between playing video games and the
emergence of violence in young people has been controversial in the
scientific and political 5 communities. A body of research suggests that
violent video games cause short term and/or long term increases in
aggression and violent behavior, whereas a substantial set of research
studies indicate that violent video games do not cause increases in
aggressiveness or may be associated with changes in certain individuals
under specific circumstances. However, media stories of school shootings
and related violence over the years have reported violent video game
involvement when known and have often attributed this activity to violent
events. D. Medical and Professional Association Policies Policy statements by
a number of medical and advocacy organizations have generally expressed
serious concern about the negative effects of violent video games on young
people. The policy statement by the American Academy of Child &
Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) states that video game content may not only
lead to potentially dangerous behavior, but also that the act of playing these
games minimizes healthy social interactions with family and friends as well
involvement in hobbies, sports, and activities in and out of school. The
AACAP also reviews the content of individual video games, helping parents
decide which games to allow their children to play. The American Academy of
Pediatrics (AAP) has stated concerns about the negative effect of playing all
video games for long periods of time on the ability of youth and young adults
to pay attention. The AAP recommends that parents monitor video game
content, limit the time children devote to these game activities, and
encourage interaction with friends when video games are played. The AAP
has also taken the position that violent video games are harmful to children
and that exposure should be limited. 6 The American Medical Association
(AMA) has expressed concerns that video games are not properly rated and
that violent games have potentially harmful effects, but the AMA has not
make a definitive recommendation about the effects of violent video games.
The Constitutional Rights Foundation has issued a statement that rates of
school violence are directly related to higher rates of community violence.
Environmental and social variables are more potent mediators of aggression
in contrast to the personal behaviors of young people playing individual
video games (9). III. Methods and Procedures The following procedures were
used to examine the evidence for the impact of violent video games on
aggression in youth, including the violence and lethal behaviors of young
school shooters: (1) a review of journal data bases, including PSYCHINFO, and
PubMed, to retrieve articles from 1999 through 2011 using the following
keywords: Violent video games, aggressive behavior and video games, and
school shooters; (2) a search for national media reports from 1999-2011
using Lexus-Nexus; and (3) a review of articles recommended by committee
members. IV. Results A. Research Models Two models have emerged as
useful to examine the effects of violent video games on behavior: the GAM
(General Aggression Model) and the Catalyst models. The GAM framework
posits that violent video games teach adolescents to be violent by learning
violent thoughts through repetition. Repetition forms violent cognitive
scripts, and when presented with a situation, persons playing violent games
act more violently or interpret nonviolent situations in 7 violent ways (10).
Also, since most video games are based on a reward system that reinforces
learning, violent video games reward players for being successful in violent
tasks (6). Exposure to violent video games increases physiological arousal as
well as aggressive thoughts, emotions, actions, and decreases positive social
behavior (11). The Catalyst Model proposes that persons who are prone to
violence because of other biopsychosocial variables will be catalyzed or
stimulated to enjoy the violence in video games. The violent video game
does not cause them to become violent (10). The model also predicts that
those individuals with preexisting risk factors for violence might be pushed
"over the edge" because of violent video games and choose violence as a
valid solution to problems. B. Research Findings A meta-analysis of research
articles by Anderson based on 130 reports including more than 130,000
subjects of both genders, all ages, and various races and ethnicities
supported the GAM model. The analysis concluded that exposure to violent
video games is associated with more aggression and less compassion in
children regardless of age, sex, or culture. Violent video games were a causal
risk factor for increased aggressive thoughts and behaviors, decreased
empathy, and antisocial behavior. Anderson proposed that that exposure to
violent video games was a factor that could be controlled by parental
involvement, in contrast to other risk factors for violence that are difficult to
change, including genetic factors, family environment, and poverty (10).
However, a number of studies contradict the findings of Andersons meta-
analysis (12). Other investigators reported no correlation between playing
violent video games and increased aggression levels, whereas others
suggested that violent video games only caused increased 8 aggression in
subjects who scored in the top quartile of trait aggression on psychological
tests (3). A wide variety of other factors are more important antecedents of
aggression than violent video games, including child abuse and neglect,
victimization, bullying, drug and alcohol abuse, exposure to violence in the
home, neurobiological indicators, low socioeconomic status, and access to
guns (3, 5, 8, 10) Christopher Ferguson, a prominent researcher in the field
who has been critical of Craig Anderson's position, has argued that many of
the studies included in the meta-analysis had statistically marginal
significance, were methodologically flawed, lacked valid measures of
aggression, or were not published in peer-reviewed journals (13). One
researcher emphasized the importance of using standardized measures of
aggression (12). Important questions remain unanswered in the studies to
date: "If violent video games translate to violent thoughts, do those thoughts
translate into violent actions? Are the violent thoughts associated with the
violence in the context of video games or are they associated with violence
toward other people in real life?" Some researchers have suggested that
violent video games are a risk factor, not a causal factor. Indeed, many other
variables, such as substance abuse, are likely more important. High school
students who use alcohol and illegal drugs have been reported to be at least
three times more likely to get into fights and twice as likely to bring weapons
to school (20). Several investigators have examined the relationship of
cynical shyness to lethal violence. Carducci and Nethery (14) studied eight
young men who committed seven deadly school shootings between 1995
and 2004 and concluded that they all displayed characteristics of "cynical
shyness." The term refers to a specific type of shyness seen in a small
percentage of 9 shy individuals who try very hard to develop relationship
with others but are rejected, resulting in rage and loss of empathy for others
that can end in violent acts such as school shootings. Most people who are
shy do not respond with anger, but some shy persons who want attention
from others and are rebuffed, isolate themselves, become angry and
frustrated, and make plans to get back at those who hurt them. According to
Philip Zimbardo (15) "Cynical shyness makes sense in that a constant feeling
of being rejected can lead to fantasies of retaliation;" In the case of the
school shooters, "it's not simply revenge against the bully, it's revenge that
gets generalized to all people who in any way have slighted you." Douglas
Gentile (16), who has studied the impact of media on children and adults,
including the effects of video games on physiology and behavior, has argued
that violent video games cause increased arousal, aggressive thoughts and
feelings, aggressive behavior, and decreased socially appropriate behavior.
Gentile has interpreted the inverse relationship between the increased
number of violent video games and decreases in school-associated violent
deaths (Table 2) with a variety of psychosocial factors in the period 2000
through 2010. improved economic conditions, laws, gun availability, and
longer prison sentences. He also He has argued that school shootings result
from highly extreme behaviors by perpetrators who have many risk factors
for lethal violence, including violent video games (16). C. Secret
Service/Department of Education Safe School Initiative Study The United
States Secret Service in conjunction with the Department of education
published a comprehensive report targeting 37 incidents of school shootings
and attacks from the earliest known event in 1974 through June 2000 (17).
The results showed that children in grades 9 through 12 had a 7-8% chance
of being threatened or injured with a weapon and a 10 15% chance of
getting into a physical fight. The likelihood that a child would die or commit
suicide in school was only 1 in a million. However, each school attack has
dramatic, long-lasting effects on the school and community where the
violence occurs, leading to increased fear and increased risk for mental
health problems in students, parents, and school employees. The report
concluded that there were no accurate or useful profiles to describe students
who engaged in school shootings. Although all perpetrators were male, there
were no other common characteristics. Most were doing well in school and
had friends. Only one-third considered themselves to be loners, and nearly
half participated in social activities in or out of school. Only one-third has
records of behavioral problems and 10% had been expelled from school.
Most attackers showed no change in academic performance, friendship
patterns, interest in school, or school disciplinary problems prior to their
attack. However, many attackers felt bullied, persecuted or injured by others
prior to the attack, and over 50% described revenge as a motive for killing.
More than half showed interest in violent movies. Most attackers had no prior
history of violence or criminal behavior, but some had a record of being
arrested. A common theme among 95% of the offenders was to harm their
targets before the attack took place. The most unfortunate fact mentioned in
the report was that in 81% of the attacks, at least one other person had
information about the plan to attack the school. The Chicago Sun-Times
investigation (18) of the 37 school shootings using public information
emphasized the conclusions of the Secret Service/Department of Education
report that although the majority of school shooters showed interest in
violent media of all types, not just violent video games, there is no predictive
profile of sociodemographic, psychological, and 11 behavioral
characteristics. School shooters come from different racial and ethnic groups,
family structures, and income levels. Many of the shooters imagined violence
as a way to solve their perceived problems, such as being bullied, school
reprimands, peer rejection, family problems, and other relationship issues.
Shootings and attacks were premeditated and carefully planned, often for
months or even years, and targets, whether principals, teachers, students,
and/or family members, were clearly identified. The Chicago Times echoed
the recommendations of the Secret Service/Education study that most school
shootings could be prevented if staff were trained to recognize potentially
dangerous students and talk with them about getting help to deal with their
anger and grievances, such as bullying, and if students were educated and
used effectively as resources in prevention. Evan Ramsey, a school shooter
from Alaska who killed his principal, said that if the principal had called him
in, he would have "told him the truth." V. Discussion A number of different
research designs have been used to dateintensive clinical studies of young
perpetrators of school shootings and attacks, laboratory studies with
biopsychosocial measures, cross-sectional studies of subjects with
psychological measures, and a few much needed longitudinal studies. Most
studies have been designed to examine shortterm changes in aggression,
which may have little if any predictive accuracy for aggressive and/or violent
behaviors in the real world. Researchers on both sides of the controversy
agree about the need for longitudinal studies to see the long-term effects of
playing violent video games (2). As of 2006, only two longitudinal studies
have been conducted (19). Researchers also agree about the importance of
12 studies that examine the additive and multiplicative effects of many risk
factors for perpetrators of school shootings. Some researchers have
expressed concerns that laboratory research does not adequately elucidate
the social context of game play (1, 13). The social aspects of video games
have changed significantly since Columbine. There has been a major
transition from single players games to multiplayer and co-op game styles.
At least 60% of gamers play with friends and at least 25% play with their
spouse or family members (2). Therefore, it is possible that video games,
even those with some violent content that once favored exclusivity now
promote friendship and family bonding (5). It is possible that playing violent
video games only has a negative effect on children during stressed during
specific developmental periods or on children who have other significant risk
factors for dangerous and lethal behaviors. Although many youth who
engaged in violent school events were video game players, most also had
maladaptive personality traits and characteristics (3). With over 90% of
children exposed to video games of some kind (4), it is likely that any single
school shooter has played video games. However, since most individuals
exposed to violent video games do not display assaultive or lethal violence in
the real world, other factors are probably have causative effects. These may
include a stressful, disrupted, and/or abusive family life, poverty, negative
peer group influence, and bullying. Scientific evidence does not always
translate into effective public policy, but it is an important consideration (19).
My belief is that the public policy for violent video games should be similar to
that for smoking: educate society on the potential negative effects and
restrict access to minors. More research with longitudinal designs including
multiple risk factors should 13 be a priority, but the research to date is not
conclusive. Regardless of the antecedent/causal role of violent video games,
we should use our available knowledge to prevent school violence. This
should be a national priority.
 [2]

Violent Video Games and the Social Learning Theory: Conflicting Evidence Many
studies have investigated the effect of violent video games on aggression based on
the social learning theory; the results have been inconclusive. A study by Anderson
and Dill (2000) had students play a violent and a neutral video game, and
afterwards, they engaged in a competitive reaction time task. The goal of this task
was to push a button faster than your opponent; the loser received a loud noise
blast. Before the game began, the participant was asked to choose the loudness of
the noise blast his or her opponent would receive. There was no actual opponent in
this task, but the participant did not know that because the process was computer
based. Anderson and Dill(2000) found that participants who played a violent video
game acted more aggressively in the reaction time taskby choosing louder noise
blasts than the participants who played a neutral game. They also measured
participants aggressive thoughts right after playing the game and found that those
playing the aggressive game reported more aggressive and hostile thoughts. These
results provide support for social learning theory and the GAM because theysuggest
that violent video games affect cognition and create aggressive scripts, which then
may lead to aggressive behavior. While Anderson and Dills (2000) study focused on
short-term effects, a number of longitudinal studies have also been conducted.
Willoughby, Adachi and Good (2012) administered a survey to eight high schools
yearly from 2003 to 2008. The survey included questions about frequency of video
game play, violent video game use, aggression, deviance, and grades. Researchers
found that students who had sustained violent video game playing had the steepest
increase in aggressive behavior, even when controlling for otherpossible influences,
VIDEO GAMES AND BEHAVIOR 9 such as peer deviance. This suggests that the
effects of violent video games on aggression are not only short-term, especially if
their use is consistent and continuous. The results of this study provide support for
the social learning theory because it found that violent video game playing
precedes aggression. If playing violent video games came after aggressive
behavior, it would suggest that those who already have aggressive traits chose to
play more aggressive video games, but the opposite was true, suggesting the
students learned their aggressive behavior from playing violent video games.
(Willoughby, Adachi & Good, 2012). Another longitudinal study done by Ferguson,
San Miguel, Garza, and Jerabeck (2012) found the opposite results. Participants, who
were in middle school or high school, took a survey three times over a three-year
period. The survey included questions about violent video game play, negative life
events, and depression. They found that violent video game use was not related to
aggression; rather the best predictors of aggression were peer influence,
depression, family violence and antisocial personality traits. It is difficult to know
why the results of these two studies were so different. The study by Ferguson et al
(2012), however, was done over a slightly shorter period of time than the
Willoughby et al. (2012) study. It is possible that it takes longer than three years for
violent video games to show a significant effect. Additionally, violent video game
use was measured very differently. In the study done by Ferguson et al. (2012) they
asked participants to list their three favorite games and how often they played
them. It is possible some participants played violent video games, but did not report
it, and that some participants had more than three games they played often.
Willoughby et al.s (2012) study had participants indicate whether or not they
played different categories of games (e.g. Action/Adventure or Strategy) and the
frequency of play. The measures of aggression were also different; Ferguson et al
(20120) measured more serious aggression than Willoughby et al (2012). In fact, it
has been VIDEO GAMES AND BEHAVIOR 10 suggested that video games affect less
serious aggression more than extreme acts of aggression, such as school shootings,
because they must involve many risk factors (Carey, 2013).Most importantly, there
was no sustained violent video game use variable in the study done by Ferguson et
al. (2012), when that was the variable most significantly related to aggression in
Willoughby et al.s (2012) study. A recent meta-analysis by Anderson et al. (2010)
looked at theeffect of video game use on aggression in Western countries and
Japan. They found that there was a significant causal effect; playing aggressive
video games increases aggressive behavior, cognition and affect and decreases
empathy and prosocial behavior. These results remained the same when selection
bias was controlled for. However, Ferguson and Kilburn (2010)claimed that Anderson
et al. (2010) did not sufficiently control for selection bias because many studies did
not involve serious enough aggression and some unpublished studies were
included. They also claimed that even without these methodological issues, the
effectsize of the relationship between aggression and video game usewas very
small.Ferguson and Kilburn (2010) also show that video game sales have been
steadily increasing, while youth violence has been decreasing. However, they did
not take into account the fact that most video game players are older than
eighteen, so the decreasing youth violence may not be as relevant as they claim
(Entertainment Software Association, 2013). Other published studies provide
support the validity of Anderson et al.s (2010)original results and methods and
claim even the small effect size found in their study has significant implications, as
it is similar to other risk factors for aggressive behavior such as substance abuse
and poverty (Huesmann, 2010; Bushman, Rothstein & Anderson, 2010). VIDEO
GAMES AND BEHAVIOR 11 Differentiating Between Competitive and Violent Video
Games Several studies have investigated the question of whether competitiveness
or violence in video games causes aggression. Adachi and Willoughby (2011) had
participants play one of four video games. Two of the games were violent and two of
them were non-violent. One of the violent games and one of the non-violent games
were competitive and the other two were not. After the participants finished playing
the game, they competed in the Hot Sauce Paradigm, which involved choosing the
level of hot sauce to give to their opponent. The results showed that those who
played the two competitive games acted significantly more aggressive than those
who played the two non-competitive games. There was no difference between the
two competitive video games or the two non-competitive video games, even though
one was violent and the other was not. This suggests that it is competitiveness that
fosters aggression rather than violence. However, a study by Anderson and
Carnagey (2009)found the opposite outcome: those who played violent video games
acted more aggressively than those who played competitive ones. However, there
were no non-competitive games because all games used were sports related. Those
who played a more violent sports game displayed more aggressive cognitions and
physiological arousal than those who played a non-violent one. The differences
observed between these two studies could be a result of the different types of
outcome measures. Adachi and Willoughby (2011) measured aggressive behavior,
while Anderson and Carnagey (2009) measured aggressive cognition. It could be
that violent video gamesincrease aggressive cognitions, but are less related to
aggressive behavior, at least in the short-term. Video Games and Aggression:
Alternative Theories Even though social learning theory is most often used to
explain the effects of violent video game use on aggression, alternative theories do
exist, such as the catharsis hypothesis, VIDEO GAMES AND BEHAVIOR 12 which is
based on the idea thataggression is biologically inherent in all people and that it can
be displaced in healthy and unhealthy ways(Feshbach, 1984). The catharsis
hypothesis suggests playing video games is a healthy way to vent aggression and,
therefore, individuals feel calmer and less hostile after they play. Another
alternative theory is that the mood management theory, which states that playing
video games is not related to aggression at all. Rather they are simply used as a
leisure tool to cope with stress (Ferguson and Rueda, 2010). While very little
research has been done on these theories, one study by Ferguson and Rueda (2010)
attempted to compare the two theories. Participants completed a frustration task
before playing one of four video games of differing levels of violence (from very
violent to nonviolent). Afterwards, they measured aggression using the competitive
reaction time task and depression and hostile feelings. They found no link between
playing violent video games and aggression, but playing violent video games did
decrease depression and hostile feelings. This provided confirmation for themood
management theory rather than the catharsis hypothesis. Support for the catharsis
hypothesis would have existed, if those who played the violent game acted less
aggressively than those who played the neutral one. Although, because the results
were only correlational, more research needs to be conducted before a definitive
conclusion about these alternative theories can be asserted. Prosocial Behavior
More recently, researchers have begun to study the effect of playing video games
on prosocial behavior. Prosocial behavior includes a wide collection of behaviors that
are viewed as beneficial to others by society or ones social group. Studies have
suggested that there is a genetic predisposition for prosocial behavior and that it
may be evolutionarily advantageous. For example, if one acts altruistically towards
a stranger, it is likely he or she will act altruistically in VIDEO GAMES AND BEHAVIOR
13 return. One theory of how prosocial behaviors occur is based on social learning
theory and suggests that people develop helping behaviors through socialization
and observational learning (Penner, Dovidio, Piliavin & Schroeder, 2005). While not
directly applied to the effect of video games on prosocial behavior, it is reasonable
to postulate that the social learning theory underlies the development of prosocial
behavior. Evidence That Playing Prosocial Video Games Increases Prosocial Behavior
Greitemeyer, Osswald and Brauer (2010) had participants play a prosocial game or
a neutral game. Afterwards, they were asked to read three vignettes or personal
essays about something bad happening to someone and to report how empathetic
they felt towards the author of the essay and whether or not they experienced
pleasure from reading about anothers pain (schadenfreude). Their predictions were
confirmed; those who played the prosocial game reported feeling more empathy
and less schadenfreude after reading the vignettes than those who played the
neutral game. Gentile et al. (2009) gave out a survey to Japanese fifth graders twice
during a four-month time spanabout prosocial video game exposure and prosocial
game use. Their results were similar to those of Greitemeyer, Osswald and Brauer
(2010); prosocial gaming and prosocial behavior at time one, was correlated with
prosocial gaming and prosocial behavior at time two. This is evidence that there
may be a bidirectional relationship between prosocial video game use and prosocial
behavior, meaning that prosocial gaming increases prosocial behavior and vice
versa. Some studies have focused on how prosocial video games increase prosocial
thoughts, since previous studies have shown that playing aggressive video games
may increase aggressive thoughts (e.g. Anderson & Dill, 2000). A study by
Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010) had participants play a prosocial game or a
neutral game and then asked them to write down all of the VIDEO GAMES AND
BEHAVIOR 14 things they were thinking about while playing the game. They found
that those who played the prosocial game reported having more prosocial thoughts
than those who played the neutral game. What this study did not test was whether
these prosocial thoughts continued after the game was finished. Greitemeyer and
Osswald (2011) followed up with another study where participants were told they
would take part in two pilot studies, one about the enjoyment of classic computer
games and another about recognizing words. The two studies were actually related.
After playing either a prosocial or a neutral game they were tested on the speed
they could recognize words that were prosocial or neutral in nature. The participants
who played prosocial video game responded faster to prosocial target words than to
neutral words or non-words. This suggests that playing prosocial video games
increases an individuals ability to access prosocial thoughts. This is important
because if these prosocial thoughts are repeatedly accessed through prosocial video
game play,they may create and strengthen prosocial scripts, which may then lead
to prosocial behavior, similar to the way aggressive games may increase aggressive
behavior according to the GAM.

[3]

Effects of Video Games on Aggressive Thoughts and Behaviors During Development

In the past 30 years, video games have had a major impact on how people
spend their leisure time. The first generation of video games were nothing
more than simple geometric shapes, one or more of which could be
controlled by the game player. With the release of the Nintendo
Entertainment System in the 1980s and Sony's Playstation in the 1990s
came new generations of games, with better graphics and more capabilities.
Until the recent resurgence in interest in video games in the past decade,
research on the topic was minimal. The greatest recent contribution has
been Anderson and Bushman's (2002) general aggression model (GAM),
which explains both the development of aggression and individual
differences in susceptibility to the influence of violent video games. Because
of the many biological and physical changes that occur during puberty,
exposure to violent games should affect the processes that operate within
the GAM. In order to control the effects of video game violence, one must
first understand the effect it has on the brain, including in the areas of
aggression and hostility.

In the past 30 years, video games have had a major impact on how people
spend their leisure time. The first generation of video games were nothing
more than simple geometric shapes, one or more of which could be
controlled by the game player. Each generation of games always uses the
newest technologies available, leading to more impressive graphics and
realism. Along with these new technologies come more realistic violent acts
and situations. Also with each new generation of video games, people are
spending more time and money on them. In this article the term video
games will be used to define any interactive multimedia in which the human
game player has control over the main "character" in a simulated game
world. This can include all types of video games such as those played on
arcade machines (like the Tekken series), home consoles (like
Sony's Playstation), hand-held consoles (like Nintendo's Gameboy) and
personal computers (like the Doom series).

The video game industry has grown by leaps and bounds since it's inception
in the 1970s. One of the industry's giants, Nintendo, sold an average of three
games every second from 1983 to 1995. That adds up to over one billion
games. That is equal to one game for every teenager on earth, or enough
games that, laid end to end, scan the entire equator two and a half times
("Nintendo sells one billionth game," 1995). An industry war has begun to
see who can build the newest, fastest, most popular game.

The explosion of the video game industry in the past decade has had many
people questioning the content of the games being released. The main
concern is that of violence and violent acts within the games. The newest
generation of games is so realistic that the line between "simulations" and
video games has greatly been blurred. They are so realistic that the United
States government has even released a game, entitled America's Army, to
help train the next generation of military specialists. In the late 1990's a
large number of high-school shootings were blamed on violent video games,
the most devastating being the shooting at Columbine High School in
Colorado in 1999. These shootings raise a valid concern that violent video
games may be affecting the aggression of children and developing
adolescents.

The term aggression is very general and can refer to and influence a large
number of personality traits and behaviors. Connor, Steingard, Cunningham,
Anderson, and Meloni (2004) defined two specific types of aggression.
Reactive aggression is an angry, defensive response to a threat or
frustration. An example of this would be getting revenge on someone that
has done you wrong. Proactive aggression is a deliberate behavior that is
controlled by external reinforcements and is usually a means of reaching a
desired goal. An example of this type would be robbing a bank to get money.
There have yet to be any studies that take into account these two specific
types, but most studies in the past have focused on both in some way.

A Brief History of Violence in Video Games

Video games made their first appearance in the early 1970s. The first
generation of games used simple shapes and had minimal interaction. The
first game, Pong, attempted to simulate ping pong using two rectangle's as
paddles, and a small square as the ball. The paddles could be controlled by a
human player. This game displayed no violent acts or situations though. The
first of popular games to be considered violent was Pac Man. This game
consisted of a small circle with a mouth that tried to eat pills and destroy
ghosts. Although this hardly seems violent by today's standards, it was one
of the first games to involve destruction of any kind.

With the release of the Nintendo Entertainment System in the 1980s and
Sony's Playstation in the 1990s came new generations of games, with better
graphics and more capabilities. Game developers were no longer as limited
by their media, and tried to simulate reality as best as possible. New
innovations in technology meant more realistic violence and gore. All these
new capabilities meant developers could focus more on details also. One
example is the game Soldier of Fortune, released in 2000 for the personal
computer. In this game each character has 26 "kill zones," or areas that the
character can be hit by a bullet (Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004). The
game also employs a first-person perspective, making it seem as though the
player is seeing through the eyes of the in-game character.

Past Research
Until the recent resurgence in interest in video games in the past decade,
research on the topic was minimal. There were few correlations found, and
several had conflicting results. There were three studies which used self
report data. Dominick (1984) found that the amount of video games played
had a positive correlation with one of three measures of aggression among
tenth and eleventh grade boys. However, Gibb, Bailey, Lambirth, and Wilson
(1983) found no relation in a larger study of 12-34 year olds. Another study
found a correlation between use of arcade games and teachers' ratings of
aggressiveness (Lin & Leper, 1987). Due to the conflicting results of these
studies, no conclusive correlations could be drawn. Most data seemed to
show a positive correlation between videogame play and aggression, yet
Gibb et al.'s (1983) study showed otherwise.

There were few experimental studies done on the topic at this time also.
Cooper and Mackie (1986) found fifth grade girls to be more aggressive in
one of two measures when playing a violent game versus a non-violent
game. This data however conflicted with Graybill's (1987) study of second
though sixth graders in which he found no greater aggression when playing a
violent versus non-violent game. Once again, due to the conflicting results,
no conclusive evidence could be drawn to help support that aggression and
videogame play are related.

Unfortunately these early studies were not much help in determining a

relationship between aggression and video games. These experimenters
helped to show that there was a relationship, but there was not enough
evidence to prove it strongly in either direction. With the resurgence of
interest in violent video games in the past decade, this has changed. This
resurgence has been due to a number of factors, but the greatest of which
has been the large number of high school shootings that have been blamed
on violence in the public media. There were over a dozen incidents of
violence, most involving death, that have been blamed on violent video
games between 1997 and 2003. These ranged from beating deaths to
shooting sprees to sniper shootings, and were not limited to the United
States.

Until this resurgence, research on the subject of video games was highly
lacking. Considering the amount of time young children and adolescents
spend playing them, much more research is needed. Recent contributions
have given us a much clearer understanding of the relationship between
aggression and video games. They have shown that the relationship may be
much more complex than originally thought. The greatest contribution in
recent years has been Anderson and Bushman's (2002) general aggression
model (GAM).

[4]

Research on Violent Video Games and Aggression: A Translation Although

less research has been done on the impact of violent interactive
entertainment (video games and other interactive media) on young people,
 preliminary studies indicate that the negative impact may be significantly
more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music. Joint
Statement by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Medical
Association, American Psychological Association, American Academy of Child
and Adolescent Psychiatry, American Academy of Family Physicians,
American Psychiatric Association (2000) Playing violent video games has
been found to account for a 13% to 22% increase in adolescents' violent
behavior; by comparison, smoking tobacco accounts for 14% of the increase
in lung cancer. Statement of American Academy of Pediatrics, Committee on
Public Education (2001) My research colleagues are correct in claiming that
high exposure to media violence is a major contributing cause of the high
rate of violence in modern U.S. society. Craig Anderson, PhD. Chair,
Department of Psychology, Iowa State University Video games are murder
simulators which over time, teach a person how to look another person in the
eye and snuff their life out. David Grossman, PhD, military training expert
(Claymon, 1999) Epidemiologists studying factors associated with violence,
including poverty, racial discrimination, substance abuse, inadequate
schools, joblessness and family dissolution found that exposure to violent
media was a factor in half of the 10,000 homicides committed each year.
Michael Rich (2000), MD, MPH, FAAP for the American Academy of Pediatrics
Based on the pronouncements of experts, video games would appear to be a
major health hazard in the United States. Experts claim that these murder
simulators and other violent media are a major contributing cause of the
high rate of violence in American society and are a factor in 5,000
homicides each year. In fact, video games negative impact may be
significantly more severe than that wrought by television, movies, or music.
Further, it would appear from the pronouncements made by experts that the
question of whether video game violence causes players to be aggressive is
settled. But upon what evidence are these conclusions based? This Violent
Video Games 3. paper peels back the curtain of academic discourse to reveal
the research the claims are based on. It is my hope that translating the
research from academic statistical language into a form in which all scholars,
politicians, parents, industry leaders, and others can understand will allow
the discussion of the consequences of these findings to proceed as fruitfully
as possible. In this paper, I attempt to make the literature clear; to tell
exactly what research has been done and how. What Exactly is the Literature
Telling Us? In this section, Ill attempt to demystify the statistics and
methodology underlying scholarly claims and attempt to communicate the
 consequences of game play as it applies to behavior effects in everyday life.
Before taking a close look at the research, it is important to understand the
research process and the philosophical ideas underlying social scientific
inquiry. Then, I examine three ways which are commonly used by researchers
to speak to different aspects of the relationship: association (Pearsons
product moment correlation coefficients), difference (Cohens d as a measure
of effect size), and comparative epidemiological evidence. In the course of
this article I will make reference to two studies in particular; both
metaanalyses of the violent video game literature (Anderson & Bushman,
2001; Sherry, 2001). Metaanalysis is a statistical method used summarize
overall findings across a large literature. Rather than looking at the results of
an individual study, which could be misleading, meta-analysis combines the
findings from all studies on that topic. This allows us to determine the overall
effect and to find trends within the studies that could be important for theory
building. Overall, Anderson & Bushman found an effect of r = .19 while I
found an effect of r = .15 (more on the meaning of these effects will follow).
On Method: Some Cautionary Notes In many ways, research on human
behavior is more difficult than research in the hard sciences such as physics,
chemistry, and biology. The main difficulty in doing social science Violent
Video Games 4. research is that the subject of the research, human beings,
cannot be manipulated as easily as molecules or photons due to ethical
considerations. We can design perfect experiments to understand human
behavior, but cannot execute these experiments. One colleague speaks of an
imaginary island on which we can perform any experimental manipulation of
people we want. On this island, we could run the ideal experiment to
understand the relationship between cigarette smoking and cancer. Groups
of a few thousand randomly chosen individuals would need to be taken from
their daily life and randomly assigned to one of several experimental
conditions: smoking 10 packs of cigarettes a day, smoking five packs a day,
smoking one pack a day, or no smoking. After 10 years of enforced smoking,
we could see whether people in the heavy smoking conditions had more
cancer than those assigned to the non-smoking condition. Fortunately for the
people who were forced into the heavy smoking condition, the island remains
imaginary. Because we dont have the ability to control all aspects of our
experiments, social scientists must approximate the types of laboratory
control that those in the hard sciences enjoy. Participants are recruited to
come to a lab on campus and act out situations that occur in real life such as
group interactions, persuasion attempts, or interacting with media. Most
 often, the participants in these experiments are college students because
they are most easily and inexpensively available. In the case of video game
research, the participants come to the lab to play video games. An obvious
problem is that game play in a university laboratory is not very similar to
game play in real life. First, the surroundings are not as comfortable as
home. In the lab, there are researchers directing behaviors including what
game to play and how long the game is played. Thus, media use becomes a
forced rather than voluntary activity. Typically, media is used with friends,
but friends are not allowed in the lab. In fact, game play often occurs with no
other person in the room. Violent Video Games 5. One way to get around the
artificiality of the lab is to conduct field research. Field research takes the
researcher out of the lab and into the real world where people are
interacting. There are a number of ways to do this. The most common type
of field research which has been done with video games research is the
survey. Surveys attempt to find trends among large numbers of people by
having them respond to a series of questions. In this way, they are able to
report every day behaviors and preferences. The disadvantage of surveys is
that the researcher loses control over a number of factors that are under
control in the laboratory. First, the researcher loses control of time order.
Even if there is a relationship between violent video game play and some
form of aggression, it is difficult to establish whether 1) video game play
causes individuals to act aggressively; 2) aggressive people like playing
video games; or 3) some other factor (e.g. personality) causes both violent
video game play and aggression. Second, there are any number of other
variables that could effect the way that participants respond to questions. In
the lab, the researcher can control time order (have the participants play the
game before measuring aggression) and other variables (by excluding them
from the lab). Key to the research process is clear definition. Words such as
violence or aggression can mean a number of different things to different
people. In fact, violence and aggression are commonly used
interchangeably in common conversation. For the social scientist, these
words have very different meanings, with violence often connoting a more
extreme form of aggression such as murder, physical assault with or without
a weapon, or rape. Therefore we would never conduct an experiment in
which we expected the subject to act violently. Instead, we use a variety of
measures of aggression or the willingness to hurt others. These measures
include paper and pen assessments of aggressive feelings, simulated
aggression such as willingness to administer electric shock or a noise blast,
 positive or negative ratings of a research associate, and verbal or physical
aggressiveness during free play. Further, the researcher must be Violent
Video Games 6. clear about what is meant by violent media. For example,
some past video game researchers have used Missile Command or Centipede
as the violent game while others have used Mortal Kombat. Certainly, there
are a number of factors that may be included in the definition of violent
media including the type of violence, use of weapons, amount of violence,
type of victim and perpetrator, and graphicness of the violence. A game like
Mortal Kombat depicts two human-like creatures fighting martial arts style
with weapons such as swords while Quake features a first person perspective
as the game player hunts humans characters with high powered weapons
such as rocket launchers and machine guns. Statistical Relationships-
Association Pearsons correlation coefficient is a measure of linear
association between two variables. In this case, we are looking at the extent
to which more violent video game play is associated with greater amounts of
aggression. The correlation metric ranges from 0, meaning no relationship at
all, to 1 meaning a perfect association. The relationship can be positive,
meaning that as one variable gets larger, the other one also gets larger, or
negative, meaning that as one variable gets larger, the other one gets
smaller. Therefore, a correlation of 1 means that there is a perfect
relationship; as one variable gets larger, the other variable gets smaller.

[5]

Review of research on the impact of violent computer

games on young people
The video-game market in the UK has grown significantly in the past decade.
The UK has the third largest market in the world (after Japan and the US). In
2004, sales of entertainment and leisure software in the UK totaled 1.34b
constituting an increasingly important element of the overall UK creative
economy (ELSPA, 2005). 1.2 However debate about the potential link
between the playing of violent video games and violent behaviour in young
people regularly surfaces in the media both in the UK and abroad. In Erfurt in
Germany in 2002 media reports of the murder of 16 people by Robert
Steinhaeuser, highlighted that he was an avid games player and a particular
devotee of the violent video game Counter-Strike. While in the UK in 2004,
the video game Manhunt was implicated in media reporting as a possible
 factor that contributed to the tragic murder of a young teenage boy. As a
result of this coverage retailers pulled the controversial computer game from
their shelves. 1.3 In the US there have been a number of high profile gun
killings by adolescent boys, the most infamous being in 1999 in Littleton,
Colorado, when Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris murdered 12 fellow pupils at
Columbine High School, before killing themselves. The video game Doom
was cited as playing a role in that tragedy. The Columbine High School
Massacre led the then US President, Bill Clinton, to order a number of 8 high
profile reports, which also led to Senate hearings examining possible links
between media violence and violence among adolescent boys. These reports
have produced a large amount of documentary material as well as new
books and articles reviewing different sides of the media violence debate.
The Home Office Review of 2001 1.4 In 2001, The Home Office (HO)
published a review of the literature that examined the effects of computer
games on young children (Harris, 2001). The HO review only examined
research studies carried out between 1985 and 1994, although some of
these did not appear in print until 1995/6. The reason why later studies were
not included was explained by the paucity of recent research (i.e. between
1994-2001). For the current report we have been able to incorporate new
studies from the US and from various parts of Europe, especially the UK and
Scandinavia, where recent books and articles have thrown new light on the
nature of academic debates in Europe and the US surrounding media
violence and its link to real-life violence. 1.5 The importance of reviewing
recent academic research also lies in the fact that many of the new
generation of violent video games only began to appear on the international
market from 1991 onwards. These games are a lot more graphic and visually
advanced than equivalent games available in the 1970s and 1980s, leading
some commentators to argue that games like Doom act potentially as
simulation-based training systems that 9 desensitize gamers through
repeated exposure to violence and offer classical conditioning by associating
aggressive acts with a pleasant experience (Grossman and DeGaetano,
1999). 1.6 The HO Review (2001) focused on any connection between game
playing and aggressive behaviour, addictive traits in children, academic
ability and criminal behaviour. This review is working to a narrower brief, in
that we are paying particular attention to any possible link between the
playing of computer games and violent behaviour among young people and
are less concerned with issues around addiction, criminal activity and
reduced academic standing. The HO Review correctly identified that the rise
in non-arcade game playing had up until this time frame being largely under
researched, although a body of related work was growing. 1.7 One of the key
issues raised in the 2001 Review was its criticism that many of the studies
tended to focus on the short term impacts of game playing, while not looking
at the more complex issues of longer-term impacts and influences on
children. Indeed the HO Review suggested the need for more research into
long-term impacts of game playing. Our conclusion, which will be discussed
in the final chapter, is that the whole field of video game violence is under-
researched. To cite one leading academic in this field: I cannot think of
another important issue which scientists have been willing to reach
conclusions on such a small body of research (Freedman, 2001). 10 Issues of
Definition 1.8 The defining of young people in this review is taken to be
gamers under the age of 21. This definition can be broken down in to three
broad categories in line with much of the research in this field: preschool and
primary schoolchildren; secondary school children; and university students
and young adults (Bensley and Van Eenwyk, 2001: 246). However this does
raise an issue of the age profile of gamers, with Newman (2004: 50) noting
that: The contemporary demographic suggests that the audience is
comprised of new entrants discovering video games anew and players
growing up with the industry. Indeed Sony PlayStation users are on average
20/21 years of age, while the Entertainment Software Association (ESA)
claims that the average age of users in the US in 2003 was 29. We found
little research examining the effects of violent video games on adults over
21. 1.9 Throughout this review we use the terms computer games to cover
games played on any media platform such as a PC or television set. The
steady growth of digital convergence increasingly makes any significant
distinction difficult. The location where computer games are played remains
important; one of the major changes in the last two decades has been the
movement out of the arcades (where some level of policing was able to take
place) and into the home (where the responsibility shifts to the 11 parents to
police the domestic environment). Related to this is the extent to which the
emerging digital landscape now finds games being played across a range of
more diffuse often mobile media platforms, from mobile phones, pocket
computers and the internet. 1.10 Finally, we found working definitions of key
terms used in this review difficult to agree due to a lack of consensus. For
example, Anderson and Bushman (2001: 354) start their definition of
aggression thus: Aggression is behaviour intended to harm another
individual who is motivated to avoid that harm. Goldstein (2001) points out
 however that there is no intention to harm anyone living in video games.
Griffiths (2001: 210) also points out that there are problems with many
definitions of violence and aggression as there are numerous programmes
(i.e. cartoons like Tom and Jerry) that do not come within the definitional
terms often used by researchers.

[6]

APA Review Confirms Link Between Playing Violent Video Games

and Aggression

Finds insufficient research to link violent video game play to criminal

violence

WASHINGTON Violent video game play is linked to increased aggression in

players but insufficient evidence exists about whether the link extends to
criminal violence or delinquency, according to a new American Psychological
Association task force report.

The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video

game use and increases in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognitions and
aggressive affect, and decreases in prosocial behavior, empathy and
sensitivity to aggression, says the report of the APA Task Force on Violent
Media. The task forces review is the first in this field to examine the breadth
of studies included and to undertake multiple approaches to reviewing the
literature.

Scientists have investigated the use of violent video games for more than
two decades but to date, there is very limited research addressing whether
violent video games cause people to commit acts of criminal violence, said
Mark Appelbaum, PhD, task force chair. However, the link between violence
in video games and increased aggression in players is one of the most
studied and best established in the field.

No single risk factor consistently leads a person to act aggressively or

violently, the report states. Rather, it is the accumulation of risk factors
that tends to lead to aggressive or violent behavior. The research reviewed
here demonstrates that violent video game use is one such risk factor.

In light of the task forces conclusions, APA has called on the industry to
design video games that include increased parental control over the amount
of violence the games contain. APAs Council of Representatives adopted a
resolution at its meeting Aug. 7 in Toronto encouraging the Entertainment
Software Rating Board to refine its video game rating system to reflect the
levels and characteristics of violence in games, in addition to the current
global ratings. In addition, the resolution urges developers to design games
that are appropriate to users age and psychological development, and
voices APAs support for more research to address gaps in the knowledge
about the effects of violent video game use.

The resolution replaces a 2005 resolution on the same topic.

The task force identified a number of limitations in the research that require
further study. These include a general failure to look for any differences in
outcomes between boys and girls who play violent video games; a dearth of
studies that have examined the effects of violent video game play on
children younger than 10; and a lack of research that has examined the
games effects over the course of childrens development.

We know that there are numerous risk factors for aggressive behavior,
Appelbaum said. What researchers need to do now is conduct studies that
look at the effects of video game play in people at risk for aggression or
violence due to a combination of risk factors. For example, how do
depression or delinquency interact with violent video game use?

The task force conducted a comprehensive review of the research literature

published between 2005 and 2013 focused on violent video game use. This
included four meta-analyses that reviewed more than 150 research reports
published before 2009. Task force members then conducted both a
systematic evidence review and a quantitative review of the literature
published between 2009 and 2013. (A systematic evidence review
synthesizes all empirical evidence that meets pre-specified criteria to answer
specific research questions a standard approach to summarizing large
bodies of research to explore a field of research.) This resulted in 170
articles, 31 of which met all of the most stringent screening criteria.

While there is some variation among the individual studies, a strong and
consistent general pattern has emerged from many years of research that
provides confidence in our general conclusions, Appelbaum said. As with
most areas of science, the picture presented by this research is more
complex than is usually included in news coverage and other information
prepared for the general public.
In addition to Appelbaum, members of the APA Task Force on Violent Media
were: Sandra Calvert, PhD; Kenneth Dodge, PhD; Sandra Graham, PhD;
Gordon N. Hall, PhD; Sherry Hamby, PhD; and Larry Hedges, PhD.

[7]

CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

Does Playing Violent Video Games in Childhood Predict Future Aggressive

Behaviour? An Empirical Review Video games are a very popular recreational
pastime for many children and youth around the world. Virtual gaming has
only become more popular with a wide range of sports, travel and war type
games available on the market. Roberts study (2005, as cited in Anderson &
Carnagey, 2009) found that nearly 60% of American youth ages 8 to 18
report playing video games on any given day, and 30% report playing for
more than one hour a day. Violent video games have been a controversial
topic among parents and psychologists alike for many years. Though some
researchers have cited depression, family violence and peer influences as
predictors of aggression not videogame violence much research has been
done to the contrary (Ferguson, San Miguel, Garza & Jerabeck, 2012).
Research suggests that children and adolescents who play violent video
games are at risk for increased aggression and problem behaviour into
adulthood. The following paper will present current research examining the
negative effects of violent video games on children who play these games.
Short term psychological, physiological and cognitive changes may
contribute to children exhibiting more aggressive behaviours that could lead
to problems socially and scholastically. Studies suggest adults who engaged
in virtual violence may be more This introduction is successful because it
clearly establishes the context and rationale for the topic and the research
question. The author offers a clear map to help the reader to understand the
organization of the paper and the connections between the sections. Each
section of the paper is outlined in this paragraph. The author read about
Roberts 2005 study in Anderson and Carnageys 2009 article. Cite both the
original study and the source that discusses its findings. As Roberts name
appears in the essay sentence, it does not have to appear in the
parenthetical citation. The thesis offers a clear answer to the research
question, which is posed by the title. CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLENT VIDEO
 GAMES 3 Headings are useful for delineating sections of a paper. For APA,
main headings are boldface and centred. Headings should clearly indicate
the topic of the section. impulsive and desensitized to violence, contributing
to long term cognitive and personality changes. Additionally, violent video
games are more likely than nonviolent video games to present gender and
racial stereotypes, which could lead to aggression toward the stereotyped
groups presented in the game. Finally, violent video games may decrease
pro-social behaviour among children and adolescents, leading to a greater
likelihood of problematic behaviour later in adulthood. This paper aims to
demonstrate that children who play violent video games are more likely than
those who do not play violent video games to develop aggressive behaviour
later in adulthood. Short Term Effects of Playing Violent Video Games
Researchers have cited various negative short term effects related to playing
violent video games. In children particularly, it has been noted by Anderson
et al. (2010) that short term videogame playing (meaning 15 minutes or
less) increased physiological arousal and aggressive cognition among the
studys sample group of children. Similar findings were discovered by Barlett,
Anderson and Swing (2009). Participants experienced heightened heart rate
and blood pressure, all while sitting down without engaging in any physical
activity or exertion. Barlett et al. describe physiological arousal as a negative
outcome for children because heightened physical arousal can be related to
an increase in aggressive behaviour. That aggressive behaviour may be
misattributed to another provoking event rather than the violent game. In
other words, a child who is agitated from violent gaming may react
aggressively to otherwise minor annoyances. This paragraph focuses on one
idea by presenting a main point (physiological arousal is a short term effect),
using evidence to support the point, explaining the evidence (physiological
arousal linked to aggressive behaviour), and linking it to the main point of
the section or the paper. CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES 4 In
addition to heightened physiological arousal, Barlett et al. (2009) found that
participants experienced more aggressive feelings after playing violent video
games than they did after playing nonviolent videogames. Comparable
results by Anderson and Carnagey (2009) revealed that violent videogame
participants displayed higher levels of aggressive cognition than participants
who had played nonviolent games. In the same study, participants who had
recently played a violent sports video game verbally identified aggressive
words faster than those who played a standard simulationbased sports video
game. Research conducted by Anderson et al. (2010) found that short term
 violent videogame playing primes existing knowledge structures to respond
aggressively. With repeated exposure, children may develop a schema
primed to aggression. Children who are more aggressive and experience
higher physiological arousal may subsequently suffer poor academic
performance, as well as experience behavioural conduct problems and social
problems. The studies present findings which suggest that children may
suffer numerous psychological consequences from playing violent video
games in a short term timeframe. However, the evidence about the long
term effects of playing violent video games paints a much more worrisome
outcome for children who play them. Long Term Effects of Playing Violent
Video Games Repeated exposure to violent media of any sort has been seen
to negatively influence children (Anderson & Carnagey, 2009). Several
articles have pointed to personality changes, hostility and desensitization to
violence as some of the permanent costs associated with violent Although
the author is still using evidence from an author cited in the previous
paragraph, the evidence supports a different idea (comparison between
violent and non-violent video games), so it requires its own paragraph. This
also demonstrates how different sources are connected throughout the
paragraphs. This paragraph synthesizes the two points the author presents
in this section while offering an analysis of the findings. Also note the link to
the next section about the long-term effects. CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLENT
VIDEO GAMES 5 gaming in childhood and adolescence. Barlett et al. (2009)
explain that repeated exposure to violent video games reinforces aggression-
related knowledge structures such as aggressive expectation schema,
aggressive behaviour scripts, aggression desensitization, and aggressive
beliefs and attitudes. All of these knowledge structures may lend to a more
aggressive personality into adulthood. Anderson and Carnagey (2009) report
similar findings related to social-cognitive changes associated with violent
videogame playing. Furthermore, Anderson et al. (2010) note that the home
environment of children may exacerbate the long term effects of playing
violent video games. If parents and the greater community are supportive of
certain types of violence, children may very well become more aggressive
with time. Parents and communities who do not condone violence and who
are involved in their childrens media use have been seen to have protective
qualities and may buffer long term effects of playing violent video games.
Bartholow, Sestir and Davis (2005) link long term violent videogame playing
to an increase in hostility and a decrease in empathy. Seemingly stable
personality features can be altered through exposure to violent media
 especially in childhood and adolescence when individuals are particularly
vulnerable to external influences. In the study by Bartholow et al.,
participants who had been exposed long term to violent videogames self-
reported higher physical aggression even when the variables of personality
and temperament were controlled. Increased aggression may cause
individuals to suffer a host of problems into adulthood. Romantic
partnerships, career prospects, friendships, and family relationships may all
suffer if an individual reacts aggressively to negative life experiences.

[8]

Violent Video Games

Video games always provide a great pass time activity for children.

These games are so many and so addictive that when a child is not

controlled, he can spend all his time playing the games. The game a

child plays can be a good or a bad thing in his life. For example,

children who learn how to play chess at a tender age usually show

signs of high levels of intellect. However, the same case does not

apply for violent video games.

The effects of violent video games are as varied as the number of

the games. One effect that is common with all of them is their
addiction. This can be a terrible thing because a child might not do

any productive activity whenever at home. This means that he does

not study when at home or even do his assignments. Consequently,

his performance at school definitely deteriorates. Moreover, the

child could sacrifice development of his talent such as attending a

music class just for the purpose of playing a violent game.

Another effect that has caused ripples among parents and the

society in general is the possible violent behaviour in kids who play

such games. Several studies have been conducted to investigate the

relationship between such games and violent behaviour in children.

Controlled experiments place little emphasis on this relationship.

The obtained results show that the negative effects of such games

are quite minimal.

There is also an observation regarding these games and their

players where children who are naturally aggressive prefer playing

this type of games to others. This observation waters down the

chances of violent games leading to violent behaviour in children.

When interviewed, some kids who play this type of games say that

they are not negatively affected by the games. This is definitely

backed up by their non violent behaviour.

It has also been observed that violence displayed on television such

as in action movies or news has more chances of leading to violence

in children that the violent games. However, it is important to note

that when a child plays a violent game he is likely to experience

some physiological effects. These effects include an increase of both

heart rate and brain activity.

In conclusion, it is safe to say that violent games barely lead to

violent behaviour in children. However, they are not beneficial to

the children because of their addictive nature, which can deter a

childs growth.