Part 1.

Demographic Information
1. Sex:
a. Male
b. Female
2. Age:
a. less than 16 years old
b. 16 to 19 years old
c. 20 to 29 years old
d. 30 to 39 years old
e. 40 to 49 years old
f. 50 to 59 years old
g. 60 to 69 years old
h. 70 to 79 years old
i. 80 or older
3. Primary Relationship Status:
a. Married
b. Divorced/Separated
c. Widow(er)
d. Engaged
e. Living With
f. Have a boy/girl friend but relationship does not fit in one of
above categories
g. Single (currently not in a relationship)
4. Number of children:
a. none
b. one
c. two
d. three
e. four
f. five
g. six or more
5. Education:
a. did not/have not completed high school
b. high school diploma
c. some technical training/two year diploma
d. in first two years of college/university
e. in last two years of college
f. finished a college/university degree
g. some graduate study/currently enrolled
h. craftsman/craftswoman
i. masters degree
j. doctoral degree
k. professional degree
6. Occupation: __________________
7. Primary Ethnic Background: _______________________

Part 2: Video Games Habits/Experiences

1. How many days in a week do you typically play video games?

a. less than once a week
b. one
c. two
d. three
e. four
f. five
g. six
h. seven
2. If you typically play less than once a week, please estimate the frequency of
your play per month; otherwise go on to question #4?
a. less than once a month
b. once a month
c. twice a month
d. three times a month
3. If you typically play less than once a month, please estimate the frequency o
f your play per year, or go on to question #4?
a. less than once a year or never
b. one to three times a year
c. four to six times a year
d. seven to nine times a year
e. ten or 11 times a year
4. How long is your typical playing session?
a. less than 15 minutes
b. greater than 15 minutes but less than an hour
c. one to two hours
d. two to four hours
e. four to six hours
f. six to eight hours
g. eight to 10 hours
h. over 10 hours
5. Please list your five favorite games? _______________________
6. Which setting do you most typically play in?
a. arcade
b. home
c. friends house
d. computers in an internet cafe/gaming store
e. other ______________
7. Who do you typically play with?
a. alone
b. alone but on the net or by modem with others
c. with a friend near by who may or may not be playing but is involved in the ac
tivity to some extent
8. How many different video games in any formats have you played to date?
a. none
b. one
c. two - five
d. six to ten
e. ten to 20
f. 20 to 50
g. 50 to 100
h. over 100
9. How old were you when you played your first video game?
a. before kindergarten
b. kindergarten to grade 1
c. grade 2 to grade 4
d. grade 5 to grade 6
e. junior high school
f. high school
g. young adulthood/post secondary school
h. middle adulthood (30 to 50 years old)
i. late adulthood (over 50)
j. never played a video game
10. How old were you when you hit your peak frequency of video game play?
a. before kindergarten
b. kindergarten to grade 1
c. grade 2 to grade 4
d. grade 5 to grade 6
e. junior high school
f. high school
g. young adulthood/post secondary school
h. middle adulthood (30 to 50 years old)
i. late adulthood (over 50)
j. never played a video game

Computer Games Inventory (CGI)

Dr. Greg Jones
Dept. of Learning Technologies
University of North Texas
What is it?
The Computer Gaming Inventory (CGI) was created in the Spring of 2006 at the Uni
versity of North Texas as a result of discussions with Educational Computing doc
toral students. There was a need to measure gaming use and attitudes, but there
was little success finding an existing instrument in the literature. One recent
attempt to measure computer game use and attitudes in a small sample of college
students was the qualitative survey performed by Pew Internet and American Life
Project (Jones, 2003). However, we desired a quantifiable questionnaire that wou
ld be easy to deliver online to college students and in the future to K-12 stude
nts. Therefore, we adapted elements from the Pew study, and then added questions
based on our content expertise as well as demographic questions, to create our
Computer Gaming Inventory (CGI).
Version 1
The verison 1 instrument is a ninety-six question survey consisting of two secti
ons: (1) computer gaming types and frequency (66 questions), and (2) attitudes t
owards computer and video games (30 questions). Although the CGI seems lengthy,
we found that college students can take the survey in less than 15 minutes.
The initial pilot stuides showed that the instrument does indeed measure compute
r game attituides and the frequency of use. The AERA paper in the publications s
ection has the initial details on the factor analysis.
Two full stuides at both UNT and TCU using the instrument with over 800 college
students involved in both stuides was completed in 2008. The initial TCU data wa
s presented at the 2008 AACE SITE conference.The UNT study was completed the end
of spring 2009. A CFA of the instrument is also under way. Journal article publ
ications are underway.
Version 1 Instrument
If you want more information about the instrument, e-mail Dr. Jones (gjones@unt.
edu).
Notes on Anderson, C., Dill, K. (2000) 'Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, F
eelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life', in Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, vol. 78, no. 4: 772 - 790.
This article has been selected by the American Psychological Association as exem
plary. It builds on the earlier pieces, including one by Anderson and Ford. The
article offers a long report of two major studies on the effects of violent vide
o game play, one involving correlations between real life examples, and the othe
r involving the laboratory experiment. This file offers a fairly brief analysis
of the procedure and the findings, but there is much to discuss in terms of the
ingenious but flawed methodology, and I have reserved these more technical comme
nts for another file.
The article begins rather controversially, with a reminder that the notorious de
adly attack on Columbine High School was perpetrated by two people who enjoyed p
laying a violent video game (Doom -- 'a game licensed by the US military to tr
ain soldiers to effectively kill' (773)). There is also some support for the vie
w that violent video games are having an effect on aggression generally in the U
S. However, the careful research that follows is much more cautious in its findi
ngs.
The Model
The authors have developed a more explicit model to explain how it is possible t
o explain aggressive behaviour, both in the short run and long run. They call th
is the GAAM (general affective aggression model). The model is of course based
on much earlier research on aggression. Basically, what it does is to describe a
'multi-stage process' whereby individual ('personological') and situational fa
ctors can lead to aggression. There is an excellent diagram of the model at the
end of the article. Basically it involves 'input variables' such as aggressive p
ersonalities, or situational variables such as 'video game play' or 'provocation
'. These can affect 'present internal states', not just affects or emotions, an
d arousal, but also 'cognitions' or 'aggression related knowledge structures'
(776). These can involve, for example 'a behavioural script' telling people how
to respond to aggression, or other ways to psychologically access 'aggressive
cognitions'. The latter have been explored briefly in the earlier article throug
h the notion of 'semantic priming', which seems to involve providing cues to ac
cess meaning. The authors quote here some research that suggests that seeing a w
eapon can increase aggressive thoughts. At the same time 'there is presently no
empirical evidence on whether playing a violent video game increases accessibil
ity of aggressive thoughts' (776) [so they intend to provide some].
The three internal states are thought to be interconnected. One important implic
ation is that the arousal effect is not specific to violent video games 'but co
uld occur with any game that happens to be very exciting' (777). This is a flaw
with some early research, and one that is addressed in their own designs here. B
efore these internal states can be released in behaviour, people have also to go
through an appraisal process, which can be 'automatic', or 'controlled'. The
latter requires more cognitive resources and time. Apparently, appraisal process
es can also activate 'behavioural scripts'-- 'Well-learned scripts come to min
d relatively easily and quickly and can be emitted fairly automatically' (778).
People with aggressive personalities have lots of aggression scripts, and are al
so more ready to react with aggressive means. Anderson and Dill 'believe that v
ideo-game violence also primes aggressive thought, including aggressive scripts'
(778). [There are lots of writers who disagree with this 'script' metaphor, s
uch as Plummer on sexuality, and who think that human beings are much more capab
le of modifying and writing their own scripts].
The authors go on to adapt the general model to try to pin down the long-term ef
fects of video game violence. Basically, the argument [or hypothesis, but it lo
oks much more definite in the diagram] is that violent video games help people '
rehearse aggressive scripts that teach and reinforce vigilance for enemies... i
ncrease hostile perception, develop aggressive action against others, expectatio
ns that others will behave aggressively, positive attitudes towards use of viole
nce, and beliefs that violent solutions are effective and appropriate' (778). Th
e main effect operates through the individual variables, making people more aggr
essive, and the authors invoke a kind of labelling theory here to explain how pe
rsonal aggression can get amplified as other people react adversely. It is also
worth noting that the specific model, demonstrated in Figure 2 in the article, s
eems much more deterministic, with all the arrows pointing in one direction, lea
ding from repeated violent game playing, through aggressive beliefs and behaviou
r scripts, to an increase in aggressive personality, and then a reinforcement of
that personality: the appraisal processes seem to have been missed out altogeth
er.
The first study
The work begins by reviewing the literature. Briefly, it seems to be ambivalent
or poorly designed, especially in confusing the excitement generated by any game
, and the specific effects of violent content. Their first study attempted to co
rrelate various important measures to establish the strength of any particular r
elationships. A sample of 227 psychology undergraduates was drawn from voluntee
rs. Variables were measured such as the amount of exposure to video game violenc
e, the time spent playing video games irrespective of content, and several 'out
come variables, namely aggressive behaviour, delinquency, academic achievement,
and world-view' (782). The researchers also measured' individual difference vari
ables related to aggression (trait aggression, irritability)' (782) in order to
estimate the effects of individual differences. They also recorded gender and ac
ademic achievement. The actual study involved giving people a self report questi
onnaire so as to record data on individual differences, aggressive behaviour, de
linquency and world-view [roughly, how unsafe and crime-ridden the USA is percei
ved to be]. These matters had to be defined and measured first, of course and th
e various scales that were constructed are themselves interesting and controvers
ial (see the accompanying file). Much is done to improve the technical consiste
ncy and reliability of these scales, which are often based on existing research
instruments.
Then the sample was given another questionnaire about their video game habits. P
eople were asked to name their 5 favourite games, and then rate them, reflecting
how often they played the game and how 'violent the content and graphics of the
game were' (785). They were asked to categorise the game as well. The world-vi
ew of the sample was measured by asking them to estimate how dangerous life was
in current America, in terms of crime likelihood and safety feelings. The data w
as then processed using correlational analyses of various kinds:
(a) First, the reliability inconsistency of each of the two scales was estim
ated by seeing if the items correlated with each other. They did. Then the varia
bles were standardised in order to permit comparisons among them [the normal st
atistical procedure, but one which may have implications]. In a brief descriptio
n of the results, Anderson and Dill notes the relatively high level of video gam
es playing declining from high school to college; the overall popularity of vide
o game playing; the popularity of games such as Super Mario Brothers, Tetris, an
d Mortal Kombat. This gives the researchers an immediate problem, since only the
third one appears to be very violent. However, they insist that 'Super Mario B
rothers... [also involves]... considerable violence in the sense that the player
typically spends a considerable amount of time destroying other creatures' (788
). They also override the views of the players themselves for example the 'one
person who listed Mortal Kombat... as a "sports" game' (788). By imposing thei
r own classifications, they managed to make up the percentage of aggressive game
s in the categorisation exercise to 44 per cent. [It is not at all clear if the
results are calculated on this expanded category, or what they would look like
if the lower estimates were taken].
(b) A far more technical analysis involving correlating the various items to
gether is then described. For example, overall 'Aggressive delinquent behaviour
was positively related to both trait aggressiveness and exposure to video game
violence' (788), and measures of the strength of these correlations are given as
0.36, and 0.46 respectively. Similar but lower correlations were established be
tween trait aggressiveness and exposure to video game violence and non-aggressiv
e delinquent behaviour, and between exposure to video-game violence and aggressi
ve personality. Gender was strongly related to several of the variables, especia
lly 'perceived safety... video-game violence... and time spent playing video ga
mes' (789). In the strongest test of the relationship between the terms, Anderso
n and Dill pursued what they call 'destructive testing', which involves establi
shing a link between video-game violence and aggression, and then attempting to
introduce more and more variables until the link disappears. [This is sometimes
called organising a 'variable race', and it has its problems -- see accompanying
file]. In short, video-game violence exposure persisted as a predictor of aggre
ssive behaviour --'Thus, the link between video-game violence and aggressive beh
aviour is quite strong indeed' (790). Individual differences also had an effect
though, and here, aggressive personality especially showed a link with aggressiv
e behaviour. Anderson and Dill note a particular large effect produced by combin
ing exposure to video game violence and aggressive personality factors --'the VG
V [video games violence] effect on aggression occurred primarily among participa
nts with high AP [aggressive personality] scores' (790), especially for men. Sim
ilar results can be obtained when considering aggressive delinquency, again with
video games violence exposure being significantly related, and the only other s
ignificant factor being aggressive personality. When examining the effects on fe
elings of safety, the video-games violence variable seems slightly less importan
t, and gender more important; when it comes to estimating crime likelihood, vide
o games violence exposure seems to display no link with the tendency towards hig
h estimates. Academic attainment seems to be more affected by time spent on vide
o games rather than violent content.
(c) Summarising the results, Anderson and Dill say that 'Violent video game
play and aggressive personality separately and jointly accounted for major port
ions of both aggressive behaviour and non-aggressive delinquency' (793). This fi
nding is consistent with the predictions in the GAAM model [note the caution he
re-- they're not saying that this establishes the GAAM model]. They are aware th
at correlations cannot confirm causes, but argue that 'a zero or negative corre
lation would have disconfirmed the hypothesis' (793). They remind us that their
sample was drawn from college students, suggesting that this may have minimised
the effect: 'Those with serious decrements in intellectual functioning or seriou
s aggressive behaviour problems are not as frequently represented in college sam
ples as would be the case in a high schools sample' (793).

Overall,
'concern about the deleterious effects of violent video games on delinquent
behaviour, aggressive and non-aggressive is legitimate. Playing violent video ga
mes often may well cause increases in delinquent behaviours, both aggressive and
non-aggressive. However, the correlational nature... [of this first study]... m
eans that causal statements are risky at best. It could be that the obtained vid
eo-game violence links to aggressive and non-aggressive delinquency are wholly d
ue to the fact that highly aggressive individuals are especially attracted to vi
olent video games. Longitudinal work... would be very informative' (794).
The Second Study
This was laboratory based, and was better designed to attempt to pin down the ca
usals. However, it tended to focus on short-term aggression. It was carefully pu
rsued as usual:
(a) A pilot study helped to pick nonviolent and violent video games, and to
try and focus on content rather than other relevant factors such as 'enjoyment,
frustration level, and physiological arousal' (794). The researchers chose a vi
deo game (Wolfenstein 3D) which they thought offered 'blatant violent content,
realism, and human characters' '(794), and compared this to another violent gam
e and to non-violent games (Myst and Tetrix). A small sample of participants we
re exposed to these games in various orders, and their blood pressure and heart
rate were measured. Participants also rated the game in terms of how difficult e
njoyable frustrating and exciting they were. As a result, the researchers were h
oping to choose two games that differed only in terms of 'amount of violence', b
ut which scored exactly the same on all the other measures (795). This was not
that easy, since the chosen games (Wolfenstein and Myst) also reflected differen
ces between genders, and excitement levels. As a result, participants in the mai
n study were still asked to rate their games as a check.
(b) In the main study, 210 psychology undergraduates were compared in terms
of their reaction to the different games. Aggressive thought, affect [emotions]
and behaviour were measured, and the effects of gender and aggressive personalit
y [only one measure of aggressive personality, in fact, the scale of 'irritabili
ty'] assessed. Participants were allowed to play the game three times, measuring
different variables each time. To facilitate these comparisons, participants we
re selected who were particularly low and particularly high in irritability. The
precise arrangements of the laboratory studies were designed to minimise the ef
fects of the presence of the researcher or differences in terms of instructions.
To prevent participants guessing the point of the experiment, they were given a
cover story about learning in developing skills. Participants played for 15 min
utes each time.
(c) ('State') hostile affects were measured by a particular scale developed
in earlier research, which involved participants rating how 'angry' or 'mean' t
hey felt, and inviting agreement or disagreement with particular statements. Gam
es were rated in terms of their difficulty etc using the instruments developed i
n the pilot study. Another 15 minutes play session ensued, then participants wer
e tested for aggressive thinking by showing them particular words, including agg
ressive words ('e.g. murder') and 'anxiety words... escape words... and control
words' (798), and measuring how quickly people were able to read them. After a p
ause of a week, participants came to play another for another 15 minutes, and ag
gressive behaviour was tested by measuring 'competitive reaction time', involvi
ng a competition to press a button faster than an opponent can, and punishing th
e loser by operating a blast of noise: 'Aggressive behaviour is operationally d
efined as the intensity and duration of noise blasts the participant chooses to
deliver to the opponent' (799). This is apparently a widely used measure in psyc
hology. The competition was in fact rigged so that each participant won 13 and l
ost 12 contests, and the noise blasts were in effect controlled by the computer.
Care was taken to make sure participants knew how to work the equipment and to
play the game. After the entire study, participants were debriefed and told the
real purpose of the study.
(d) The results try to pin down the effects of the excitement levels of the
game, and the difficulty in frustration that was caused. Game frustration did af
fect state hostility, and game difficulty reaction time, but these effects coul
d be controlled and 'did not appreciably alter the effects of most interest' (2
00). The scales were tested for reliability by correlating the items, and unreli
able items were deleted. This time, an analysis of variance was pursued, correla
ting the various elements with particular dependent variables:
for state hostility overall irritability was a main factor, and so was g
ender. All other effects, including 'game type effect', 'were nonsignificant'
(201). Gender was the main factor affecting the crime and safety ratings, with n
othing else approaching significance.
accessibility to aggressive thoughts, as measured by the reactions to pa
rticular words 'did not produce a significant control word type by game type in
teraction'. However, when reactions to three types of words were combined into a
single measure [a pretty controversial step, especially when the resultant com
posite was called the 'Aggression Accessibility Index'], game type did seem to
have a main effect in that those who have played a violent video game scored mor
e highly than those who did not. 'In other words, the violent video game primed
aggressive thoughts' [a highly dubious conclusion in my view]. Gender also had
an effect, higher for men of course. However, this seemed to be no connection be
tween aggression accessibility and the trait irritability measure [aggressive pe
rsonality]. Anderson and Dill suggests that this may be because playing the game
s themselves is 'sufficient to temporarily override the usual differences betwe
en people high and low in irritability' (202) [a puzzling and dubious remark, b
ased on nothing really].
aggressive behaviour, measured by the noise delivery experiment, attempt
ed to assess both the effects of the violent video game, and of other variables,
such as the effects of losing a trial and wanting retaliation. These other vari
ables may have had a results, including the effects of the instructions actually
given. This might explain [!] their lack of any statistically significant effec
ts of any of the independent variables (including game type) on the noise intens
ity settings. In terms of duration, gender seemed to have an effect, with women
delivering more noise than men, as did the effect of losing a competition. Trait
irritability had an effect. This time, so did game type: 'playing a violent vi
deo game increased the aggressiveness of participants after they had been provok
ed by their opponents noise blast' (203), although effects were only 'small to m
edium'. [NB this assumes that duration outweighs intensity as a measure of aggre
ssiveness].
overall, violent video game types seem to have an effect on accessibilit
y of aggressive thoughts and aggressive behaviour, but do not affect state hosti
lity. This could be because cognitions are more affected than emotions. This too
was tested and some support found for it.
Discussion of the Two Studies
Overall there is some evidence to suggest that violent video game play it is pos
itively related to aggressive behaviour, both in and outside the laboratory. The
combination of methods 'lends considerable strength to the main hypothesis tha
t exposure to violent video games can increase aggressive behaviour' (204). [Lot
s to discuss here -- can the two methods be used like this to cancel out the fau
lts of each one?]. The results of this study lends support to the results have p
rior work, especially those finding effects of TV violence. As a result, 'paren
ts, educators and society in general should be concerned about the prevalence of
violent video games in modern society' (205).
The effects of violent video games were moderated by individual differences in a
ggression, being stronger for those who were already high in trait aggressivenes
s. However, this study showed that low trait aggressiveness did not really modif
y the impact of video-game violence. Overall though it looks as if aggressive pe
rsonality and video-game violence offer a 'long-term bidirectional causality ef
fect in which frequent playing a violent video games increases aggressiveness, w
hich in turn increases the desire and actual playing of even more violent video
games' (205).
The usual effects of gender were modified here, since 'women displayed higher l
evels of state hostility and aggression than men' (205). This may reflect situat
ional differences in provocation and how the genders react to them -- men may ha
ve been more familiar with video games, and women less happy to play them.
GAAM draws attention to cognitive, affective and arousal roots, but the experime
nts show that violent games increase the accessibility of the aggression related
thoughts, but not feelings of hostility. Thus cognitive models of aggression se
emed more important, even though it may be difficult to disentangle them from fe
elings. However, 'the danger in exposure to violent video games [assuming there
is one] seems to be in the ideas they teach and not primarily in the emotions t
hey incite in the player. The more realistic the violence, the more the players
identify as with the aggressor' (206) [I did not see any evidence in the study
to support this view about realism -- it seems to be drawn from other work].
Academic achievement was not particularly related to violent video game play, bu
t it was related to long-term exposure [presumably by taking up lots of time].
The finding is still controversial, and some researchers 'found a positive rela
tion between general video game play and IQ' (207). The sample is not designed t
o test this much further.
Thus 'concern about... playing violent video games is not misplaced (207). Video
games may offer more dangers than television or movies. Other research indicate
s that identification with an aggressor increases aggression, and in video games
'the player assumes the identity of the hero... and usually sees the video gam
e world through that characters' eyes' (207) [there seem to be some major assum
ptions here, and again the authors are straying beyond the findings of their own
study]. Active participation may also increase aggressive behaviour, since the
video-game player chooses to aggress, helping 'the construction of a more compl
ete aggressive script than would occur and the more passive role assumed him wat
ching violent movies or TV shows' (208) [an empiricist view of participation he
re]. Finally, video games have 'an addictive nature' (208), and more research is
quoted here, including the view that 'one in five adolescents can be classifie
d as pathologically dependent on computer games' (Anderson and Dill citing Griff
iths and Hunt, page 208) [we would need to look very carefully at definitions a
nd correlations here]. Games do reinforce participation. Overall they 'provide
a complete learning environment for aggression, with simultaneous exposure to mo
delling, reinforcement and rehearsal of behaviours' (208) [again based on the w
ork of other researchers].
Summary and Conclusions
The authors rehearse the findings, but in a rather cautious way -- for example a
rguing that 'If repeated exposure to violent video games does indeed lead to th
e creation and heightened accessibility of a variety of aggressive knowledge jud
ges... the consequent changes in every day social interactions may also lead to
consistent increases in aggressive affect' (208) [my emphasis]. The piece ends
with a controversial set of remarks about the Columbine murders, and the general
worry about the increasing violence of video games. There is also a plea for mo
re research, including longitudinal studies -- these are required to 'test the p
roposition that such exposure can produce stable changes in personality' (209)

Gentile, D., Lynch, P., Ruh Linder, J., Walsh, D. (2004) 'The effects of viole
nt video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school p
erformance', in Journal of Adolescence, Vol 27, No 1: 5 - 22.
[This research follows closely the theoretical models and procedures developed i
n Anderson and Dill. Briefly, the underlying model, the GA(A)M, suggests that th
ere are individual 'personological' factors, and situational factors involved i
n aggression. Both the Anderson and Dill piece and this one tends to look at way
s in which these factors combine or add to produce aggression, although the mode
l also suggests that one may moderate the other. This article does mention this
possibility, although it is mostly convinced that addition takes place. Both pap
ers also use statistical methods such as correlation and regression to establish
associations between the variables, and both caution against the view that thes
e correlations are the same as causal relations. The various additional techniqu
es can be used to show the relative strength of different factors. As usual, the
n, despite all the care and efficiency with which this study is pursued, overall
conclusions are much less certain. Nevertheless, these authors are also convinc
ed that something needs to be done -- in this case, the policy that seems to eme
rge is that parents should play a much more active part in regulating both amoun
t and type of video games playing. Finally, there's a great deal of 'argument by
authority', where conclusions stretch beyond the actual evidence gathered, and
the authors resort to citing other authorities who happen to agree with them].
The study argues there is a need to separate the amount of play and the content
of games that are played in case they are independent of each other, especially
when investigating impact on school behaviour [an issue left largely unexplored
by Anderson and Dill]. Thus amount of play may affect school performance, while
violent content might increase aggressive outcomes (arguments with teachers and
having physical fights).
Several studies seem to think that people who play lots of video games get poore
r grades at school [how good are these studies? Which way round does this assoc
iation work?]. Gentile et al seem to think that there is a simple 'displacement
hypothesis' at work here, where time spent playing video games is not spent doin
g something more useful such as 'reading, homework, or participating in creativ
e activities' (7). Some people estimate that that 'as many as 89 per cent of ga
mes contain some violent content' (7), although clearly much depends on whose de
finitions these are. Further, a survey of research in the field has found agreem
ent that 'Playing violent games increases aggressive behaviours, increases aggr
essive cognitions, increases aggressive emotions, increases physiological arousa
l, and decreases pro social behaviours. These effects are robust' (7). [These ar
e all strongly causal words -- both this study and Anderson's and Dill's are muc
h more cautious when it comes to discussing their own results. Regrettably, this
kind of talking up of the problem seems to be unavoidable with this topic -- a
kind of moral panic precedes the actual research, and sometimes follows it as we
ll].
There may be some evidence for individual differences in response, however, or e
ven for the view that personological factors such as 'trait hostility' can even
moderate effects of playing violent games (Anderson and Dill suggest this). Th
ere are also problems in deciding whether hostility outweighs the effect of play
ing violent games. Gentile et al prefer to stress one possibility in this genera
l problem of interaction -- 'the harmful effects of playing violent games may b
e even greater for children who are already at higher risk for aggressive behavi
our' (7). Parental monitoring also seems to be important in moderating the effec
ts of violent video games (and violent media in general). It is also associated
with better academic performance. However, the data is ambiguous here, with pare
nts reporting that they frequently monitor their children's game playing, but wi
th teenagers themselves suggesting that monitoring is far less frequent. Video-g
ame violence has also changed since the early 1980s. It is now 'more graphic an
d realistic' (8) [so, we are invited to imply, far more effective]. Nevertheless
, these trends do indicate that even more research is needed.
[The GA(A)M model is discussed via Anderson and Dill, again with a rather pessim
istic gloss in my view. Although the model permits the possibility of reflection
and self monitoring in altering the chain being established between aggression,
violent video games and aggressive personality, this possibility is hardly disc
ussed. Instead far more speculative possibilities are outlined, such that there
may be a cumulative amplification spiral involved, so that playing violent games
leads to aggression which leads to demands for more games and so on].
Four hypotheses are to be tested in this study:
(1) exposure to violent video games is positively correlated with trait hostilit
y
(2) exposure to violent games is positively correlated with aggression in natura
listic settings... arguments with teachers and physical fights
(3) trait hostility moderates the effects of violent video game exposure on aggr
essive behaviour
(4) trait hostility mediates effects of violent video game exposure on aggressiv
e behaviour [that is, the effects have to run through trait hostility rather tha
n acting directly].
607 students were recruited for the study, with a mean age of 14 years. 52 per c
ent were male, 87 per cent were Caucasian (self rated). Questionnaires were used
to gather the data administered by classroom teachers [that is, rates of violen
ce and game playing were also self rated].
A number of variables were isolated for testing:
(a) Violent video game exposure -- respondents were asked to nominate their favo
urite games and then rate them for violence. They were are also asked how much v
iolence they prefer in their games.
(b) Amount of video game play -- converted to weekly amounts
(c) Trait hostility -- measured on a standard psychological instrument
(d) Parental limits -- how often parents put limits on time, how often parents c
heck ratings, whether parents knew which gains were played and so on a
(e) Arguments with teachers -- how often they had taken place in the past year
(f) Grades -- respondents were asked for their average school grade [any indepe
ndent check on these?]
(g) Physical fights -- had these occurred in the last year.
The statistics were used to describe trends and patterns first, revealing that f
or example the average amount of time spent playing video games was nine hours a
week, males played more frequently than females, more time was actually spent w
atching television and listening to music but less time reading for pleasure, vi
deo games playing was frequent (although six per cent of the sample said they n
ever played them). A moderate amount of violence was preferred, especially by bo
ys. Of the favourite games nominated '62 per cent... were rated as having some
violence, and 37 per cent were rated as including violence... above the mid-poin
t of the scale' (12). Again, boys preferred violent games compared to girls. Par
ents seemed not to be heavily involved in monitoring game playing -- for example
43 per cent said their parents never limited their play.
Turning to possible effects, '23 per cent of children reported getting into arg
uments with their teachers "almost weekly" or "almost daily", and 34 per cent
reported getting into of physical fight within the past year' (12). Sex differe
nces were apparent again. Girls also reported slightly higher average grades tha
n boys [although they all seemed to have done pretty well with mean grades of B
+ and B respectively].
Turning to correlational techniques, the outcome measures and the predictor vari
ables were intercorrelated [among themselves that is -- this is not discussed a
ny further, but I think it might be a problem, suggesting that there might be so
me common factor, or that the different factors actually overlap in some way?].
The main findings turn on whether video game habits are correlated in any way wi
th any of the other factors. The usual complex picture emerges, but overall 'Ex
posure to violent video game content and amount of video game play were both pos
itively associated with adolescents' trait hostility, the frequency with which t
hey get into arguments with teachers, and whether or not they have been in a phy
sical fight, and negatively associated with school grades' (13). Parental monito
ring seems to have a negative association with arguments with teachers and trait
hostility, and a positive one with school performance. However, higher trait ho
stility levels tended to lead to the consumption of more electronic media especi
ally violent video games, and with lower parental limits [in other words, hosti
le personalities might be attracted to violent games and not the other way aroun
d].
The next stage was to try to estimate whether video-game violence contributes an
y independent effect -- 'Perhaps trait hostility is the only factor that matter
s' (14). The obvious [!] technique to use here is logistic regression. An outcom
e such as having physical fights is specified, and then the different variables
are entered into an analysis which permits the researchers to see which ones hav
e the most effect [roughly]. When you do this with trait hostility, exposure to
violent games and their interaction, you can see how effective each one is, isol
ated and and combined. Together, these two factors explained 20 per cent of the
variance in physical fights [which might look like low, but it is a statisticall
y significant contribution nevertheless]. Taken separately, some interesting pat
terns appear -- students who scored low on both also had low instances of physic
al fights, and students who scored highly on both had high levels of involvement
. What is interesting is the mixture in between, however. Here, students with lo
w scores on hostility but high scores on video game violence had a higher incide
nce of physical fights than those with the opposite score profile. This is of co
urse evidence that exposure to violent video games is a more important factor th
an having high scores for hostility.
A stricter statistical test was then pursued enabling the researchers to estimat
e the effect of each of a series of variables -- not only violent game playing,
but also 'sex, trait hostility, and amount of video game play per week' (14). I
n the classic manner, these were tested first, and then violent video game expos
ure was entered into the analysis, and then finally parental involvement. [I'm
not statistician enough to comment here, but it is quite well known that the ord
er in which you enter variables like this can also distort the analysis -- see S
aunders. I gather that the most rigorous procedures involve entering the variabl
es in a series of different orders to eliminate any distorting effects]. The res
ults according to the authors indicate that 'Exposure to violent video games co
ntributed a significant amount of the variance even when controlling for sex, tr
ait hostility, and amount of play; and parental involvement contributed a signif
icant amount of additional variance' (15). However, despite being statistically
significant, it seems that these five variables together accounted for 24 per ce
nt of the variance in physical fights [which leads to a naive question -- what
accounted for the remaining 76 per cent? Corresponding figures for the dependent
variables below are 17 per cent of the variance accounted for when looking at a
rguments with teachers, and 14 per cent of the variance in school grades].
Similar analysis is then pursued, this time looking at arguments with teachers a
s the dependent outcome. Curiously, violent video game exposure 'contributed a
nonsignificant amount of variance when controlling for sex, trait hostility, and
amount of play' (15). When looking at school grades as the dependent variable,
the predictors were entered in a different order, to highlight amount of video g
ame play this time rather than violent content. Amount of play 'contributed a s
ignificant amount of variance even when controlling for sex, trait hostility, an
d violent game exposure'.
In a more complex exercise still, Gentile et al tried to model and test possible
causal paths [depicted as a kind of flow chart]. Looking at the occurrence of p
hysical fights, it seems that exposure to violent video games has both a direct
association with physical fights and an indirect association, working through tr
ait hostility as a mediator. Similar models were tested for school grades and ar
guments with teachers, but here trait hostility seemed to emerge as an equally s
ignificant variable, while 'violent video game exposure... was not directly ass
ociated with grades and was marginally directly associated with arguments with t
eachers' (16): it seemed to have an indirect effect when mediated through hostil
ity, though.
The authors believe that these results support each of the hypotheses above. Thu
s exposure to video-game violence does seem to be positively correlated with tra
it hostility [although we still don't know the direction of causality here]. Exp
osure to video game violence does seem to be positively related to aggressive be
haviours, especially with physical fights. The question of causality does arise,
 though: 'Are young adolescents more hostile and aggressive because they expose
themselves to media violence, or do previously hostile adolescents prefer viole
nt media? Due to the correlational nature of this study we cannot answer this qu
estion directly' (18). Some other studies do suggest a direct effect of violence
on behaviour [we have the usual problem with these studies though, because we
don't know how good they are]. Some longitudinal research is cited which suggest
s that it might be early media violence consumption that predicts later aggressi
ve behaviours and not the other way about [but this is a study carried out in 19
72]. The evidence cited here does seem to indicate that violent game exposure ha
s independent effects in predicting aggressive behaviour even when the other fac
tors were controlled, and the comparisons of different profiles of scores seem t
o indicate that, at least, 'hostility is not the whole story', since even those
with low scores for hostility but high scores for violent video games 'are more
likely to have been involved in fights than high-hostile students who have the
lowest exposure to violent video games' (18).
Personality traits such as hostility may moderate effects of media violence, as
GAM permits. Thus it is 'possible that the people who are most affected by viole
nt media are those who are most naturally aggressive, thus putting the most vuln
erable at the greatest risk for increased aggression' (18) [true, but what an o
dd way to put it! Another way to write this is to say that those with low hostil
ity already are not affected as much by video game violence]. The present study
seems to suggest that high hostility and video games violence add together to in
crease the risk of higher levels of aggression.
We should interpret these results in terms of assessing those risks. 'Clearly, m
edia violence is not the sole cause of aggression. But it is likely that it is o
ne of several causes leading to it' (19) [and lots of famous American academies
are cited in support]. Surely, it should be that multiple risks are reduced as m
uch as possible -- but [for example] 'boys are generally at greater risk of aggr
essive behaviours, and they compound that risk by playing more violent games for
greater amounts of time than girls play' (19).
The evidence does seem to show that trait hostility is required to mediate the e
ffects of violent video game exposure, but this may be partly an effect of using
correlational studies [I don't understand this point]. It is also true that the
measures used here are likely to underestimate effects -- for example the scale
used to measure hostility covers attitudes and beliefs as well as actual action
s, and this may have a distorting effect [I don't understand this either]. When
looking at the amount of video game play, it seems this is negatively related to
school performance, but less so to aggressive behaviour [fights least of all].
There may be an indirect relation arising from the finding that 'hostile childr
en play more and are also more likely to play violent games when they do play' (
19). The drawbacks of self report data are noted, compared to being able to reco
rd episodes of actual violence. However, the authors feel that if anything self
report underestimates aggressive behaviour. They also regret not being able to s
eparate types of video games violence, especially since they suspect that realis
tic violence has greater impact
Parental involvement does appear 'as a protective factor' (19). Support for this
arises from another study where parents were actively encouraged to limit the a
mount of TV and video used at home, or to check the ratings of the games their c
hildren play more frequently -- which indicates that parental involvement can ev
en become a predictor, especially of physical fighting. However, such findings m
ay simply indicate 'a broader pattern of more involved parenting styles. Future
research on this issue is needed' (20).
Long-term effects cannot really be tested by studies that use correlations, and
generally 'Inferences about causal direction should be viewed with caution' (20
). Nevertheless, concern 'is not misplaced' (20).
back to key concepts page