Study of Games consisting of Violence and/Excitement

The choice of games

One of the most basic requirements of good experimentation is that the various conditions be as similar as possible except for the variable of interest. As long as the conditions differ only in terms of that variable, any differences in the dependent measure can be attributed to that variable; but if the conditions differ in other ways, any differences in the dependent measure could be due to any of the ways in the which the conditions differ. That is why great effort is usually made to equate the various experiment groups on every factor except the one of concern.

For example, imagine some researchers wanted to test the effectiveness of a new drug designed to reduce flu symptoms. The researchers design a study in which some people who have the flu get the drug three times a day while others get a placebo three times a day. Because the drug does not taste very good, it is mixed with a vitamin-rich fruit drink to make it more palatable, while the placebo is taken with water. The study shows that those who are given the drug report that their symptoms were less severe that those who were given the placebo. The researchers conclude that the drug works.

This conclusion is clearly not justified because the two conditions differ in more ways than just the presence or absence of the drug. Those who got the drug also drank the fruit drink. The difference between the conditions on the dependent variable could be due to the drug or to the fruit drink. This is so obvious that no serious scientist would make such a silly mistake. In good drug research the conditions are identical except for the drug - everyone gets the same instructions, everyone takes an identical-looking pill, takes the pill under identical circumstances, and every effort is made to have the drug-pill and the placebo-pill taste the same. In fact, as I’ll discuss later, both patient and physician do not even know what condition the patients are in until after the experiment is completed. Only when all of this is done is it legitimate to attribute differences to the drug. Similarly, in any kind of experiment, only if the experimental and control conditions are identical in every respect except the variable of interest can one conclude that differences on the dependent variable are due to that variable.

This ideal level of comparability between conditions has never been realized in the research on video games, even when the experimenters tried to equate conditions. For example, Anderson and Dill (2000) compared Wolfenstein, a violent video game, with Myst. They selected these two programs with considerable care. They conducted a pilot study on several video programs and found that these two did not differ in the ratings they received on various important dimensions. In particular, there were no differences on physiological measures or on ratings of action. In other words, the authors tried to find games that were equivalent.

However, it seems obvious that their attempt was not entirely successful. In the first place, players rated Wolfenstein more exciting than Myst. But perhaps equally important, anyone familiar with the two knows that they are entirely different programs. Myst was a very popular program that sold millions - but it differs in many ways from the violent game. To begin, it is not really a game but a puzzle. The players find themselves on a strange island and must figure out what is going on. This involves finding esoteric clues, interpreting them, and then using them correctly. It is extremely difficult and requires great ingenuity to solve. Those who like the game find this interesting and fascinating. But there is no action (it is hard to imagine why it was rated similar to Wolfenstein on this dimension) and nothing that makes it similar to a game. So it is not really an appropriate comparison, since presumably the question is whether games that involve violence differ from games that do not involve violence in their effects on aggression - not whether playing games differs from engaging in problem solving. Or, to put it another way, as in any experiment, you do not compare apples and oranges, but rather two kinds of apples.

Ballard and Lindeberger, 1999 did a better job. They compared NBA Jam, an exciting sports game with three versions of Mortal Kombat that differed in the amount of violence (or at least the graphic nature of the violence). It is possible that Mortal Kombat was more exciting and had more action than the basketball game, but at least all of the programs were exciting, all were games, and it was possible to compare the three level of Mortal Kombat to look for differences due to varying amounts of violence. Graybill et al (1987) probably did still better. They used six games that did not differ in ratings of excitement, difficulty or enjoyment but only in ratings of violence. All of them were lively, action-packed games in which players compete against the computer. Presumably it is better to have six games than to have only two since this reduces the chance that any effects are due to the specific games.

My point here is not to say that all of the studies failed to equate the games or that those that did equate them found no effect on aggression. Rather, the point is that in considering all of the research, it is important to understand that few of the experiments came close to solving and none solved perfectly the tricky problem of making the violent and non-violent games comparable on all variables other than the amount of violence. It may be that this cannot be done, but we must recognize that it is a limitation of the work and a serious limitation in some of the experiments.

The lack of comparability of the video games is not a subtle or picky criticism - it is absolutely basic to the design and interpretation of the research because it leaves open the interpretation of any difference that is found between conditions. And as in other media violence research, one obvious interpretation is that any effect is due to differences in arousal. Indeed, in their review of the research Anderson and Bushman found that exposure to violent video games increased physiological arousal. If the violent video game is more arousing than the non-violent comparison program, one would expect more aggression (or almost anything else) in the condition with higher arousal. If so, there is no reason to attribute the effect to the violence - it might be just the arousal. Since all of this research compared games with violence to games (or programs) without violence, and since the two types of games differed in many ways, it is possible any effects on aggression could be due to arousal or other factors rather than to the presence of violence. Because of this problem, one must be extremely cautious in interpreting the results of this research and especially cautious in deciding that the effects are due to the amount of violence in the games.

From Evaluating the Research on Violent Video Games by Jonathan L. Freedman

The View of an ANTI-

The thought of critics and politics actually believing that video games have become none other than a violent drug towards our young adolescents is highly beyond me. It's not the gaming corps fault for creating these supposedly violent games its the parents because in all honesty games are rated, similar to that of movies and if the parents can't control or contain their kids' strive for these games then how in the world will the problem stop with under age gaming. It can't and it won't and for politicians to say video games are violent, is unnecessary to say because the only way kids tend to get these violent games is by the parents. Read the rating label people!!! Your making a bigger deal out of video games violence then there should ever be! Politicians don't blame the company, blame the misguided and neglecting parents out there!

Video Game Violence Report

Is the Concern Justified?

Concern about violent video and computer games is based on the assumption that they contribute to aggression and violence among young players. That conclusion was originally based on the extensive body of research about the effects of television violence on children's behavior. Prominent organizations like the American Psychological Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association have all concluded that the scientific evidence shows a cause-effect relationship between television violence and aggression among the children and youth who watch it. Based on this research, many social scientists have hypothesized that we should expect video games to have an even greater impact for the following four reasons.

1. Children are more likely to imitate the actions of a character with whom they identify. In violent video games the player is often required to take the point of view of the shooter or perpetrator.

2. Video games by their very nature require active participation rather than passive observation.

3. Repetition increases learning. Video games involve a great deal of repetition. If the games are violent, then the effect is a behavioral rehearsal for violent activity.

4. Rewards increase learning, and video games are based on a reward system.

While the research base conducted on video games is small compared to that conducted on television, early results are showing that the concern is indeed warranted. Anderson & Bushman have conducted a meta-analysis of 35 different studies of violent video games (2001). A meta-analysis is a type of study in which researchers analyze the results of other studies to see if there are similar patterns of results; Anderson and Bushman showed that there is a consistent pattern of results in five areas.

1. Exposure to violent games increases physiological arousal.

Studies measuring the physiological responses to playing violent video games (compared with physiological responses to non-violent games) have shown that violent games increase physiological arousal. Heart rate, systolic blood pressure, and diastolic blood pressure all increase when playing violent games. Ballard & Weist (1996) showed that playing a violent game (Mortal Kombat, with the depictions of blood "turned on") resulted in higher systolic blood pressure increases than playing a non-violent game or Mortal Kombat with the blood "turned off." Studies by Lynch (1994, 1999) have shown that the effect may be even greater for children who are naturally more aggressive. Students who scored in the top 20% on a trait hostility scale showed much greater increases in physiological response than students scoring in the bottom 20% of the hostility scale. Children who were more hostile also showed much greater response in adrenaline, nor-adrenaline, and testosterone than children who were less hostile after playing a violent video game. These physiological effects are important because these are the same types of physiological reactions bodies have when engaged in a fight. The interaction with trait hostility is important because it suggests that the effects of playing violent games may be even greater for children who are already at risk for aggressive behavior.

2. Exposure to violent games increases aggressive thoughts.

Studies measuring cognitive responses to playing violent video games (compared with cognitive responses to non-violent games) have shown that violent games increase aggressive thoughts. These findings have been found for males and females, children and adults, and in experimental and correlational studies. Kirsh (1998) found that exposure to a violent video game increases hostile attribution bias (defined below) in the short term, relative to exposure to a non-violent video game. The term hostile attribution bias has been used to describe the manner in which aggressive children perceive the actions of peers. Children who tend to interpret ambiguous social cues as being of hostile intent (i.e., have a hostile attribution bias) are more aggressive (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994). Furthermore, there is a robust relationship between hostile attribution bias and children’s social maladjustment, such as depression, negative self-perceptions, and peer rejection (Crick, 1995). Gentile et al. (under review) also found that children who play more violent games are more likely to have a hostile attribution bias.

3. Exposure to violent games increases aggressive emotions.

Studies measuring emotional responses to playing violent video games (compared with emotional responses to non-violent games) have shown that violent games increase aggressive emotions. Adolescents themselves often seem to recognize this. When asked to name the "bad things" about computer games, many students reported that they make people more moody and aggressive (Griffiths & Hunt, 1998). In this study, students who were more "addicted" to video games were significantly more likely to be in a bad mood before, during, and after play than were non-addicted students.

4. Exposure to violent games increases aggressive actions.

Studies measuring aggressive behaviors after playing violent video games (compared with behaviors displayed after playing non-violent games) have shown that violent games increase aggression. In one study of college students, students played either a violent or non-violent game. After playing this game, they were given a competitive reaction time task in which they played against another student. If they beat the other student, they got to deliver a loud "noise blast," and were able to control how loud and how long the noise blast would be. Students who had previously played the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents (Anderson & Dill, 2000).

In a study of 8^th and 9^th graders, students who played more violent video games were also more likely to see the world as a hostile place, to get into frequent arguments with teachers, and to be involved in physical fights (Gentile et al., under review). It has often been suggested that violent video games are not the culprit for these types of behaviors; instead, the cause is underlying hostility. The argument goes, "Hostile kids get into more arguments and more fights. They also like to play more violent games." While this is true, it is not the whole story. This study measured children’s trait hostility, and found that exposure to video game violence is a significant predictor of physical fights, even when students’ sex, hostility level, and amount of video game playing are controlled statistically. If hostility were the whole story, then in general, only hostile children would tend to get into fights, and children with the lowest hostility scores would not get into physical fights regardless of their video game habits. Figure 1 shows the percentages of students who report being involved in physical fights within the previous year. Children with the lowest hostility scores are almost 10 times more likely to have been involved in physical fights if they play a lot of violent video games than if they do not play violent games (38% compared to 4%). In fact, the least hostile children who play a lot of violent video games are more likely to be involved in fights than are the most hostile children who do not play violent video games.

5. Exposure to violent games decreases positive prosocial (i.e., helping) actions.

Studies measuring prosocial attitudes and behaviors after playing violent video games (compared to non-violent games) have shown that violent games decrease players’ tendencies toward positive behaviors. For example, 7^th and 8^th grade children who spent more time playing video games were rated as less positively by their classmates than were children who spent less time playing video games (Van Schie & Wiegman, 1997). In a study we are currently conducting with 3^rd grade children, we are finding similar results. Children who expose themselves to more media violence (including violent video games, TV, and movies) are rated as more aggressive and less prosocial by their peers and by their teachers.

In sum, while there is less research on violent video games than there is on violent television, the effects appear to be similar. Children (and adults) who play more violent video games are more likely to experience aggressive feelings, thoughts, and actions, and are also less likely to behave in positive, prosocial ways. This appears to be true for both boys and girls, and surprisingly, also for children who are not naturally aggressive. One group of researchers concluded:

…even if children with more problematic behavior are simply more likely to prefer violent games, playing such games is not likely to improve behavioral problems. These children may, in fact, be more vulnerable to adverse influence because of preexisting behavioral problems….recent reports linking school violence with electronic game-playing merit careful study. (Funk, Buchman, & Germann, 2000, p. 238)

From video game violence and public policy by David Walsh