aggression in video games essay

October 2, 2018

Do Violent Video Games Trigger Aggression?

A study tries to find whether slaughtering zombies with a virtual assault weapon translates into misbehavior when a teenager returns to reality

By Melinda Wenner Moyer

Getty Images

Intuitively, it makes sense Splatterhouse and Postal 2 would serve as virtual training sessions for teens, encouraging them to act out in ways that mimic game-related violence. But many studies have failed to find a clear connection between violent game play and belligerent behavior, and the controversy over whether the shoot-‘em-up world transfers to real life has persisted for years. A new study published on October 1 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tries to resolve the controversy by weighing the findings of two dozen studies on the topic.

The meta-analysis does tie violent video games to a small increase in physical aggression among adolescents and preteens. Yet debate is by no means over. Whereas the analysis was undertaken to help settle the science on the issue, researchers still disagree on the real-world significance of the findings.

This new analysis attempted to navigate through the minefield of conflicting research. Many studies find gaming associated with increases in aggression, but others identify no such link. A small but vocal cadre of researchers have argued much of the work implicating video games has serious flaws in that, among other things, it measures the frequency of aggressive thoughts or language rather than physically aggressive behaviors like hitting or pushing, which have more real-world relevance.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Jay Hull, a social psychologist at Dartmouth College and a co-author on the new paper, has never been convinced by the critiques that have disparaged purported ties between gaming and aggression. “I just kept reading, over and over again, [these] criticisms of the literature and going, ‘that’s just not true,’” he says. So he and his colleagues designed the new meta-analysis to address these criticisms head-on and determine if they had merit.

Hull and colleagues pooled data from 24 studies that had been selected to avoid some of the criticisms leveled at earlier work. They only included research that measured the relationship between violent video game use and overt physical aggression. They also limited their analysis to studies that statistically controlled for several factors that could influence the relationship between gaming and subsequent behavior, such as age and baseline aggressive behavior.

Even with these constraints, their analysis found kids who played violent video games did become more aggressive over time. But the changes in behavior were not big. “According to traditional ways of looking at these numbers, it’s not a large effect—I would say it’s relatively small,” he says. But it’s “statistically reliable—it’s not by chance and not inconsequential.”

Their findings mesh with a 2015 literature review conducted by the American Psychological Association, which concluded violent video games worsen aggressive behavior in older children, adolescents and young adults. Together, Hull’s meta-analysis and the APA report help give clarity to the existing body of research, says Douglas Gentile, a developmental psychologist at Iowa State University who was not involved in conducting the meta-analysis. “Media violence is one risk factor for aggression,” he says. “It's not the biggest, it’s also not the smallest, but it’s worth paying attention to.”

Yet researchers who have been critical of links between games and violence contend Hull’s meta-analysis does not settle the issue. “They don’t find much. They just try to make it sound like they do,” says Christopher Ferguson, a psychologist at Stetson University in Florida, who has published papers questioning the link between violent video games and aggression.

Ferguson argues the degree to which video game use increases aggression in Hull’s analysis—what is known in psychology as the estimated “effect size”—is so small as to be essentially meaningless. After statistically controlling for several other factors, the meta-analysis reported an effect size of 0.08, which suggests that violent video games account for less than one percent of the variation in aggressive behavior among U.S. teens and pre-teens—if, in fact, there is a cause-and effect relationship between game play and hostile actions. It may instead be that the relationship between gaming and aggression is a statistical artifact caused by lingering flaws in study design, Ferguson says.  

Johannes Breuer, a psychologist at GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany, agrees, noting that according to “a common rule of thumb in psychological research,” effect sizes below 0.1 are “considered trivial.” He adds meta-analyses are only as valid as the studies included in them, and that work on the issue has been plagued by methodological problems. For one thing, studies vary in terms of the criteria they use to determine if a video game is violent or not. By some measures, the Super Mario Bros. games would be considered violent, but by others not. Studies, too, often rely on subjects self-reporting their own aggressive acts, and they may not do so accurately. “All of this is not to say that the results of this meta-analysis are not valid,” he says. “But things like this need to be kept in mind when interpreting the findings and discussing their meaning.”

Hull says, however, that the effect size his team found still has real-world significance. An analysis of one of his earlier studies, which reported a similar estimated effect size of 0.083, found playing violent video games was linked with almost double the risk that kids would be sent to the school principal’s office for fighting. The study began by taking a group of children who hadn’t been dispatched to the principal in the previous month and then tracked them for a subsequent eight months. It found 4.8 percent of kids who reported only rarely playing violent video games were sent to the principal’s office at least once during that period compared with 9 percent who reported playing violent video games frequently. Hull theorizes violent games help kids become more comfortable with taking risks and engaging in abnormal behavior. “Their sense of right and wrong is being warped,” he notes.

Hull and his colleagues also found evidence ethnicity shapes the relationship between violent video games and aggression. White players seem more susceptible to the games' putative effects on behavior than do Hispanic and Asian players. Hull isn’t sure why, but he suspects the games' varying impact relates to how much kids are influenced by the norms of American culture, which, he says, are rooted in rugged individualism and a warriorlike mentality that may incite video game players to identify with aggressors rather than victims. It might “dampen sympathy toward their virtual victims,” he and his co-authors wrote, “with consequences for their values and behavior outside the game.”

Social scientists will, no doubt, continue to debate the psychological impacts of killing within the confines of interactive games. In a follow-up paper Hull says he plans to tackle the issue of the real-world significance of violent game play, and hopes it adds additional clarity. “It’s a knotty issue,” he notes—and it’s an open question whether research will ever quell the controversy.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 13 March 2018

Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study

• Simone Kühn 1 , 2 ,
• Dimitrij Tycho Kugler 2 ,
• Katharina Schmalen 1 ,
• Markus Weichenberger 1 ,
• Charlotte Witt 1 &
• Jürgen Gallinat 2  

Molecular Psychiatry volume  24 ,  pages 1220–1234 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

548k Accesses

102 Citations

2341 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Neuroscience

It is a widespread concern that violent video games promote aggression, reduce pro-social behaviour, increase impulsivity and interfere with cognition as well as mood in its players. Previous experimental studies have focussed on short-term effects of violent video gameplay on aggression, yet there are reasons to believe that these effects are mostly the result of priming. In contrast, the present study is the first to investigate the effects of long-term violent video gameplay using a large battery of tests spanning questionnaires, behavioural measures of aggression, sexist attitudes, empathy and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), mental health (depressivity, anxiety) as well as executive control functions, before and after 2 months of gameplay. Our participants played the violent video game Grand Theft Auto V, the non-violent video game The Sims 3 or no game at all for 2 months on a daily basis. No significant changes were observed, neither when comparing the group playing a violent video game to a group playing a non-violent game, nor to a passive control group. Also, no effects were observed between baseline and posttest directly after the intervention, nor between baseline and a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention period had ended. The present results thus provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games in adults and will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective on the effects of violent video gaming.

Similar content being viewed by others

Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

Anger is eliminated with the disposal of a paper written because of provocation

Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time

The concern that violent video games may promote aggression or reduce empathy in its players is pervasive and given the popularity of these games their psychological impact is an urgent issue for society at large. Contrary to the custom, this topic has also been passionately debated in the scientific literature. One research camp has strongly argued that violent video games increase aggression in its players [ 1 , 2 ], whereas the other camp [ 3 , 4 ] repeatedly concluded that the effects are minimal at best, if not absent. Importantly, it appears that these fundamental inconsistencies cannot be attributed to differences in research methodology since even meta-analyses, with the goal to integrate the results of all prior studies on the topic of aggression caused by video games led to disparate conclusions [ 2 , 3 ]. These meta-analyses had a strong focus on children, and one of them [ 2 ] reported a marginal age effect suggesting that children might be even more susceptible to violent video game effects.

To unravel this topic of research, we designed a randomised controlled trial on adults to draw causal conclusions on the influence of video games on aggression. At present, almost all experimental studies targeting the effects of violent video games on aggression and/or empathy focussed on the effects of short-term video gameplay. In these studies the duration for which participants were instructed to play the games ranged from 4 min to maximally 2 h (mean = 22 min, median = 15 min, when considering all experimental studies reviewed in two of the recent major meta-analyses in the field [ 3 , 5 ]) and most frequently the effects of video gaming have been tested directly after gameplay.

It has been suggested that the effects of studies focussing on consequences of short-term video gameplay (mostly conducted on college student populations) are mainly the result of priming effects, meaning that exposure to violent content increases the accessibility of aggressive thoughts and affect when participants are in the immediate situation [ 6 ]. However, above and beyond this the General Aggression Model (GAM, [ 7 ]) assumes that repeatedly primed thoughts and feelings influence the perception of ongoing events and therewith elicits aggressive behaviour as a long-term effect. We think that priming effects are interesting and worthwhile exploring, but in contrast to the notion of the GAM our reading of the literature is that priming effects are short-lived (suggested to only last for <5 min and may potentially reverse after that time [ 8 ]). Priming effects should therefore only play a role in very close temporal proximity to gameplay. Moreover, there are a multitude of studies on college students that have failed to replicate priming effects [ 9 , 10 , 11 ] and associated predictions of the so-called GAM such as a desensitisation against violent content [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] in adolescents and college students or a decrease of empathy [ 15 ] and pro-social behaviour [ 16 , 17 ] as a result of playing violent video games.

However, in our view the question that society is actually interested in is not: “Are people more aggressive after having played violent video games for a few minutes? And are these people more aggressive minutes after gameplay ended?”, but rather “What are the effects of frequent, habitual violent video game playing? And for how long do these effects persist (not in the range of minutes but rather weeks and months)?” For this reason studies are needed in which participants are trained over longer periods of time, tested after a longer delay after acute playing and tested with broader batteries assessing aggression but also other relevant domains such as empathy as well as mood and cognition. Moreover, long-term follow-up assessments are needed to demonstrate long-term effects of frequent violent video gameplay. To fill this gap, we set out to expose adult participants to two different types of video games for a period of 2 months and investigate changes in measures of various constructs of interest at least one day after the last gaming session and test them once more 2 months after the end of the gameplay intervention. In contrast to the GAM, we hypothesised no increases of aggression or decreases in pro-social behaviour even after long-term exposure to a violent video game due to our reasoning that priming effects of violent video games are short-lived and should therefore not influence measures of aggression if they are not measured directly after acute gaming. In the present study, we assessed potential changes in the following domains: behavioural as well as questionnaire measures of aggression, empathy and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), and depressivity and anxiety as well as executive control functions. As the effects on aggression and pro-social behaviour were the core targets of the present study, we implemented multiple tests for these domains. This broad range of domains with its wide coverage and the longitudinal nature of the study design enabled us to draw more general conclusions regarding the causal effects of violent video games.

Materials and methods

Participants.

Ninety healthy participants (mean age = 28 years, SD = 7.3, range: 18–45, 48 females) were recruited by means of flyers and internet advertisements. The sample consisted of college students as well as of participants from the general community. The advertisement mentioned that we were recruiting for a longitudinal study on video gaming, but did not mention that we would offer an intervention or that we were expecting training effects. Participants were randomly assigned to the three groups ruling out self-selection effects. The sample size was based on estimates from a previous study with a similar design [ 18 ]. After complete description of the study, the participants’ informed written consent was obtained. The local ethics committee of the Charité University Clinic, Germany, approved of the study. We included participants that reported little, preferably no video game usage in the past 6 months (none of the participants ever played the game Grand Theft Auto V (GTA) or Sims 3 in any of its versions before). We excluded participants with psychological or neurological problems. The participants received financial compensation for the testing sessions (200 Euros) and performance-dependent additional payment for two behavioural tasks detailed below, but received no money for the training itself.

Training procedure

The violent video game group (5 participants dropped out between pre- and posttest, resulting in a group of n  = 25, mean age = 26.6 years, SD = 6.0, 14 females) played the game Grand Theft Auto V on a Playstation 3 console over a period of 8 weeks. The active control group played the non-violent video game Sims 3 on the same console (6 participants dropped out, resulting in a group of n  = 24, mean age = 25.8 years, SD = 6.8, 12 females). The passive control group (2 participants dropped out, resulting in a group of n  = 28, mean age = 30.9 years, SD = 8.4, 12 females) was not given a gaming console and had no task but underwent the same testing procedure as the two other groups. The passive control group was not aware of the fact that they were part of a control group to prevent self-training attempts. The experimenters testing the participants were blind to group membership, but we were unable to prevent participants from talking about the game during testing, which in some cases lead to an unblinding of experimental condition. Both training groups were instructed to play the game for at least 30 min a day. Participants were only reimbursed for the sessions in which they came to the lab. Our previous research suggests that the perceived fun in gaming was positively associated with training outcome [ 18 ] and we speculated that enforcing training sessions through payment would impair motivation and thus diminish the potential effect of the intervention. Participants underwent a testing session before (baseline) and after the training period of 2 months (posttest 1) as well as a follow-up testing sessions 2 months after the training period (posttest 2).

Grand Theft Auto V (GTA)

GTA is an action-adventure video game situated in a fictional highly violent game world in which players are rewarded for their use of violence as a means to advance in the game. The single-player story follows three criminals and their efforts to commit heists while under pressure from a government agency. The gameplay focuses on an open world (sandbox game) where the player can choose between different behaviours. The game also allows the player to engage in various side activities, such as action-adventure, driving, third-person shooting, occasional role-playing, stealth and racing elements. The open world design lets players freely roam around the fictional world so that gamers could in principle decide not to commit violent acts.

The Sims 3 (Sims)

Sims is a life simulation game and also classified as a sandbox game because it lacks clearly defined goals. The player creates virtual individuals called “Sims”, and customises their appearance, their personalities and places them in a home, directs their moods, satisfies their desires and accompanies them in their daily activities and by becoming part of a social network. It offers opportunities, which the player may choose to pursue or to refuse, similar as GTA but is generally considered as a pro-social and clearly non-violent game.

Assessment battery

To assess aggression and associated constructs we used the following questionnaires: Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire [ 19 ], State Hostility Scale [ 20 ], Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale [ 21 , 22 ], Moral Disengagement Scale [ 23 , 24 ], the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test [ 25 , 26 ] and a so-called World View Measure [ 27 ]. All of these measures have previously been used in research investigating the effects of violent video gameplay, however, the first two most prominently. Additionally, behavioural measures of aggression were used: a Word Completion Task, a Lexical Decision Task [ 28 ] and the Delay frustration task [ 29 ] (an inter-correlation matrix is depicted in Supplementary Figure 1 1). From these behavioural measures, the first two were previously used in research on the effects of violent video gameplay. To assess variables that have been related to the construct of impulsivity, we used the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale [ 30 ] and the Boredom Propensity Scale [ 31 ] as well as tasks assessing risk taking and delay discounting behaviourally, namely the Balloon Analogue Risk Task [ 32 ] and a Delay-Discounting Task [ 33 ]. To quantify pro-social behaviour, we employed: Interpersonal Reactivity Index [ 34 ] (frequently used in research on the effects of violent video gameplay), Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale [ 35 ], Reading the Mind in the Eyes test [ 36 ], Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire [ 37 ] and Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire [ 38 ]. To assess depressivity and anxiety, which has previously been associated with intense video game playing [ 39 ], we used Beck Depression Inventory [ 40 ] and State Trait Anxiety Inventory [ 41 ]. To characterise executive control function, we used a Stop Signal Task [ 42 ], a Multi-Source Interference Task [ 43 ] and a Task Switching Task [ 44 ] which have all been previously used to assess effects of video gameplay. More details on all instruments used can be found in the Supplementary Material.

Data analysis

On the basis of the research question whether violent video game playing enhances aggression and reduces empathy, the focus of the present analysis was on time by group interactions. We conducted these interaction analyses separately, comparing the violent video game group against the active control group (GTA vs. Sims) and separately against the passive control group (GTA vs. Controls) that did not receive any intervention and separately for the potential changes during the intervention period (baseline vs. posttest 1) and to test for potential long-term changes (baseline vs. posttest 2). We employed classical frequentist statistics running a repeated-measures ANOVA controlling for the covariates sex and age.

Since we collected 52 separate outcome variables and conduced four different tests with each (GTA vs. Sims, GTA vs. Controls, crossed with baseline vs. posttest 1, baseline vs. posttest 2), we had to conduct 52 × 4 = 208 frequentist statistical tests. Setting the alpha value to 0.05 means that by pure chance about 10.4 analyses should become significant. To account for this multiple testing problem and the associated alpha inflation, we conducted a Bonferroni correction. According to Bonferroni, the critical value for the entire set of n tests is set to an alpha value of 0.05 by taking alpha/ n  = 0.00024.

Since the Bonferroni correction has sometimes been criticised as overly conservative, we conducted false discovery rate (FDR) correction [ 45 ]. FDR correction also determines adjusted p -values for each test, however, it controls only for the number of false discoveries in those tests that result in a discovery (namely a significant result).

Moreover, we tested for group differences at the baseline assessment using independent t -tests, since those may hamper the interpretation of significant interactions between group and time that we were primarily interested in.

Since the frequentist framework does not enable to evaluate whether the observed null effect of the hypothesised interaction is indicative of the absence of a relation between violent video gaming and our dependent variables, the amount of evidence in favour of the null hypothesis has been tested using a Bayesian framework. Within the Bayesian framework both the evidence in favour of the null and the alternative hypothesis are directly computed based on the observed data, giving rise to the possibility of comparing the two. We conducted Bayesian repeated-measures ANOVAs comparing the model in favour of the null and the model in favour of the alternative hypothesis resulting in a Bayes factor (BF) using Bayesian Information criteria [ 46 ]. The BF 01 suggests how much more likely the data is to occur under the null hypothesis. All analyses were performed using the JASP software package ( https://jasp-stats.org ).

Sex distribution in the present study did not differ across the groups ( χ 2 p -value > 0.414). However, due to the fact that differences between males and females have been observed in terms of aggression and empathy [ 47 ], we present analyses controlling for sex. Since our random assignment to the three groups did result in significant age differences between groups, with the passive control group being significantly older than the GTA ( t (51) = −2.10, p  = 0.041) and the Sims group ( t (50) = −2.38, p  = 0.021), we also controlled for age.

The participants in the violent video game group played on average 35 h and the non-violent video game group 32 h spread out across the 8 weeks interval (with no significant group difference p  = 0.48).

To test whether participants assigned to the violent GTA game show emotional, cognitive and behavioural changes, we present the results of repeated-measure ANOVA time x group interaction analyses separately for GTA vs. Sims and GTA vs. Controls (Tables  1 – 3 ). Moreover, we split the analyses according to the time domain into effects from baseline assessment to posttest 1 (Table  2 ) and effects from baseline assessment to posttest 2 (Table  3 ) to capture more long-lasting or evolving effects. In addition to the statistical test values, we report partial omega squared ( ω 2 ) as an effect size measure. Next to the classical frequentist statistics, we report the results of a Bayesian statistical approach, namely BF 01 , the likelihood with which the data is to occur under the null hypothesis that there is no significant time × group interaction. In Table  2 , we report the presence of significant group differences at baseline in the right most column.

Since we conducted 208 separate frequentist tests we expected 10.4 significant effects simply by chance when setting the alpha value to 0.05. In fact we found only eight significant time × group interactions (these are marked with an asterisk in Tables  2 and 3 ).

When applying a conservative Bonferroni correction, none of those tests survive the corrected threshold of p  < 0.00024. Neither does any test survive the more lenient FDR correction. The arithmetic mean of the frequentist test statistics likewise shows that on average no significant effect was found (bottom rows in Tables  2 and 3 ).

In line with the findings from a frequentist approach, the harmonic mean of the Bayesian factor BF 01 is consistently above one but not very far from one. This likewise suggests that there is very likely no interaction between group × time and therewith no detrimental effects of the violent video game GTA in the domains tested. The evidence in favour of the null hypothesis based on the Bayes factor is not massive, but clearly above 1. Some of the harmonic means are above 1.6 and constitute substantial evidence [ 48 ]. However, the harmonic mean has been criticised as unstable. Owing to the fact that the sum is dominated by occasional small terms in the likelihood, one may underestimate the actual evidence in favour of the null hypothesis [ 49 ].

To test the sensitivity of the present study to detect relevant effects we computed the effect size that we would have been able to detect. The information we used consisted of alpha error probability = 0.05, power = 0.95, our sample size, number of groups and of measurement occasions and correlation between the repeated measures at posttest 1 and posttest 2 (average r  = 0.68). According to G*Power [ 50 ], we could detect small effect sizes of f  = 0.16 (equals η 2  = 0.025 and r  = 0.16) in each separate test. When accounting for the conservative Bonferroni-corrected p -value of 0.00024, still a medium effect size of f  = 0.23 (equals η 2  = 0.05 and r  = 0.22) would have been detectable. A meta-analysis by Anderson [ 2 ] reported an average effects size of r  = 0.18 for experimental studies testing for aggressive behaviour and another by Greitmeyer [ 5 ] reported average effect sizes of r  = 0.19, 0.25 and 0.17 for effects of violent games on aggressive behaviour, cognition and affect, all of which should have been detectable at least before multiple test correction.

Within the scope of the present study we tested the potential effects of playing the violent video game GTA V for 2 months against an active control group that played the non-violent, rather pro-social life simulation game The Sims 3 and a passive control group. Participants were tested before and after the long-term intervention and at a follow-up appointment 2 months later. Although we used a comprehensive test battery consisting of questionnaires and computerised behavioural tests assessing aggression, impulsivity-related constructs, mood, anxiety, empathy, interpersonal competencies and executive control functions, we did not find relevant negative effects in response to violent video game playing. In fact, only three tests of the 208 statistical tests performed showed a significant interaction pattern that would be in line with this hypothesis. Since at least ten significant effects would be expected purely by chance, we conclude that there were no detrimental effects of violent video gameplay.

This finding stands in contrast to some experimental studies, in which short-term effects of violent video game exposure have been investigated and where increases in aggressive thoughts and affect as well as decreases in helping behaviour have been observed [ 1 ]. However, these effects of violent video gaming on aggressiveness—if present at all (see above)—seem to be rather short-lived, potentially lasting <15 min [ 8 , 51 ]. In addition, these short-term effects of video gaming are far from consistent as multiple studies fail to demonstrate or replicate them [ 16 , 17 ]. This may in part be due to problems, that are very prominent in this field of research, namely that the outcome measures of aggression and pro-social behaviour, are poorly standardised, do not easily generalise to real-life behaviour and may have lead to selective reporting of the results [ 3 ]. We tried to address these concerns by including a large set of outcome measures that were mostly inspired by previous studies demonstrating effects of short-term violent video gameplay on aggressive behaviour and thoughts, that we report exhaustively.

Since effects observed only for a few minutes after short sessions of video gaming are not representative of what society at large is actually interested in, namely how habitual violent video gameplay affects behaviour on a more long-term basis, studies employing longer training intervals are highly relevant. Two previous studies have employed longer training intervals. In an online study, participants with a broad age range (14–68 years) have been trained in a violent video game for 4 weeks [ 52 ]. In comparison to a passive control group no changes were observed, neither in aggression-related beliefs, nor in aggressive social interactions assessed by means of two questions. In a more recent study, participants played a previous version of GTA for 12 h spread across 3 weeks [ 53 ]. Participants were compared to a passive control group using the Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire, a questionnaire assessing impulsive or reactive aggression, attitude towards violence, and empathy. The authors only report a limited increase in pro-violent attitude. Unfortunately, this study only assessed posttest measures, which precludes the assessment of actual changes caused by the game intervention.

The present study goes beyond these studies by showing that 2 months of violent video gameplay does neither lead to any significant negative effects in a broad assessment battery administered directly after the intervention nor at a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention. The fact that we assessed multiple domains, not finding an effect in any of them, makes the present study the most comprehensive in the field. Our battery included self-report instruments on aggression (Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire, State Hostility scale, Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale, Moral Disengagement scale, World View Measure and Rosenzweig Picture Frustration test) as well as computer-based tests measuring aggressive behaviour such as the delay frustration task and measuring the availability of aggressive words using the word completion test and a lexical decision task. Moreover, we assessed impulse-related concepts such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness and associated behavioural measures such as the computerised Balloon analogue risk task, and delay discounting. Four scales assessing empathy and interpersonal competence scales, including the reading the mind in the eyes test revealed no effects of violent video gameplay. Neither did we find any effects on depressivity (Becks depression inventory) nor anxiety measured as a state as well as a trait. This is an important point, since several studies reported higher rates of depressivity and anxiety in populations of habitual video gamers [ 54 , 55 ]. Last but not least, our results revealed also no substantial changes in executive control tasks performance, neither in the Stop signal task, the Multi-source interference task or a Task switching task. Previous studies have shown higher performance of habitual action video gamers in executive tasks such as task switching [ 56 , 57 , 58 ] and another study suggests that training with action video games improves task performance that relates to executive functions [ 59 ], however, these associations were not confirmed by a meta-analysis in the field [ 60 ]. The absence of changes in the stop signal task fits well with previous studies that likewise revealed no difference between in habitual action video gamers and controls in terms of action inhibition [ 61 , 62 ]. Although GTA does not qualify as a classical first-person shooter as most of the previously tested action video games, it is classified as an action-adventure game and shares multiple features with those action video games previously related to increases in executive function, including the need for hand–eye coordination and fast reaction times.

Taken together, the findings of the present study show that an extensive game intervention over the course of 2 months did not reveal any specific changes in aggression, empathy, interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs, depressivity, anxiety or executive control functions; neither in comparison to an active control group that played a non-violent video game nor to a passive control group. We observed no effects when comparing a baseline and a post-training assessment, nor when focussing on more long-term effects between baseline and a follow-up interval 2 months after the participants stopped training. To our knowledge, the present study employed the most comprehensive test battery spanning a multitude of domains in which changes due to violent video games may have been expected. Therefore the present results provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games. This debate has mostly been informed by studies showing short-term effects of violent video games when tests were administered immediately after a short playtime of a few minutes; effects that may in large be caused by short-lived priming effects that vanish after minutes. The presented results will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective of the real-life effects of violent video gaming. However, future research is needed to demonstrate the absence of effects of violent video gameplay in children.

Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychol Sci. 2001;12:353–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, et al. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2010;136:151–73.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ferguson CJ. Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10:646–66.

Ferguson CJ, Kilburn J. Much ado about nothing: the misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychol Bull. 2010;136:174–8.

Greitemeyer T, Mugge DO. Video games do affect social outcomes: a meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014;40:578–89.

Anderson CA, Carnagey NL, Eubanks J. Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:960–71.

DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. The general aggression model: theoretical extensions to violence. Psychol Violence. 2011;1:245–58.

Sestire MA, Bartholow BD. Violent and non-violent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46:934–42.

Kneer J, Elson M, Knapp F. Fight fire with rainbows: The effects of displayed violence, difficulty, and performance in digital games on affect, aggression, and physiological arousal. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;54:142–8.

Kneer J, Glock S, Beskes S, Bente G. Are digital games perceived as fun or danger? Supporting and suppressing different game-related concepts. Cyber Beh Soc N. 2012;15:604–9.

Sauer JD, Drummond A, Nova N. Violent video games: the effects of narrative context and reward structure on in-game and postgame aggression. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2015;21:205–14.

Ballard M, Visser K, Jocoy K. Social context and video game play: impact on cardiovascular and affective responses. Mass Commun Soc. 2012;15:875–98.

Read GL, Ballard M, Emery LJ, Bazzini DG. Examining desensitization using facial electromyography: violent video games, gender, and affective responding. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;62:201–11.

Szycik GR, Mohammadi B, Hake M, Kneer J, Samii A, Munte TF, et al. Excessive users of violent video games do not show emotional desensitization: an fMRI study. Brain Imaging Behav. 2017;11:736–43.

Szycik GR, Mohammadi B, Munte TF, Te Wildt BT. Lack of evidence that neural empathic responses are blunted in excessive users of violent video games: an fMRI study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:174.

Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Failure to demonstrate that playing violent video games diminishes prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68382.

Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Video games and prosocial behavior: a study of the effects of non-violent, violent and ultra-violent gameplay. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;41:8–13.

Kühn S, Gleich T, Lorenz RC, Lindenberger U, Gallinat J. Playing super Mario induces structural brain plasticity: gray matter changes resulting from training with a commercial video game. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19:265–71.

Buss AH, Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63:452.

Anderson CA, Deuser WE, DeNeve KM. Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21:434–48.

Payne DL, Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF. Rape myth acceptance: exploration of its structure and its measurement using the illinois rape myth acceptance scale. J Res Pers. 1999;33:27–68.

McMahon S, Farmer GL. An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Res. 2011; 35:71–81.

Detert JR, Trevino LK, Sweitzer VL. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93:374–91.

Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara G, Pastorelli C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71:364–74.

Rosenzweig S. The picture-association method and its application in a study of reactions to frustration. J Pers. 1945;14:23.

Hörmann H, Moog W, Der Rosenzweig P-F. Test für Erwachsene deutsche Bearbeitung. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1957.

Anderson CA, Dill KE. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78:772–90.

Przybylski AK, Deci EL, Rigby CS, Ryan RM. Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014;106:441.

Bitsakou P, Antrop I, Wiersema JR, Sonuga-Barke EJ. Probing the limits of delay intolerance: preliminary young adult data from the Delay Frustration Task (DeFT). J Neurosci Methods. 2006;151:38–44.

Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT, Palmgreen P, Lorch EP, Donohew RL. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Pers Individ Dif. 2002;32:401–14.

Farmer R, Sundberg ND. Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. J Pers Assess. 1986;50:4–17.

Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002;8:75–84.

Richards JB, Zhang L, Mitchell SH, de Wit H. Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999;71:121–43.

Davis MH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat Sel Doc Psychol. 1980;10:85.

Google Scholar  

Mehrabian A. Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). (Available from Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa Road, Monterey, CA, USA 93940); 1996.

Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42:241–51.

Buhrmester D, Furman W, Reis H, Wittenberg MT. Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55:991–1008.

Richardson DR, Green LR, Lago T. The relationship between perspective-taking and non-aggressive responding in the face of an attack. J Pers. 1998;66:235–56.

Maras D, Flament MF, Murray M, Buchholz A, Henderson KA, Obeid N, et al. Screen time is associated with depression and anxiety in Canadian youth. Prev Med. 2015;73:133–8.

Hautzinger M, Bailer M, Worall H, Keller F. Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI). Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI): Testhandbuch der deutschen Ausgabe. Bern: Huber; 1995.

Spielberger CD, Spielberger CD, Sydeman SJ, Sydeman SJ, Owen AE, Owen AE, et al. Measuring anxiety and anger with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1999.

Lorenz RC, Gleich T, Buchert R, Schlagenhauf F, Kuhn S, Gallinat J. Interactions between glutamate, dopamine, and the neuronal signature of response inhibition in the human striatum. Hum Brain Mapp. 2015;36:4031–40.

Bush G, Shin LM. The multi-source interference task: an fMRI task that reliably activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/attention network. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:308–13.

King JA, Colla M, Brass M, Heuser I, von Cramon D. Inefficient cognitive control in adult ADHD: evidence from trial-by-trial Stroop test and cued task switching performance. Behav Brain Funct. 2007;3:42.

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc. 1995;57:289–300.

Wagenmakers E-J. A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007;14:779–804.

Hay DF. The gradual emergence of sex differences in aggression: alternative hypotheses. Psychol Med. 2007;37:1527–37.

Jeffreys H. The Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1961.

Raftery AE, Newton MA, Satagopan YM, Krivitsky PN. Estimating the integrated likelihood via posterior simulation using the harmonic mean identity. In: Bernardo JM, Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Heckerman D, Smith AFM, et al., editors. Bayesian statistics. Oxford: University Press; 2007.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.

Barlett C, Branch O, Rodeheffer C, Harris R. How long do the short-term violent video game effects last? Aggress Behav. 2009;35:225–36.

Williams D, Skoric M. Internet fantasy violence: a test of aggression in an online game. Commun Monogr. 2005;72:217–33.

Teng SK, Chong GY, Siew AS, Skoric MM. Grand theft auto IV comes to Singapore: effects of repeated exposure to violent video games on aggression. Cyber Behav Soc Netw. 2011;14:597–602.

van Rooij AJ, Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD, Shorter GW, Schoenmakers TM, Van, de Mheen D. The (co-)occurrence of problematic video gaming, substance use, and psychosocial problems in adolescents. J Behav Addict. 2014;3:157–65.

Brunborg GS, Mentzoni RA, Froyland LR. Is video gaming, or video game addiction, associated with depression, academic achievement, heavy episodic drinking, or conduct problems? J Behav Addict. 2014;3:27–32.

Green CS, Sugarman MA, Medford K, Klobusicky E, Bavelier D. The effect of action video game experience on task switching. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28:984–94.

Strobach T, Frensch PA, Schubert T. Video game practice optimizes executive control skills in dual-task and task switching situations. Acta Psychol. 2012;140:13–24.

Colzato LS, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Wildenberg WP, Hommel B. DOOM’d to switch: superior cognitive flexibility in players of first person shooter games. Front Psychol. 2010;1:8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hutchinson CV, Barrett DJK, Nitka A, Raynes K. Action video game training reduces the Simon effect. Psychon B Rev. 2016;23:587–92.

Powers KL, Brooks PJ, Aldrich NJ, Palladino MA, Alfieri L. Effects of video-game play on information processing: a meta-analytic investigation. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013;20:1055–79.

Colzato LS, van den Wildenberg WP, Zmigrod S, Hommel B. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improvement in working memory but not action inhibition. Psychol Res. 2013;77:234–9.

Steenbergen L, Sellaro R, Stock AK, Beste C, Colzato LS. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improved action cascading but not inhibition. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0144364.

Download references

Acknowledgements

SK has been funded by a Heisenberg grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG KU 3322/1-1, SFB 936/C7), the European Union (ERC-2016-StG-Self-Control-677804) and a Fellowship from the Jacobs Foundation (JRF 2016–2018).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Lifespan Psychology, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany

Simone Kühn, Katharina Schmalen, Markus Weichenberger & Charlotte Witt

Clinic and Policlinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

Simone Kühn, Dimitrij Tycho Kugler & Jürgen Gallinat

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Kühn .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kühn, S., Kugler, D., Schmalen, K. et al. Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study. Mol Psychiatry 24 , 1220–1234 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Download citation

Received : 19 August 2017

Revised : 03 January 2018

Accepted : 15 January 2018

Published : 13 March 2018

Issue Date : August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

The effect of competitive context in nonviolent video games on aggression: the mediating role of frustration and the moderating role of gender.

• Jinqian Liao
• Yanling Liu

Current Psychology (2024)

Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain

• Agnieszka Pluta
• Joanna Mazurek
• Michał Bilewicz

Scientific Reports (2023)

The effects of violent video games on reactive-proactive aggression and cyberbullying

• Yunus Emre Dönmez

Current Psychology (2023)

Machen Computerspiele aggressiv?

• Jan Dieris-Hirche

Die Psychotherapie (2023)

Systematic Review of Gaming and Neuropsychological Assessment of Social Cognition

• Elodie Hurel
• Marie Grall-Bronnec
• Gaëlle Challet-Bouju

Neuropsychology Review (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

ORIGINAL RESEARCH article

The relation of violent video games to adolescent aggression: an examination of moderated mediation effect.

• 1 Research Institute of Moral Education, College of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, Nanjing, China
• 2 The Lab of Mental Health and Social Adaptation, Faculty of Psychology, Research Center for Mental Health Education, Southwest University, Chongqing, China

To assess the moderated mediation effect of normative beliefs about aggression and family environment on exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression, the subjects self-reported their exposure to violent video games, family environment, normative beliefs about aggression, and aggressive behavior. The results showed that there was a significant positive correlation between exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression; normative beliefs about aggression had a mediation effect on exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression, while family environment moderated the first part of the mediation process. For individuals with a good family environment, exposure to violent video games had only a direct effect on aggression; however, for those with poor family environment, it had both direct and indirect effects mediated by normative beliefs about aggression. This moderated mediation model includes some notions of General Aggression Model (GAM) and Catalyst Model (CM), which helps shed light on the complex mechanism of violent video games influencing adolescent aggression.

Introduction

Violent video games and aggression.

The relationship between violent video games and adolescent aggression has become a hot issue in psychological research ( Wiegman and Schie, 1998 ; Anderson and Bushman, 2001 ; Anderson et al., 2010 ; Ferguson et al., 2012 ; Greitemeyer, 2014 ; Yang et al., 2014 ; Boxer et al., 2015 ). Based on the General Aggression Model (GAM), Anderson et al. suggested that violent video games constitute an antecedent variable of aggressive behavior, i.e., the degree of exposure to violent video games directly leads to an increase of aggression ( Anderson and Bushman, 2001 ; Bushman and Anderson, 2002 ; Anderson, 2004 ; Anderson et al., 2004 ). Related longitudinal studies ( Anderson et al., 2008 ), meta-analyses ( Anderson et al., 2010 ; Greitemeyer and Mugge, 2014 ), event-related potential studies ( Bailey et al., 2011 ; Liu et al., 2015 ), and trials about juvenile delinquents ( DeLisi et al., 2013 ) showed that exposure to violent video games significantly predicts adolescent aggression.

Although Anderson et al. insisted on using the GAM to explain the effect of violent video games on aggression, other researchers have proposed alternative points of view. For example, a meta-analysis by Sherry (2001) suggested that violent video games have minor influence on adolescent aggression. Meanwhile, Ferguson (2007) proposed that publication bias (or file drawer effect) may have implications in the effect of violent video games on adolescent aggression. Publication bias means that compared with articles with negative results, those presenting positive results (such as statistical significance) are more likely to be published ( Rosenthal and Rosnow, 1991 ). A meta-analysis by Ferguson (2007) found that after publication bias adjustment, the related studies cannot support the hypothesis that violent video games are highly correlated with aggression. Then, Ferguson et al. proposed a Catalyst Model (CM), which is opposite to the GAM. According to this model, genetic predisposition can lead to an aggressive child temperament and aggressive adult personality. Individuals who have an aggressive temperament or an aggressive personality are more likely to produce violent behavior during times of environmental strain. Environmental factors act as catalysts for violent acts for an individual who have a violence-prone personality. This means that although the environment does not cause violent behavior, but it can moderate the causal influence of biology on violence. The CM model suggested that exposure to violent video games is not an antecedent variable of aggressive behavior, but only acts as a catalyst influencing its form ( Ferguson et al., 2008 ). Much of studies ( Ferguson et al., 2009 , 2012 ; Ferguson, 2013 , 2015 ; Furuya-Kanamori and Doi, 2016 ; Huesmann et al., 2017 ) found that adolescent aggression cannot be predicted by the exposure to violent video games, but it is closely related to antisocial personality traits, peer influence, and family violence.

Anderson and his collaborators ( Groves et al., 2014 ; Kepes et al., 2017 ) suggested there were major methodological shortcomings in the studies of Ferguson et al. and redeclared the validity of their own researches. Some researchers supported Anderson et al. and criticized Ferguson’s view ( Gentile, 2015 ; Rothstein and Bushman, 2015 ). However, Markey (2015) held a neutral position that extreme views should not be taken in the relationship between violent video games and aggression.

In fact, the relation of violent video games to aggression is complicated. Besides the controversy between the above two models about whether there is an influence, other studies explored the role of internal factors such as normative belief about aggression and external factors such as family environment in the relationship between violent video games and aggression.

Normative Beliefs About Aggression, Violence Video Games, and Aggression

Normative beliefs about aggression are one of the most important cognitive factors influencing adolescent aggression; they refer to an assessment of aggression acceptability by an individual ( Huesmann and Guerra, 1997 ). They can be divided into two types: general beliefs and retaliatory beliefs. The former means a general view about aggression, while the latter reflects aggressive beliefs in provocative situations. Normative beliefs about aggression reflect the degree acceptance of aggression, which affects the choice of aggressive behavior.

Studies found that normative beliefs about aggression are directly related to aggression. First, self-reported aggression is significantly correlated to normative beliefs about aggression ( Bailey and Ostrov, 2008 ; Li et al., 2015 ). General normative beliefs about aggression can predict young people’s physical, verbal, and indirect aggression ( Lim and Ang, 2009 ); retaliatory normative beliefs about aggression can anticipate adolescent retaliation behavior after 1 year ( Werner and Hill, 2010 ; Krahe and Busching, 2014 ). There is a longitudinal temporal association of normative beliefs about aggression with aggression ( Krahe and Busching, 2014 ). Normative beliefs about aggression are significantly positively related to online aggressive behavior ( Wright and Li, 2013 ), which is the most important determining factor of adolescent cyberbullying ( Kowalski et al., 2014 ). Teenagers with high normative beliefs about aggression are more likely to become bullies and victims of traditional bullying and cyberbullying ( Burton et al., 2013 ). Finally, normative beliefs about aggression can significantly predict the support and reinforcement of bystanders in offline bullying and cyberbullying ( Machackova and Pfetsch, 2016 ).

According to Bandura’s social cognitive theory ( Bandura, 1989 ), violent video games can initiate adolescents’ observational learning. In this situation, not only can they imitate the aggressive behavior of the model but also their understanding and acceptability about aggression may change. Therefore, normative beliefs about aggression can also be a mediator between violent video games and adolescent aggression ( Duan et al., 2014 ; Anderson et al., 2017 ; Huesmann et al., 2017 ). Studies have shown that the mediating role of normative beliefs about aggression is not influenced by factors such as gender, prior aggression, and parental monitoring ( Gentile et al., 2014 ).

Family Environment, Violence Video Games, and Aggression

Family violence, parenting style, and other family factors have major effects on adolescent aggression. On the one hand, family environment can influence directly on aggression by shaping adolescents’ cognition and setting up behavioral models. Many studies have found that family violence and other negative factors are positively related to adolescent aggression ( Ferguson et al., 2009 , 2012 ; Ferguson, 2013 ), while active family environment can reduce the aggressive behavior ( Batanova and Loukas, 2014 ).

On the other hand, family environment can act on adolescent aggression together with other factors, such as exposure to violent video games. Analysis of the interaction between family conflict and media violence (including violence on TV and in video games) to adolescent aggression showed that teenagers living in higher conflict families with more media violence exposure show more aggressive behavior ( Fikkers et al., 2013 ). Parental monitoring is significantly correlated with reduced media violence exposure and a reduction in aggressive behavior 6 months later ( Gentile et al., 2014 ). Parental mediation can moderate the relationship between media violence exposure and normative beliefs about aggression, i.e., for children with less parental mediation, predictability of violent media exposure on normative beliefs about aggression is stronger ( Linder and Werner, 2012 ). Parental mediation is closely linked to decreased aggression caused by violent media ( Nathanson, 1999 ; Rasmussen, 2014 ; Padilla-Walker et al., 2016 ). Further studies have shown that the autonomy-supportive restrictive mediation of parents is related to a reduction in current aggressive behavior by decreasing media violence exposure; conversely, inconsistent restrictive mediation is associated with an increase of current aggressive behavior by enhancing media violence exposure ( Fikkers et al., 2017 ).

The Current Study

Despite GAM and CM hold opposite views on the relationship between violent video games and aggression, both of the two models imply the same idea that aggression cannot be separated from internal and external factors. While emphasizing on negative effects of violent video games on adolescents’ behavior, the GAM uses internal factors to explain the influencing mechanism, including aggressive beliefs, aggressive behavior scripts, and aggressive personality ( Bushman and Anderson, 2002 ; Anderson and Carnagey, 2014 ). Although the CM considers that there is no significant relation between violent video games and aggression, it also acknowledges the role of external factors such as violent video games and family violence. Thus, these two models seem to be contradictory, but in fact, they reveal the mechanism of aggression from different points of view. It will be more helpful to explore the effect of violent video games on aggression from the perspective of combination of internal and external factors.

Although previous studies have investigated the roles of normative beliefs about aggression and family factors in the relationship between violent video games and adolescent aggression separately, the combined effect of these two factors remains unstudied. The purpose of this study was to analyze the combined effect of normative beliefs about aggression and family environment. This can not only confirm the effects of violent video games on adolescent aggression further but also can clarify the influencing mechanism from the integration of GAM and CM to a certain extent. Based on the above, the following three hypotheses were proposed:

Hypothesis 1: There is a significant positive correlation between exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression.

Hypothesis 2: Normative beliefs about aggression are the mediator of exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression.

Hypothesis 3: The family environment can moderate the mediation effects of normative beliefs about aggression in exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression; exposure to violent video games, family environment, normative beliefs about aggression, and aggression constitute a moderated mediation model.

Materials and Methods

Participants.

All subjects gave informed written consent for participation in this investigation, and their parents signed parental written informed consent. The study was reviewed and approved by the Professor Committee of School of Psychology, Nanjing Normal University, which is the committee responsible for providing ethics approvals. A total of 648 Chinese middle school students participated in this study, including 339 boys and 309 girls; 419 students were from cities and towns, and 229 from the countryside. There were 277 and 371 junior and high school students, respectively. Ages ranged from 12 to 19 years, averaging 14.73 ( SD  = 1.60).

Video Game Questionnaire (VGQ)

The Video Game Questionnaire ( Anderson and Dill, 2000) required participants to list their favorite five video games and assess their use frequencies, the degree of violent content, and the degree of violent images on a 7-point scale (1, participants seldom play video games, with no violent content or image; 7, participants often play video games with many violent contents and images). Methods for calculating the score of exposure to violent video games: (score of violent content in the game + score of violent images in the game) × use frequency/5. Chen et al. (2012) found that the Chinese version of this questionnaire had high internal consistency reliability and good content validity. The Chinese version was used in this study, and the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.88.

Aggression Questionnaire (AQ)

There were 29 items in AQ ( Buss and Perry, 1992 ), including four dimensions: physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility. The scale used 5-point scoring criteria (1, very incongruent with my features; 5, very congruent with my features). Scores for each item were added to obtain the dimension score, and dimension scores were summed to obtain the total score. The Chinese version of AQ had good internal consistency reliability and construct validity ( Ying and Dai, 2008 ). In this study, the Chinese version was used and its Cronbach’s α coefficient was 0.83.

Family Environment Scale (FES)

The FES ( Moos, 1990 ) includes 90 true-false questions and is divided into 10 subscales, including cohesion, expressiveness, conflict, independence, achievement-orientation, intellectual-cultural orientation, active-recreational orientation, moral-religious emphasis, organization, and control. The Chinese version of FES was revised by Fei et al. (1991) and used in this study. Three subscales closely related to aggression were selected, including cohesion, conflict, and moral-religious emphasis, with 27 items in total. The family environment score was the sum of scores of these three subscales (the conflict subscale was first inverted). The Cronbach’s α coefficient of the questionnaire was 0.75.

Normative Beliefs About Aggression Scale (NOBAGS)

There are 20 items in the NOBAGS ( Huesmann and Guerra, 1997 ), which includes retaliation (12 items) and general (8 items) aggression belief. A 4-point Likert scale is used (1, absolutely wrong; 4, absolutely right). The subjects were asked to assess the accuracy of the behavior described in each item. High score means high level of normative beliefs about aggression. The revised Chinese version of NOBAGS consists of two factors: retaliation (nine items) and general (six items) aggression belief. Its internal consistency coefficient and test-retest reliability are 0.81 and 0.79. Confirmative factor analysis showed that this version has good construct validity: χ 2  = 280.09, df  = 89, χ 2 / df  = 3.15, RMSEA = 0.07, SRMR = 0.04, NFI = 0.95, NNFI = 0.96, and CFI = 0.96 ( Shao and Wang, 2017 ). In this study, the Cronbach’s α coefficient of the Chinese version was 0.88.

Group testing was performed in randomly selected classes of six middle schools. All subjects completed the above four questionnaires.

Data Analysis

IBM SPSS Statistics 22 was used to analysis the correlations among study variables, the mediating effect of normative beliefs about aggression on the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression, and the moderating role of family environment in the relationship between exposure to violent video games and normative beliefs about aggression. In order to validate the moderated mediation model, Mplus 7 was also used.

Correlation Analysis Among Study Variables

In this study, self-reported questionnaires were used to collect data, and results might be influenced by common method bias. Therefore, the Harman’s single-factor test was used to assess common method bias before data analysis. The results showed that eigenvalues of 34 unrotated factors were greater than 1, and the amount of variation explained by the first factor was 10.01%, which is much less than 40% of the critical value. Accordingly, common method bias was not significant in this study.

As described in Table 1 , the degree of exposure to violent video games showed significant positive correlations to normative beliefs about aggression and aggression; family environment was negatively correlated to normative beliefs about aggression and aggression; normative beliefs about aggression were significantly and positively related to aggression. The gender difference of exposure to violent video games ( t  = 7.93, p  < 0.001) and normative beliefs about aggression ( t  = 2.74, p  < 0.01) were significant, which boys scored significantly higher than girls.

Table 1 . Means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations among study variables.

Mediating Effect Analysis

To examine the mediation effect of normative beliefs about aggression on the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression, gender factor was controlled firstly. Stepwise regression analysis showed that the regression of aggression to violent video games ( c  = 0.28, t  = 6.96, p  < 0.001), the regression of normative beliefs about aggression to violent video games ( a  = 0.19, t  = 4.69, p  < 0.001), and the regression of aggression to violent video games ( c ′ = 0.22, t  = 5.69, p  < 0.001) and normative beliefs about aggression ( b  = 0.31, t  = 8.25, p  < 0.001) were all significant. Thus, normative beliefs about aggression played a partial mediating role in exposure to violent video games and aggression. The mediation effect value was 0.06, accounting for 21.43% (0.06/0.28) of the total effect.

Moderated Mediation Effect Analysis

After standardizing scores of exposure to violent videogames, normative beliefs about aggression, family environment, and aggression, two interaction terms were calculated, including family environment × exposure to violent video games and family environment × normative beliefs about aggression. Regression analysis was carried out after controlling gender factor ( Table 2 ).

Table 2 . Moderated mediation effect analysis of the relationship between violent video exposure and aggression.

In the first step, a simple moderated model (Model 1) between exposure to violent video games and aggression was established. The result showed that exposure to violent video games had a significant effect on aggression ( c 1  = 0.24, t  = 6.13, p  < 0.001), while the effect of family environment × exposure to violent video games on aggression was not significant ( c 3  = 0.05, t  = −1.31, p  = 0.19), indicating that the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression was not moderated by family environment.

Next, a moderated model (Model 2) between exposure to violent video games and normative beliefs about aggression was established. The results showed that exposure to violent video games had a significant effect on normative beliefs about aggression ( a 1  = 0.13, t  = 3.42, p  < 0.001), and the effect of family environment × exposure to violent video games on normative beliefs about aggression was significant ( a 3  = −0.13, t  = −3.63, p  < 0.01).

In the third step, a moderated mediation model (Model 3) between exposure to violent video games and aggression was established. As shown in Table 2 , the effect of normative beliefs about aggression on aggression was significant ( b 1  = 0.24, t  = 6.15, p  < 0.001), and the effect of family environment × exposure to violent video games on normative beliefs about aggression was not significant ( b 2  = 0.02, t  = 0.40, p  = 0.69). Because both a 3 and b 1 were significant, exposure to violent video games, family environment, normative beliefs about aggression, and aggression constituted a moderated mediation model. Normative beliefs about aggression played a mediating role between exposure to violent video games and aggression, while family environment was a moderator between exposure to violent video games and normative beliefs about aggression. Mplus analysis proved that the moderated mediation model had good model fitting (χ 2 / df  = 1.54, CFI = 0.99, TLI = 0.98, RMSEA = 0.03, and SRMR = 0.01).

To further analyze the moderating effect of the family environment and exposure to violent video games on normative beliefs about aggression, the family environment was divided into the high and low groups, according to the principle of standard deviation, and a simple slope test was performed ( Figure 1 ). The results found that for individuals with high score of family environment, prediction of exposure to violent video games to normative beliefs about aggression was not significant ( b  = 0.08, SE  = 0.08, p  = 0.37). For individuals with low score of family environment, exposure to violent video games could significantly predict normative beliefs about aggression ( b  = 0.34, SE  = 0.09, p  < 0.001). Based on the overall findings, individuals with high scores of family environment showed a nonsignificant mediating effect of normative beliefs about aggression on the relation of exposure to violent video games and aggression; however, for individuals with low scores of family environment, normative beliefs about aggression played a partial mediating role in the effect of exposure to violent video games on aggression.

Figure 1 . The moderating effect of the family environment on the relationship between violent video game exposure and normative beliefs about aggression.

Main Findings and Implications

This study found a significantly positive correlation between exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression, corroborating existing studies ( Anderson, 2004 ; Anderson et al., 2010 ; DeLisi et al., 2013 ; Greitemeyer and Mugge, 2014 ). Anderson et al. (2017) assessed teenagers in Australia, China, Germany, the United States, and other three countries and found that exposure to violent media, including television, movies, and video games, is positively related to adolescent aggression, demonstrating cross-cultural consistency; 8% of variance in aggression could be independently explained by exposure to violent media. In this study, after controlling for gender and family environment, R 2 for exposure to violent video games in predicting adolescent aggression was 0.05, indicating that 5% of variation in adolescent aggression could be explained by exposure to violent media. These consistent findings confirm the effect of exposure to violent video games on adolescent aggression and can be explained by the GAM. According to the GAM ( Bushman and Anderson, 2002 ; Anderson and Carnagey, 2014 ), violent video games can make teenagers acquire, repeat, and reinforce aggression-related knowledge structures, including aggressive beliefs and attitude, aggressive perceptual schemata, aggressive expectation schemata, aggressive behavior scripts, and aggression desensitization. Therefore, aggressive personality is promoted, increasing the possibility of aggressive behavior. The Hypothesis 1 of this study was validated and provided evidence for the GAM.

As shown above, normative beliefs about aggression had a partial mediation effect on the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression. Exposure to violent video games, on the one hand, can predict adolescent aggression directly; on the other hand, it had an indirect effect on adolescent aggression via normative beliefs about aggression. According to the above results, when exposure to violent video games changes by 1 standard deviation, adolescent aggression varies by 0.28 standard deviation, with 0.22 standard deviation being a direct effect of exposure to violent video games on adolescent aggression and 0.06 standard deviation representing the effect through normative beliefs about aggression. Too much violence in video games makes it easy for individuals to become accustomed to violence and emotionally apathetic towards the harmful consequences of violence. Moreover, it can make individuals accept the idea that violence is a good way of problem solving, leading to an increase in normative beliefs about aggression; under certain situational cues, it is more likely to become violent or aggressive. This conclusion is supported by other studies ( Gentile et al., 2014 ; Anderson et al., 2017 ; Huesmann et al., 2017 ). Like Hypothesis 1, Hypothesis 2 was validated the GAM.

One of the main findings of this study was the validation of Hypothesis 3: a moderated mediation model was constructed involving exposure to violent video games, family environment, normative beliefs about aggression, and aggression. Family environment moderated the first half of the mediation process of violent video games, normative beliefs about aggression, and aggression. In this study, family environment encompassed three factors, including (1) cohesion reflecting the degree of mutual commitment, assistance, and support among family members; (2) conflict reflecting the extent of anger, aggression, and conflict among family members; and (3) moral-religious emphasis reflecting the degree of emphasis on ethics, religion, and values. Individuals with high scores of family environment often help each other; seldom show anger, attack, and contradiction openly; and pay more attention to morality and values. These positive aspects would help them understand violence in video games from the right perspective, reduce recognition and acceptance of violence or aggression, and diminish the effect of violent video games on normative beliefs about aggression. Hence, exposure to violent video games could not predict normative beliefs about aggression of these individuals. By contrast, individuals with low scores of family environment are less likely to help each other; they often openly show anger, attack, and contradiction and do not pay much attention to morality and values. These negative aspects would not decrease but increase their acceptance of violence and aggression. For these individuals, because of the lack of mitigation mechanisms, exposure to violent video games could predict normative beliefs about aggression significantly.

The moderated mediation model of the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression could not only help reveal that exposure to violent video games can affect aggression but also provide an elaboration of the influencing mechanism. According to this model, for individuals with high scores of family environment, exposure to violent video games had only direct effect on aggression. However, for those with low scores of family environment, there was not only a direct effect of exposure to violent video games on aggression but also an indirect effect mediated by normative beliefs about aggression. In short, exposure to violence video games affecting aggression through normative beliefs about aggression is more likely to happen to adolescents with poor family environment than those with good family environment. That is, generation of adolescent aggression is not only related to internal cognitive factors but also to external situations. As Piotrowski and Valkenburg ( Piotrowski and Valkenburg, 2015 ; Valkenburg, 2015 ) pointed out, the effect of violent video games/media on adolescents is a complex interaction of dispositional, developmental, and social factors, and individual differences in susceptibility to these three factors determine the nature and the extent of this influence. The proposed model incorporated some perspectives of GAM and CM: while confirming the effect of exposure to violent video games on aggression occurrence, the combined effect of individual and environmental factors was verified.

Compared with the simple mediation or moderation model, the present moderated mediation model provided deeper insights into the internal mechanism of the effect of violent video games on aggression, providing inspirations for preventing adolescent aggression. First, in view of the close relationship between exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression, relevant government departments should continue to improve the grading system of video games; meanwhile, parents should appropriately monitor the types of video games used by teenagers as well as the time spent and reduce the degree of exposure to violent video games. Second, by allowing teenagers to objectively distinguish between violence in games and reality, the mediating role of normative beliefs about aggression could inspire people to identify rational ways to solve violence problems and to experience the hurtful consequences of aggression. This would help adolescents change normative beliefs about aggression, establish a correct view of right and wrong, and reduce the occurrence of aggression. Finally, the moderating effect of family environment on the mediation process suggests that more attention should be paid to the important role of family environment. On the one hand, family education is closely related to adolescent aggression. Then, parents should create a good family atmosphere, publicly show anger and aggression as little as possible, and advocate and practice positive moral values. Parents should adopt authoritative styles, abandoning autocratic and indulgent parenting styles ( Casas et al., 2006 ; Sandstrom, 2007 ; Underwood et al., 2009 ; Kawabata et al., 2011 ) to minimize the negative effect of exposure to violent video games. On the other hand, for teenagers with poor family environment, while reducing exposure to violent video games, it is particularly important to change their normative beliefs about aggression, no longer viewing aggression as an alternative way to solve problems.

Limitations

Limitations of the current study should be mentioned. First, only Chinese school students were assessed, in a relatively small number, which could affect sample representativeness. A large sample of teenagers from different countries and in different ages, also including juvenile offenders, would be more accurate in revealing the effect of violent video games on adolescent aggression. Second, this study only focused on violent video games, not involving violent media such as internet and television, daily life events, wars, and other major social events. Indeed, these factors also have important effects on adolescent aggression, and their influencing mechanisms and combined effect are worth investigating further. Third, this study mainly adopted the self-report method. Use of peer, parent, or teacher reports to assess exposure to violent video games and aggression would help improve the effectiveness of the study. Fourth, there might be other mediators, moderating variables and relational models. In addition to normative beliefs about aggression and family environment, individual emotions, personality characteristics, school climate, and companions may play mediating or moderating roles in the relationship between violent video games and aggression. This study developed a moderated mediation model between family environment and normative beliefs about aggression, but the possibility of multiple mediation and mediated moderation models cannot be ruled out.

The current study showed that exposure to violent video games is positively related to adolescent aggression; normative beliefs about aggression have a mediating effect on exposure to violent video games and adolescent aggression, while the family environment regulates the first part of the mediation process. For individuals with good family environment, exposure to violent video games only has a direct effect on aggression; however, for those with poor family environment, there is an indirect effect mediated by normative beliefs about aggression alongside a direct effect. This moderated mediation model incorporates some perspectives of GAM and CM, enriching studies of generative mechanism of adolescent aggression.

Author Contributions

YW and RS conceived the idea of the study. RS analyzed the data. YW and RS interpreted the results and wrote the paper. YW discussed the results and revised the manuscript.

This study was supported by a grant from the National Social Science Foundation of China (14CSH017) to YW.

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games. J. Adolesc. 27, 113–122. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.009

PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A., and Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychol. Sci. 12, 353–359. doi: 10.1111/1467-9280.00366

CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A., and Carnagey, N. L. (2014). “The role of theory in the study of media violence: the general aggression model” in Media violence and children. ed. Gentile, D. A. (Westport, CT: Praeger), 103–133.

Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin, A. J., Eubanks, J., and Valentine, J. C. (2004). Violent video games: specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 36, 199–249. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(04)36004-1

Anderson, C. A., and Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 772–790. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772

Anderson, C. A., Sakamoto, A., Gentile, D. A., Ihori, N., Shibuya, A., Yukawa, S., et al. (2008). Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Pediatrics 122, e1067–e1072. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-1425

Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychol. Bull. 136, 151–173. doi: 10.1037/a0018251

Anderson, C. A., Suzuki, K., Swing, E. L., Groves, C. L., Gentile, D. A., Prot, S., et al. (2017). Media violence and other aggression risk factors in seven nations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 43, 986–998. doi: 10.1177/0146167217703064

Bailey, C. A., and Ostrov, J. M. (2008). Differentiating forms and functions of aggression in emerging adults: associations with hostile attribution biases and normative beliefs. J. Youth Adolesc. 37, 713–722. doi: 10.1007/s10964-007-9211-5

Bailey, K., West, R., and Anderson, C. A. (2011). The association between chronic exposure to video game violence and affective picture processing: an ERP study. Cogn. Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 11, 259–276. doi: 10.3758/s13415-011-0029-y

Bandura, A. (1989). “Social cognitive theory” in Annals of child development: Six theories of child development. ed. Vasta, R. (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), 1–60.

Batanova, M., and Loukas, A. (2014). Unique and interactive effects of empathy, family, and school factors on early adolescents’ aggression. J. Youth Adolesc. 43, 1890–1902. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-0051-1

Boxer, P., Groves, C. L., and Docherty, M. (2015). Video games do indeed influence children and adolescents’ aggression, prosocial behavior, and academic performance: a clearer reading of Ferguson (2015). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 671–673. doi: 10.1177/1745691615592239

Burton, K. A., Dan, F., and Wygant, D. B. (2013). The role of peer attachment and normative beliefs about aggression on traditional bullying and cyberbullying. Psychol. Schools 50, 103–115. doi: 10.1002/pits.21663

Bushman, B. J., and Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: a test of the general aggression model. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 28, 1679–1686. doi: 10.1177/014616702237649

Buss, A. H., and Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 63, 452–459. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452

Casas, J. F., Weigel, S. M., Crick, N. R., Ostrov, J. M., Woods, K. E., Jansen Yeh, E. A., et al. (2006). Early parenting and children’s relational and physical aggression in the preschool and home contexts. J. Appl. Dev. Psychol. 27, 209–227. doi: 10.1016/j.appdev.2006.02.003

Chen, H., Liu, Y., and Cui, W. (2012). The relationship between online violent video games and aggressive behavior: the mediating effect of college students’ attitudes towards violence. Chinese J. Special Educ. 8, 79–84.

DeLisi, M., Vaughn, M. G., Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., and Shook, J. (2013). Violent video games, delinquency, and youth violence: new evidence. Youth Violence Juv. J. 11, 132–142. doi: 10.1177/1541204012460874

Duan, D., Zhang, X., Wei, L., Zhou, Y., and Liu, C. (2014). The impact of violent media on aggression: the role of normative belief and empathy. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 30, 185–192.

Fei, L., Shen, Q., Zheng, Y., Zhao, J., Jiang, S., Wang, L., and Wang, X. (1991). Preliminary evaluation of Chinese version of FACES and FES: comparison of normal families and families of schizophrenic patients. Chin. Ment. Health. J. 5, 198–202, 238.

Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: a meta-analytic review. Aggress. Violent Behav. 12, 470–482. doi: 10.1016/j.avb.2007.01.001

Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Adolescents, crime, and the media: A critical analysis. New York, NY: Springer.

Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 646–666. doi: 10.1177/1745691615592234

Ferguson, C. J., Rueda, S., Cruz, A., Ferguson, D., Fritz, S., and Smith, S. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Crim. Justice Behav. 31, 2231–2237. doi: 10.1002/chin.200028107

Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., Garza, A., and Jerabeck, J. M. (2012). A longitudinal test of video game violence influences on dating and aggression: a 3-year longitudinal study of adolescents. J. Psychiatr. Res. 46, 141–146. doi: 10.1016/j.jpsychires.2011.10.014

Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., and Hartley, R. D. (2009). A multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: the influence of family, peers, depression, and media violence. J. Pediatr. 155, 904–908. e903. doi: 10.1016/j.jpeds.2009.06.021

Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., and Valkenburg, P. M. (2017). A matter of style? Exploring the effects of parental mediation styles on early adolescents’ media violence exposure and aggression. Comput. Hum. Behav. 70, 407–415. doi: 10.1016/j.chb.2017.01.029

Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Weeda, W. D., Vossen, H. G. M., and Valkenburg, P. M. (2013). Double dose: high family conflict enhances the effect of media violence exposure on adolescents’ aggression. Societies 3, 280–292. doi: 10.3390/soc3030280

Furuya-Kanamori, L., and Doi, S. A. (2016). Angry birds, angry children, and angry meta-analysts: a reanalysis. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 11, 408–414. doi: 10.1177/1745691616635599

Gentile, D. A. (2015). What is a good skeptic to do? the case for skepticism in the media violence discussion. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 674–676. doi: 10.1177/1745691615592238

Gentile, D. A., Li, D., Khoo, A., Prot, S., and Anderson, C. A. (2014). Mediators and moderators of long-term effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: practice, thinking, and action. JAMA Pediatr. 168, 450–457. doi: 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.63

Greitemeyer, T. (2014). Intense acts of violence during video game play make daily life aggression appear innocuous: a new mechanism why violent video games increase aggression. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 50, 52–56. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2013.09.004

Greitemeyer, T., and Mugge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: a meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40, 578–589. doi: 10.1177/0146167213520459

Groves, C. L., Anderson, C. A., and DeLisi, M. (2014). A response to Ferguson: more red herring. PsycCRITIQUES 59, 9. doi: 10.1037/a0036266

Huesmann, L. R., Dubow, E. F., Boxer, P., Landau, S. F., Gvirsman, S. D., and Shikaki, K. (2017). Children’s exposure to violent political conflict stimulates aggression at peers by increasing emotional distress, aggressive script rehearsal, and normative beliefs favoring aggression. Dev. Psychopathol. 29, 39–50. doi: 10.1017/S0954579416001115

Huesmann, L. R., and Guerra, N. G. (1997). Children’s normative beliefs about aggression and aggressive behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 72, 408–419. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.72.2.408

Kawabata, Y., Alink, L. R. A., Tseng, W. L., Van Ijzendoorn, M. H., and Crick, N. R. (2011). Maternal and paternal parenting styles associated with relational aggression in children and adolescents: a conceptual analysis and meta-analytic review. Dev. Rev. 31, 240–278. doi: 10.1016/j.dr.2011.08.001

Kepes, S., Bushman, B. J., and Anderson, C. A. (2017). Violent video game effects remain a societal concern: reply to Hilgard, Engelhardt, and Rouder (2017). Psychol. Bull. 143, 775–782. doi: 10.1037/bul0000112

Kowalski, R. M., Giumetti, G. W., Schroeder, A. N., and Lattanner, M. R. (2014). Bullying in the digital age: a critical review and meta-analysis of cyberbullying research among youth. Psychol. Bull. 140, 1073–1137. doi: 10.1037/a0035618

Krahe, B., and Busching, R. (2014). Interplay of normative beliefs and behavior in developmental patterns of physical and relational aggression in adolescence: a four-wave longitudinal study. Front. Psychol. 5:1146. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01146

Li, J. B., Nie, Y. G., Boardley, I. D., Dou, K., and Situ, Q. M. (2015). When do normative beliefs about aggression predict aggressive behavior? an application of I3 theory. Aggress. Behav. 41, 544–555. doi: 10.1002/ab.21594

Lim, S. H., and Ang, R. P. (2009). Relationship between boys’ normative beliefs about aggression and their physical, verbal, and indirect aggressive behaviors. Adolescence 44, 635–650.

PubMed Abstract | Google Scholar

Linder, J., and Werner, N. E. (2012). Relationally aggressive media exposure and children’s normative beliefs: does parental mediation matter? Fam. Relat. 61, 488–500. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3729.2012.00707.x

Liu, Y., Teng, Z., Lan, H., Zhang, X., and Yao, D. (2015). Short-term effects of prosocial video games on aggression: an event-related potential study. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9:193. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00193

Machackova, H., and Pfetsch, J. (2016). Bystanders’ responses to offline bullying and cyberbullying: the role of empathy and normative beliefs about aggression. Scand. J. Psychol. 57, 169–176. doi: 10.1111/sjop.12277

Markey, P. M. (2015). Finding the middle ground in violent video game research lessons from Ferguson (2015). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 667–670. doi: 10.1177/1745691615592236

Moos, R. H. (1990). Conceptual and empirical approaches to developing family-based assessment procedures: resolving the case of the Family Environment Scale. Fam. Process 29, 199–208; discussion 209-111. doi: 10.1111/j.1545-5300.1990.00199.x

Nathanson, A. I. (1999). Identifying and explaining the relationship between parental mediation and children’s aggression. Commun. Res. 26, 124–143.

Padilla-Walker, L. M., Coyne, S. M., and Collier, K. M. (2016). Longitudinal relations between parental media monitoring and adolescent aggression, prosocial behavior, and externalizing problems. J. Adolesc. 46, 86–97. doi: 10.1016/j.adolescence.2015.11.002

Piotrowski, J. T., and Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Finding orchids in a field of dandelions: understanding children’s differential susceptibility to media effects. Am. Behav. Sci. 59, 1776–1789. doi: 10.1177/0002764215596552

Rasmussen, E. E. (2014). Proactive vs. retroactive mediation: effects of mediation’s timing on children’s reactions to popular cartoon violence. Hum. Commun. Res. 40, 396–413. doi: 10.1111/hcre.12030

Rosenthal, R., and Rosnow, R. (1991). Essentials of behavioral research: Methods and data analysis. New York, NY: McGraw Hill.

Rothstein, H. R., and Bushman, B. J. (2015). Methodological and reporting errors in meta-analytic reviews make other meta-analysts angry: a commentary on Ferguson (2015). Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 677–679. doi: 10.1177/1745691615592235

Sandstrom, M. J. (2007). A link between mothers’ disciplinary strategies and children’s relational aggression. Brit. J. Dev. Psychol. 25, 399–407. doi: 10.1348/026151006X158753

Shao, R., and Wang, Y. (2017). Reliability and validity of normative beliefs about aggression scale among middle school students. Chin. J. Clin. Psychol. 25, 1035–1038.

Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression. Hum. Commun. Res. 27, 409–431. doi: 10.1093/hcr/27.3.409

Underwood, M. K., Beron, K. J., and Rosen, L. H. (2009). Continuity and change in social and physical aggression from middle childhood through early adolescence. Aggress. Behav. 35, 357–375. doi: 10.1002/ab.20313

Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). The limited informativeness of meta-analyses of media effects. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 10, 680–682. doi: 10.1177/1745691615592237

Werner, N. E., and Hill, L. G. (2010). Individual and peer group normative beliefs about relational aggression. Child Dev. 81, 826–836. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01436.x

Wiegman, O., and Schie, E. G. (1998). Video game playing and its relations with aggressive and prosocial behaviour. Brit. J. Soc. Psychol. 37, 367–378. doi: 10.1111/j.2044-8309.1998.tb01177.x

Wright, M. F., and Li, Y. (2013). Normative beliefs about aggression and cyber aggression among young adults: a longitudinal investigation. Aggress. Behav. 39, 161–170. doi: 10.1002/ab.21470

Yang, G. S., Huesmann, L. R., and Bushman, B. J. (2014). Effects of playing a violent video game as male versus female avatar on subsequent aggression in male and female players. Aggress. Behav. 40, 537–541. doi: 10.1002/ab.21551

Ying, X., and Dai, C. (2008). Empathy and aggressive behavior of middle school students: the mediating effect of the anger-hostility action. Psychol. Dev. Educ. 24, 73–78.

Keywords: violence video games, aggression, family environment, normative beliefs about aggression, moderated mediation effect

Citation: Shao R and Wang Y (2019) The Relation of Violent Video Games to Adolescent Aggression: An Examination of Moderated Mediation Effect. Front. Psychol . 10:384. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00384

Received: 25 September 2017; Accepted: 07 February 2019; Published: 21 February 2019.

Reviewed by:

Copyright © 2019 Shao and Wang. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY) . The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.

*Correspondence: Yunqiang Wang, [email protected] ; [email protected]

Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.

• Search Menu
• Browse content in Arts and Humanities
• Browse content in Archaeology
• Anglo-Saxon and Medieval Archaeology
• Archaeological Methodology and Techniques
• Archaeology by Region
• Archaeology of Religion
• Archaeology of Trade and Exchange
• Biblical Archaeology
• Contemporary and Public Archaeology
• Environmental Archaeology
• Historical Archaeology
• History and Theory of Archaeology
• Industrial Archaeology
• Landscape Archaeology
• Mortuary Archaeology
• Prehistoric Archaeology
• Underwater Archaeology
• Urban Archaeology
• Zooarchaeology
• Browse content in Architecture
• Architectural Structure and Design
• History of Architecture
• Residential and Domestic Buildings
• Theory of Architecture
• Browse content in Art
• Art Subjects and Themes
• History of Art
• Industrial and Commercial Art
• Theory of Art
• Biographical Studies
• Byzantine Studies
• Browse content in Classical Studies
• Classical History
• Classical Philosophy
• Classical Mythology
• Classical Literature
• Classical Reception
• Classical Art and Architecture
• Classical Oratory and Rhetoric
• Greek and Roman Papyrology
• Greek and Roman Epigraphy
• Greek and Roman Law
• Greek and Roman Archaeology
• Late Antiquity
• Religion in the Ancient World
• Digital Humanities
• Browse content in History
• Colonialism and Imperialism
• Diplomatic History
• Environmental History
• Genealogy, Heraldry, Names, and Honours
• Genocide and Ethnic Cleansing
• Historical Geography
• History by Period
• History of Emotions
• History of Agriculture
• History of Education
• History of Gender and Sexuality
• Industrial History
• Intellectual History
• International History
• Labour History
• Legal and Constitutional History
• Local and Family History
• Maritime History
• Military History
• National Liberation and Post-Colonialism
• Oral History
• Political History
• Public History
• Regional and National History
• Revolutions and Rebellions
• Slavery and Abolition of Slavery
• Social and Cultural History
• Theory, Methods, and Historiography
• Urban History
• World History
• Browse content in Language Teaching and Learning
• Language Learning (Specific Skills)
• Language Teaching Theory and Methods
• Browse content in Linguistics
• Applied Linguistics
• Cognitive Linguistics
• Computational Linguistics
• Forensic Linguistics
• Grammar, Syntax and Morphology
• Historical and Diachronic Linguistics
• History of English
• Language Evolution
• Language Reference
• Language Acquisition
• Language Variation
• Language Families
• Lexicography
• Linguistic Anthropology
• Linguistic Theories
• Linguistic Typology
• Phonetics and Phonology
• Psycholinguistics
• Sociolinguistics
• Translation and Interpretation
• Writing Systems
• Browse content in Literature
• Bibliography
• Children's Literature Studies
• Literary Studies (Romanticism)
• Literary Studies (American)
• Literary Studies (Asian)
• Literary Studies (European)
• Literary Studies (Eco-criticism)
• Literary Studies (Modernism)
• Literary Studies - World
• Literary Studies (1500 to 1800)
• Literary Studies (19th Century)
• Literary Studies (20th Century onwards)
• Literary Studies (African American Literature)
• Literary Studies (British and Irish)
• Literary Studies (Early and Medieval)
• Literary Studies (Fiction, Novelists, and Prose Writers)
• Literary Studies (Gender Studies)
• Literary Studies (Graphic Novels)
• Literary Studies (History of the Book)
• Literary Studies (Plays and Playwrights)
• Literary Studies (Poetry and Poets)
• Literary Studies (Postcolonial Literature)
• Literary Studies (Queer Studies)
• Literary Studies (Science Fiction)
• Literary Studies (Travel Literature)
• Literary Studies (War Literature)
• Literary Studies (Women's Writing)
• Literary Theory and Cultural Studies
• Mythology and Folklore
• Shakespeare Studies and Criticism
• Browse content in Media Studies
• Browse content in Music
• Applied Music
• Dance and Music
• Ethics in Music
• Ethnomusicology
• Gender and Sexuality in Music
• Medicine and Music
• Music Cultures
• Music and Media
• Music and Religion
• Music and Culture
• Music Education and Pedagogy
• Music Theory and Analysis
• Musical Scores, Lyrics, and Libretti
• Musical Structures, Styles, and Techniques
• Musicology and Music History
• Performance Practice and Studies
• Race and Ethnicity in Music
• Sound Studies
• Browse content in Performing Arts
• Browse content in Philosophy
• Aesthetics and Philosophy of Art
• Epistemology
• Feminist Philosophy
• History of Western Philosophy
• Metaphysics
• Moral Philosophy
• Non-Western Philosophy
• Philosophy of Language
• Philosophy of Mind
• Philosophy of Perception
• Philosophy of Science
• Philosophy of Action
• Philosophy of Law
• Philosophy of Religion
• Philosophy of Mathematics and Logic
• Practical Ethics
• Social and Political Philosophy
• Browse content in Religion
• Biblical Studies
• Christianity
• East Asian Religions
• History of Religion
• Judaism and Jewish Studies
• Qumran Studies
• Religion and Education
• Religion and Health
• Religion and Politics
• Religion and Science
• Religion and Law
• Religion and Art, Literature, and Music
• Religious Studies
• Browse content in Society and Culture
• Cookery, Food, and Drink
• Cultural Studies
• Customs and Traditions
• Ethical Issues and Debates
• Hobbies, Games, Arts and Crafts
• Lifestyle, Home, and Garden
• Natural world, Country Life, and Pets
• Popular Beliefs and Controversial Knowledge
• Sports and Outdoor Recreation
• Technology and Society
• Travel and Holiday
• Visual Culture
• Browse content in Law
• Arbitration
• Browse content in Company and Commercial Law
• Commercial Law
• Company Law
• Browse content in Comparative Law
• Systems of Law
• Competition Law
• Browse content in Constitutional and Administrative Law
• Government Powers
• Judicial Review
• Local Government Law
• Military and Defence Law
• Parliamentary and Legislative Practice
• Construction Law
• Contract Law
• Browse content in Criminal Law
• Criminal Procedure
• Criminal Evidence Law
• Sentencing and Punishment
• Employment and Labour Law
• Environment and Energy Law
• Browse content in Financial Law
• Banking Law
• Insolvency Law
• History of Law
• Human Rights and Immigration
• Intellectual Property Law
• Browse content in International Law
• Private International Law and Conflict of Laws
• Public International Law
• IT and Communications Law
• Jurisprudence and Philosophy of Law
• Law and Politics
• Law and Society
• Browse content in Legal System and Practice
• Courts and Procedure
• Legal Skills and Practice
• Primary Sources of Law
• Regulation of Legal Profession
• Medical and Healthcare Law
• Browse content in Policing
• Criminal Investigation and Detection
• Police and Security Services
• Police Procedure and Law
• Police Regional Planning
• Browse content in Property Law
• Personal Property Law
• Study and Revision
• Terrorism and National Security Law
• Browse content in Trusts Law
• Wills and Probate or Succession
• Browse content in Medicine and Health
• Browse content in Allied Health Professions
• Arts Therapies
• Clinical Science
• Dietetics and Nutrition
• Occupational Therapy
• Operating Department Practice
• Physiotherapy
• Radiography
• Speech and Language Therapy
• Browse content in Anaesthetics
• General Anaesthesia
• Neuroanaesthesia
• Clinical Neuroscience
• Browse content in Clinical Medicine
• Acute Medicine
• Cardiovascular Medicine
• Clinical Genetics
• Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics
• Dermatology
• Endocrinology and Diabetes
• Gastroenterology
• Genito-urinary Medicine
• Geriatric Medicine
• Infectious Diseases
• Medical Toxicology
• Medical Oncology
• Pain Medicine
• Palliative Medicine
• Rehabilitation Medicine
• Respiratory Medicine and Pulmonology
• Rheumatology
• Sleep Medicine
• Sports and Exercise Medicine
• Community Medical Services
• Critical Care
• Emergency Medicine
• Forensic Medicine
• Haematology
• History of Medicine
• Browse content in Medical Skills
• Clinical Skills
• Communication Skills
• Nursing Skills
• Surgical Skills
• Browse content in Medical Dentistry
• Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
• Paediatric Dentistry
• Restorative Dentistry and Orthodontics
• Surgical Dentistry
• Medical Ethics
• Medical Statistics and Methodology
• Browse content in Neurology
• Clinical Neurophysiology
• Neuropathology
• Nursing Studies
• Browse content in Obstetrics and Gynaecology
• Gynaecology
• Occupational Medicine
• Ophthalmology
• Otolaryngology (ENT)
• Browse content in Paediatrics
• Neonatology
• Browse content in Pathology
• Chemical Pathology
• Clinical Cytogenetics and Molecular Genetics
• Histopathology
• Medical Microbiology and Virology
• Patient Education and Information
• Browse content in Pharmacology
• Psychopharmacology
• Browse content in Popular Health
• Caring for Others
• Complementary and Alternative Medicine
• Self-help and Personal Development
• Browse content in Preclinical Medicine
• Cell Biology
• Molecular Biology and Genetics
• Reproduction, Growth and Development
• Primary Care
• Professional Development in Medicine
• Browse content in Psychiatry
• Addiction Medicine
• Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
• Forensic Psychiatry
• Learning Disabilities
• Old Age Psychiatry
• Psychotherapy
• Browse content in Public Health and Epidemiology
• Epidemiology
• Public Health
• Browse content in Radiology
• Clinical Radiology
• Interventional Radiology
• Nuclear Medicine
• Radiation Oncology
• Reproductive Medicine
• Browse content in Surgery
• Cardiothoracic Surgery
• Gastro-intestinal and Colorectal Surgery
• General Surgery
• Neurosurgery
• Paediatric Surgery
• Peri-operative Care
• Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery
• Surgical Oncology
• Transplant Surgery
• Trauma and Orthopaedic Surgery
• Vascular Surgery
• Browse content in Science and Mathematics
• Browse content in Biological Sciences
• Aquatic Biology
• Biochemistry
• Bioinformatics and Computational Biology
• Developmental Biology
• Ecology and Conservation
• Evolutionary Biology
• Genetics and Genomics
• Microbiology
• Molecular and Cell Biology
• Natural History
• Plant Sciences and Forestry
• Research Methods in Life Sciences
• Structural Biology
• Systems Biology
• Zoology and Animal Sciences
• Browse content in Chemistry
• Analytical Chemistry
• Computational Chemistry
• Crystallography
• Environmental Chemistry
• Industrial Chemistry
• Inorganic Chemistry
• Materials Chemistry
• Medicinal Chemistry
• Mineralogy and Gems
• Organic Chemistry
• Physical Chemistry
• Polymer Chemistry
• Study and Communication Skills in Chemistry
• Theoretical Chemistry
• Browse content in Computer Science
• Artificial Intelligence
• Computer Architecture and Logic Design
• Game Studies
• Human-Computer Interaction
• Mathematical Theory of Computation
• Programming Languages
• Software Engineering
• Systems Analysis and Design
• Virtual Reality
• Browse content in Computing
• Business Applications
• Computer Security
• Computer Games
• Computer Networking and Communications
• Digital Lifestyle
• Graphical and Digital Media Applications
• Operating Systems
• Browse content in Earth Sciences and Geography
• Atmospheric Sciences
• Environmental Geography
• Geology and the Lithosphere
• Maps and Map-making
• Meteorology and Climatology
• Oceanography and Hydrology
• Palaeontology
• Physical Geography and Topography
• Regional Geography
• Soil Science
• Urban Geography
• Browse content in Engineering and Technology
• Agriculture and Farming
• Biological Engineering
• Civil Engineering, Surveying, and Building
• Electronics and Communications Engineering
• Energy Technology
• Engineering (General)
• Environmental Science, Engineering, and Technology
• History of Engineering and Technology
• Mechanical Engineering and Materials
• Technology of Industrial Chemistry
• Transport Technology and Trades
• Browse content in Environmental Science
• Applied Ecology (Environmental Science)
• Conservation of the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Environmental Sustainability
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Environmental Science)
• Management of Land and Natural Resources (Environmental Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environmental Science)
• Nuclear Issues (Environmental Science)
• Pollution and Threats to the Environment (Environmental Science)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Environmental Science)
• History of Science and Technology
• Browse content in Materials Science
• Ceramics and Glasses
• Composite Materials
• Metals, Alloying, and Corrosion
• Nanotechnology
• Browse content in Mathematics
• Applied Mathematics
• Biomathematics and Statistics
• History of Mathematics
• Mathematical Education
• Mathematical Finance
• Mathematical Analysis
• Numerical and Computational Mathematics
• Probability and Statistics
• Pure Mathematics
• Browse content in Neuroscience
• Cognition and Behavioural Neuroscience
• Development of the Nervous System
• Disorders of the Nervous System
• History of Neuroscience
• Invertebrate Neurobiology
• Molecular and Cellular Systems
• Neuroendocrinology and Autonomic Nervous System
• Neuroscientific Techniques
• Sensory and Motor Systems
• Browse content in Physics
• Astronomy and Astrophysics
• Atomic, Molecular, and Optical Physics
• Biological and Medical Physics
• Classical Mechanics
• Computational Physics
• Condensed Matter Physics
• Electromagnetism, Optics, and Acoustics
• History of Physics
• Mathematical and Statistical Physics
• Measurement Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Particles and Fields
• Plasma Physics
• Quantum Physics
• Relativity and Gravitation
• Semiconductor and Mesoscopic Physics
• Browse content in Psychology
• Affective Sciences
• Clinical Psychology
• Cognitive Psychology
• Cognitive Neuroscience
• Criminal and Forensic Psychology
• Developmental Psychology
• Educational Psychology
• Evolutionary Psychology
• Health Psychology
• History and Systems in Psychology
• Music Psychology
• Neuropsychology
• Organizational Psychology
• Psychological Assessment and Testing
• Psychology of Human-Technology Interaction
• Psychology Professional Development and Training
• Research Methods in Psychology
• Social Psychology
• Browse content in Social Sciences
• Browse content in Anthropology
• Anthropology of Religion
• Human Evolution
• Medical Anthropology
• Physical Anthropology
• Regional Anthropology
• Social and Cultural Anthropology
• Theory and Practice of Anthropology
• Browse content in Business and Management
• Business Ethics
• Business Strategy
• Business History
• Business and Technology
• Business and Government
• Business and the Environment
• Comparative Management
• Corporate Governance
• Corporate Social Responsibility
• Entrepreneurship
• Health Management
• Human Resource Management
• Industrial and Employment Relations
• Industry Studies
• Information and Communication Technologies
• International Business
• Knowledge Management
• Management and Management Techniques
• Operations Management
• Organizational Theory and Behaviour
• Pensions and Pension Management
• Public and Nonprofit Management
• Strategic Management
• Supply Chain Management
• Browse content in Criminology and Criminal Justice
• Criminal Justice
• Criminology
• Forms of Crime
• International and Comparative Criminology
• Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice
• Development Studies
• Browse content in Economics
• Agricultural, Environmental, and Natural Resource Economics
• Asian Economics
• Behavioural Finance
• Behavioural Economics and Neuroeconomics
• Econometrics and Mathematical Economics
• Economic History
• Economic Systems
• Economic Methodology
• Economic Development and Growth
• Financial Markets
• Financial Institutions and Services
• General Economics and Teaching
• Health, Education, and Welfare
• History of Economic Thought
• International Economics
• Labour and Demographic Economics
• Law and Economics
• Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics
• Microeconomics
• Public Economics
• Urban, Rural, and Regional Economics
• Welfare Economics
• Browse content in Education
• Adult Education and Continuous Learning
• Care and Counselling of Students
• Early Childhood and Elementary Education
• Educational Equipment and Technology
• Educational Strategies and Policy
• Higher and Further Education
• Organization and Management of Education
• Philosophy and Theory of Education
• Schools Studies
• Secondary Education
• Teaching of a Specific Subject
• Teaching of Specific Groups and Special Educational Needs
• Teaching Skills and Techniques
• Browse content in Environment
• Applied Ecology (Social Science)
• Climate Change
• Conservation of the Environment (Social Science)
• Environmentalist Thought and Ideology (Social Science)
• Natural Disasters (Environment)
• Social Impact of Environmental Issues (Social Science)
• Browse content in Human Geography
• Cultural Geography
• Economic Geography
• Political Geography
• Browse content in Interdisciplinary Studies
• Communication Studies
• Museums, Libraries, and Information Sciences
• Browse content in Politics
• African Politics
• Asian Politics
• Chinese Politics
• Comparative Politics
• Conflict Politics
• Elections and Electoral Studies
• Environmental Politics
• European Union
• Foreign Policy
• Gender and Politics
• Human Rights and Politics
• Indian Politics
• International Relations
• International Organization (Politics)
• International Political Economy
• Irish Politics
• Latin American Politics
• Middle Eastern Politics
• Political Behaviour
• Political Economy
• Political Institutions
• Political Methodology
• Political Communication
• Political Philosophy
• Political Sociology
• Political Theory
• Politics and Law
• Public Policy
• Public Administration
• Quantitative Political Methodology
• Regional Political Studies
• Russian Politics
• Security Studies
• State and Local Government
• UK Politics
• US Politics
• Browse content in Regional and Area Studies
• African Studies
• Asian Studies
• East Asian Studies
• Japanese Studies
• Latin American Studies
• Middle Eastern Studies
• Native American Studies
• Scottish Studies
• Browse content in Research and Information
• Research Methods
• Browse content in Social Work
• Addictions and Substance Misuse
• Adoption and Fostering
• Care of the Elderly
• Child and Adolescent Social Work
• Couple and Family Social Work
• Developmental and Physical Disabilities Social Work
• Direct Practice and Clinical Social Work
• Emergency Services
• Human Behaviour and the Social Environment
• International and Global Issues in Social Work
• Mental and Behavioural Health
• Social Justice and Human Rights
• Social Policy and Advocacy
• Social Work and Crime and Justice
• Social Work Macro Practice
• Social Work Practice Settings
• Social Work Research and Evidence-based Practice
• Welfare and Benefit Systems
• Browse content in Sociology
• Childhood Studies
• Community Development
• Comparative and Historical Sociology
• Economic Sociology
• Gender and Sexuality
• Gerontology and Ageing
• Health, Illness, and Medicine
• Marriage and the Family
• Migration Studies
• Occupations, Professions, and Work
• Organizations
• Population and Demography
• Race and Ethnicity
• Social Theory
• Social Movements and Social Change
• Social Research and Statistics
• Social Stratification, Inequality, and Mobility
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Education
• Sport and Leisure
• Urban and Rural Studies
• Browse content in Warfare and Defence
• Defence Strategy, Planning, and Research
• Land Forces and Warfare
• Military Administration
• Military Life and Institutions
• Naval Forces and Warfare
• Other Warfare and Defence Issues
• Peace Studies and Conflict Resolution
• Weapons and Equipment

• < Previous chapter
• Next chapter >

20 Violent Video Games and Aggression

Barbara Krahé, Department of Psychology, University of Potsdam, Potsdam, Germany

• Published: 28 January 2013
• Cite Icon Cite
• Permissions Icon Permissions

The potential impact of violent video games on increasing players’ aggression is a highly controversial issue in public debate and has been examined thoroughly in the scholarly literature. This chapter reviews the current state of knowledge about the empirical evidence and theoretical explanations concerning the relationship between exposure to video game violence and aggressive affect, cognitions, and behavior. It starts by presenting results from content analyses on the extent to which violence features in video games before looking at usage intensity and the appeal of violent games. The main part of the chapter provides a review of meta-analytic, experimental, and longitudinal studies addressing the strength of the link between the use of violent video games and aggression, followed by a discussion of the psychological processes underlying short-term effects and long-term consequences of playing violent video games. The final section summarizes interventions directed at reducing the effects of media violence on aggression.

Introduction

Every time the public is shocked by an extreme act of seemingly senseless violence, such as a school shooting or a killing spree, commentators are quick to point to the perpetrators’ preoccupation with violent media, particularly so called “shooter games,” as a cause for their aggressive actions. When a 19-year-old student killed 15 people at his former school in Germany in 2002, the BBC report about the case was entitled “Playing the Game: Germany's Teenage Killer” and went on to say, “A particular favorite of the 19-year-old killer was the popular ‘Counterstrike’—a game in which teams of terrorists battle against teams of police officers.” 1 What seems like an obvious connection to some people is vigorously disputed by others, most notably in the gaming community and the video game industry. The academic debate about the effects of exposure to violent video games is no less controversial, as reflected, for example, in the commentaries on Anderson et al.'s ( 2010 ) recent meta-analysis (Bushman, Rothstein, & Anderson, 2010 ; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010 ; Huesmann, 2010 ).

This chapter discusses the current state of the evidence on the potential of violent video games for increasing players’ aggression. It also presents theoretical accounts of the processes by which engaging in aggressive behavior in the virtual reality of video games might affect aggressive cognitions, feelings, and behavior in the real world. For the purpose of this discussion, violent video game play is defined as any action by the player intended to cause harm to other human or human-like characters in the game , whereby harm is typically inflicted in the form of physical violence. Much of the research and theorizing on violent contents across a range of media such as television, films, comic books, or music is relevant to the understanding of violent video game effects (see Anderson et al., 2003 , for a review). In addition, a growing specialized literature examines the effects of specific features of video games, such as their interactive nature, on aggression-related outcome variables. To put these issues into context, we will first ask how much violence there is in contemporary video games, how widely violent games are used, particularly by children and adolescents, and what makes violent games so attractive.

How Much Violence Is There in Contemporary Video Games and Why Is It So Appealing?

Content analyses of video games show that violence features prominently in this type of media. More than 20 years ago, Braun and Giroux ( 1989 ) found a violence rate of 71% for a sample of 21 arcade games. Dietz ( 1998 ) analyzed 33 best-selling video games and found that about 79% contained some form of violence. Since then, hard- and software of game technology have improved dramatically; graphics and sound effects have become highly realistic (Dill, Gentile, Richter, & Dill, 2005 ), promoting players’ arousal and sense of involvement (Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007 ). A content analysis of 396 video games rated T (for Teens) by Haninger and Thompson ( 2004 ) revealed that 94% contained violent content. An analysis of popular games in Germany also concluded that many games rated as suitable for children or adolescents contained substantial amounts of violence (Höynck, Mößle, Kleimann, Pfeiffer, & Rehbein, 2007 ). In addition to identifying high levels of violent content in contemporary video games, Smith, Lachlan, and Tamborini ( 2003 ) found that games directed at children often involve forms of violence that map on to everyday forms of aggression, such as slapping, boxing, or kicking.

Beyond counting the number of games containing violence, a qualitative analysis (see Chapter 7 ) of the way violence is presented is useful for understanding the underlying mechanism of media violence effects on aggression. For example, providing evidence that violence is frequently rewarded by positive consequences in media depictions suggests an explanation based on social learning principles. Addressing this task, Smith et al. ( 2004 ) conducted a contextual analysis of the use of guns in video games. They analyzed a sample of 10 hours of playing the 60 video games most popular in 1999 in which a total of 116 violent interactions involving the use of guns were identified. In 94% of all interactions, violence was justified by serving the protection of life, 27% of violent moves were followed by rewards, and not a single one was followed by punishment.

In contrast to films and TV programs, violent content in video games is not a fixed quantity but varies depending on the player's actions. As players differ in skill and motivation, there is both inter- and intra-individual variability in the virtual reality created in a game, resulting in different levels of violence encountered in the course of playing the same game (Weber, Behr, Tamborini, Ritterfeld, & Mathiak, 2009 ). Therefore, analyses identifying violent content on the basis of time sampling of playing periods, often by a small number of players, can only yield a broad picture of violence in different games. Weber et al. ( 2009 ) addressed this problem by examining violent content generated by 13 experienced gamers playing a prototypical first-person shooter game for a 50-minute period. Across all players, they found that violent actions accounted for 15% of all events and 7% of the total playing time. There were substantial individual differences between players, producing varying levels of exposure to violence within the game.

In addition to establishing how much violence there is in video games, assessing potentially negative effects of exposure to violent games needs to consider how much time users spend with these media contents. Surveys show that video games in general are highly popular across all age groups. Even in the age group of 65 and older, 23% report playing video games (Lenhart & Macgill, 2008 ), and among adolescents and young adults virtually everybody uses them. In a survey conducted in the United States in 2008, 97% of teenagers aged 12 to 17 reported playing video games, 31% reported playing every day. In terms of the preferred game content, about one-third of gaming teenagers reported that at least one of their three favorite games was rated Mature, with boys outnumbering girls by 3 to 1 in this group (Lenhart et al., 2008 ).

In a representative survey of adolescents aged 12 to 19 in Germany, only 20% reported not playing games at all, whereas 45% reported playing regularly, several times a week. Of those participants who were aware of existing age ratings for video games, 81% of boys (but only 36% of girls) said they had played games rated unsuitable for their age group, and 71% of boys (45% of girls) reported that violent games were used by many or most of their peers (Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Süd-West, 2010 ). In another representative survey in Germany carried out in 2005, 20% of 10-year-old boys reported that at the time of the survey they were playing at least one game with an age rating of 16 or 18, and one-third of boys aged 14 to 15 reported playing games rated 18+ or with no age rating at all on a regular basis (Höynck et al., 2007 ). These figures need to be seen in the context of binding legal regulations in Germany restricting access to these games for underage youths.

If violent video games are widely used among children and adolescents as well as adults, what makes them so attractive, particularly for male users? Compared with the large number of studies addressing the consequences of violent video game play, this question has received less attention in psychological research. The “uses and gratifications” approach stipulates that people select media contents that serve certain momentary or more stable needs (Rubin, 2009 ). Violent media contents may be selected to provide different gratifications, as discussed by Kirsh ( 2006 ): (1) Vicarious aggression , allowing users to disable their learned inhibitions against aggressive behavior and act out aggressive impulses that they cannot vent in real life without negative consequences; (2) personal identity formation , enabling them to experiment with different varieties of a masculine identity and elicit feelings such as fear, anger, or disgust in an intensity that they can control (Jansz, 2005 ); (3) social identity formation in the sense of gaining popularity among peers as a “tough guy” or someone with expert skills in a highly rated domain; (4) defiance of restrictions imposed by adults as a way of asserting independence, which explains the special appeal of games with higher age ratings, called the “forbidden fruit effect” (Bijvank, Konijn, Bushman, & Roelofsma, 2009 ); (5) empowerment and social status as a form of self-presentation, for example, appearing mature and brave through slaying others in a game and being able to handle blood and gore; and finally (6) mood management , for example, playing violent games to release anger after a frustration. Bushman and Whitacker ( 2010 ) found that angered participants were more attracted to violent games if they subscribed to the belief that violent video game play can purge angry feelings or after they were exposed to a newspaper article promoting this belief.

Finally, gender differences in attraction to violent video game content were found in line with traditional gender roles. Ashworth, Pyle, and Pancer ( 2010 ) showed that video games with a high potential for dominating the opponent were rated by men as more appealing than games affording less dominance, whereas potential for dominance decreased the attractiveness of a game for women. Gender was also found to moderate the appeal of another game feature, namely, whether engagement in violence was portrayed as justified (i.e., committed in the role of a police officer) or unjustified (committed in the role of a gangster). A study with college students in Taiwan found that when acting violently was unjustified, men enjoyed the game more, and identified more with their game character than did women, whereas no gender differences were found for violence that appeared justified (Lin, 2010 ).

However, the question remains to what extent violence as an isolated game feature accounts for the appeal of this type of media over and above the satisfaction of other needs, such as achieving a sense of competence and mastery. Across a series of correlational and experimental studies, Przybylski, Ryan, and Rigby ( 2009 ) found little evidence that including violence in video games increased their attractiveness. On the other hand, they established that individuals high on trait aggression were particularly attracted to games containing violence, supporting earlier results by Bushman ( 1995 ). Further supporting the idea of a match between players’ dispositions and preference for violent game content, a study by Peng, Liu, and Mou ( 2008 ) showed that individuals high on trait physical aggression engaged in a more aggressive style of playing than did low scorers. In combination, these findings suggest that violent video games hold a special attraction for individuals with a high affinity for aggression. This begs the question of whether highly aggressive people are not only more drawn toward games with violent content, but also more strongly affected by the experience of playing violent games in terms of subsequent aggressive behavior. This question is addressed in a later section.

How Strong Is the Empirical Evidence on the Link Between Violent Video Game Play and Aggression?

The strength of the evidence in support of the claim that playing violent video games promotes aggressive cognitions, affect, and behavior is at the core of the controversy about the potentially harmful effects of this type of media. As will be shown, the issue here is not so much the actual magnitude of the effects but their evaluation in terms of relevance or practical significance, particularly in relation to other potential risk factors of aggression. This section reviews the evidence available so far regarding the effects of playing violent video games on aggression-related outcome variables. First, the latest meta-analyses are presented that integrate the published research on violent video games into a common statistical metric. This review is followed by the discussion of exemplary studies using experimental and longitudinal methods to address the question of the causal influence of violent video game use on aggression.

To examine the association between violent video game play and aggression, three main methodologies have been used. (1) Cross-sectional studies relate self-reports of violent video game use to aggressive cognitions, feelings, or behaviors. For example, Krahé and Möller ( 2004 ) asked eighth grade students to report on their use of video games that were rated for violent content by an independent group of media experts. The more violent video game play participants reported, the higher their acceptance of aggressive behavior as normative. Although correlational studies can detect a covariation between media violence usage and aggression, they cannot establish whether playing violent video games is a causal risk factor for aggression. (2) By contrast, experimental studies can test causal hypotheses about the short-term effects of media violence exposure by systematically varying the level of violence in media contents and assigning participants randomly to a violent game and a nonviolent game condition to observe differences in aggressive behavior. For example, Anderson, Gentile, and Buckley ( 2007 , Study 1) asked children aged 9 to 12 to play either a violent or a nonviolent game for 20 minutes and then gave them the opportunity to deliver aversive noise blasts to an opponent. They found that children who had played the violent game administered significantly more high-intensity noise blasts to their opponent than did those in the nonviolent game condition. (3) Finally, longitudinal studies follow the same group of participants over two or more points in time to relate the use of violent video games at an earlier point in time to aggressive behavior observed later. This methodology enables researchers to test the hypothesis that differences in media violence usage precede differences in aggression (Anderson et al., 2007 ). By considering and controlling for other potential risk factors of aggression they can also gauge the long-term, cumulative effects of habitual exposure to media violence. A more detailed discussion of the experimental and longitudinal research literature on violent video games is discussed later in this section. First, however, we take a bird's eye view on the current state of the evidence by looking at findings from two recent meta-analyses integrating results from a large number of individual studies.

Evidence from Meta-analyses

The empirical literature on the effects of playing violent video games is growing at a fast pace. One way of keeping track with the messages that emerge from this prolific field of research regarding the risk of aggression is to consult meta-analytic reviews bringing together findings from a wide range of individual studies into overall measures of effect size. The first meta-analyses on media violence effects on aggression dealing exclusively with video games were published by Anderson and Bushman ( 2001 ) and Sherry ( 2001 ). Since then, several updated meta-analytic reviews have been presented, including evidence from different methodologies (correlational experimental, and longitudinal studies) and different outcome variables (aggressive cognitions, feelings, and behavior, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior) across samples from different countries (Anderson, 2004 ; Anderson et al., 2010 ; Ferguson, 2007a , b ). In addition, violent video game effects have been covered as part of broader meta-analyses of effects of violent content across different types of media (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009 ). The most commonly used measure of effect size capturing the strength of the association is the correlation ( r ) between violent video game play and aggression-related outcome variables. In addition to meta-analyses based on quantitative measures of effect size, there are several qualitative reviews covering the extensive literature regarding the effects of violence in video games (e.g., Dill, & Dill, 1998 ; Bensley & Van Eenwyk, 2001 ; Gentile & Anderson, 2006 ; Barlett, Anderson, & Swing, 2009 ; Weber, Ritterfeld, & Kostygina, 2009 ).

Findings from the two most comprehensive meta-analyses by Ferguson ( 2007a ) and Anderson et al., ( 2010 ) revealed similar effect sizes. 2 Ferguson ( 2007a ) analyzed a total of 25 studies published between 1995 and 2005 with a total of just over 4,200 participants and calculated separate effect sizes for experimental and nonexperimental studies. The findings from his analysis are presented in Figure 20.1 .

The effect sizes were larger in experimental than in nonexperimental studies across all outcome variables. When studies were coded for reliability of measurement, Ferguson found a negative correlation between reliability and effect sizes, leading him to conclude that the link between violent video game use and aggression-related outcomes may be inflated by methodological flaws.

Effect Sizes from Experimental and Nonexperimental Studies for the Link Between Violent Video Game Play and Aggression-Related Outcomes.

Based on Ferguson, C. J. (2007a). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior , 12, 470–482.

Note . No effect sizes for physiological arousal were available from nonexperimental studies.

a corrected for publication bias: .15; b corrected for publication bias: .06; c corrected for publication bias: .11. Figures in the bars indicate k number of studies.

Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) included a much larger database of 136 studies, about one-third of which came from non-Western countries, most notably Japan. In total, the studies had more than 130,000 participants. To address the claim that effect sizes may be biased by poor methodology, their studies were categorized as to whether they met a set of best practice criteria (see Chapter 7 ), and effect sizes for the best practice studies were compared to the effect sizes obtained for the total set of studies. Figure 20.2 presents the effect sizes based on the sample of best practice studies.

Again, experimental studies produced higher effect sizes on all outcome variables than did nonexperimental studies. There was no significant difference in the effect sizes from Western and non-Western countries. A comparison of the effect sizes from the best practice studies with those computed for the total set of studies showed that with the exception of aggressive affect, effect sizes were higher in the best practice studies than in the full sample. Thus, there is no support in this large database for the claim that the effect of violent video game on aggression is inflated because of inadequate methodologies.

Although the sample of studies included by Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) was more than five times higher than the Ferguson ( 2007a ) sample and covered a wide international literature, the magnitude of the effects found in the two meta-analyses are highly similar. The correlations are in the region of .15 to .25, with stronger effect sizes for experimental studies using laboratory measures of aggressive behavior. Following Cohen ( 1988 ), r values in the region of ±.10 are considered small, in the region of r = ±.30 medium, and in the region of ±.50 and above large effects. Thus, the effect sizes shown in the two meta-analyses fall into the small to medium range. This does not mean, however, that they are without practical significance, as claimed by some critics (e.g., Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010 ). Rosenthal ( 1990 ) demonstrated that a correlation of r = .20 between media violence and aggression shifts the odds of someone with high media violence usage showing high levels of aggressive behavior from 50%:50% to 60%:40%. This means that of 100 high users of media violence, 60% will fall into the high aggression group, compared with 40% of low media violence users. Considering how widely violent media are available and used around the world, this difference of 20% translates into a large number of individuals who may become more aggressive as a result of exposure to violent media stimuli. Therefore, if only one in a hundred thousand players were inspired by a violent game to commit a violent act, the consequences of several million people playing that game would be alarming (Sparks & Sparks, 2002 ). The effect sizes established in empirical studies provide a basis for gauging the probability that aggressive behavior will be increased in the global community of players as a result of exposure to violent video games.

Effect Sizes from Experimental, Longitudinal, and Cross-Sectional Studies for the Link Between Violent Video Game Play and Aggression-Related Outcomes

Based on Anderson, C. A., Ihori, N., Bushman, B. J., Rothstein, H. R., Shibuya, A., Swing, E. L., Sakamoto, A., & Saleem, M. (2010).

Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin , 136, 151–173.

Note . No effect sizes for physiological arousal were available from nonexperimental studies. Figures in the bars indicate k number of studies.

Experimental Studies

A large number of experimental studies examined the hypothesis that playing violent video games leads to short-term increases in aggressive behavior. In this section, evidence is reviewed on the impact of violent video game on aggressive behavior as the critical outcome variable. Studies examining violent video game effects on aggressive affect and cognitions or addressing the role of specific game features are discussed later in the chapter.

A common laboratory measure of aggressive behavior is the so-called “noise blast paradigm,” a competitive reaction time task in which players deliver aversive noise blasts to an alleged opponent every time they are faster than the opponent in pressing a button (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002 ). Several studies have demonstrated that more aversive noise blasts were delivered after playing a violent compared with a nonviolent video game (e.g., Bartholow & Anderson, 2002 ; Anderson & Murphy, 2003 ; Anderson, Carnagey, Flanagan, Benjamin, Eubanks, & Valentine, 2004 , Exp. 3; Sestir & Bartholow, 2010 ; see, however, Ferguson & Rueda, 2010 , for a disconfirming result). Using behavioral observation in a free-play situation as a more realistic measure, Irwin and Gross ( 1995 ) found that boys who had played a violent game showed more physical aggression toward objects and more verbal aggression toward objects as well as a same-age confederate than those who had played the nonviolent game. In terms of the duration of short-term effects, Barlett, Branch, Rodeheffer, and Harris ( 2009 ) found differences between players of violent versus nonviolent games in the amount of aversively hot sauce administered to another person, as measure of aggressive behavior, up to 10 minutes after the end of the game-playing session.

Anderson and Carnagey ( 2009 ) pitted violent content against competitiveness by comparing two competitive sports simulation games, one nonviolent and one with excessive violence. Participants playing the violent sports game delivered more high-intensity noise blasts to an opponent (indicating aggressive behavior) than those in the nonviolent game condition. Because both games were equally competitive, this difference points to the unique effect of violent content on aggression.

Longitudinal Studies

Longitudinal studies enable researchers to examine the cumulative effects of habitual use of violent media over time and to test two alternative causal explanations of the relationship between media violence and aggression: (1) that exposure to violent media makes users more aggressive (“socialization” hypothesis), or (2) that more aggressive individuals are more strongly attracted by violent media (“selection” hypothesis). Just a few years ago, Anderson et al. ( 2007 , p. 33) stated that “to date there are no major longitudinal studies that specifically focus on violent video game effects.” This statement is no longer true, as there are now several such studies with children and adolescents in the international research literature. Anderson et al. ( 2007 , Study 3) followed 430 students in third to fifth grade over a period of 5 months and found that violent video game use at Time 1 remained a unique predictor of verbal and physical aggression at Time 2, even after controlling for a number of additional variables, such as sex, race, parental involvement, and hostile attributional style (i.e., the dispositional tendency to attribute hostile intentions to others). In addition to demonstrating an aggression-enhancing effect of video game violence, Anderson et al. ( 2007 ) established a link—albeit weaker—between violent game play and a decrease in prosocial behavior over time. The association remained significant after controlling for several covariates but disappeared when Time 1 prosocial behavior was included in the analysis.

A Japanese study by Shibuya, Sakamoto, Ihori, and Yukawa ( 2008 ) studied 591 fifth graders twice within a 1-year interval. They found a significant link between Time 1 violence in participants’ favorite video games and Time 2 hostility in boys, but no link with anger or aggressive behavior. However, a content analysis showed significant links with Time 2 aggressive behavior for games that included an attractive perpetrator and presented violence as justified. For girls, no significant links emerged between violent video game use and later aggressive affect or behavior. A German study with third and fourth graders showed a similar gender difference (von Salisch, Kristen, & Oppl, 2007 ). Over a 1-year period, they found a significant path of ß = .07 from using first-person shooters to overt aggression in boys, but not in girls. Among the boys, the reverse path, from Time 1 aggression to Time 2 use of first-person shooters was substantially higher in this sample (ß = .22), supporting the “selection” hypothesis that more aggressive individuals selectively prefer violent media content.

Links Between Video Game Use and Physical as Well as Relational Aggression in Adolescents Over 30 Months

Reprinted with permission from Möller, I., & Krahé , B. (2009). Exposure to violent video games and aggression in German adolescents: A longitudinal analysis. Aggressive Behavior , 35, 75–89.

For adolescents, two short-term longitudinal studies from Japan with participants aged 12 to 18 found bivariate correlations of .23 and .34, respectively, between Time 1 violent video game playing and Time 2 physical aggression assessed four months later (Anderson et al., 2008 ). A German study with 12- to 14-year-olds found that Time 1 violent video game use was significantly linked to aggression (ß = .18) and delinquency (ß = .29) at Time 2 2 years later, controlling for other potential risk factors, such as poor school climate and parents’ use of physical violence (Hopf, Huber, & Weiß, 2008 ). A further study with German adolescents by Möller and Krahé ( 2009 ) covered a period of 30 months and considered both physical and relational aggression. The path models linking violent video game use to physical as well as relational aggression are shown in Figure 20.3 .

Controlling for Time 1 physical aggression, a significant path was found from violent video game use to physical aggression 30 months later. This finding supports the “socialization” hypothesis of violent video game effects. There was no support for the “selection” hypothesis, as aggression at Time 1 was unrelated to violent video game use at Time 2. There was also no evidence of a crossover effect from video game violence that is typically physical in nature on relational aggression, i.e., behavior aimed at damaging the target person's social relationships (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995 ).

Similar findings are reported from a study with Dutch adolescents by Lemmens, Valkenburg, and Peter ( 2011 ) covering a period of 6 months. The cross-lagged path from violent video game use at Time 1 to self-reported aggression at Time 2 was significant, whereas the path from Time 1 aggression to Time 2 violent video game use was not. Although girls used violent games much less than did boys, the paths from violent video game use to aggression did not differ significantly between the gender groups.

Finally, a recent study by Ferguson ( 2011 ) followed 302 adolescents over a 1-year period and found a significant bivariate correlation between Time 1 reports of violent video game use and Time 2 bullying behavior. However, violent video game use did not explain unique variance over and above other risk factors, such as antisocial personality and depressive symptoms, nor did it predict other measures of aggressive behavior. It should be noted that this study differed from previous research in the measurement of violent video game use by relying on ratings by the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) as an estimate of video game violence exposure. There is some indication that these ratings provide more lenient assessments of the amount of violence compared, for example, to ratings by parents (Walsh & Gentile, 2001 ) or experienced gamers (e.g., Haninger & Thompson, 2004 ), which may have resulted in an underestimation of the level of violence contained in participants’ video game diet (see also Höynck et al., 2007 , for a similar finding regarding age ratings in Germany).

In addition to longitudinal studies focussing specifically on video games, there is further evidence from studies using broader measures of media violence exposure including television and movies instead or alongside of violent video games. This research, spanning developmental periods from preschool age (Ostrov, Gentile, & Crick, 2006 ; Christakis & Zimmerman, 2007 ) to adolescence (Slater, Henry, Swaim, & Anderson, 2003 ; Krahé & Möller, 2010 ), also identified habitual media violence use as a significant predictor of aggression over time. Extending the time frame into adulthood, Huesmann, Moise-Titus, Podolski, and Eron ( 2003 ) found that television violence viewing at age 10 predicted aggression measured 15 years later, controlling for a number of other risk factors of aggression. No evidence was found for the reverse pathway, representing the selection hypothesis, from early aggression to subsequent television violence viewing.

Overall, there is clear support for the idea that using violent media socializes users into aggression. At the same time, there is also support for the idea that highly aggressive individuals selectively prefer violent media (Anderson et al., 2003 ). There is no inherent contradiction between the two processes because it is possible that they are mutually reinforcing. Indeed, the “downward spiral” model by Slater et al. ( 2003 ) proposes that even though more aggressive individuals may show a preference for violent media, the more intense use of these media may reinforce their aggressive tendencies. In their 2-year study in which adolescents were measured at four points in time, they found that trait aggression was linked to greater use of violent media cross-sectionally, and that the use of violent media predicted aggressiveness both cross-sectionally and prospectively. This finding showed that as predicted by the selection hypothesis, more aggressive individuals were more attracted to violent media at Time 1, and higher levels of violent media use were linked to higher aggression at the subsequent points in time, as predicted by the socialization hypothesis.

Taken together, the experimental and longitudinal evidence discussed in this section further illustrates the link apparent in the meta-analytic reviews between violent video game play and aggression and is consistent with research looking at violent content in other media. Both experiments and longitudinal studies support the assumption of a causal effect of violent video games on aggression. However, as noted by Huesmann ( 2010 ), this is not to say that violent media usage “determines” aggressive behavior. Not every heavy user of violent games will display detectable signs of aggression, just as not every drunken driver will cause a fatal accident, but the risk of aggression is increased among the high usage group. Media violence may reinforce the effects of other risk factors, not least exposure to violence in the real world (Browne & Hamilton-Giachritsis, 2005 ). At the same time, there may be differences in the aggression-enhancing effects of media violence use depending on characteristics of the media stimuli, such as the presentation of violence as justified or unjustified or the interactive versus noninteractive role assigned to users. We will examine potential moderators of the media violence-aggression link in the next section.

How Does Playing Violent Video Games Increase Aggression?

Theoretical explanations of the underlying process that lead from violent video game play as an input variable to aggressive behavior as an outcome distinguish between short-term effects of a single playing episode and long-term effects of habitual use of violent video games over extended periods of time. The main mechanisms identified in the literature as accounting for the impact of violent media on aggression are listed in Table 20.1 .

In large part, the underlying psychological processes are assumed to be the same for video games as for other violent media stimuli, such as movies and television programs, so that we can draw on a large body of literature pertaining to violent content across different types of media. In addition, it will be asked how certain features of violent video games, most notably their interactive nature, give rise to processes that are specific to this type of media.

Processes Underlying Short-Term Effects

Short-term exposure to violent media affects aggressive behavior through three main processes: (1) the elicitation of arousal and aggressive affect, (2) the activation of aggressive cognitions, and (3) the instigation of imitational learning. These processes are illustrated by representative examples from the experimental research literature.

1. Exposure to violent media stimuli leads to an increase in physiological arousal as well as affective arousal in the form of state anger and hostility. As shown in Figures 20.1 and 20.2 , the meta-analyses by Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) and Ferguson ( 2007a ) found evidence that violent video game use increases physiological arousal, with effect sizes of r = .18 and r = .27, respectively. This increased arousal may facilitate aggression by enhancing the person's activity level and strengthen dominant responses. For example, a person confronted with a provocation is more likely to respond aggressively if he or she is already in a state of increased arousal, as suggested by Zillmann's ( 1979 ) “excitation transfer model.” This model suggests that arousal by a media stimulus may be erroneously attributed to the arousal caused by a provocation and mislabeled as anger if the person is no longer aware of the source of the initial arousal, thus reinforcing an aggressive response to the provocation (Zillmann & Bryant, 1974 ).

Whereas physiological indicators, such as heart rate or skin conductance, provide a quantitative index of arousal, affective arousal reflects the subjective perception of the quality of arousal. Several studies demonstrated that exposure to violent media stimuli elicit feelings of state anger and hostility that trigger subsequent aggressive behavior. Bushman and Huesmann ( 2006 ) found an effect size of r = .27 for the link between media violence and angry affect across different types of methods and media genres, Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) reported an effect size of r = .29 from experimental studies of video game violence.

2. At the cognitive level, violent media stimuli activate aggressive thoughts, feelings, and self-concepts . Watching media depictions of aggressive interactions increases the ease with which users can access their own aggressive thoughts and feelings. The underlying mechanism is a process of priming whereby a particular external stimulus, such as an aggressive act, directs the individual's attention to the congruent mental constructs, such as aggressive cognitions, thus lowering the threshold for using them to interpret social information. Asking subjects to list their thoughts following exposure to a violent or nonviolent videotape, Bushman ( 1998 ) found that respondents who had watched a violent videotape produced more aggressive associations to homonyms with both an aggressive and a nonaggressive meaning (such as box, punch). They were also faster in identifying letter strings making up aggressive words than were respondents shown a nonviolent videotape (see also Bushman & Anderson, 2002 ). Bösche ( 2010 ) replicated faster recognition times for aggression-related words after playing a violent compared with a nonviolent video game. In addition, he also found faster accessibility of positively valenced words in the violent game condition, which is an indication that violent entertainment is connected with positive associations. Demonstrating an effect on attitudes, Lee, Peng, and Klein ( 2010 ) showed that participants who had played a violent game for 2 hours were more lenient in their judgments of criminal behavior than those who had played a nonviolent game.

Furthermore, there is evidence that even brief periods of media violence use may activate aggression-related aspects of players’ self-concept. Playing a violent video game for 10 or 20 minutes increased the speed with which aggression-related words were associated with the self in an Implicit Association Test (IAT) compared with a nonviolent control condition, eliciting a process of learning aggressive self-views (Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004 ; Bluemke et al., 2010 ). No parallel effects were found on explicit self-report measures of aggression, suggesting that the effects of violent media cues operated at the automatic level. The link between violent media use and the self was underlined further in a study by Fischer, Kastenmüller, and Greitemeyer ( 2010 ). Their participants played either a violent (boxing) game or a nonviolent (bowling) game. In each condition, half of the participants could personalize their game character by modeling its physical appearance after themselves. The other half played the respective game with a nonpersonalized character. Participants playing the personalized violent game subsequently administered more hot sauce to another person as a measure of aggressive behavior than those playing the nonpersonalized violent game, and both groups acted more aggressively than the players of the nonviolent game in either the personalized or nonpersonalized condition. The effects were mediated by self-activation (feeling strong, active, and motivated) that was higher in the personalized than in the nonpersonalized violent game conditions.

However, it seems that aggressive media contents not only serve as primes for aggressive cognitions, but the priming of aggressive thoughts then leads to a preference for violent media contents. Langley, O'Neal, Craig, and Yost ( 1992 ) first activated aggressive cognitions by asking participants to compose short stories using words from a list of aggressive (versus nonaggressive) terms. Then, they were given the choice of different film clips described as varying in aggressive content. Participants who had written aggression-related stories in the priming task expressed a greater preference for violent film clips than those who had written a story based on the neutral words. These findings tie in with longitudinal evidence based on the “downward spiral” discussed earlier in that media violence promotes aggressive cognitions just as aggressive cognitions feed into preferences for violent media.

3. A further process explaining short-term effects of exposure to violent video games is imitational learning . Exposure to aggression may instigate social learning processes that result in the acquisition of new behaviors. As revealed in the content analyses mentioned earlier, much of the aggression in violent video games is rewarded or at least goes unpunished. Moreover, it is often shown by attractive characters with whom viewers identify. As social learning theory suggests, learning through modeling is particularly likely under these circumstances (Bandura, 1983 ). The most obvious way in which aggression portrayed in the media is incorporated in the recipients’ behavioral repertoire is reflected in copycat aggression. Studies conducted as early as the 1960s showed that children imitate the behaviors observed by attractive role models (Bandura et al., 1963 ). In a study by Schutte, Malouff, Post-Gorden, and Rodasta ( 1988 ), children were randomly assigned to playing either a violent (karate) video game or a nonviolent (jungle swing) game. In a subsequent free play period, children in the nonviolent group played more with the jungle swing than those in the violent group, whereas children in the violent group showed more aggressive behavior, such as hitting an inflatable doll or hitting another child.

Moderators of Short-Term Effects

The principles discussed so far identified psychological processes affecting users of violent media stimuli in terms of their readiness to engage in aggression. However, it is likely that not all users are affected by violent media stimuli to the same extent and that differences in the way violence is presented also moderates the effects. This section discusses evidence on individual differences and media-specific characteristics as moderators of the short-term effects of media violence on aggression.

The Moderating Role of Individual Differences

Several studies have shown that individuals differ in their aggressive responses to media violence depending on trait aggression and trait hostility. Anderson and Carnagey ( 2009 ) showed that playing a violent video game increased the accessibility of aggressive cognitions compared with a nonviolent control group only among participants high on trait aggression (see Giumetti & Markey, 2007 for similar results). However, in a study by Anderson ( 1997 ), playing a violent game increased hostile affect only among participants low on trait hostility. An explanation for the latter finding may be that for individuals high on trait hostility, hostile feelings are chronically accessible, so that the effect of the violent game as a short-term aggressive prime had no additional effect on them. By contrast, people not habitually hostile were induced by the prime to activate aggression-related affective states.

Bushman ( 1995 , Study 3) explored the impact of a violent versus nonviolent film on unprovoked and provoked aggressive behavior by respondents differing in trait aggressiveness. On the measure of unprovoked aggression, both aggressive and nonaggressive participants acted more aggressively than respondents exposed to a nonviolent film. Following prior provocation, however, the aggression-enhancing effect of the violent film was significantly more pronounced for the aggressive than for the nonaggressive respondents.

The impact of short-term exposure to media violence is also affected by users’ past experience with violent media contents. For example, Bartholow, Sestir, and Davis ( 2005 ) showed that after playing a violent video game for 20 minutes, high habitual users of violent video games were more aggressive on a competitive reaction task than low habitual users. High users also scored lower on empathy and higher on trait hostility than low users, and these differences partly explained the differences in aggressive behavior (see also Anderson & Dill, 2000 ).

Concerning the role of gender, evidence was presented at the beginning of this chapter that boys are far more attracted to violent video games than are girls. Whether they are differentially affected when exposed to the same level of violent content has not been established conclusively in the literature. The meta-analysis by Anderson et al. did not yield a significant gender difference in the experimental studies, indicating that both gender groups are equally affected by violent video games. Studies with all-female samples also revealed effects of violent media stimuli on aggression in women. Anderson and Murphy ( 2003 ) found higher levels of aggression after playing a violent as compared with a nonviolent video game, and Fischer and Greitemeyer ( 2006 ) showed that women who had listened to men-hating lyrics acted more aggressively toward a male target person than women exposed to neutral lyrics. However, other studies found no effects of playing a violent versus a nonviolent game on women (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002 ; Deselms & Altman, 2003 ; Polman, Orobio de Castro, & van Aken, 2008 ). Given that violent game characters are typically male, women cannot identify with aggressive media models in the same way as men, which may account at least partly for their lower preference for this type of media and, possibly, lower levels of aggression following exposure to violent contents (see, however, Jansz & Martis, 2007 , for an increasing presence of female game characters in dominant roles). This line of reasoning is supported by the finding that women playing a violent game with a female avatar showed more aggressive thoughts in a word completion task than women playing the same game with a male avatar (Eastin, 2006 ).

The Moderating Role of Game Features

The different ways in which violence is presented also affect the strength of the link between violent video game use and aggression (see Barlett et al., 2009 , for a review). Carnagey and Anderson ( 2005 ) conducted three studies in which they explored the importance of reward and punishment of violent action in a video game on subsequent aggressive cognitions, affect, and behavior. All participants played a racing game, Carmaggedon 2, but they were randomly assigned to three different conditions: (1) a condition in which killing race opponents and pedestrians was rewarded by extra points, (2) a condition in which killing race opponents and pedestrians was punished by taking points away, and (3) a nonviolent condition in which killing pedestrians or competitors was not possible. Blood pressure and pulse were recorded as measures of arousal to make sure that the three versions did not differ in terms of their arousal quality. State hostility after the 20-minute playing period was measured as an index of aggressive affect (Exp. 1). A word completion test presenting words that could be completed to yield either an aggressive or a nonaggressive meaning was used as a measure of aggressive cognition (Exp. 2), and administering aversive noise blasts to an opponent in a competitive reaction time task was chosen as a measure of aggressive behavior (Exp. 3). The results are displayed in Figure 20.4 .

For aggressive affect, the findings reveal that both groups engaging in violent actions while playing the video game experienced higher levels of state hostility than the group that could not engage in violent actions. For aggressive cognition and aggressive behavior, participants in the reward group scored significantly higher than those in the punishment and the nonviolent control groups. The latter two groups did not differ significantly on either cognitions or behavior.

Barlett, Harris, and Bruey ( 2008 ) varied the amount of blood visible during the playing of a violent game and found significantly higher arousal, state hostility, and number of aggressive words in a word completion task in the condition in which large amounts of blood were displayed. Similarly, Barlett, Harris, and Baldassaro ( 2007 ) found that playing a violent video game with a controller in the shape of a realistic gun lead to a higher increase in arousal from baseline than playing with a standard controller.

Regarding differences between noninteractive exposure to media violent as opposed to active involvement, Polman et al. ( 2008 ) compared children actively playing a violent or nonviolent video game with a group of children who passively observed the same actions shown on a television screen. This ensured that both groups received exactly the same input but differed in terms of active involvement. The results showed that boys in the violent-active condition were more aggressive than boys in the passive-violent condition. However, they were not more aggressive than boys in the active-nonviolent condition, and no effects of involvement or violence level of the game were found for girls.

Effects of Reward and Punishment of Violence in Video Games

Adapted from Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The effects of reward and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychological Science , 16, 882–889, Table 2.

Finally, both similarity to and wishful identification with violent game characters were found to increase the effects of violent game playing on aggression. A recent study by Williams ( 2011 ) examined the effect of physical likeness between players and their game characters on players’ physical state anger after playing a violent or a nonviolent game. Participants were either instructed to create an avatar that resembled them in various physical features, such as skin color, height, build, hair style, or they were given an avatar dissimilar to their own appearance. As expected, a main effect for violence level was found, in terms of higher state anger after playing the violent as compared with the nonviolent game. More importantly, a significant interaction was found between violence level of the game and physical resemblance of the main character: Participants who had played the violent game with an avatar resembling them were significantly angrier than those playing the violent game with a dissimilar avatar or those who had played a nonviolent game with either a similar or dissimilar avatar. Using wishful identification with the main character as a quasi-experimental variable, Konijn, Bijvank, and Bushman ( 2007 ) found higher levels of aggression after playing a violent game in boys the more they wanted to be like the main character, whereas wishful identification with the main character of the nonviolent games was unrelated to aggressive behavior.

Processes Explaining Cumulative Effects of Habitual Use of Violent Games

To explain the impact of habitual exposure to media violence on aggressive behavior, several interlocking processes have been proposed (see Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007 , for a summary). The most widely studied mechanisms are observational learning, disinhibition , and desensitization . None of these mechanisms is specific to violent media contents; they pertain to the long-term effects of exposure to violence in real life as well as in the virtual reality of the media.

Observational learning plays a key role in the adoption of aggression as part of the individual's behavioral repertoire. Just as real-life models are imitated, particularly if their aggressive behavior is followed by positive consequences, as shown by Bandura, Ross, and Ross ( 1961 , 1963 ), media models are a powerful source of learning by observation. Violent media characters are typically presented as strong, powerful, and acting in pursuit of a good cause, making them appealing models to imitate. Huesmann et al. ( 2003 ) found positive correlations between childhood identification with same-sex aggressive media characters and aggression measured 15 years later in both men and women. Moreover, children who perceived television violence as “real” were significantly more aggressive as young adults. The longitudinal study with Japanese children by Shibuya et al. ( 2008 ) showed that playing video games in which violence was committed by an attractive as opposed to a less attractive perpetrator predicted higher levels of hostility and aggression 12 months later.

Observational learning is not limited to the imitation of specific acts of aggression, it also involves the acquisition of more general aggressive knowledge structures or aggressive scripts . Habitual exposure to violent media promotes the learning, rehearsal, and reinforcement of pro-aggression beliefs and attitudes, hostile perceptions, and expectations as well as the acquisition of aggressive behavioral scripts (Huesmann, 1998 ). The more individuals use violent media, the more they encounter stimuli relevant to their aggressive scripts. Over time, the frequent activation of aggressive scripts will make them more easily accessible, thus increasing the likelihood that they will be used to interpret incoming stimuli. Children are particularly susceptible to this effect because their aggressive scripts are still more malleable than those of adults (Huesmann, 1998 ). In a study of third to fifth graders, Gentile and Gentile ( 2008 ) showed that playing multiple violent video games predicted a higher tendency to attribute hostile intent to others 5 months later, which in turn was linked to higher physical aggression. Habitual violent video game play was also associated with higher trait hostility in an adolescent sample studied by Gentile, Lynch, Linder, and Walsh ( 2004 ), which was associated with more frequent involvement in physical fights and arguments with teachers. These links support the role of violent media usage in promoting hostile schemata that lower the threshold for aggressive behavior.

The second process by which the habitual use of violent media impacts aggressive behavior is disinhibition . Exposure to violent media contents may weaken the viewers’ inhibitions against aggression by making aggression appear as a common and accepted feature of social interactions. The fact that many violent acts are presented as justified and do not show the suffering of victims undermines the perception of violence as antisocial and harmful. As noted by Huesmann ( 1998 ), such normative beliefs are an integral part of aggressive scripts and are used to decide which behavioral options will be activated in a given situation. In line with this proposition, Huesmann and Kirwil ( 2007 ) reported longitudinal evidence that normative beliefs about aggression in adulthood were predicted by childhood preferences for violent media contents and that the normative acceptance of aggression partly mediated the link between childhood exposure to media violence and adult aggressive behavior. Presenting aggression as justified was correlated with higher hostility and aggression assessed a year later in the Japanese study by Shibuya et al. ( 2008 ). Möller and Krahé ( 2009 ) found that the more adolescents played violent video games, the more accepting they were of physical aggression in interpersonal conflict situations assessed 30 months later. Acceptance of aggression as normative was significantly associated with both physical aggression and hostile attributional style. Further support for the disinhibiting effect of violent video game play comes from a study by Hummer et al. ( 2010 ), who studied brain activity indicating inhibition of unwanted and inappropriate responses. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) technology, they found that immediately after playing a violent game, participants showed reduced brain activity required to suppress unwanted responses compared with a comparison group who had played a nonviolent game, identifying a neurobiological basis for the disinhibiting effects of exposure to media violence.

The third process through which habitual exposure to violent media stimuli has a long-term effect on aggression is desensitization . In general terms, desensitization refers to the gradual reduction in responsiveness to an arousal-eliciting stimulus as a function of repeated exposure. In the context of media violence, desensitization more specifically describes a process “by which initial arousal responses to violent stimuli are reduced, thereby changing an individual's ‘present internal state’” (Carnagey, Anderson, & Bushman, 2007 , p. 491). In particular, desensitization to violent media stimuli is thought to reduce anxious arousal. Fear is a spontaneous and probably innate response of humans in reaction to violence. As with other emotional responses, repeated exposure to media violence can decrease negative affect because violent stimuli lose their capacity to elicit strong emotions the more often the stimulus is presented (Anderson & Dill, 2000 ).

Several studies have shown that in the long run, habitual exposure to media violence may reduce anxious arousal in response to depictions of violence. Research has found that the more time individuals spent watching violent media depictions, the less emotionally responsive they became to violent stimuli (e.g., Averill, Malstrom, Koriat, & Lazarus, 1972 ) and the less sympathy they showed for victims of violence in the real world (e.g., Mullin & Linz, 1995 ). In a series of studies with children aged 5 to 12, Funk et al. demonstrated that habitual usage of violent video games was associated with reduced empathy with others in need of help (Funk, Buchman, Jenks, & Bechtoldt, 2003 ; Funk, Baldacci, Pasold, & Baumgardner, 2004 ).

Bartholow, Bushman, and Sestir ( 2006 ) used event-related brain potential data (ERPs) to compare responses by violent and nonviolent video game users to violent stimuli and relate them to subsequent aggressive responses in a laboratory task. They found that the more violent games participants played habitually, the less brain activity they showed in response to violent pictures and the more aggressively they behaved by administering aversive noise blasts to an opponent. No effect of habitual exposure to media violence was found for ERP responses to nonviolent negative stimuli (such as pictures of accident victims or disfigured babies), indicating that desensitization was specific to the violent content of the media diet. In a later study, Engelhardt, Bartholow, Kerr, and Bushman ( 2011 ) established that reduced ERP mediated the link between high use of violent video games and aggressive behavior.

Using skin conductance levels as a measure of arousal during exposure to a violent film clip, Krahé, Möller, Huesmann, Kirwil, Felber, and Berger (2012) found that the more participants were used to violent media, the less physiological arousal they showed while watching graphic scenes of violence and the more pleasant arousal they reported to have experienced. Higher pleasant arousal was associated with faster recognition of aggression-related words. Participants in this study were also exposed to sad and funny film clips, for which no association with habitual media violence was found, further demonstrating that the effects were specific to violent media contents.

Moderators of Long-Term Effects

The current literature provides little information about moderators of long-term effects of media violence use because most studies that included further variables potentially related to aggression, such as trait aggression, school performance, socioeconomic status, age, or gender, controlled for them in the statistical analyses rather than considering them in interaction with violent media use (e.g., Huesmann et al., 2003 ; Anderson et al., 2007 , 2008 ; Christakis, & Zimmerman, 2007 ; Ferguson, 2011 ). Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) did not find significant differences as a function of age and gender in their meta-analysis of longitudinal studies and concluded that the effects of playing violent video games over time apply to large proportions of the population at least through college age. Regarding trait aggression as a moderator, Krahé and Möller ( 2010 ) found an interaction between Time 1 physical aggression and media violence exposure on Time 2 aggression. Violent media use predicted an increase in aggression only among those participants who scored low on physical trait aggression at Time 1, whereas media violence use did not predict a further increase in aggression among the high trait aggression group.

This section addressed the question how exposure to media aggression increases viewers’ aggressive response tendencies in the short term and over time. Anderson and Bushman ( 2001 ) have presented a model of the effects of violent video game play based on the General Aggression Model (GAM) that shows how cognitive and affective processes triggered by violent video games contribute to an increase in aggressive personality. The model is presented in Figure 20.5 .

Short-term effects, such as activation of aggressive cognitions and instigation of anger affect, may become chronic with regular exposure and exert a long-term effect on aggressive behavior by giving rise to perceptual schemata and aggressive expectation schemata. Aggressive perceptual schemata describe the tendency to perceive the behavior of others as guided by aggressive intentions, aggressive expectation schemata lead people to overestimate the likelihood that others will show aggressive behavior.

Process Model of the Long-Term Effects of Video Game Violence

Reprinted with permission from Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science , 12, 353–359, p. 355.

How Can the Effects of Violent Video Game Play on Aggression be Mitigated or Prevented?

The research reviewed so far has demonstrated significant effects of playing violent video games on aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. What, then, can be done to prevent or mitigate these effects? Theoretical models that explain the long-term effects of exposure as a result of observational learning, aggressive scripts, disinhibition, and desensitization suggest that interventions should start at an early age when aggressive scripts are not yet consolidated and therefore more open to change.

Compared with the large number of studies linking media violence use to aggression, the current body of knowledge about effective intervention strategies is limited, and the majority of available studies focused only on short-term changes in experimental settings (see Anderson et al., 2003 ; Cantor & Wilson, 2003 for reviews). Typically, interventions designed to mitigate the aggression-enhancing effects of media violence exposure focus on one or both of two target variables: restricted consuming and critical consuming . Restricted consuming refers to an overall reduction of media exposure and the substitution of violent with nonviolent media content. Critical consuming refers to the promotion of an understanding of how media violence influences users and of the mechanisms by which violence is presented as acceptable, successful, and detached from negative consequences. Critical consuming is therefore directed at increasing an important aspect of media literacy, namely, “the ability to analyze and evaluate media” (Kirsh, 2010 , p. 241).

Focusing on restricted overall consuming only, Robinson, Wilde, Navracruz, Haydel, and Varady ( 2001 ) demonstrated the efficacy of an intervention with third and fourth graders over a period of 6 months. The intervention included a 10-day complete turnoff of television, videos, and video games, followed by a prescribed budget of no more than 7 hours of screen time per week. Participants in the intervention group showed not only a reduction of media use compared with the control group, but also a significant decrease in peer-rated aggression and observed verbal aggression from baseline to posttest. However, the intervention and control groups did not differ in terms of a decrease in parent ratings of aggression from baseline to posttest.

Byrne ( 2009 ), on the other hand, focused exclusively on the aspect of critical consuming. She compared two intervention conditions with a control group in a sample of fourth and fifth graders. In the “basic condition,” students received a lesson on media violence effects in terms of an evaluative mediation , for example, watching violent clips and critically evaluating the aggressive characters. In the “activity condition,” participants were given the same instruction but were additionally required to write a paragraph about what they had learned and were videotaped reading it aloud. No difference was found between the activity and the control conditions immediate postintervention and at the 6-month follow-up, whereas the basic condition showed a significant increase in the willingness to use aggression, indicating a boomerang effect.

Using a combined approach of reducing media violence usage and promoting critical consuming, Rosenkoetter, Rosenkoetter, Ozretich, and Acock ( 2004 ) conducted an extensive intervention over a 12-month period with children in first through third grade. It was designed to reduce the amount of violent television viewing and lower the level of identification with violent television characters. The intervention produced different effects for boys and girls. Girls in the intervention group scored higher on knowledge about television violence effects and lower on television violence viewing as well as identification with violent television characters. The effect of the intervention on reducing peer-nominated aggression was significant only for boys. In a subsequent study with children in first to fourth grade, Rosenkoetter, Rosenkoetter, and Acock ( 2009 ) implemented a similar program over a 7-month period with an immediate postintervention measurement and an 8-month follow-up. Participants in the intervention group reported watching less violent television and expressed more critical attitudes about media violence than those in the control group, both immediately postintervention and 8 months later. The short-term effect of reduced identification with violent characters was no longer present at the follow-up. No effect of the intervention on peer-rated aggression was found, neither immediately postintervention nor at the 8-month follow-up.

In a recent study by Möller, Krahé, Busching, and Krause ( 2012 ), a sample of 683 seventh and eighth graders in Germany were assigned to two conditions: a 5-week intervention and a no-intervention control group. Measures of exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior were obtained about 3 months before the intervention (Time 1) and about 7 months postintervention (Time 2). The intervention group showed a significantly larger decrease in the use of violent media from Time 1 to Time 2 than the control group. Participants in the intervention group also scored significantly lower on self-reported aggressive behavior (physical aggression and relational aggression) at Time 2 than those in the control group, but the effect was limited to those with high levels of initial aggression. Further analyses revealed that the effect of the intervention on aggressive behavior was mediated by an intervention-induced decrease in the normative acceptance of aggression.

A second approach to prevention involves the limitation of access to violent media contents for children and adolescents. Various age classification systems have been developed to identify media with violent content and designate them as suitable or unsuitable for certain age groups (see Bushman & Cantor, 2003 , for a summary of the most commonly rating systems in the United States, the British Board of Film Classification [BBFC] for movie ratings in the United Kingdom, http://www.bbfc.co.uk/ , or the Pan European Game Information system [PEGI], http://www.pegi.info/en/ ). Ratings either employ content labels or age labels, and a meta-analysis of parent polls by Bushman and Cantor ( 2003 ) showed that parents overwhelmingly preferred content-based ratings. Empirical analyses have revealed several problems with rating systems (see Gentile & Anderson, 2006 , for a summary). First, parents are not familiar or do not use the ratings in regulating their children's media diet (Gentile, 2010 ). Second, media rated as suitable for children and adolescents often contain substantial levels of violence, and there appears to be a trend over time toward greater tolerance for violent content in media accessible to a younger audience. A historical analysis of movies rated between 1950 and 2006 conducted by Nalkur, Jamieson, and Romer ( 2010 ) found a steady increase in violent content in films rated PG-13 (containing material that may be inappropriate for children under 13). Third, ratings are often not matched by consumer perceptions of the same titles, especially for cartoon and fantasy games and for media containing some level of violence, which undermines their perceived validity (Funk, Flores, Buchman, & Germann, 1999 ; Walsh & Gentile, 2001 ). Finally, and probably most difficult to amend, warning labels have been found to enhance the appeal of violent media to those whom they should protect. Demonstrating the “forbidden fruit” effect, Bijvank et al. ( 2009 ) asked children and adolescents to evaluate the attractiveness of video games that came with different age recommendations or violent content indicators taken from the PEGI system. In line with their predictions, the authors found that adding an age label to a video game made it more attractive to children under the indicated age, and that adding a warning label about violent content equally increased the attractiveness of the game, particularly for boys. Brehm's ( 1966 ) psychological reactance theory provides a theoretical explanation of the forbidden fruit effect. He stipulates that having the freedom of choice is a basic need in humans and that reactance arises as an unpleasant emotional state in response to restrictions of that sense of freedom. Increasing the perceived attractiveness of the denied option is seen as a strategic option enabling individuals to alleviate the feeling of reactance by restoring freedom at the psychological level. These findings raise questions about the effectiveness of rating systems and highlight the challenges involved in shielding children and adolescents from violent media content.

Conclusions

Evidence from a large body of research has shown that playing violent video games affects players’ readiness to engage in aggressive behavior. There is a consensus in the field that playing violent video games is only one of many risk factors for aggression, and the effects are of small to moderate magnitude. This is not to say, however, that they should be dismissed as irrelevant, as claimed by some critics. Sales figure and user surveys across the world demonstrate that violent video games are highly popular and widely used forms of entertainment, especially in childhood and adolescence. Therefore, even small effect sizes translate into substantial differences in aggressive behavior that may be attributed to the influence of video game violence.

Playing violent video games may affect aggressive behavior through different mechanisms. Immediate effects on aggressive behavior were shown to be mediated by an increase in physiological arousal and aggressive affect, the priming of aggressive thoughts, and the instigation of imitational learning of aggressive acts that were observed or actively carried out in the virtual reality. Habitual violent video game play provides opportunities for sustained observational learning that promotes the development of knowledge structures, such as hostile expectations and attributional styles, and the formation of aggressive scripts. Through the portrayal of violence as normal and appropriate, media violence strengthens the normative acceptance of aggression that disinhibits aggressive behavior. Finally, repeated exposure to violent media cues leads to reduced physiological and affective arousal by violent media stimuli that is related to a decrease in emotional responsiveness to real-life violence and suffering.

Compared with the wealth of studies investigating the link between video game violence and aggression, research on effective interventions to prevent or mitigate the aggression-enhancing effects of violent media use is only beginning to emerge. In addition to reducing exposure, approaches that promote a critical attitude toward media violence and an understanding of the psychological processes triggered by violent media stimuli have been found to have some success, but more research is needed to develop intervention strategies that take different user characteristics and different types of media into account.

Future Directions

Despite the progress achieved in more than 25 years of research on violent video games, and in research on media violence effects more generally, a number of questions remain unresolved. There are three key questions that should be addressed in future research.

What are the long-term effects of habitual use of violent video games that starts in childhood? At present, there are no longitudinal studies on violent video game use beyond adolescence, so it is unclear how the continuous engagement in virtual violence affects aggression in adulthood. In addition, most of the available evidence from longitudinal research is limited to two points in time. However, for a conclusive test of the variables mediating the link between violent video game use and aggression over time, more than two measurement points are required so that the mediators can be assessed as temporal precursors of aggression.

Are all heavy users of violent video games equally susceptible to long-term effects on aggression? Whereas several moderators of short-term effects have been identified, longitudinal studies have typically treated additional risk factors for aggression as covariates rather than examining their interaction with violent video game use. For example, it could be the case that violent video game use by individuals low on initial trait aggression does little to increase their aggression, whereas highly aggressive individuals show a further increase if they are heavy users of violent video games. Alternatively, given that high trait aggression tends to persist over time, it is conceivable that highly aggressive users would remain highly aggressive even if they abstained from playing violent video games, whereas initially less aggressive individuals would be more affected. The findings by Krahé and Möller ( 2010 ) provide some support for the latter hypothesis, but further studies are required to clarify the role of trait aggression as a moderator of long-term violent video game effects.

A final question refers to the role of gender in the susceptibility to violent video game effects. Is gender simply a marker of differences in usage intensity, with violent games having more appeal for male users, or are there gender-specific effects? For example, it could be the case that female users are more likely to show an increase in relational as compared to physical aggression as a result of violent video game use, given that there is some indication that this is the preferred mode of expression of aggression for females (e.g., Smith, Rose, & Schwartz-Mette, 2010 ). Studies showing stronger effects of playing violent games that afford a high identification with the aggressor point in this direction.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1959632.stm .

The analysis by Anderson et al. ( 2010 ) includes the studies covered in earlier meta-analyses from the same research group (Anderson & Bushman, 2001 ; Anderson, 2004 ), and the analysis by Ferguson ( 2007a ) includes the studies covered by Ferguson ( 2007b ).

Anderson, C. A. ( 1997 ). Effects of violent movies and trait aggressiveness on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts.   Aggressive Behavior , 23 , 161–178.

Google Scholar

Anderson, C. A. ( 2004 ). An update on the effects of playing violent video games.   Journal of Adolescence , 27 , 113–122.

Anderson, C. A. , Berkowitz, L. , Donnerstein, E. , Huesmann, L. R. , Johnson, J. D. , Linz, D. , et al. ( 2003 ). The influence of media violence on youth.   Psychological Science in the Public Interest , 4 , 81–110.

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

Anderson, C. A. , & Carnagey, N. L. ( 2009 ). Causal effects of violent sports video games on aggression: Is it competitiveness or violent content?   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 45 , 731–739.

Anderson, C. A. , Carnagey, N. L. , Flanagan, M. , Benjamin, A. J. , Eubanks, J. , & Valentine, J. C. ( 2004 ). Violent video games: Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior.   Advances in Experimental Social Psychology , 36 , 199–249.

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

Anderson, C. A. , Gentile, D. A. , & Buckley, K. E. ( 2007 ). Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy . New York: Oxford University Press.

Google Preview

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

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

Anderson, C. A. , Sakamoto, A. , Gentile, D. A. , Ihori, N. , Shibuya, A. , Yukawa, S. , et al. ( 2008 ). Longitudinal effects of violent video games aggression in Japan and the United States.   Pediatrics , 122 , 1067–1072.

Ashworth, L. , Pyle, M. , & Pancer, E. ( 2010 ). The role of dominance in the appeal of violent media depictions.   Journal of Advertising , 39 , 121–134.

Averill, J. R. , Malstrom, E. J. , Koriat, A. , & Lazarus, R. S. ( 1972 ). Habituation to complex emotional stimuli.   Journal of Abnormal Psychology , 80 , 20–28.

Bandura, A. ( 1983 ). Psychological mechanisms of aggression. In Geen, R. G. , & Donnerstein, E. I. (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and Empirical Reviews , vol. 1. New York: Academic Press, pp. 1–40.

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

Bandura, A. , Ross, D. , & Ross, S. A. ( 1963 ). Vicarious reinforcement and imitative learning.   Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 67 , 601–607.

Barlett, C. P. , Anderson, C. A. , & Swing, E. L. ( 2009 ). Video game effects—Confirmed, suspected, and speculative.   Simulation & Gaming , 40 , 377–403.

Barlett, C. , Branch, O. , Rodeheffer, C. , & Harris, R. ( 2009 ). How long do the short-term violent video game effects last?   Aggressive Behavior , 35 , 225–236.

Barlett, C. P. , Harris, R. J. , & Baldassaro, R. ( 2007 ). Longer you play, the more hostile you feel: Examination of first person shooter video games and aggression during video game play.   Aggressive Behavior , 33 , 486–497.

Barlett, C. P. , Harris, R. J. , & Bruey, C. ( 2008 ). The effect of the amount of blood in a violent video game on aggression, hostility, and arousal.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 44 , 539–546.

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

Bartholow, B. D. , Bushman, B. J. , & Sestir, M. R. ( 2006 ). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 42 , 532–539.

Bartholow, B. D. , Sestir, M. A. , & Davis, E. B. ( 2005 ). Correlates and consequences of exposure to video game violence: Hostile personality, empathy, and aggressive behavior.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 , 1573–1586.

Bensley, L. , & Van Eenwyk, J. ( 2001 ). Video games and real-life aggression: A review of the literature.   Journal of Adolescent Health , 29 , 244–257.

Bijvank, M. N. , Konijn, E. A. , Bushman, B. J. , & Roelofsma, P. H. M. P. ( 2009 ). Age and violent-content labels make video games forbidden fruits for youth.   Pediatrics , 123 , 870–876.

Bluemke, M. , Friedrich, G. , & Zumbach, J. ( 2010 ). The influence of violent and nonviolent computer games on implicit measures of aggressiveness.   Aggressive Behavior , 36 , 1–13.

Bösche, W. ( 2010 ). Violent content enhances video game performance.   Journal of Media Psychology , 21 , 145–150.

Braun, C. M. , & Giroux, J. ( 1989 ). Arcade video games: Proxemic, cognitive and content analyses.   Journal of Leisure Research , 21 , 92–105.

Brehm, J. ( 1966 ). A Theory of Psychological Reactance . Oxford, UK: Academic Press.

Browne, K. D. , & Hamilton-Giachritsis, C. ( 2005 ). The influence of violent media on children and adolescents: A public health approach.   The Lancet , 365 , 702–710.

Bushman, B. J. ( 1995 ). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 , 950–960.

Bushman, B. J. ( 1998 ). Priming effects of media violence on the accessibility of aggressive constructs in memory.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 24 , 537–545.

Bushman, B. J. , & Anderson, C. A. ( 2002 ). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the General Aggression Model.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 28 , 1679–1686.

Bushman, B. J. , & Cantor, J. ( 2003 ). Media ratings for violence and sex.   American Psychologist , 58 , 130–141.

Bushman, B. J. , & Huesmann, L. R. ( 2006 ). Short-term and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults.   Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine , 160 , 348–352.

Bushman, B. J. , Rothstein, H. R. , & Anderson, C. A. ( 2010 ). Much ado about something: Violent video game effects and a school of red herring: Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010).   Psychological Bulletin , 136 , 182–187

Bushman, B. J. , & Whitacker, J. L. ( 2010 ). Like a magnet: Catharsis beliefs attract angry people to violent video games.   Psychological Science , 21 , 790–792.

Byrne, S. ( 2009 ). Media literacy interventions: What makes them boom or boomerang?   Communication Education , 58 , 1–14.

Cantor, J. & Wilson, B. J. ( 2003 ). Media and violence: Intervention strategies for reducing aggression.   Media Psychology , 5 , 363–403.

Carnagey, N. L. , & Anderson, C. A. ( 2005 ). The effects of reward and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior.   Psychological Science , 16 , 882–889.

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

Cohen, J. ( 1988 ). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences , 2nd ed. New York: Academic Press.

Christakis, D. A. , & Zimmerman, F. J. ( 2007 ). Violent television viewing during preschool is associated with antisocial behavior during school age.   Pediatrics , 120 , 993–999.

Crick, N. , & Grotpeter, J. K. ( 1995 ). Relational aggression, gender, and social-psychological adjustment.   Child Development , 66 , 710–722.

Deselms, J. L. , & Altman, J. D. ( 2003 ). Immediate and prolonged effects of videogame violence.   Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 33 , 1553–1563.

Dietz, T. L. ( 1998 ). An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior.   Sex Roles , 38 , 425–442.

Dill, K. E. , & Dill, J. C. ( 1998 ). Video game violence: A review of the empirical literature.   Aggression and Violent Behavior , 3 , 407–428.

Dill, K. E. , Gentile, D. A. , Richter, W. A. , & Dill, J. C. ( 2005 ). Violence, sex, race, and age in popular video games: A content analysis. In Cole, E. , & Daniel, J. H. (Eds.), Featuring Females: Feminist Analyses of Media . Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 115–130.

Eastin, M. R. ( 2006 ). Video game violence and the female game player: Self-and Opponent gender effects on presence and aggressive thoughts.   Human Communication Research , 32 , 351–372.

Engelhardt, C. R. , Bartholow, B. D. , Kerr, G. T. , & Bushman, B. J. ( 2011 ). Thus is your brain on violent video games: Neural desensitization to violence predicts increased aggression following violent video game exposure.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 47 , 1033–1036.

Ferguson, C. J. ( 2007 a). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review.   Aggression and Violent Behavior , 12 , 470–482.

Ferguson, C. J. ( 2007 b). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games.   Psychiatric Quarterly , 78 , 309–316.

Ferguson, C. J. ( 2011 ). Video games and youth violence: A prospective analysis in adolescents.   Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 40 , 377–391.

Ferguson. C. J., & J. Kilburn. ( 2009 ). The public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review.   Journal of Pediatrics , 154 , 759–763.

Ferguson, C. J. , & Kilburn, J. ( 2010 ). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010).   Psychological Bulletin , 136 , 174–178.

Ferguson, C. J. , & Rueda, S. M. ( 2010 ). The Hitman study: Violent video game exposure effects on aggressive behavior, hostile feelings, and depression.   European Psychologist , 15 , 99–108.

Fischer, P. , & Greitemeyer, T. ( 2006 ). Music and aggression: The impact of sexual-aggressive song lyrics on aggression-related thoughts, emotions, and behavior towards the same and the opposite sex.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 32 , 1165–1176.

Fischer, P. , Kastenmüller, A. , & Greitemeyer, T. ( 2010 ). Media violence and the self: The impact of personalized gaming characters in aggressive video games on aggressive behavior.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 , 192–195.

Funk, J. B. , Baldacci, H. B. , Pasold, T. , & Baumgardner, J. ( 2004 ). Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization?   Journal of Adolescence , 27 , 23–39.

Funk, J. B. , Buchman, D. D. , Jenks, J. , & Bechtoldt, H. ( 2003 ). Playing violent video games, desensitization, and moral evaluation in children.   Applied Developmental Psychology , 24 , 413–436.

Funk, J. B. , Flores, G. , Buchman, D. , & Germann, J. N. ( 1999 ). Rating electronic games: Violence is in the eye of the beholder.   Youth and Society , 30 , 283–312.

Gentile, D. A. ( 2010 ). Are motion picture ratings reliable and valid?   Journal of Adolescent Health , 47 , 423–424.

Gentile, D. A. , & Anderson, C. A.   2006 ). Violent video games: The effects on youth, and public policy implications. In Dowd, N. , & Singer, D. G. (Eds.), Handbook of Children, Culture and Violence . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, pp. 225–246.

Gentile, D. A. , & Gentile, J. R. ( 2008 ). Violent video games as exemplary teachers: A conceptual analysis.   Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 37 , 127–141.

Gentile, D. A. , Lynch, P. J. , Linder, J. L. , & Walsh, D. A. ( 2004 ). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance.   Journal of Adolescence , 27 , 5–22.

Giumetti, G. W. , & Markey, P. M. ( 2007 ). Violent video games and anger as predictors of aggression.   Journal of Research in Personality , 41 , 1234–1243.

Haninger, K. , & Thompson, K. M. ( 2004 ), Content and ratings of teen-rated video games.   Journal of the American Medical Association , 291 , 856–865.

Höynck, T. , Mößle, T. , Kleimann, M. , Pfeiffer, C. & Rehbein, F. ( 2007 ). Jugendmedienschutz bei gewalthaltigen Computerspielen: Eine Analyse der USK-Alterseinstufungen . [Youth media protection with regard to violent computer games: An analysis of the USK age ratings]. KFN-Forschungsbericht; Nr. 101. Hannover: Kriminologisches Forschungsinstitut Niedersachsen.

Hopf, W. , Huber, G. , & Weiß, R. ( 2008 ). Media violence and youth violence: A 2-year longitudinal study.   Journal of Media Psychology , 20 , 79–96.

Huesmann, L. R. ( 1998 ). The role of information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior. In Geen, R. G. , & Donnerstein, E. (Eds.), Human Aggression: Theories, Research and Implications for Social Policy . San Diego: Academic Press, pp. 73–109.

Huesmann, L. R. ( 2010 ). Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games stimulate aggression: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010).   Psychological Bulletin , 136 , 179–181.

Huesmann, R. L. , & Kirwil, L. ( 2007 ). Why observing violence increases the risk of violent behavior by the observer. In Flannery, D. J. , Vazsonyi, A. T. , & Waldman, I. (Eds.), The Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, pp. 545–570.

Huesmann, L. R. , Moise-Titus, J. , Podolski, C. L. , & Eron, L. ( 2003 ). Longitudinal relations between children's exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent behavior in young adulthood.   Developmental Psychology , 39 , 201–229.

Hummer, T. A. , Wang, Y. , Mosier, K. M. , Kalnin, A. J. , Dunn, D. W. , & Mathews, V. P ( 2010 ). Short-term violent video game play by adolescents alters prefrontal activity during cognitive inhibition.   Media Psychology , 13 , 136–154

Irwin, A. R. , & Gross, A. M. ( 1995 ). Cognitive tempo, violent video games, and aggressive behavior in young boys.   Journal of Family Violence , 10 , 337–350.

Ivory, J. D. , & Kalyanaraman, S. ( 2007 ). The effects of technological advancement and violent content in video games on players’ feelings of presence, involvement, physiological arousal, and aggression.   Journal of Communication , 57 , 532–555.

Jansz, J. ( 2005 ). The emotional appeal of violent video games for adolescent males.   Communication Theory , 15 , 219–241.

Jansz, J. , & Martis, R. G. ( 2007 ). The lara phenomenon: Powerful female characters in video games.   Sex Roles , 56 , 141–148.

Kirsh, S. J. ( 2006 ). Children, Adolescents, and Media Violence . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirsh, S. J. ( 2010 ). Media and Youth: A Developmental Perspective . Oxford, UK: Wiley.

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

Krahé, B. , & Möller, I. ( 2004 ). Playing violent electronic games, hostile attributional style, and aggression-related norms in German adolescents.   Journal of Adolescence , 27 , 53–69.

Krahé, B., & Möller, I. ( 2010 ). Longitudinal effects of media violence on aggression and empathy among German adolescents.   Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 31 , 401–409.

Krahé, B. , Möller, I. , Huesmann, L. R. , Kirwil, L. , Felber, J. , & Berger, A. ( 2011 ). Desensitization to media violence: Links with habitual media violence exposure, aggressive cognitions and aggressive behavior.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 100 , 630–646.

Langley, T. , O'Neal, E. C. , Craig, K. M. , & Yost, E. A. ( 1992 ). Aggression-consistent, -inconsistent, and -irrelevant priming effects on selective exposure to media violence.   Aggressive Behavior , 18 , 349–356.

Lee, K. M. , Peng, W. , & Klein, J. ( 2010 ). Will the experience of playing a violent role in a video game influence people's judgments of violent crimes?   Computers in Human Behavior , 26 , 1019–1023.

Lemmens, J. S. , Valkenburg, P. M. , & Peter, J. ( 2011 ). The effects of pathological gaming on aggressive behavior.   Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 40 , 38–47.

Lenhart, A. , Kahne, J. , Middaugh, E. , Macgill, A. R. , Evans, C. , & Vitak, J. (2008). Teens, Video Games, and Civics. Pew Internet and American Life Project . Retrieved May 8, 2011 from http://pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Teens_Games_and_Civics_Report_FINAL.pdf.pdf .

Lenhart, A. , & Macgill, A. R. (2008). Over half of American Adults Play Video Games, and Four Out of Five Young Adults Play . Pew Internet and American Life Project. Available online from: http://www.pewinternet.org/~/media//Files/Reports/2008/PIP_Adult_gaming_memo.pdf.pdf

Lin, S.-F. ( 2010 ). Gender differences and the effects of contextual features on game enjoyment and responses.   Cyber psychology, Behavior, and Social Networking , 13 , 533–537.

Medienpädagogischer Forschungsverbund Süd-West (Ed.) (2010). JIM-Studie 2010. Retrieved May 8, 2011 from http://www.mpfs.de/fileadmin/JIM-pdf10/JIM2010.pdf .

Möller, I. , & Krahé, B. ( 2009 ). Exposure to violent video games and aggression in German adolescents: A longitudinal analysis.   Aggressive Behavior , 35 , 75–89.

Möller, I. , Krahé, B. , Busching, R. , & Krause, C. ( 2012 ). Efficacy of an intervention to reduce the use of media violence and aggression: An experimental evaluation with adolescents in Germany.   Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 41 , 105–120.

Mullin, C. R. , & Linz, D. ( 1995 ). Desensitization and resensitization to violence against women: Effects of exposure to sexually violent films on judgments of domestic violence victims.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69 , 449–459.

Nalkur, P. G. , Jamieson, P. E. , & Romer, D. ( 2010 ). The effectiveness of the Motion Picture Association of America's rating system in screening explicit violence and sex in top-ranked movies from 1950 to 2006.   Journal of Adolescent Health , 47 , 440–447.

Ostrov, J. , Gentile, D. A. , Crick, N. R. ( 2006 ). Media exposure, aggression and prosocial behavior during early childhood: A longitudinal study.   Social Development , 15 , 612–627.

Peng, W. , Liu, M. , & Mou, Y. ( 2008 ). Do aggressive people play violent computer games in a more aggressive way? Individual difference and idiosyncratic game play experience.   Cyber Psychology & Behavior , 11 , 157–161.

Polman, H. , Orobio de Castro, B. , & van Aken, M. ( 2008 ). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior . Aggressive Behavior, 34, 256–264.

Przybylski, A. K. , Ryan, R. M. , & Rigby, C. S. ( 2009 ). The motivating role of violence in video games.   Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 35 , 243–259.

Robinson, T. N. , Wilde, M. L. , Navracruz, L. C. , Haydel, K. F. , & Varady, A. ( 2001 ). Effects of reducing children's television and video game use on aggressive behavior: A randomized controlled trial.   Archives of Pediatric Adolescent Medicine , 155 , 17–23.

Rosenkoetter, L. I. , Rosenkoetter, S. E. , & Acock, A. C. ( 2009 ). Television violence: An intervention to reduce its impact on children.   Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 30 , 381–397.

Rosenkoetter, L. I. , Rosenkoetter, S. E. , Ozretich, R. A. , & Acock, A. C. ( 2004 ). Mitigating the harmful effects of television violence.   Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 25 , 25–47.

Rosenthal, R. R. ( 1990 ). Media violence, antisocial behavior, and the social consequences of small effects. In Surette, R. (Ed.), The Media and Criminal Justice Policy: Recent Research and Social Effects . Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, pp. 53–61.

Rubin, A. M. ( 2009 ). Uses and gratifications: An evolving perspective of media effects. In Nabi, R. , & Oliver, M. B. (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Media Processes and Effects . Los Angeles: Sage, pp. 147–159.

Schutte, N. S. , Malouff, J. M. , Post-Gorden, J. C. , & Rodasta, A. L. ( 1988 ). Effects of playing videogames on children's aggressive and other behaviors.   Journal of Applied Social Psychology , 18 , 454–460.

Sestir, M. A. , & Bartholow, B. D. ( 2010 ). Violent and nonviolent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes.   Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 46 , 934–942.

Sherry, J. L. ( 2001 ). The effects of violent video games on aggression. A meta-analysis.   Human Communication Research , 27 , 409–431.

Shibuya, A. , Sakamoto, A. , Ihori, N. , & Yukawa, S. ( 2008 ). The effects of the presence and contexts of video game violence on children: A longitudinal study in Japan.   Simulation & Gaming , 39 , 528–539.

Slater, M. D. , Henry, K. L. , Swaim, R. C. , & Anderson, L. L. ( 2003 ). Violent media content and aggressiveness in adolescents: A downward spiral model.   Communication Research , 30 , 713–736.

Smith, R. L. , Rose, A. J. , & Mette, R. A. ( 2010 ). Relational and overt aggression in childhood and adolescence: Clarifying mean-level gender differences and associations with peer acceptance.   Social Development , 19 , 243–269.

Smith, S. L. , Lachlan, K. , Pieper, K. M. , Boyson, A. R. , Wilson, B. J. , Tamborini, R. , et al. ( 2004 ). Brandishing guns in American media: Two studies examining how often and in what context firearms appear on television and in popular video games.   Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 48 , 584–606.

Smith, S. L. , Lachlan, K. , & Tamborini, R. ( 2003 ). Popular video games: Quantifying the presentation of violence and its context.   Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media , 47 , 58–76.

Sparks, G. G. , & Sparks, C. W. ( 2002 ). Effects of media violence. In Bryant, J. , & Zillmann, D. (Eds.), Media Effects: Advances in Theory and Research , 2nd ed. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, pp. 269–285.

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

von Salisch, M. , Kristen, A. , & Oppl, C. ( 2007 ). Computerspiele mit und ohne Gewalt . [Computer games with and without violence]. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer.

Walsh, D. A. , & Gentile, D. A. ( 2001 ). A validity test of movie, television, and video-game ratings.   Pediatrics , 107 , 1302–1308.

Weber, R. , Behr, K.-M. , Tamborini, R. , Ritterfeld, U. , & Mathiak, K. ( 2009 ). What do we really know about first-person shooter games? An event-related, high resolution content analysis.   Journal of Computer-Mediated Communication , 14 , 1016–1037.

Weber, R. , Ritterfeld, U. , & Kostygina, A. ( 2009 ). Aggression and violence as effects of playing violent video games. In Vorderer, P. , & Bryant, J. (Eds.), Playing Video Games . London: Routledge, pp. 347–361.

Williams, K. D. ( 2011 ). The effects of homophily, identification, and violent video games on players.   Mass Communication and Society , 14 , 3–24.

Zillmann, D. ( 1979 ). Hostility and Aggression . Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Zillmann, D. , & Bryant, J. ( 1974 ). Effect of residual excitation on the emotional response to provocation and delayed aggressive behavior.   Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 30 , 782–791.

• About Oxford Academic
• Publish journals with us
• University press partners
• What we publish
• New features  
• Open access
• Institutional account management
• Rights and permissions
• Get help with access
• Accessibility
• Advertising
• Media enquiries
• Oxford University Press
• Oxford Languages
• University of Oxford

Oxford University Press is a department of the University of Oxford. It furthers the University's objective of excellence in research, scholarship, and education by publishing worldwide

• Copyright © 2024 Oxford University Press
• Cookie settings
• Cookie policy
• Privacy policy
• Legal notice

This Feature Is Available To Subscribers Only

Sign In or Create an Account

This PDF is available to Subscribers Only

For full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.

Advertisement

Stress and Violence in Video Games: Their Influence on Aggression

• Original Article
• Published: 21 January 2022
• Volume 30 , pages 497–512, ( 2022 )

Cite this article

• Genicelle Barrington 1 &
• Christopher J. Ferguson 1  

11k Accesses

2 Altmetric

Explore all metrics

This study investigated whether stress or violent content in video games plays a greater role in aggressiveness towards a cooperative partner while playing a video game. It was hypothesized that participants, when exposed to stress, would demonstrate greater aggressiveness toward an incompetent partner than a competent partner. Furthermore, it was hypothesized that participants, when exposed to a violent video game, would demonstrate greater aggression toward an incompetent partner than those exposed to a non-violent video game. Stress was provoked in half of the participants using the Paced Auditory Serial Addition Test (PASAT), while others took a simple math quiz. Participants were then assigned to a video game condition, violent or non-violent with a competent or incompetent confederate and completed a reaction time task to measure aggression. Results indicated that provoked stress and violent content are not linked to aggression in this context.

Similar content being viewed by others

Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study

Comfortably Numb? Violent Video Games and Their Effects on Aggression, Mood, and Pain-Related Responses

The effect of competitive context in nonviolent video games on aggression: The mediating role of frustration and the moderating role of gender

Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.

Under stressful circumstances, individuals tend to resort to aggressiveness. Studies have highlighted that stressful situations which have developed earlier in life and are repeatedly imposed on an individual have underlying effects on aggression. However, many studies have also discussed the perception that immediate stress can also provoke and incite aggression (Verona & Kilmer, 2007 ). Despite this, it is important to understand whether acquired stress plays a role in the expression of human aggression.

Animals, Stress, and Aggression

One means of examining how stress impacts aggression is through the study of animal models. In one study conducted with male adult mice, acute stressors were the primary causes of a marked increase in aggressiveness (Nosjean et al., 2015 ). During this study, the researchers’ aim was to determine the immediate effect acute stress would have on social interaction in adult male mice. In order to conduct their study, the researchers used 70 adult male mice purchased from a laboratory and separated them into isolated host (IH) mice and social visitor (SV) mice. During the study, each isolated host mice either received or did not receive acute stress while the social visitor mice remained unstressed throughout the environment. After being placed under duress, the IH mice were allowed to explore their cage before being exposed to an SV mouse for social interaction. This interaction was videotaped and analyzed by researchers. The researchers concluded that stress depleted the mice’s social repertoire, accelerated their dominance behaviors, and furthered aggressive behaviors. Due to their findings, they concluded that social interactions can be influenced by a single stressful event.

Kohl et al. ( 2013 ) utilized a similar procedure, wherein mice were exposed to a resident intruder to measure and evaluate the resident’s aggressive behaviors. In their study, they primarily focused on whether there was an interaction of conditional neural cell adhesion molecule knockout (NCAM-KO) and the extent to which exposure to repeated stress influenced aggression. Through the utilization of a gene by environment experiment, researchers attempted to determine whether the lack of forebrain in NCAM-KO mice would facilitate the development of an aggressive phenotype following exposure to either subchronic stress and chronic stress or one stressful condition when compared to wild-type variations of the mice. During their procedure, the researchers first measured the animals’ baseline anxiety-like behavior through the use of an elevated plus-maze; they also conducted a bedding preference test to determine social behavior, an open field test to observe exploratory behavior, and the resident-intruder test for aggression. After running statistical analyses on their data, they found that NCAM-KO mice exhibited no differences in aggressive behavior prior to subchronic stress exposure and while under basal conditions. However, following chronic exposure to stress, the NCAM-KO mice showed increased aggressive behavior toward their intruder. These findings led to the conclusion that chronic stress-induced differences in aggressive behavior rather than subchronic stress. Furthermore, the researchers outlined that due to the age of their mice, there could be age differences in the vulnerability to stress and thus a differing impact of stress on aggression.

Studies such as these provide some useful hints as to how stress can influence animals. However, mice are not humans, and it is to human research that we next turn.

Humans, Stress, and Aggression

It has been long suggested as part of the Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis that certain types of stress may provoke aggression. Other scholars have suggested that stress more generally, not merely frustration, could lead to aggression. Hinsberger et al. ( 2016 ) aimed to determine whether individuals were more aggressive when exposed to continuous traumatic stress. Researchers had trained mental health experts and counselors to conduct diagnostic interviews of 290 South African participants. The researchers discovered that there was a significant correlation between self and witnessed traumatic events, PTSD symptom severity, and engagement in violent behavior. Researchers found that attraction to violence was predicted by witnessed traumatic events as well as victimization, and perpetrated acts of violence were directly predicted by the witnessing of violence and that PTSD symptom severity was directly predicted by victimization. They also found that exposure to violence did not directly influence PTSD severity or perpetrated violence by means of appetitive aggression. Instead, they determined that appetitive aggression predicted the severity of PTSD and aggressive behavior. This study primarily focused on the act of resorting to violence when under continually stressful circumstances and concluded that aggression exhibited in stressful environments would aid in survival.

In a study conducted by Verona and Kilmer ( 2007 ), acute stress was examined as a determinant of aggressive behaviors in 120 volunteers. The researchers used the Positive and Negative Affect Schedule before and after a stress manipulation. Participants were exposed to either low- and high-stress conditions after which they interacted with a confederate who they could inflict with shocks during judgment task. In their study, the researchers primarily found gender differences in the influence of acute stressors on aggressive behaviors. They concluded that women displayed less aggression whereas men displayed increased aggression after being exposed to the high-stress condition.

Meta-analyses likewise have examined the relationship between stress and aggression. Evidence suggests that stress and trauma can increase the propensity to engage in aggression in both men and women (Augsburger, & Maercker, 2020 ; Orth, & Wieland, 2006 ). Such effects appear fairly consistent in the literature with moderate to large effects for hostile feelings and small to moderate effects for aggressive behavior.

Violence in Video Games

Prior studies outlined observed aggression in relation to stress; however, in this study, it is important to understand whether the task the participant engaged in also influences aggression, especially under stressful circumstances. Therefore, it is important to also understand the relationship between video games and aggression. The issue of whether violence in video games can impact aggression has been controversial. Despite several decades of research, no consensus has emerged. Though the American Psychological Association (APA) has taken a stance that violent games promote aggression (but not violent crime), reanalysis of their work has suggested that this claim is not supported by the extant literature and the APA may be misinforming the public (Ferguson et al., 2020 ). Below, we consider just a few studies in this realm.

In a unique study designed by Weber et al. ( 2006 ), researchers analyzed brain activity in relation to game play to understand and distinguish between virtual violence and non-virtual violence. The researchers conducted their experiment using 13 volunteers who chose to play a mature-rated first-person shooter game while under fMRI scanning. They recorded brain activity, physiological responses throughout game play, audio data from the game, and video display of the game play. They also included a questionnaire measure meant to control for arousal and subjective experiences throughout the experiment. After analyzing their data, they found that virtual violence produces similar brain activity when compared to the experience of aggressive thoughts and actions.

Despite the previous findings, several studies have found no relationship between violent video games and aggression (e.g., Przybylski et al., 2014 ; Toniutti et al., 2013 ). For example, in a longitudinal experiment, Kuhn and colleagues found no evidence that repeated exposure to a violent video game had any impact on aggressive behavior (Kühn et al., 2019 ). One issue that appears to emerge is that preregistered studies, wherein scholars post their analyses plans in advance so as to reduce questionable researcher practices, are particularly unlikely to find significant results (e.g., Hilgard et al., 2019 ; McCarthy et al., 2016 ). As such, more preregistered studies in this realm would be welcome.

Although individual studies may naturally differ in results , it is possible that meta-analyses may provide some illumination regarding larger trends in the field. However, there are disagreements in the conclusions of meta-analyses here too. For instance, Anderson and colleagues ( 2010 ) concluded that there are meaningful relationships between violent game playing and aggression in players. However, a reanalysis of this data concluded that effects, particularly for experimental studies, were largely driven by publication bias (Hilgard et al., 2017 ). Likewise, Prescott et al. ( 2018 ) found that there are very, very small longitudinal relationships between violent gameplay and later aggression. However, in reanalyzing this data, Drummond et al. ( 2020 ) concluded the effect sizes ( r  = 0.06) were trivial and driven by methodological noise, not true effects. Best practice studies demonstrated effect sizes that were no different from zero.

The Current Study

The purpose of this study was to determine whether violent content or acute stress plays a greater role in aggressiveness towards a cooperative partner while playing a video game. This study not only focused on investigating the role of stress in aggression but also its influence under varying conditions. The hypotheses being tested are as follows:

H1: Participants when exposed to acute stress will demonstrate greater aggressiveness toward an incompetent partner than a competent partner.

H2: Acute stress will play a greater role in causing aggressiveness towards an incompetent partner than chronic stress.

H3: Participants when exposed to stress and a violent video game will depict greater aggression toward an incompetent partner than those exposed to a non-violent video game.

We note that these hypotheses are expressed as main effects. However, it is possible that stress may moderate any relationship between violent game play and aggression (Shao & Wang, 2019 ). As such, we will also be alert for interaction effects between the independent variables.

Data Availability Statement

A preregistration of this study can be found at https://aspredicted.org/37ie4.pdf . Original data files can be found at https://osf.io/8w7mz/ .

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare no competing interests.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Participants

This study involved 73 participants who were compensated with two extra credit points for psychology courses registered in the undergraduate research portal. About twenty percent of the participants were male (20.5%, n  = 15), while the others were female (79.5%, n  = 58). Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 50 years old ( M  = 20.55, SD  = 4.98). Frequencies were also gathered for participants in each condition. In the stress condition, there were 37 participants (50.7%) in the acute stress condition and 49.3% in the control condition ( n  = 36). For the video game condition, about half of the participants were in the violent condition (52.1%, n  = 38) while 35 were in the nonviolent condition (47.9%). Additionally, the incompetent confederate condition included 38 participants (52.1%) while the competent condition consisted of 47.9% participants ( n  = 35). For a further two participants, a technical glitch resulted in the loss of their aggression data. In our preregistration document, we had planned to reach 100 participants. However, due to COVID-19 shutting down in-person research and the graduation of the lead author, participant recruitment was discontinued. This was done prior to examining any data.

State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI)

The State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) is a self-report anxiety measure (Spielberger et al., 1983 ). The inventory consists of a form Y-1, which measures current anxiety levels, and Y-2, which measures anxiety levels for the past 6 months. This measure contains 40 items, 20 state anxiety and 20 trait anxiety. For our purposes, we administered the Y2 trait form. Questions range from “I feel upset” to “I feel that difficulties are piling up so that I cannot overcome them.” These questions were rated on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from almost never to almost always. For the trait anxiety form with the current sample, the coefficient alpha was 0.90. The range of scores was from 22 to 70 from a possible range of 20–80. The mean score was 71.49 with a standard deviation of 10.63 indicating good variability in scores.

Crossword Puzzle

Participants took a simple crossword puzzle based on school classes, to act as a distractor task (see Appendix).

Stress Conditions

In this study, participants were randomly assigned to one of two stress conditions: The Paced Auditory Serial Addition Task (PASAT) or a control math quiz (see Appendix). The PASAT was originally used as a means of assessing short-term memory loss; however, for this study, it was used as a measure of inducing stress in participants . In this study, the computerized version (PASAT-C) of the PASAT was used (Lejuez et al., 2003 ). Participants mentally calculated addition problems during a set time frame. The PASAT requires sustained and specific attention. Participants are given simple math problems, but these are done with intervening numbers that are distractors, thus setting up high frustration. Participants must add each number to the number before it, keying in the response. However, each response serves as a distractor. For instance, a respondent may be given the numbers, in sequence, 3, 9, and 5. For the first two numbers, they key in the correct response “12”; however, then, they are supposed to add 5 to the 9. Yet, having “12” in working memory sets up a distractor and increases frustration, particularly as the task speeds up. Previous evidence has supported that the PASAT is effective in inducing stress, including for college students specifically ( Holdwick, & Wingenfeld, 1999 ; Starcke et al., 2016 ). Participants not assigned to the PASAT took a 10-min math quiz meant to represent the no-stress condition. This quiz was not difficult. Examples of questions are finding the sum of 2 plus 2 and what is 5 multiplied by 5.

Video Game Conditions

For this study, participants played either a “violent” or “non-violent” video game on the XBOX One. Participants assigned to the violent game condition played Battlefront. Battlefront is an action-packed video game wherein the player was in control of a Star Wars character who wields a lightsaber or gun throughout gameplay. Those assigned to the “non-violent” condition played portal 2. Portal 2 is an action-adventure game rated E10 + . This is a strategy video game wherein the player masqueraded as a first-person shooter wielding a portal gun which creates shortcuts throughout the game and does not cause harm to another character. Thus, the games are similar in gameplay and the use of a gun, but without violence of any kind in the portal 2 game.

Aggressive Behavior

This study utilized a modified version of the Taylor competitive reaction time task (TCRTT). This is a newer version utilizing noise blasts instead of the electric shocks, used in the original study (Taylor, 1967 ). In Taylor’s version, the participant had electrodes hooked up to their bodies and to convince the participant that they were playing against an individual they distributed a shock when the participant lost. He also had the wins and losses predetermined wherein the participant lost fifty percent of the trials. In this version, participants were asked to set the level and duration of a white noise blast acting as a punishment for their previous confederate partner. This game lasts for a total of 15 min and has 25 different trials. In the task, the wins and losses are preset as participants are not playing against a human opponent. The blast is not harmful and causes no discomfort; it is just annoying. As per the standardization suggested by Ferguson et al. ( 2008 ), aggressive behavior was measured as the averaged of the 25 intensity scores.

Data collection began following Institutional Review Board approval. Participants who signed up under the undergraduate research portal were told that the researcher was conducting a study on the effect of several tests on an individual’s ability to play games. To participate in this study, participants were asked to sign an informed consent form and to complete the STAI – Y2. Upon completion, they were asked to take a simple crossword puzzle, a distractor task to reduce hypothesis guessing. Participants were then randomly assigned to a stress condition, wherein they either took the PASAT-C or take a simple math quiz, both of which lasted 10 min. After completing the stress condition activity, participants were then randomly assigned to a video game condition, wherein they either played Battlefront, a “violent” video game, or portal 2, a “non-violent” video game. Furthermore, they were randomly assigned to play the game for 30 min with either a competent or incompetent confederate partner. Once they entered the room, they were given instructions on how to operate an XBOX One controller and how to play the game they are assigned. After the game play, participants engaged with the TCRTT task. Participants were asked to play a reaction time game which lasted around 15 min. For this game, they were informed that they were playing against their previous confederate, who is now in a separate room, and was competing against them on a separate computer. They were told that for every trial they can set the intensity and duration of white noise for their confederate as a form of punishment. Participants were also informed that they would hear the noise if they lost, while their partners would hear the noise if they won. They were told that they can set the noise level from 0 to 10 and that they can set the blast from 0 to 5 s. Post gameplay, participants were debriefed, and the true nature of the study was revealed; all hypotheses were discussed, and they were asked if they held any suspicion of the topic’s true hypotheses.

Research Design

To assess the effects of stress and video games on aggression, this study utilized a 2 × 2 × 2 (stress × game condition × competence) factorial analysis of variance. The dependent variable was the noise blast intensity (aggression). To assure that randomization worked, and conditions were not confounded by demographic factors, chi-square analyses were run for gender, and bivariate correlations for age with a group assignment. No outcomes were statistically significant, suggesting randomization was effective. As such, age and gender will not be included as covariates.

Screening, Cleaning, and Descriptive Statistics

Once data collection was completed, data were entered and analyzed using IBM SPSS Version 26. A total of 73 participants partook in the study and received credit for their participation. Demographic data for the participants are presented in Table 1 .

Descriptive statistics data are presented in Table 2 .

Hypotheses Tests

A factorial ANOVA was conducted to evaluate the study hypotheses (Table 3 ). Firstly, there was no significant effect for the stress condition on the intensity setting by participants, F (1,65) = 0.04, p  = 0.85, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = 0.001. Similarly, there was also no significant effect for the video game condition on the intensity level setting, F (1,65 = 0.09, p  = 0.77, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = 0.001. The confederate condition also did not have a significant effect with the intensity setting, F (1,65) = 0.05, p  = 0.828, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = 0.001. Hypothesis one stated that participants when exposed to acute stress will depict greater aggressiveness toward an incompetent partner than a competent partner. There was no significant finding for this hypothesis, as the stress condition and the confederate condition showed no significant interaction with the intensity level settings, F (1,65) = 2.05, p  = 0.16, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = 0.03. Related to hypothesis 3, there was no significant impact of video game condition and stress condition F (1,65) = 0.002, p  = 0.97, \({\eta }_{p}^{2}\) = 0.03. As such, hypothesis 3 was not supported.

Exploratory Analysis (H2)

We also examined the issue of whether acute stress played a greater role in causing aggressiveness towards an incompetent partner than chronic stress. For this, we conducted an OLS regression with pairwise deletion. Gender, STAI score (chronic stress), and stress condition (acute stress) were included as predictors. Although this was our H2 we note, as an oversight, we had not included the specifics of this analysis in our preregistration; thus, it should be considered exploratory. Ultimately, the regression model was non-significant F (3, 69) = 0.017, p  = 0.997.

Given null results can be difficult to interpret all three major contrasts (game condition, stress condition, and confederate competence) were reassessed using Bayesian contrasts. In each case, Bayes factors indicated support for the null for game condition (BF = 5.401), stress condition (BF = 5.550), and confederate competence (BF = 5.502). Thus, we are confident in interpreting results as supportive of the null.

The purpose of this study was to determine whether stress or violent content played a role in aggressiveness towards a cooperative partner who is incompetent when playing a video game. Although there have been several studies on the influence of stress on aggression, there is still a lack of experimental studies discussing the influence of the different types of stress on aggression especially towards another individual, and whether that individual’s actions play a role in increasing aggression. Moreover, this study attempted to examine the role of video games in aggression and whether they also influenced aggression towards another individual as this is important to several current concerns.

After conducting this study, there was no support for any of the study hypotheses. The results showed that the stress condition, whether it be acute (as primed by the PASAT) or chronic (as measured by the STAI), had no effect on the intensity setting participants gave their confederate partner. This finding illustrated that despite the participants’ exposure to stress, there was no significant impact on their aggression, which means that the form of stress the individual is experiencing does not particularly influence their decision at least in this context. Furthermore, the stress condition and confederate competence condition in interaction had no significant impact on the aggression exhibited towards participants.

The video game condition also had no effect on the intensity of the noise burst participants administered to the confederate. The findings of this study were similar to those of previously mentioned studies (e.g., Hilgard et al., 2019 ; McCarthy et al., 2016 ). There was no significant difference in intensity level setting between participants in the violent or nonviolent group, thus illustrating that the type of video game experienced had no real effect on aggression towards another individual. Additionally, the confederate competence condition, interacting with the video game condition also had no significant effect on aggression towards the confederate, thus signifying that confederate competency and an individual’s ability to further frustrate someone may not necessarily impact or increase their aggression towards them in this context. The absence of interaction effects was unable to support that stress may moderate links between violent games and aggressive behavior. Of course, it is possible that other moderators may function in other ways, but that was not evident from the current data.

Participants were also assigned to varying confederate conditions which exhibited two levels of competency, incompetent or competent, and these conditions had no significant effect on aggression. In studies like Hinsberger et al.’s ( 2016 ), it was found that participants administered shocks when individuals did not complete the judgment tasks correctly. This study’s findings differ greatly and exhibit that competency itself does not necessarily impact aggression and other factors could play a role in the intensity level setting. For example, several participants described being competitive and disliked losing, while others exhibited far more passive feelings towards their confederate. As such, many participants may not have worried greatly about the competence of the confederate.

Limitations

As with all studies, ours has limitations. Our use of the STAI, in capturing anxiety, may have only considered a portion of chronic stress. It is possible that this measure may tap into personality characteristics as much as it does chronic stress. However, prior studies have used the STAI as a measure of chronic stress (e.g., al Abdi et al., 2018 ; Valsamakis et al., 2020 ). Our sample size was not as large as we had initially intended which naturally reduces the power of our analyses. Furthermore, generalizations from experiments on aggression that take place in the lab to real-life aggression should be done only with great care.

Conclusions

Future studies should look at other factors that may also influence aggression, especially when playing a game. For instance, competition would be a great variable to observe, especially as the aggression measure was viewed as a form of competitive task. The current study is a small one and, as noted, data collection was interrupted by COVID-19. However, in combination with other studies, it appears that violent content in video games has little impact on aggressive behavior, even in combination with acute stress.

Data Availability

Al Abdi, R., Alhitary, A., Abdul Hay, E., & Al-bashir, A. (2018). Objective detection of chronic stress using physiological parameters. Medical and Biological Engineering and Computing, 56 , 2273–2286.

Article   Google Scholar  

Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., Rothstein, H. R., & Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136 (2), 151–173. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018251

Article   PubMed   Google Scholar  

Augsburger, M., & Maercker, A. (2020). Associations between trauma exposure, posttraumatic stress disorder, and aggression perpetrated by women. A meta‐analysis. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 27 (1). https://doi.org/10.1037/h0101759

Clement, T. S., Parikh, V., Schrumpf, M., & Fernald, R. D. (2005). Behavioral coping strategies in a cichlid fish: The role of social status and acute stress response in direct and displaced aggression. Hormones and Behavior, 47 (3), 336–342. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.yhbeh.2004.11.014

Drummond, A., Sauer, J.D., & Ferguson, C.J. (2020). Do longitudinal studies support long-term relationships between aggressive game play and youth aggressive behavior? A meta-analytic examination. Royal Society Open Science. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.200373

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

Ferguson, C. J., Copenhaver, A., & Markey, P. (2020). Re-examining the findings of the APA’s 2015 task force on violent media: A meta-analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15 (6), 1423–1443.

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., Rouder, J. N., Segert, I. L., & Bartholow, B. D. (2019). Null effects of game violence, game difficulty, and 2D:4D digit ratio on aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 30 (4), 606–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619829688

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., & Rouder, J. N. (2017). Overstated evidence for short-term effects of violent games on affect and behavior: A reanalysis of Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 143 (7), 757–774. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000074

Hinsberger, M., Sommer, J., Kaminer, D., Holtzhausen, L., Weierstall, R., Seedat, S., & Elbert, T. (2016). Perpetuating the cycle of violence in south african low-income communities: Attraction to violence in young men exposed to continuous threat. European Journal of Psychotraumatology, 7 (1), 29099–29109. https://doi.org/10.3402/ejpt.v7.29099

Holdwick, D. J., Jr., & Wingenfeld, S. A. (1999). The subjective experience of PASAT testing: Does the PASAT induce negative mood? Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology, 14 (3), 273–284.  https://doiorg.stetson.idm.oclc.org/10.1093/arclin/14.3.273

Kohl, C., Riccio, O., Grosse, J., Zanoletti, O., Fournier, C., Klampfl, S. M., & Sandi, C. (2013). The interplay of conditional NCAM-knockout and chronic unpredictable stress leads to increased aggression in mice. Stress, 16 (6), 647–654. https://doi.org/10.3109/10253890.2013.840824

Kühn, S., Kugler, D. T., Schmalen, K., Weichenberger, M., Witt, C., & Gallinat, J. (2019). Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study. Molecular Psychiatry, 24 (8), 1220–1234. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Lejuez, C. W., Kahler, C. W., & Brown, R. A. (2003). A modified computer version of the paced auditory serial addition task as a laboratory based stressor. The Behavior Therapist, 26 (4), 290–293.

Google Scholar  

McCarthy, R. J., Coley, S. L., Wagner, M. F., Zengel, B., & Basham, A. (2016). Does playing video games with violent content temporarily increase aggressive inclinations? A pre-registered experimental study. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67 , 13–19. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.009

Nosjean, A., Cressant, A., De Chaumont, F., Olivo-Marin, J., Chauveau, F., & Granon, S. (2015). Acute stress in adulthood impoverishes social choices and triggers aggressiveness in preclinical models. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, 8 , 447. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00447

Article   PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Orth, U., & Wieland, E. (2006). Anger, hostility, and posttraumatic stress disorder in trauma-exposed adults: A meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 74 (4), 698–706. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.74.4.698

Prescott, A. T., Sargent, J. D., & Hull, J. G. (2018). Metaanalysis of the relationship between violent video game play and physical aggression over time. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (40), 9882–9888. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1611617114

Przybylski, A. K., Deci, E. L., Rigby, C. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106 (3), 441–457. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034820

Rambo, C. L., Mocelin, R., Marcon, M., Villanova, D., Koakoski, G., de Abreu, M. S., Oliveira, T. A., Barcellos, L. J. G., Piato, A. L., & Bonan, C. D. (2016). Gender differences in aggression and cortisol levels in zebrafish subjected to unpredictable chronic stress. Physiology & Behavior, 171 , 50–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.12.032

Shao, R., & Wang, Y. (2019). The relation of violent video games to adolescent aggression: An examination of moderated mediation effect. Frontiers in Psychology, 10. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00384

Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L., Lushene, R., Vagg, P. R., & Jacobs, G. A. (1983).  Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory . Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Starcke, K., Wiesen, C., Trotzke, P., & Brand, M. (2016). Effects of acute laboratory stress on executive functions. Frontiers in Psychology , 7 . https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.00461

Taylor, S. P. (1967). Aggressive behavior and physiological arousal as a function of provocation and the tendency to inhibit aggression. Journal of Personality, 35 (2), 297. Retrieved from  https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6059850 . Accessed 1/20/22.

Toniutti, R., Born, M., & Mathys, C. (2013). Les jeux vidéo violents augmentent-ils le biais d’attribution hostile chez des préadolescents? Retrieved from  http://orbi.ulg.ac.be/handle/2268/149180 . Accessed 1/20/22.

Valsamakis, G., Papatheodorou, D., Chalarakis, N., Manolikaki, M., Margeli, A., Papassotiriou, I., Barber, T. M., Kumar, S., Kalantaridou, S., & Mastorakos, G. (2020). Maternal chronic stress correlates with serum levels of cortisol, glucose and c-peptide in the fetus, and maternal non chronic stress with fetal growth.  Psychoneuroendocrinology ,  114 . https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psyneuen.2020.104591

Verona, E., & Kilmer, A. (2007). Stress exposure and affective modulation of aggressive behavior in men and women. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 116 (2), 410–421. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.116.2.410

Weber, R., Ritterfeld, U., & Mathiak, K. (2006). Does playing violent video games induce aggression? empirical evidence of a functional magnetic resonance imaging study. Media Psychology, 8 (1), 39–60. https://doi.org/10.1207/S1532785XMEP0801_4

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Department of Psychology, Stetson University, Campus Box 6048, Deland, FL, 32723, USA

Genicelle Barrington & Christopher J. Ferguson

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Genicelle Barrington .

Ethics declarations

Puzzle distractor and math quiz, crossword puzzle.

Please complete this crossword puzzle to the best of your ability.

Please answer each question to the best of your ability. You will have 10 min.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Barrington, G., Ferguson, C.J. Stress and Violence in Video Games: Their Influence on Aggression. Trends in Psychol. 30 , 497–512 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-022-00141-2

Download citation

Accepted : 04 January 2022

Published : 21 January 2022

Issue Date : September 2022

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s43076-022-00141-2

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Aggressiveness
• Video games
• Find a journal
• Publish with us
• Track your research

Study Finds No Evidence That More Violent, Difficult Video Games Spur Aggression

• Competition
• Emotional Control
• Psychological Science
• Video Games

Global video game revenues top more than $140 billion every year and e-sports are becoming just as competitive (and potentially lucrative) as other professional sports. Some of the most popular video games — including Fortnite, Grand Theft Auto , Rainbow Six Siege , Red Dead Redemption , Overwatch , Counter-Strike ,and Call of Duty — feature violence of some kind, but the question still stands: Does violent in-game behavior have an impact on real-world behavior?

Some psychological studies have suggested that playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior, on the basis of experiments that compared the behavior of participants who played violent games with those who played nonviolent games. But critics say the findings fail to account for other possible factors, including differences in the mechanics of violent and nonviolent games.

To more directly answer the question, Joseph Hilgard of Illinois State University and colleagues altered a single game to examine the unique influence of two aspects of game play: content and difficulty. The findings, published in Psychological Science , provide no evidence that either violent or difficult content intensifies players’ aggression toward others.

For the study, Hilgard and colleagues created four versions of the video game Doom II . The more violent versions contained enemy graphics and sounds borrowed from Brutal Doom, a game mod designed to make everything more extreme — participants were tasked with defeating aliens, which resulted in the enemies exploding in gory fashion. The less violent versions contained sillier-looking alien enemies drawn from Chex Quest ; rather than killing the aliens, participants were tasked with sending them home with their “zorcher.”

In the difficult versions of the game, the enemies fought back and participants had to restart the level if they received too many hits. In the easy versions, the enemies simply walked slowly instead of directly attacking the player.

Although the content and overall objective varied across the four versions, the game play remained the same.

When the participants, all college-aged men, came to the lab, they completed a 5-minute writing assignment in which they described their views on abortion; they then received and rated another participant’s essay (in reality, a fake essay chosen because it opposed the participants’ stated beliefs). 

Following the writing task, the participants played one of the versions of the video game for 15 minutes, after which they read the feedback they had received on their own essay. The feedback, which was designed to provoke an emotional response, was the same for each participant, featuring low ratings and the comment “This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.”

The researchers then measured participants’ aggression by having them engage in an exercise that supposedly examined decision making under distraction. As part of the exercise, participants chose how long their partner had to keep his hand in the water while performing the task.

Data from 275 participants showed no indication that playing the more violent or more difficult versions of the game influenced the amount of time participants assigned their partner to be exposed to the cold water. In other words, neither game violence nor difficulty resulted in increased aggressive behavior toward an antagonistic partner.

The researchers also examined another factor long suspected as an indicator of male aggression — the ratio of index finger length and ring finger length. Scientists have theorized that a low ratio reflects increased testosterone exposure in utero and is associated with aggressive behavior. But Hilgard and his team also found no relationship between this ratio and aggression.

Additional Bayesian analyses indicated that a model assuming no relationship between game characteristics and aggression was the model best supported by the data.

“Results indicate that when game stimuli are carefully controlled, the effects of 15 min of violent and difficult game play on aggressive behavior may be small and indistinguishable from zero. This suggests that the effects of brief violent-video-game play on aggressive outcomes may be smaller and less robust than the published research literature would indicate,” Hilgard and colleagues write.

The researchers mention several factors that should be investigated further, including the fact that many participants in the original sample reported awareness of the study aims and were therefore excluded from analyses. This awareness could be due, at least in part, to the two-step debriefing process the researchers used — establishing standardized practices in deception and debriefing could address this issue in future research, they say.

“Researchers may need to reevaluate whether violent-video-game manipulations are useful for revealing the causes and mechanisms of aggression. Further research will also be necessary to determine whether, and under which conditions, competitive or frustrating game play causes aggression,” Hilgard and colleagues conclude.

Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., Rouder, J. N., Segert, I. L., & Bartholow, B. D. (2019). Null effects of game violence, game difficulty, and 2D:4D digit ratio on aggressive behavior. Psychological Science , 30, 606–616. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797619829688  

While interesting, the short. Of time during which the participants engaged in this experiment is no reflection of what a much longer time in these intense games mightreflect in behavior. Tualatin, a research is based upon short term effects as opposed to the longitudinal effects which is much more significant for making any profound conclusions. Dr. Seidel l

The phrase should have been” too often”. I apologize poor dictation

It’s hard to imagine a more silly experiment than this. 15 minutes gameplay to produce an ‘effect’?

Forget the requirement to play a game; just reading this report invites one to use the study authors’ own hoped-for response from some gameplayers: “This is the stupidest thing I’ve ever read.”

The topic is a truly serious and important one. But this kind of study is mere frippery compared to what really needs to be investigated here.

In the end it all comes down to investigating a kind of dose-response relationship between playing certain kinds of games and cognitive-behavioral changes. Let alone the factor of sensitization and magnitude/kind of stylized violence in games. That’s really difficult.

There is a kind of embarrassing simplicity in how these current authors are approaching the entire topic.

A point made recently by Chris Ferguson.. Ferguson, C.J. (2019). Embrace the unknown. The Psychologist ( https://thepsychologist.bps.org.uk/volume-32/march-2019/embrace-unknown ), March, , 46-49.

Several studies have come out that show no link between short-term experiments and aggression. These are used widely as evidence that it’s ok to raise boys playing violent videogames. APS -sponsored publications should point to a lifetime of violent media in the younger cohorts, with hundreds of killings per day. From the Bandura research to the mirror neurons, it is obvious that we have mechanisms for imitating adaptively whatever we witness enough times.

Although I agree with the results you should have done it with a more recent game to better dictate the affects current games have on our children.

While I agree with the verdict, the test only proves short term effect and not the correlation with young people who play violent video games hours a day for almost their whole life.

I can tell from experience that competitive play or “ranked” play is vary stressful and can cause brief aggression. I my self have “raged” from a vary stress filled game because I have made a bad choice. In these time I have broken controllers and such.

I agree with it all.

So I agree with this but I am still curiouse of what types of affects would be if children or an adult in our now a day age of video games for PC, PS4 and, X box, and the new cool and hip games (sorry my kids told be hips the thing now for the kids so im trying not to sound to old again im sorry) that kids like to play like for instance my son he loves to play borderlands the new edition and i have seen some of the game play and its a pretty violent and explicet game, and I see how he plays that game and he gets up set and not violent but just loud and then i see him play minecraft with his buddys and his sister and still kinda the same reaction when he fails or dosent understand a part in the game. So I guess what I am really asking here is what would the now a day data and information be like if you were to do a experiment over the different types of stations and the cool and hip games the kids now a days play. For I am a conssernd parent who would appreciate to get a WAY better understanding of what the affects are on my children.

APS regularly opens certain online articles for discussion on our website. Effective February 2021, you must be a logged-in APS member to post comments. By posting a comment, you agree to our Community Guidelines and the display of your profile information, including your name and affiliation. Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations present in article comments are those of the writers and do not necessarily reflect the views of APS or the article’s author. For more information, please see our Community Guidelines .

Please login with your APS account to comment.

The Bad-Behavior Blend

“The one gene, one disease idea is a thing of the past.” Scientists aren’t simply trying to identify people who are innately predisposed to incivility, immorality, or lawlessness. They’re examining how parenting, education, and other life experiences trigger those biological leanings.

Research Briefs

Recent highlights from APS journals articles on assessing allegations of harm, relationship well-being surrounding infidelity, the link between sleep and aggression, and much more.

Collected Research on War, Conflict, and Authoritarianism

Research on war, conflict, and authoritarianism published in various APS journals between 2008 and 2020.

Privacy Overview

The evidence that video game violence leads to real-world aggression

A 2018 meta-analysis found that there is a small increase in real-world physical aggression among adolescents and pre-teens who play violent video games. Led by Jay Hull, a social psychologist at Dartmouth College, the study team pooled data from 24 previous studies in an attempt to avoid some of the problems that have made the question of a connection between gaming and aggression controversial.

Many previous studies, according to a story in Scientific American, have been criticized by “a small but vocal cadre of researchers [who] have argued much of the work implicating video games has serious flaws in that, among other things, it measures the frequency of aggressive thoughts or language rather than physically aggressive behaviors like hitting or pushing, which have more real-world relevance.”

Hull and team limited their analysis to studies that “measured the relationship between violent video game use and overt physical aggression,” according to the Scientific American article .

The Dartmouth analysis drew on 24 studies involving more than 17,000 participants and found that “playing violent video games is associated with increases in physical aggression over time in children and teens,” according to a Dartmouth press release describing the study , which was published Oct. 1, 2018, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .

The studies the Dartmouth team analyzed “tracked physical aggression among users of violent video games for periods ranging from three months to four years. Examples of physical aggression included incidents such as hitting someone or being sent to the school principal’s office for fighting, and were based on reports from children, parents, teachers, and peers,” according to the press release.

The study was almost immediately called in to question. In an editorial in Psychology Today , a pair of professors claim the results of the meta-analysis are not statistically significant. Hull and team wrote in the PNAS paper that, while small, the results are indeed significant. The Psychology Today editorial makes an appeal to a 2017 statement by the American Psychological Association’s media psychology and technology division “cautioning policy makers and news media to stop linking violent games to serious real-world aggression as the data is just not there to support such beliefs.”

It should be noted, however, that the 2017 statement questions the connection between “serious” aggression while the APA Resolution of 2015 , based on a review of its 2005 resolution by its own experts, found that “the link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since the earlier meta-analyses, this link continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi-method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior.”

While the effect sizes are small, they’ve been similar across many studies, according to the APA resolution. The problem has been the interpretation of aggression, with some writers claiming an unfounded connection between homicides, mass shootings, and other extremes of violence. The violence the APA resolution documents is more mundane and involves the kind of bullying that, while often having dire long-term consequences, is less immediately dangerous: “insults, threats, hitting, pushing, hair pulling, biting and other forms of verbal and physical aggression.”

Minor and micro-aggressions, though, do have significant health risks, especially for mental health. People of color, LGBTQ people , and women everywhere experience higher levels of depression and anger, as well as stress-related disorders, including heart disease, asthma, obesity, accelerated aging, and premature death. The costs of even minor aggression are laid at the feet of the individuals who suffer, their friends and families, and society at large as the cost of healthcare skyrockets.

Finally, it should be noted that studies looking for a connection between game violence and physical aggression are not looking at the wider context of the way we enculturate children, especially boys. As WSU’s Stacey Hust and Kathleen Rodgers have shown, you don’t have to prove a causative effect to know that immersing kids in games filled with violence and sexist tropes leads to undesirable consequences, particularly the perpetuation of interpersonal violence in intimate relationships.

No wonder, then, that when feminist media critic Anita Saarkesian launched her YouTube series, “ Tropes vs. Women in Video Games ,” she was the target of vitriol and violence. Years later she’d joke about “her first bomb threat,” but that was only after her life had been upended by the boys club that didn’t like “this woman” showing them the “grim evidence of industry-wide sexism.”

Read more about WSU research and study on video games in “ What’s missing in video games .”

Health Research 4 U

Safe To Play

Violent Video Games and Aggression

After mass shootings, the media and public officials often question the role of the shooter’s video game habits.

The American Psychological Association (APA) considers violent video games a risk factor for aggression . [1] In 2017, the APA Task Force on Violent Media concluded that violent video game exposure was linked to increased aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and emotions, as well as decreased empathy. However, it is not clear whether violent video game exposure was linked to criminality or delinquency.

Do Violent Video Games Increase Aggression?

Studies have shown that playing violent video games can increase aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in both the short-term and long-term. [2] Violent video games can also desensitize people to seeing aggressive behavior and decrease prosocial behaviors such as helping another person and feeling empathy (the ability to understand others). The longer that individuals are exposed to violent video games, the more likely they are to have aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and feelings. These effects have been seen in studies in both Eastern and Western countries. Although males spend more time than females playing violent video games, violent video game exposure can increase aggressive thoughts, behaviors, and feelings in both sexes.

Aggressive behavior is measured by scientists in a number of ways. Some studies looked at self-reports of hitting or pushing, and some looked at peer or teacher ratings on aggressive behaviors. Other studies looked at how likely an individual was to subject others to an unpleasant exposure to hot sauce or a loud noise after playing violent video games.

Unfortunately, few studies have been completed on violent video game exposure and aggression in children under age 10. There is also little information about the impact of violent video game exposure on minority children.

There have not been many studies on the effects of different characteristics of video games, such as perspective or plot. However, some studies have found that competition among players in video games is a better predictor of aggressive behavior than is the level of violence. [3] 

Do Violent Video Games Increase Violence?

Violence is a form of aggression, but not all aggressive behaviors are violent. Very few studies have looked at whether playing violent video games increases the chances of later delinquency, criminal behavior, or lethal violence. Such studies are difficult to conduct, and require very large numbers of children. It makes sense that since playing violent video games tends to increase the level of aggressive behavior it would also results in more lethal violence or other criminal behaviors, but there is no clear evidence to support that assumption.

In the aftermath of the Parkland shooting in Florida in 2018, policymakers are again questioning the influence of violent video games. The Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) affirms that their rating system is effective, but the APA Task Force on Violent Media recommends that the ESRB revise their rating system to make the level of violence clearer. The Task Force also recommends that further research must be done using delinquency, violence, and criminal behavior as outcomes to determine whether or not violent video games are linked to violence.

Bottom Line

It is important to keep in mind that violent video game exposure is only one risk factor of aggressive behavior. For example, mental illness, adverse environments, and access to guns are all risk factors of aggression and violence.

All articles are reviewed and approved by  Dr. Diana Zuckerman and other senior staff.

The  National Center for Health Research  is a nonprofit, nonpartisan research, education and advocacy organization that analyzes and explains the latest medical research and speaks out on policies and programs. We do not accept funding from pharmaceutical companies or medical device manufacturers.  Find out how you can support us here .

References :

• The American Psychological Association Task Force on Violent Media. (2017). The American Psychological Association Task Force Assessment of Violent Video Games: Science in the Service of Public Interest. American Psychologist . 72(2): 126-143. Retrieved from http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0040413 . Accessed on March 9, 2018.
• Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, Rothstein HR, Muniba. Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review. Psychological Bulletin . 2010.
• Adachi, PJ and Willoughby, T. (2013). Demolishing the Competition: The Longitudinal Link Between Competitive Video Games, Competitive Gambling, and Aggression. Journal of Youth Adolescence. 42(7): 1090-104. doi: 10.1007/s10964-013-9952-2.
• Sanstock, JW. A Topical Approach to Life Span Development 4th Ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. Ch 15. 489-491
• Lemmens JS, Valkenburg PM, Peter J. The Effects of Pathological Gaming on Aggressive Behavior. Journal of Youth Adolescence . 2010.
• Huesmann LR, Moise J, Podolski CP, Eron LD. (2003). Longitudinal relations between childhood exposure to media violence and adult aggression and violence. Developmental Psychology . 35:201-221.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List

The Effect of Online Violent Video Games on Levels of Aggression

Jack hollingdale.

1 School of Psychology, University of Sussex, Brighton, United Kingdom

Tobias Greitemeyer

2 Institute of Psychology, University of Innsbruck, Innsbruck, Austria

Conceived and designed the experiments: JH TG. Performed the experiments: JH. Analyzed the data: TG. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: JH TG. Wrote the paper: JH TG.

Associated Data

The authors confirm that all data underlying the findings are fully available without restriction. All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

In recent years the video game industry has surpassed both the music and video industries in sales. Currently violent video games are among the most popular video games played by consumers, most specifically First-Person Shooters (FPS). Technological advancements in game play experience including the ability to play online has accounted for this increase in popularity. Previous research, utilising the General Aggression Model (GAM), has identified that violent video games increase levels of aggression. Little is known, however, as to the effect of playing a violent video game online.

Methods/Principal Findings

Participants ( N  = 101) were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions; neutral video game—offline, neutral video game—online, violent video game—offline and violent video game—online. Following this they completed questionnaires to assess their attitudes towards the game and engaged in a chilli sauce paradigm to measure behavioural aggression. The results identified that participants who played a violent video game exhibited more aggression than those who played a neutral video game. Furthermore, this main effect was not particularly pronounced when the game was played online.

Conclusions/Significance

These findings suggest that both playing violent video games online and offline compared to playing neutral video games increases aggression.

Introduction

The video game industry is now the largest entertainment industry in the UK. 2011 industry figures have identified that game sales, including platform and digital, have exceeded both music and video sales [1] . Violent video games have previously been identified to be the most popular video games played by consumers [2] . Research into the effect of violent video games on levels of aggression has led to concerns that they may pose a public health risk [3] . Indeed, cross-sectional studies have found positive correlations between violent video game play and real-life aggression [4] – [6] . Longitudinal studies showed that habitual violent video game play predicts later aggression even after controlling for initial levels of aggressiveness [7] – [9] . Finally, experimental studies have revealed that playing violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggression [10] – [12] . It should be noted, however, that there is other research showing no evidence that engagement with violent video games leads to increases in aggression or reductions in prosocial behaviour [13] – [16] , warranting the need for further research in this area. On balance however, evidence from meta-analyses confirm that exposure to violent video games increases aggressive cognitions, aggressive affect and aggressive behaviour, and decreases empathy and prosocial behaviour [17] , [18] .

Much of the research that has provided evidence to indicate the negative effects of violent video games has utilised the General Aggression Model (GAM) [19] . A widely accepted model for understanding media effects, the GAM posits that cognition, affect and arousal mediate an individual's perception of a situation. Thus, in the short term a violent video game may temporarily increase aggression through the activation of one or more of these domains. In the long term aggressive scripts can develop and become more readily available [4] . Therefore the GAM can explain how properties of a video game can affect players' thoughts, feelings, physiological arousal and subsequent behaviour. Technological developments have afforded such games, and subsequent gaming experience, to expand beyond the realms of the console, and computer programmed opponents (offline gaming), and now allow players to engage in video game play with multiple players from all over the world via the internet (online gaming). Schubert, Regenbrecht and Friedmann [20] found that players who interact with other human players experience a heightened sense of being part of the action. Significant differences in physiological arousal and evaluations of game experience, including presence and likability, have also been found when video game opponents are controlled by other humans [21] . In regards to the negative effects, increases in aggressive thoughts and hostile expectations have been found when playing human opponents in a violent video game [22] , [23] . Further to this, Wei [24] found, from a survey of 312 Chinese adolescents, that those who played violent video games online against human opponents expressed a greater tolerance of violence, a lower empathetic attitude and more aggressive behaviour than those who played against computer opponents. Based on previous studies, engagement with/against human opponents may strengthen gaming experiences and therefore, in accordance with the GAM, heighten their effects on players' thoughts, feelings and behaviour.

As noted above, violent content within violent video games has also been identified to increase levels of aggression. Within specific violent video games, progression through gaming levels achieved by engaging in violence poses an additional risk of increasing levels of aggression. Carnagey and Anderson [25] found that rewarding violence increased in-game violence and that rewards for killing other racing drivers and pedestrians, in the race-car video game Carmageddon 2 , increased levels of hostile emotion, aggressive thinking and aggressive behaviour. Sherry [26] identified that video games that portray human violence were associated with increases in levels of aggression, potentially due to higher rates of action, and subsequent heightened nonspecific arousal. More specifically, increases in experience of perceived difficulty, enjoyment and action have yielded significant game effects on aggressive thoughts [27] . These findings lend support to the processes involved in the GAM.

One of the most popular violent gaming formats to date is the First Person Shooter (FPS), in which the gamer experiences the action through the eyes of the main protagonist, centred on a projectile weapon. Reports indicate that a specific franchise, utilising the FPS format, Call of Duty , a military war game, has broken all previous sales records. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 , made $550 m (£350 m) in the first five days of sale. This was surpassed by Call of Duty: Black Ops and Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 , which made $650 m (£412 m) and $775 m (£490 m) in sales respectively [28] . FPSs have been found to significantly increase hostility and aggression from base line levels [29] . Based on anecdotal evidence much of the success of this franchise has been attributed to features of online game play.

Despite the popularity of the genre, to date, there is a lack of research that has attempted to investigate the effect of playing violent video games, specifically FPSs, online on levels of aggression.

Overview of the present research

In the present research, we examined whether playing a FPS online would exacerbate the negative effects of violent video game play on aggression. Further to this we examined the effect of particular game experiences including perceived difficulty, enjoyment and action, previously identified to be associated with increases in aggressive thoughts [27] , on levels of behavioural aggression. To this end, participants played either a violent video game online or offline, or a neutral video game online or offline. Afterwards, aggressive behaviour was assessed. It was expected that playing a violent video game would increase aggression. It was also expected that participants who had played the violent video game online would show the highest levels of aggression (relative to the remaining three experimental conditions) due to the previously identified experiences specific to online game play. Finally, we examined whether these proposed effects would hold when controlling for perceived difficulty, enjoyment and action.

Ethical approval was given by the University of Sussex's School of Life Sciences Research Governance Committee (Ethical Approval Reference: RBJH0510). All relevant data are within the paper and its Supporting Information files.

Within this paper the authors report how we determined our sample size, all data exclusions (if any), all manipulations, and all measures in the study. One hundred and one students (64 men and 37 women; ages range from 18 to 44: M  = 21.38, SD  = 4.00) from a UK University participated in the study in exchange for course credits or payment. After being welcomed by the examiner all participants were asked to complete a consent form. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions; 26 participants in a neutral video game offline, 26 participants in a neutral video game online, 23 participants in a violent video game offline and 26 participants in a violent video game online. Participants were advised that they would be undertaking two unrelated marketing surveys that had been combined for the economy of time. The first would ask for their views about a popular video game and the second would involve a marketing survey for a new recipe of hot chilli sauce.

The first task involved playing a video game for thirty minutes [29] either offline or online. In the offline condition participants were allowed to play against computer characters, subject to the video game's narrative. In the online condition participants played against human opponents via the internet, utilising randomly computer selected pre-existing levels, thus reducing the time spent navigating menus. In the online conditions, when appropriate, participants were requested to wait patiently whilst the server selected and loaded following levels. There was no opportunity for players to communicate with other human players via the internet in the online condition. The audio was turned off in all conditions to prevent participants being exposed to other players' attitudes or opinions in the online condition and to promote consistency. The gaming approach and engagement of online opponents was not recorded. All participants were initially introduced to a Playstation 3 computer console. The type of video game (violent and neutral) was identified using their Pan European Game Information (PEGI) ratings. Participants in the neutral video game condition were introduced to LittleBigPlanet 2 , certificate 7, a game that would normally be rated suitable for all age groups but contains scenes that may be considered frightening for young children [30] . LittleBigPlanet 2 allows players to create, explore, solve puzzles, and interact with fantasy environments which they can enjoy or share online with other gamers. All participants in the neutral condition played the initial training level and were then allocated to either the offline condition, subject to the game's narrative, or online condition, able to engage freely with the game's online content, for the remainder of the experiment. Participants in the violent video game condition were introduced to Call of Duty: Modern Warfare , certificate 18. Call of Duty: Modern Warfare is a FPS that sets gamers as soldiers tasked to kill the enemy in various environments. Games with a certificate 18 depict extreme violence including multiple, motiveless killing and violence towards defenceless people that may make the viewer experience a sense of revulsion [30] . All participants were asked to play the initial level, that introduces players to the gaming controls, and then were set up to play offline levels, following the narrative of the game, or online levels, during which the player played against other human operated opponents in free-for-all mode (Deathmatch). Having played for the allotted time participants were then asked to complete a number of questions about the game they had just played. This survey investigated their attitudes towards the games, including how violent they perceived the content and the graphics to be. Among some filler items, participants indicated how difficult they perceived the game to be (using two items, α = .72), to what extent they enjoyed the game (using two items, α = .79), and how fast the action of the game was (using one item). All items were assessed on a Likert scale from 1 to 7.

Following this, some affective measures were employed. There were no significant effects on these measures so this is not considered further. Finally, participants completed a marketing survey investigating a new hot chilli sauce recipe. Participants were informed that they were not required to taste the hot chilli sauce but to prepare an amount of chilli sauce for a taste tester. During the instructions they were made aware that the taste tester ‘couldn't stand hot chilli sauce’ but was taking part due to good payment. They were presented with a hot chilli sauce, depicting three out of three chillies for hotness, a spoon and a plastic receptacle. The amount of chilli sauce was weighed in grams after the participant had left the experiment. The chilli sauce paradigm has been successfully used in previous studies to measure behavioural aggression in the laboratory environment [31] . All participants completed all parts of the experiment with none admitting to knowing the true purpose of the study, therefore all data was included within the study. At the conclusion of the experiment all participants were offered a comprehensive debrief form which included information as to the true purpose of the experiment.

The manipulation check identified that participants in the violent video game condition reported that the violent video game Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 ( M  = 4.08, SD  = 1.29) depicted a more violent content and more violent graphics compared to the neutral video game LittleBigPlanet 2 ( M  = 1.41, SD  = 0.89), F (1, 97) = 146.97, p <.001, η p 2  = .60.

A 2 (type of video game: violent vs. neutral) x 2 (setting: online vs. offline) analysis of variance (ANOVA) on the amount of chili sauce (aggression measure) revealed a significant main effect of type of video game, F (1, 97) = 8.63, p  = .004, η p 2  = .08. Participants who had played the violent video game were more aggressive ( M  = 16.12, SD  = 15.30) than participants who had played the neutral video game ( M  = 9.06, SD  = 7.65). The main effect of setting, F (1, 97) = 0.35, p  = .558, η p 2  = .00, and the interaction were not significant, F (1, 97) = 1.44, p  = .234, η p 2  = .02.

To test our specific prediction that aggressive behaviour, grams of chilli sauce dispensed by participants, would be particularly pronounced after playing a violent video game online, planned contrasts were performed, which are particularly adequate to answer such specific research questions [32] , [33] . In fact, participants who had played the violent video game online were more aggressive ( M  = 16.81, SD  = 16.57; contrast weight: 3) compared to participants who had played the violent video game offline ( M  = 15.35, SD  = 14.04; contrast weight: −1), participants who had played the neutral video game online ( M  = 6.92, SD  = 7.62; contrast weight: −1), and participants who had played the neutral video game offline ( M  = 11.19, SD  = 7.20; contrast weight: −1), t (97) = 2.07, p  = .041 ( Figure 1 ). Note, however, that the orthogonal contrast comparing the violent video game offline condition (contrast weight: 2) with the neutral video game online (contrast weight: −1) and the neutral video game offline (contrast weight: −1) condition was also significant, t (97) = 2.09, p  = .039. Finally, the orthogonal contrast comparing the neutral video game online (contrast weight: 1) with the neutral video game offline (contrast weight: −1) condition was not significant, t (97) = 1.28, p  = .202. This pattern of data suggests that both playing violent video games online and offline compared to playing neutral video games increases aggression.

The violent video game ( M  = 4.11, SD  = 1.48) was perceived as being more difficult than the neutral game ( M  = 2.71, SD  = 1.18), F (1, 97) = 27.11, p <.001, η p 2  = .22. Participants also enjoyed the violent video game more ( M  = 4.81, SD  = 1.46) than the neutral game ( M  = 3.76, SD  = 1.38), F (1, 97) = 13.34, p <.001, η p 2  = .12. The violent video game ( M  = 5.00, SD  = 1.47) was also perceived as having faster action than the neutral video game ( M  = 2.94, SD  = 1.56), F (1, 97) = 46.06, p <.001, η p 2  = .32. Note, however, that in a multiple regression the effect of type of video game (violent vs. neutral) was still significant when controlling for these video game ratings, β = .27, t (96) = 2.15, p  = .034. Moreover, none of the video game ratings received a significant regression weight, all βs<.15, all ts <1.29, all ps >.202.

The present study examined the effect of playing a violent video game online and the impact of game experience including perceptions of difficulty, enjoyment and action on levels of behavioural aggression. Supporting previous research, this study found that playing a violent video game in comparison to a neutral video game significantly increased levels of aggression [3] – [6] . However, this main effect was not particularly pronounced when the game was played online. That is, both playing the violent video game online and offline relative to playing a neutral video game increased levels of aggression.

It is important to note that the violent and the neutral video game differed in terms of perceived difficulty, enjoyment and action, with the violent game perceived as being more difficult, more enjoyable, and being faster. However, when controlling for these video game properties, there was still a significant influence of type of video game on aggression. To put it differently, the effect that playing the violent relative to the neutral video game increases aggression is not due to differences in perceived difficulty, enjoyment and action. It should be noted, however, that controlling for potential confounders within video game research should be viewed with caution [34] .

It should be acknowledged that the violent and the neutral video game chosen for this study may differ in properties other than difficulty, pace of action, and enjoyment. For example, the first-person shooter game, even when played offline (alone), contains a great deal of competitive content (competing in shooting battles for survival against other computer-generated characters), whereas the neutral video game contains little to no competitive content. Importantly, previous research has demonstrated an effect of competitive video game content (i.e., competing against other computer-generated characters in a game) on aggressive behavior in the short-term [35] and long-term [36] . Unfortunately, we did not control for competitive content so it may well be that our finding that violent video games increase aggression can be (in part) accounted for by differences in how competitive the game is perceived to be. This is certainly an important endeavor for future investigations.

With the growing popularity and prevalence of online video gaming, more specifically the engagement with violent video games online, and evidence to suggest that playing against human opponents can heighten the gaming experience, we thought it an important endeavor to investigate whether violent video games played online would exacerbate any negative effects on aggression. As expected, online violent video game play relative to the three remaining experimental increased aggression. However, inasmuch as offline violent video game play relative to the neutral video game conditions also significantly increased aggression, we have to conclude that the violent video game affected aggression but that this effect was not further strengthened by playing the game online. Because this is the first study to have examined the effects of online violent video game play on aggression, we hasten to add that more research is needed before the conclusion is warranted that playing online vs. offline has no consequences on the player's social behavior. For instance, future research may address the effects of online violent video game play on behavioural aggression in the long term. Differences in perceived competition when playing video games online and offline should also be explored. Further to this, future research should investigate the properties of violent video games experienced online that impact on players' aggressive cognitions, affect, physiological arousal and behaviour.

Consideration could also be given to potential positive effects of playing prosocial video games online. Previous research has shown that playing a prosocial video game (where the main objective of the game is to benefit video game characters) increases prosocial behaviour [37] – [39] and empathy [40] and decreases the accessibility of aggressive thoughts [41] and reduces aggressive behaviour [42] . Likewise, playing cooperative team-player (relative to a single-player) video games increases cooperative behaviour and empathy and decreases aggressive cognitions and angry feelings [43] – [49] . It may well be that prosocial and antisocial outcomes are even more affected by prosocial and cooperative video games when played online.

It is important to acknowledge a limitation in regards to the video games selected in this study. The perspective of the FPS is specific, and the authors are unaware of a neutral video game that utilises the first person perspective. It may be possible, in the future, to identify a non-violent first person perspective video game and thus better match the characteristics of the violent and neutral video games. As a result, LittleBigPlanet 2 was selected for its low PEGI rating and ease of operating the controls (unrelated to game difficulty). It should also be conceded that the two online conditions differed in that participants competed against human opponents in the first-person shooter game, whereas the neutral video game allowed players to play competitively and cooperatively. This possible confound might have led to increased aggression in the online/violent (relative to the offline/violent) video game condition and decreased aggression in the online/neutral (relative to the offline/neutral) video game condition (that is, an interaction between type of video game and setting). However, we did not find this interaction, but simply a main effect of type of video game. In fact, it is compelling that despite these differences in online/offline shooter games that they did not differ in their effect on aggression.

Further to this some concerns have been raised as to the suitability of the chilli sauce paradigm as an accurate measurement of behavioural aggression within the laboratory environment [50] . In addition the current sample size was relatively small and therefore limits the generalisability of the results. Future research should increase the experimental population and may examine the effects of violent video games online on other measures of aggression.

In conclusion this study has identified that increases in aggression are not more pronounced when playing a violent video game online in comparison to playing a neutral video game online. This is an important finding in relation to the growing online community and popularity of violent video games, specifically FPSs, and the potential for subsequent increases in aggression. We think there should be concern about the harmful effects of playing violent video games but it appears that playing the game online does not further exacerbate these effects.

Supporting Information

SPSS data file.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by grant P23809 from the Austrian Science Fund. The funder had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.

Data Availability

• Study Guides
• Homework Questions

Persuasive Essay Rough Draft-3

• Communications

• Undergraduate
• High School
• Architecture
• American History
• Asian History
• Antique Literature
• American Literature
• Asian Literature
• Classic English Literature
• World Literature
• Creative Writing
• Linguistics
• Criminal Justice
• Legal Issues
• Anthropology
• Archaeology
• Political Science
• World Affairs
• African-American Studies
• East European Studies
• Latin-American Studies
• Native-American Studies
• West European Studies
• Family and Consumer Science
• Social Issues
• Women and Gender Studies
• Social Work
• Natural Sciences
• Pharmacology
• Earth science
• Agriculture
• Agricultural Studies
• Computer Science
• IT Management
• Mathematics
• Investments
• Engineering and Technology
• Engineering
• Aeronautics
• Medicine and Health
• Alternative Medicine
• Communications and Media
• Advertising
• Communication Strategies
• Public Relations
• Educational Theories
• Teacher's Career
• Chicago/Turabian
• Company Analysis
• Education Theories
• Shakespeare
• Canadian Studies
• Food Safety
• Relation of Global Warming and Extreme Weather Condition
• Movie Review
• Admission Essay
• Annotated Bibliography
• Application Essay
• Article Critique
• Article Review
• Article Writing
• Book Review
• Business Plan
• Business Proposal
• Capstone Project
• Cover Letter
• Creative Essay
• Dissertation
• Dissertation - Abstract
• Dissertation - Conclusion
• Dissertation - Discussion
• Dissertation - Hypothesis
• Dissertation - Introduction
• Dissertation - Literature
• Dissertation - Methodology
• Dissertation - Results
• GCSE Coursework
• Grant Proposal
• Marketing Plan
• Multiple Choice Quiz
• Personal Statement
• Power Point Presentation
• Power Point Presentation With Speaker Notes
• Questionnaire
• Reaction Paper
• Research Paper
• Research Proposal
• SWOT analysis
• Thesis Paper
• Online Quiz
• Literature Review
• Movie Analysis
• Statistics problem
• Math Problem
• All papers examples
• How It Works
• Money Back Policy
• Terms of Use
• Privacy Policy
• We Are Hiring

Video Games and Aggressive Behavior, Essay Example

Pages: 7

Words: 1945

Hire a Writer for Custom Essay

Use 10% Off Discount: "custom10" in 1 Click 👇

You are free to use it as an inspiration or a source for your own work.

The debate on the role of video games on agitating behavior among the youth is an ongoing endeavor. According to Huffman, Dowdell, and Sanderson, the major aspects of learning during formative years takes place during playtime (121). Selecting the appropriate game for children can aid in appropriate growth and development of the child`s physical, social and cognitive dimensions. This paper discusses how video games influence the development of aggrieve behavior in children.

During the past decades, volumes of newspaper and magazine articles, books, and academic journals have been published on the with the argument that video games do not influence aggressive behavior among the youth which is not the case. Am a strong believer that video games influence aggressive behavior among the youth. According to Przybylski and Netta, researched over 1000 teens where they urge that neither the parent nor the young realized if there is an increase in aggressive behavior that could be attached to violent video games (16). They did not recognize any antisocial behavior among the youth. This is not the case since if a guardian such as teachers  exposes the young persons to positive attributes, there will be an evolution of warmth and affection leading to trust of the world, but if the infant is exposed to insecure conditions where there is a lack of basic needs and wants, mistrust ends to frustrations and lack of self- esteem. Under normal circumstances, parents can have a great impact on the behavior of their kids. Negative parental behavior can attribute to the formation of negative behavior among children while positive actions by the parents or guardians contribute to positive behavior by the offsprings. If the child is exposed to violent video games, negative personality traits can evolve. According to Anderson et al., human perception refers to the human description of the outer stimuli via the application of bodily sense organs like the skin, eyes, ears, tongue, and nose. Human perception aids persons to comprehend their immediate environments — perceptions of the surroundings such as watching violent videos shape human behavior. According to American Psychological Association task force on violent media, various aspects of linguistics, which includes the usage of the word in the violent videos, such as language acquisition, language formation, among other inter-related fields.

Szycik used Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging(fMRI) on a long-term violent video game player to find out if it affected its aggressive behavior and noted that the neural response for a video game player is similar to that of non-gamer (56).  However, this is not the case as there are two broad categories of behaviors that can be aped from watching movies; adaptive behaviors and maladaptive behaviors. According to Lemmens, Valkenburg, and Peter, adaptive behaviors are the socially acceptable virtues that are fully recognized and accepted by other people and their way of life. Maladaptive behaviors make persons to be vulnerable and cannot tolerate external stimuli. According to Lemmens, Valkenburg, and Peter, negative parental behavior and attitudes can attribute to the formation of negative behavior among children while positive actions by the parents or guardians contribute to positive behavior by the offsprings. If the child is exposed to violent video games, negative personality traits can evolve. According to Anderson et al., negative parental behavior can attribute to the formation of negative behavior among children while positive actions by the parents or guardians contribute to positive behavior by the offsprings. The irresponsible behavior of the parents and lack of commitment in knowing the detailed information contained in the videos has produced recurring evil notions which the minds of these children absorb. Once such an evil notion sticks into a child’s mind, the youngsters are inclined to have aggressive behavior. If the child is exposed to violent video games, negative personality traits can evolve. According to Erickson`s psychosocial development theory, during the formative years, children are eager to understand various complicated skills such as critical thinking, running and walking. According to the theory, children should be motivated in watching video games which enhance talent discovery and finally be appreciated for their achievements. If the same children are exposed to violent video games, their brains are well equipped to absorb the contents very fast. Praising the young ones who portray positive characteristics causes the development of desirable qualities such as diligence and perseverance. Children who fail to adhere to watching appropriate videos should not be ridiculed as this may lead to growth and development of inferiority complex about their abilities, development of lack of self-esteem and lack of individual motivation.

Ferguson and Colwell argued that violent video games have no link with bullying or antisocial behavior. That is, use of violent games is not linked to the aggression behavior which is not the case, and as for my case, the mind of the human being is formed in a manner that it can recall past episodes. Furthermore, the mental capacity of human beings is created in a way that humans recall negative episodes more than positive events. The deep analysis of video games postulates that video games trigger aggressive behavior among children and young men. The time spent on watching video games has a strong influence on the chances of aping aggressive actions. Watching violent videos for a long time increases the chances of imitating aggressive behavior. For instance, the act of watching a violent related video with a youngster for a long time may influence the infant to start aping the violent incidents seen in the video.  The imitative nature of humankind is supported by one famous adage that goes, “monkey sees, monkey do,” that is, we do what we see. Therefore, according to Lemmens, Valkenburg, and Peter, a child who has been exposed to a violent related video, on some occasions, will be conceived with the mindset of trying to put the events in the video into action (98). Other underlying factors play a significant contributor to the imitation process. For example, an increase in the economic standards of living ends uprise in the cost of living. A child brought up in such a family facing a severe economic crisis when exposed to violent games, will tend to apply the tactics, skills or violent conducts he or she viewed and learned in a video game to earn his or her living. Children raised in poverty-stricken environments where violent videos are not restricted end up being involved in aggressive behaviors which leads to rampant cases of criminal activities in the society. Lemmens, Valkenburg, and Peter observe that delinquency cases are evident especially in cities particularly in poverty-stricken residential areas such as slums (145). Violence behavior is common for children who are born in poor families. Generally, in virtually all towns, there are video games which are played. The venues act as dens for delinquency cases, and the children learn how to employ their criminal activities to earn their living.

Many cases of robbery with violence and murder cases have turned to be the order of the day in some residential quarters. American Psychological Association task force on violent media games observes that majority of individuals who have been convicted of robbery with violence and murder cases have been proved to have learned that vice of stealing and killing via the video games (67). Criminal activities are common in urban areas where the population of people is relatively high. Thieves and murderers have learned the tricks and tactics to employ through watching the plot of the video games. According to Lemmens, Valkenburg, and Peter, social behaviors are learned but not inherited (132).  American Psychological Association task force on violent media games postulates that most of the vices committed in our society are as a result of an evil notion which has been developing within the mindset of an individual (98). The irresponsible behavior of the parents of lack of commitment in knowing the detailed information contained in the videos has produced recurring evil notions which the minds of these children absorb. Once such an evil notion sticks into a child’s mind, the youngsters are inclined to have aggressive behavior.

Watching video games has a strong influence on unconscious psychological domains. Mandler, observes that deep and systematic study of the unconscious psychological domains has a great impact on human behavior and emotions particularly during formative years (67). According to Lemmens, Valkenburg, and Peter, early childhood experiences particularly watching violent related videos provide systematic and negative expectations to the kids.  According to the American Psychological Association task force on violent media games, an acceptable child behavior is attained after solving the inner anxieties in the child`s mental capacity through watching relevant and educative videos (123).

According to Mandler, the behavioral approach is interested in creating more expectations of proper, guiding, strengthening and converting improper behavior (78). Creating a viable environment for video watching is paramount. The behavioral approach encourages all children caretakers such as guardians and educators at all levels to monitor the type of videos watched by the children as their minds are vulnerable to external influences (Hewitt and Tarrant 115). From the formative years, there is the urge to come up with rules and regulations which focus on clear and achievable expectations.  Mandler, observes that monitoring children behavior by involving them in understanding whatever is happening as well as having the ability to recognize their physical behavior will reduce the cases misbehavior (89). According to Hewitt and Tarrant, if behavioral control is combined with proper care while watching the videos, appropriate positive results are likely to be attained.

Huffman, Dowdell, and Sanderson observe that video games should target at aiding in growth and development of the physical, cognitive and psychosocial domains of humankind (99). The video games assist the youngsters in refining their motor skills while teaching them basic life skills such as cognitive thinking. However not all video games are beneficial. Some video games such as the violent ones lead to the rise of aggressive behavior among the youth hence impairs the child`s memory, and the child fails to acquire the essential life skills. All in all, video games should target at sharpening the basic skills at the individual level and enhance the overall development of a child.

The issue of true and false facts and knowledge on the role of video games on aggressive behavior characteristics has been a controversial issue by psychologists and philosophers for many centuries. The dilemma has been on appropriate evidence necessary for a correct belief, fact, or concept to be justified. The debate has been ongoing, and researchers have proposed numerous explanations on the role of video games in influencing aggressive behavior among the children.  Finally, there is a need for further research in order to comprehend the scope and frameworks for a full understanding of the concept.

Hewitt, Des, and Susan Tarrant.  Innovative teaching and learning in primary schools . Sage, 2015.

Huffman, Karen, Mark Vernoy, and Judith Vernoy.  Psychology in action . (12 th Ed), J. Wiley, 2018.

Lemmens, Jeroen S., Patti M. Valkenburg, and Jochen Peter. “The effects of pathological gaming on aggressive behavior.”  Journal of youth and adolescence  40.1 (2011): 38-47.

Mandler, George. “The limit of mental structures.”  The Journal of general psychology  140.4 (2013): 243-250.

Calvert, Sandra L., et al. “The American Psychological Association Task Force assessment of violent video games: Science in the service of public interest.”  American Psychologist  72.2 (2017): 126., 72(2): 120-143, 2017.

Przybylski, Andrew K., and Netta Weinstein. “Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents’ aggressive behavior: evidence from a registered report.”  Royal Society open science  6.2 (2019): 171474.

Szycik, Gregor R., et al. “Lack of evidence that neural empathic responses are blunted in excessive users of violent video games: an fMRI study.”  Frontiers in Psychology  8 (2017): 174.

Ferguson, Christopher J., and John Colwell. “Understanding why scholars hold different views on the influences of video games on public health.”  Journal of Communication  67.3 (2017): 305-327.

Stuck with your Essay?

Get in touch with one of our experts for instant help!

Contextual Studies, Case Study Example

Hate Crime, Term Paper Example

Time is precious

don’t waste it!

Plagiarism-free guarantee

Privacy guarantee

Secure checkout

Money back guarantee

Related Essay Samples & Examples

Voting as a civic responsibility, essay example.

Pages: 1

Words: 287

Utilitarianism and Its Applications, Essay Example

Words: 356

The Age-Related Changes of the Older Person, Essay Example

Pages: 2

Words: 448

The Problems ESOL Teachers Face, Essay Example

Pages: 8

Words: 2293

Should English Be the Primary Language? Essay Example

Pages: 4

Words: 999

The Term “Social Construction of Reality”, Essay Example

Words: 371