FREE ESSAY ON VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION

VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION

As technology continues to forge ahead concerns about its effects on the populace are
raised. Whether it be microwave ovens causing cancer or cell phones causing accidents,
people are always interested in researching, and often condemning, these new products.
Such is this case with videogames. Ever since Pong? swept the nation, scholars have been
researching videogames' effects on children. The most popular aspect of videogame
research is whether or not games increase aggression. A video game is any console or PC
based interactive game, aggression is any thoughts or behaviors related with the
intention to cause harm. Contrary to popular belief, there is no reliable correlation
between videogames and aggression.
Claims are the backbone to a study; they are both the starting point and the goal. Cooper
and Mackie (1986) sought to discover if a highly violent game would affect 4th and 5th
grade kids differently than a nonviolent game or a paper-and-pencil game. Tamborini et
all (2000) predicted that aggressive thoughts and behaviors would be highest amongst
those playing a violent virtual reality game followed by those playing a violent standard
game, followed by those playing a nonviolent standard game. Derek (1995) was interested
in what effect, if any, playing violent games would have on aggressiveness in different
personality types. Ballard and Weist (1996) researched whether the level of violence in a
game would affect peoples' responses on a hostility questionnaire. Sherry (2000)
performed a meta-analysis on 25 video game/aggression studies; he wanted to see if there
was any credence to the claims. All five studies are very similar in their intent. They
mostly focus on whether the level of immersion (via different hardware, violent content,
and/or graphics) affects the level of aggression. 
To understand a study one must understand the definitions used within that study. All
five studies use the same general definition of a videogame that the general public uses;
an interactive game played on a television or monitor whereby onscreen objects can be
manipulated through the use of a controller. Violent video games are those that involve
death and destruction to things resembling reality and/or fantasy. Definitions of
"aggression," however, differ. Cooper and Mackie (1986) used a child's toy selection and
distribution of reward/punishment as an indicator of aggression. Tamborini et all (2000)
consider aggression to be hostile thoughts. Derek (1995) defines aggression as a mindset
that includes seven subcategories (the Buss-Durkee Inventory): assault, irritability,
indirect hostility, negativism, resentment, suspicion, and verbal hostility. Ballard and
Weist (1996) use the word "hostility" instead of aggression. In this case it refers to
thoughts of defensiveness, dominance, aggression, self-confidence, nurturance, and
autonomy. Sherry (2000) just says, "…and some form of aggressiveness as the
dependant variable." The Cooper and Mackie study and the Sherry study are the only two
that incorporate behavior in their definition of aggressiveness. All of the others deal
only with thoughts, but are quite similar in their intent.
The real make-or-break portion of research is the method in which you seek and categorize
the data. Cooper and Mackie (1986) took 84 4th and 5th graders from New Jersey. They had
equal numbers of boys and girls separated into three groups. One group played the
"violent" game Missile Commander (a cheesy game where you shoot lasers at little dots
representing bombs falling on a city), another played Pac Man (which we all know and
love), and the control group solved mazes with pencil and paper. After 8 minutes of game
play the kids were told to select a toy to play with while the researcher did some work
(the researcher was actually observing how long the child play with each toy. They could
select a Shogun warrior (a violent toy), Nerf basketball (an active toy), Lincoln Logs (a
quiet game), or pop-up pinball (a skill game). Which toy the child selected acted as an
indicator of mindset. After the play session the children were told to hold down a button
to indicate the length of a time a child should be punished for various acts of
insubordination. They were then told to hold down a button for the length of time a child
should be rewarded for various good deeds. Tamborini et all (2000) enlisted 92 MSU
undergrads in the Communications department. The predominantly female assemblage was
split into three groups. Before playing any games they filled out a self-report
questionnaire concerning aggressive tendencies. The first group got to play Duke Nukem 3D
on a virtual reality system (Duke Nukem is a modern first-person shooter where you run
around blasting aliens; virtual reality systems incorporate a headset and gloves to more
fully immerse the player), the second group played Duke Nukem 3D on a regular computer,
and the third group played Cool Boarder (a realistic snowboarding game) on a regular PC.
Participants got to play for ten minutes then filled out a thought list coded for types
and frequency of hostile thoughts. They also filled out an evaluation of the research
assistant they dealt with, this was meant to be another measure of aggressiveness. Derek
(1995) enlisted 117 students from Strathclyde University (60% women). Participants were
split into three groups. The non-aggressive game group played Tetris (a real-time
strategy game), the moderately aggressive game group played Overkill (a typical
space-blasters game which no one has heard of), the aggressive game group played Fatal
Fury (a martial arts fighting game with high levels of trauma and gore). Players were
given a personality test before and after game play under the guise that the study was
concerned with hand-eye coordination as it relates to personality. Ballard and Weist
(1996) took 30 male undergraduates from Appalachian State University. The guys were split
into two groups. Group one played Corner Pocket (a billiards game with virtually no
action) while group two played Mortal Kombat (an extremely popular fighting game), which
was set at either high violence mode or low violence mode. The subjects played for 10
minutes before filling out a hostility questionnaire. Sherry (2000) drank hundreds of
cups of coffee and alienated his wife and kids while pouring over insane amounts of
research. There were 32 studies available to him, 7 of which he had to throw out for
various reasons. Of the remaining 25 he carefully looked for validity problems while
synthesizing them into the definitive meta-analysis on this topic.
As with all things capitalist and otherwise, it's all about the bottom line, let's see
what they found. Cooper and Mackie (1986) found that, overall, the kids played with the
skilled toy and quiet toy (118 sec. and 134 sec. respectively) more than the active toy
or aggressive toy (89 sec. and 59 sec.). After exposure to the aggressive game the kids
played with the aggressive toy more than the kids in the other two conditions combined
(82 sec. compared to 46 sec. for the other two groups). Amount of time pressing the
reward/punishment buzzers was not correlated with the game played. Tamborini et all
(2000) found a significant effect for media environment on hostile thoughts, F
(3,91)=7.21, p*.01, eta=.20. Contrary to expectations, a higher number of hostil thoughts
was found among those who played the game on a PC, not those who played Virtual Reality.
They did find that those playing violent games had higher hostility ratings than those
whom played nonviolent games, but the highest hostility was found among those who
observed the violent games. Derek (1995) used a one-way ANOVA test and found no
significant differences between overall changes in aggressiveness and type of game
played. Pearson's correlation coefficients also failed to show a significant relationship
between type of game played and change in level of aggression. Ballard and Weist (1996)
used a one-way MANOVA test and found a significant relationship between levels of
hostility and type of game. Hostility scores were higher after playing high-gore Mortal
Kombat than they were after playing low-gore Mortal Kombat. Both were significantly high
than those who played the billiards game. Sherry (2000) used the Pearson R on each of the
25 studies individually, he then subtracted out the variance due to sampling error. This
resulted in a large standard deviation in the weighted effect size, suggesting extraneous
variables at work. He also performed a Fisher Zr test, and was unable to reject the null
hypothesis. 
In the words of Austin Powers, "whoopdy-doo, what does it all mean???" There are many
factors that cloud the issue, but overall it seems that the evidence is not very
convincing. In the Cooper and Mackie study (1986) the higher levels of play time with the
aggressive toy was accounted for almost entirely by the female participants. One theory
is that playing the aggressive video game empowered the girls (whom are normally shunned
from doing aggressive things) to broaden their aggressive horizons; at the least it calls
into question issues of generality. The age of this study is also a factor, Sherry (2000)
points out that there is a trend for older video game studies to have greater effect
sizes. An issue with all of the studies was the short amount of time participants played
the games. Sherry (2000) found that playing time was a negative predictor of effect size.
It seems that there is an initial spike in aggression that goes away after longer
exposure. Tamborini et all's (2000) findings are odd due to the fact that the observers
reported the highest hostility. This could indicate that seeing violence on screen-not
necessarily controlling it- leads to higher aggression. The most convincing evidence of
all is the meta-analysis (Sherry, 2000). His exhaustive study was unable to produce
resounding results, indicating that the positive findings in some of the studies could be
anomalous. This lack of evidence would leave one to believe that the status quo is
acceptable. Game content can be found through the rating system, but any other measures
would be burdensome and unnecessary. So, until more convincing data comes along we can
rest assured that any rage is the result of good old American anger, not blasting
on-screen boogie men.
Bibliography
Works Cited
Ballard, M. E., & Wiest, J.R. (1996). Mortal Kombat: The Effects of Violent Videogame
Play on Males' Hostility and Cardiovascular Responding. Journal of Applied Psychology,
26, 717-730.
Cooper, J., & Mackie, D. (1986). Video Games and Aggression in Children. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 16, 726-744.
Derek, S. (1995). The Effect of Video Games on Feelings of Hostility. The Journal of
Psychology, 129, 121-130.
Sherry, J. L. (2000). The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression: A Meta-Analysis.
Human Communication Research*.
Tamborini, R., Eastin, M., Lachlan, K., Fediuk, T., Brady, R., Skalski, P. (2000).
Virtual Violence. 86th Annual Convention of the National Communication Association.