Effects of Fictional Violence On Aggressive Behavior
Introduction
Media violence has been a topic of controversy because many researchers propose that violent media will encourage people to act aggressively and violently as a result of learning that behavior from watching others. Many of the earlier studies focus on short- term effects of watching violent media and measuring the effects by observing the outcome of aggressive behavior. One of the earliest studies to bring up the topic of the influence of viewing aggressive models on aggressive behavior was that of Albert Bandura in the 1960s. According to Bandura’s study, when children were presented with an aggressive model, the children were much more likely to play in an aggressive manner (Bandura et al., 1961). Although this could be explained by social learning, these children may have been using a defense mechanism known as identification. Identification occurs when a person takes on the characteristics or behaviors of someone else. With the young children this defense mechanism may have been used to cope with the unfamiliar situation. Aggressive behavior was defined as hitting, kicking, punching a Bobo doll, which the child had previously seen an experimenter play with in a similar manner (Bandura et al., 1961). The concept of social learning theory created by Bandura is used to understand the meaning of his observation. This study suggests that children who observe aggression are more likely to behave aggressively. It may also suggest that 6modeling aggressive play will lead these children to become violent, aggressive adults. However, this paper will explore whether or not long-standing aggressive personality traits exists among those who engage in violent media play and if such traits are correlated with aggressive behavior.
Definitions
In this paper we define train aggression in the same manner as Huesmann (2003).
In a longitudinal study by Huesmann (2003), 557 children age six to nine from schools in the Chicago area were assessed for TV-viewing habits and aggressive behavior. The same children were sought out as adults and reassessed 15 years later. A total of 398 of the original were found and interviewed in person, on the phone or by mail. The researchers found that measures of early childhood TV-violence viewing (reported favorite TV shows coded for violence by researchers), perceived realism of TV violence, and identification with aggressive characters significantly correlated with the adult composite aggression score for both men and women. This composite aggression score was composed of self-reports, reports from a significant other, aggressive personality scale (average score of scales four and nine) on the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), and archival data. The MMPI is a personality measure used to assess adult psychopathology in clinical populations and aid in diagnosis of mental disorders. The researchers report that their correlations are still significant on the composite score with the removal of the MMPI data. However, researchers do not indicate if the physical aggression and indirect aggression scores remained significant.
Measures of aggressive behavior included spouse abuse (pushed, grabbed, shoved, or threw something at a spouse), serious physical aggression (responded to an 7insult by shoving a person, or punched, beat, or choked another adult), criminal behavior (self-reported crime in the last year, or state-reported convictions), and driving behavior (self-reported or state-reported moving traffic violation)—behaviors that took place within the past 12 months. To measure aggressive behavior they compared high childhood fictional media violence viewers to a combination of middle and low childhood fictional media violence viewers.
Hypothesis
This topic of media’s effect on violent behavior in people has caused numerous questions to arise. For instance, does the average person who plays VVGs or other forms of fictional violence have aggressive and antisocial personality traits, and engage in criminal behavior? Do such games promote harmful aggressive tendencies or do well-adjusted people retain the capacity to restrain aggressive urges or even use aggression in a more productive way? More specifically, the literature reviewed here addresses the following questions:
1. Does personality influence one’s trait aggression?
2. Does amount of time playing violent video games affect the level of trait
aggression?
3. When one has a personality correlated with high trait aggression and plays violent
video games or watches violent forms of fictional media more frequently, does their level of trait aggression increase?
4. If personality is accounted for, does being a violent gamer or watching forms of violent fictional media have any effect on trait aggression?
Review of Empirical Findings
Findings reported show that high childhood TV-violence viewers had a greater percentage in all aggressive behaviors when compared to the other (middle to low childhood TV-violence) viewers. However, not all differences between the categories of TV-violence viewers were found to be significant. One observation about this data is that 53.4 percent of men in the other viewer category self-reported a crime in the last year and 50.4 percent responded by shoving a person. Those are high percentages for people who had middle to low childhood TV-violence viewing habits. Additionally, the driving behavior category of aggression does not appear to be a valid measure of aggressive behavior because other viewers self-reported a high amount of moving traffic violation (76.3% of men, 57.6% of women). The researchers concluded that both men and women who were high TV-violence viewers early in life were most likely to become violent, aggressive adults (Huesmann et al., 2003). This study shows that their population may have been one with greater clinical issues and therefore not accurately representative of the general population. Alternatively, this study focuses on a sample that is more consistent with the general population, which will be screened for any previous violent criminal background. The purpose of which is to exclude a history of violence as a confounding factor and to create a sample that is representative of the average video game consumer.
Huesmann (2010) has contended that the scientific community no longer debates the existence of the effects of media violence on individuals. However, the scientific literature indicates the type and size of the effects of media violence is still debated and there seems to be no clear, simple answer to this controversy. Rather than a direct causal link, it has repeatedly been shown that exposure to violent media is correlated with increased aggressive behavior and attitudes Such a correlation may not only be the result of violent media leading to aggressive behavior and attitudes, but instead be the result of a combination of third variables such as parents’ tolerance of violence or violent behavior and attitudes toward their children.
Savage and Yancey (2008) conducted a meta-analysis of research studies on
media violence and criminal aggression. In this article the authors point out that there is minimal research on correlating violent media with violence and crime. A key point made by Savage and Yancey is that aggression is often mistakenly taken to be representative of violence. However, these authors believe that aggression and violence have different meanings. Savage and Yancey found that a study by Messner in 1986 revealed consistent evidence that crime rates were lower in an area exposed to a high level of violent television (Savage & Yancey, 2008).
More recently, video games seem to have taken the stage and elicited more debate
than television or film as evidenced by the California 2005 law which banned the sale of violent video games to minors, but was later held to be unconstitutional by the 2008 decision of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Markey & Markey, 2010).
The extra concern that people have with video games is that individuals actively engage in the violence by controlling aggressive maneuvers within the game, which is asimulation of aggressive behavior. Therefore, there is an assumption that more active engagement in violent media will provoke greater real-life aggressive behavior that can lead to criminal antisocial behavior. Some concerns of the danger of video games are as follows: (a) the player identifies with the aggressor in the game, (b) there is active participation in the game and the player chooses to act in an aggressive manner, and (c) video games have an addictive quality which can enhance the performing of aggressive scripts (Anderson & Dill, 2000). Furthermore, attention on video games has become greater as video game graphics have become more realistic. Especially games like Grand Theft Auto have accrued negative attention, as legislators see the laws and norms of the real world being disregarded in the simulation.. Therefore, since violent video games have become a main focus of legislators, this study intends to further the research in this area.
Many recent studies now reference a theory presented by Anderson and Dill in their 2000 study of violent video games and aggression. This theory is known as the General Affective Aggression Model (GAAM), now simply referred to as the General Aggression Model (GAM). This model emphasizes how aggressive scripts and schemas created by social learning processes lead to aggressive behavior. They believe that playing violent video games primes aggressive thoughts and can influence cognition, affect and arousal of the individual that leads them to act aggressively. Furthermore, this theory also suggests that long-term exposure to violent video games will cause an individual to develop an aggressive personality. This theory has been referenced to analyze the short-term and long-term effects of violent video games on the development of aggressive behavior and personality. This dissertation will research whether or not aggressive personality exists among a sample of the general violent video game player population and explore further to investigate whether violent video game players only express maladaptive aggressive behaviors.
In the study by Anderson and Dill (2000), 227 psychology college students were assessed in two parts: the first part assessed long-term effects of violent video games and the second part measured short-term effects. In the second portion, short-term effects were studied by random assignment of the participants to play a violent or nonviolent video game. Then the participants were told to complete a competitive reaction time task in which they could punish their competitors by delivering a loud blast of noise. A significant finding was that participants who play the violent video game delivered longer noise blasts to their opponents following losing a trial of the competitive reaction time task when compared to those that played a nonviolent video game. The aforementioned correlation led the researchers to deduce that playing a violent video game increased one’s ability to access aggressive thoughts and scripts which led to aggressive behavior. Ferguson and his colleagues attempted to replicate this study in 2008. However, they failed to replicate the previous results. Instead their findings showed that the comparison
of conditions between participants playing violent or non-violent games prior to the Taylor Competitive Reaction Timed Test (TCRTT, formerly competitive reaction time task) yielded no statistically significant differences (Ferguson et al., 2008).
A study done in the Netherlands wanted to determine whether there were differences in effect between watching and playing violent video games. This study used 57 children age 10-13 as participants. They had the children either play a violent video game or a non-violent video game and then engage in a free play session. This study found that playing violent video games caused the boys in the study to become more aggressive. However, they also found that actively playing or watching violent video games did not produce more aggressive behavior than active playing of non-violent video games (Ferguson et al., 2008). Therefore, aggressive behavior occurred in response to both types of video games, suggesting that violent video games may have not been the main factor that increased aggressive behavior.
Another study in 2007 used 227 undergraduate students as participants to look at the effect of presence during violent video game play to see how this variable might influence aggression (Markey & Markey 2010). Presence was defined as the player’s subjective perception which gave them a sense of being involved in the video game, or stated more simply, the degree to which the person felt as they were actually part of the game. Findings of this study suggested that those who played more frequently felt more presence and that this presence could predict self-reported feelings of hostility. Feelings of hostility would then predict resentment, followed by verbal aggression and intentions of physical aggression. The authors concluded that believing one is truly involved in the game led to intentions of aggressive behavior. A problem with this study was that this conclusion was reached as an outcome of an analysis of self-report measures that were given immediately after playing a violent game for 12 minutes, and no measures were given at a later time to see if the same results would be obtained (Markey & Markey 2010).
Another researcher studying short-term effects conducted a study to see if players who were primed about playing a violent game would activate a cognitive link to aggression-related concepts and thus, increase their response to words related to aggression. After 48 male students were divided into groups: non-players, short-term players and long-term players, they were given a pre-test and post-test examining responses to aggressively-related words. Once the pre-test was completed the participants played a violent video game and then responded to the words again. The researchers found that non-players responded more quickly to aggressive words after playing and that long-term players responded more quickly to anti-aggressive words. They believe this finding was due to long-term players initiating a suppression strategy in order to avoid aggression-related concepts. Overall, they inferred that the knowledge about violent video games and aggression was more influential on psychological responses (to the aggression-related concepts), rather than the actual game play influencing the psychological
Anderson and Dill conducted two studies reported in their 2000 article, one of which analyzed the potential long-term effects of violent video games on personality and behavior. The study concluded that exposure to violent video games was significantly correlated with aggressive personality and delinquency, and that playing video games in general was negatively correlated to GPA. Their study concluded that these results supported the GAM hypothesis and that violent video games helped the person to practice aggressive scripts which changed the structure of their personality to become more aggressive (Anderson & Dill, 2000). However, this study did not consider that people who already have aggressive personalities might choose to engage more often in violent video games.
Ferguson replicated this study in his 2008 article, but controlled for factors such as sex and family violence. Once these factors were controlled results indicated that in males’ exposure to verbal abuse, physical abuse, or both were highly correlated with trait aggression and violent crime behavior. Additionally, high trait aggression and exposure to violent video games were significantly correlated with violent crime behavior. However, violent video game exposure was not found to be related to aggressive personality development. The experimenters’ explanation of the interaction was rather that aggressive people, who were prone to violent behavior, perhaps enjoyed viewing violent media. Nevertheless, the researchers found that the best predictors of violent crime were trait aggression and exposure to physical abuse (Ferguson et al., 2008).
In 2002, an article discussed the findings of an ongoing research program started in 1990 (Markey & Markey 2010). This program included surveying children, analyzing long-term correlations of violent video games (VVG) with personality characteristics, and studying short-term effects of VVGs in a laboratory setting. This program found that some players have pre-existing characteristics that may cause them to be at higher risk for being negatively influenced by VVGs. Those children who prefer VVGs were found to have clinically significant elevations on the standardized measure YSR (Youth Self-Report) which indicated higher psychological disturbance. The authors conclude that relevant pre- existing tendencies could be critical determinants of how an individual may respond to a post-test after playing a VVG, rather than the actual experimental manipulation in the study. Additionally, these authors emphasize that video game playing may also have positive influences such as enhancing engagement in learning, adaption of video games for use in school programs that focused on improving moral development, and video game use in a project aimed at decreasing impulsivity in juvenile delinquents (Markey & Markey 2010).. In addition to experimental studies of short-term and long-term effects of VVG playing, there are meta-analyses which have reviewed the current available research to see what findings are consistent, as well as the possible problems in the research.
Critique
Some literature reviewed show signs of possible gender bias. Males play violent video games with greater frequency than females; therefore, the violent gamer group had a greater number of male participants. Therefore, some of the differences in qualitative findings may be influenced by differences in sex (Markey & Markey 2010).
Another limitation of this study is that many studies different between adults and children. Children have growing brains, their personalities are still being established, and therefore, may be more likely to be negatively influenced by violent games. The opinion of this researcher is that children need good guidance around these games. ESA ratings should be followed and parents need to be involved in explaining the differences between fantasy and reality. However, with the increase in technology, and violence displayed on various forms of media, children may come into contact with this issue at younger ages. Therefore, parents may want to be proactive in talking with children about such topics when they first come into contact with media that may display violent images and situations.
Further research may want to continue to explore personality and positive aggression topics. It might be interesting to replicate this study with a larger sample, and see if these findings still hold true. A similar study could be conducted with children and personality to see if personality factors for children also predict aggression scores. Positive aggression may also present itself differently in children. Comparisons could be made between the adult study and children’s study.
The results of our investigation find that in the long run, personality factors may be a much greater variable in the prediction of aggression than that being a violent video game player. Being a violent game player appeared to have little influence on one’s trait aggression or violence once aggressive personality factors has been controlled for. More specifically, it confirmed previous research that indicated that the personality factors of Neuroticism and Agreeableness have a significant role in the prediction of aggression (Markey & Markey 2010). Given that the majority of the population received higher education, this may also be a factor in determining how one handles the violent images that are viewed. The trends of this research suggests that interventions should focus most on properly handling conflicts, anxiety, emotions, and addressing mood which is more personality-based, than on limiting or restricting the sale of violent video games.
Conclusion
We must remember that before violent video games, there was film, television, music and comics, which were once considered a risk to the health and safety of people, similar to the way that gruesome fairy tales were once before them. As with all of these forms of media, they can be a reflection of the real violence that does exist within our world. However, although some of these stories within such media are violent, they can also use fantasy to teach lessons and moral values. Aggressive behavior can be justifiable in these contexts. Superman is not simply violent, but uses aggressive action to save others and emphasizes the importance of doing so with restraint and to be careful to use his power wisely. In comparison, some modern day video games give a similar message. For example, in video games such as the Final Fantasy series there is often a hero, heroine or heroes that fight to save others from some villain or tyrant who is set out to destroy others and the world.
Justified aggression is also necessary at times, as we have seen through our own history as a society. There would still be slaves and the civil rights movement would have not occurred if aggression did not move us to change and develop as a society. Therefore, aggression may be an important factor in making important strides and improvements in civilizations. The majority appears to support these instances of aggression as appropriate within the given contexts. Could such change have occurred without aggression to fuel it?
Furthermore, video games, similar to other media, depict fantasy and is created out the imagination of those who create it. There is the imaginative fantasy that is associated with pretend play (Markey & Markey 2010). Imagination has been associated with healthy development. There are many people who engage in virtual play in a healthy manner. On the other hand, there is a withdrawal into fantasy that has a dissociative quality and is related to psychosis (Markey & Markey 2010).
Bibliography
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78(4), 772-790.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. (1961). Transmission of Aggression Through Imitation of Aggressive Models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63(3), 575-582.
Ferguson. (2007). The Good, The Bad and the Ugly: A Meta-analytic Review of Positive and Negative Effects of Violent Video Games. Psychiatr Q, 78, 309-316.
Ferguson, C. J. (2008). Blazing Angels or Resident Evil? Can Violent Video Games Be a Force for Good? Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 68-81.
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(2), 179- 181.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J. M., Podolski, C. -L., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal Relations Between Children's Exposure to TV Violence and Their Aggressive and
Violent Behavior in Young Adulthood: 1977-1992. Developmental Psychology, 39(2), 201-221.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2010). Vulnerability to Violent Video Games: A Review and Integration of Personality Research. Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 82-91.
Savage, J., & Yancey, C. (2008). The Effects of Media Violence on Exposure on Criminal Aggression: A Meta-Analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35(6),
772-791.
