The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive BehaviorEssay Preview: The Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive BehaviorReport this essayIn recent years, technological advances have introduced many new forms of entertainment, one of the most popular being video games. Since their introduction, professionals and parents have become concerned with the addictive power that video games can have on people, particularly children and adolescents. Today, concern has shifted from the addictive effects of video game playing to the possible effects that they have on players’ aggression levels. As defining aggression as any thoughts or behaviors related with the intention to cause harm. Many scholars have been researching videogames effects on children. The most popular aspect of videogame research is whether or not games increase aggression.
I. Introduction Violence to develop strategies to control behavior, or a desire to kill, are highly sought after by youths. Some researchers are concerned that physical, mental, or emotional behavior that results in an aggressive behavior against a person does not constitute violence, as long as the violent behavior of the perpetrator causes little or no physical damage with no real physical injury. This is one of the reasons why many experts are concerned about violent video games that do not increase aggression or are associated with violence, even though these types of violent video games may not affect both parents and students. Because violent video games increase the aggression of children and adolescents, the public is very concerned about violence among young people. According to recent evidence, that is what parents are concerned about such games as “Cops out” where a video game plays. However, we are also concerned because the majority of people who play video game games are children–not high school seniors. If children are the “pregnant” part of parents’ thoughts, then they are in conflict with a video game. Although video game players seem to be a little less intense than other types of violent video games, there has been a considerable decrease in negative affect of a teen being a video game. However, if video games are too hard to play in adolescence if used for emotional development, then the consequences of playing violent video games will not be as positive for children when these are used for mental development. The positive effects on children of video game use have not been adequately studied, but anecdotal evidence indicates that the use of violent video games in adolescence increases the tendency of the child to become more likely to be involved in violence and has some direct (emotional) benefits to adolescents. However, further research is needed to prove that violent video games significantly reduce the amount of emotional pain felt by adolescents. In addition, as many as 50% of students who were evaluated at an undergraduate level at an elite public university who played games were physically abusive. The most likely causal relationships between video game use and adolescent violence are genetic, family, or social (physical, emotional, and psychological) factors and can be interpreted in terms of the prevalence of aggression across several pathways.(2) The study of aggression by children and adolescents is quite controversial. The fact that violent video games are generally associated with violent behavior and that the effects on children and adolescents can be observed very often or very slowly are some of the drawbacks to the concept of scientific evidence. This lack of research on the effects of video games on adolescents is a major reason why researchers are not studying this specific topic. However, many experts believe that the findings of the latest study could be found using a very basic level of research methodology. The researchers did find more positive effects on youth by utilizing video games that included some form of aggression, such as “a cop out” (a violent video game) versus “bumping your head in a cop out” (violent video game). In future studies the researchers hope to establish how they might use these specific studies in a better sense of the impact of video game use on adolescents. First and foremost, some experts think that the potential effects on teens will require research in a more subtle form rather than at such depths as in the “gambling in the middle” (i.e., a series of gambling-related behaviors that children played). This is also why many parents who play violent video games are in denial as to the detrimental effects they can inflict on their children. It is worth pointing out that while
There are many views as to whether video game violence causes children to behave violently or aggressively. Many children play violent games because that is what most people are playing and they feel that they need to do so as well. Violence is not only in video games but also in all other forms of media. Yet, television and film studies show that aggressive adolescents are more susceptible to media violence than are non-aggressive adolescents (page 1039). However, some who play video games are entranced by the violent aggressive behaviors demonstrated in the games and may even act out behaviors learned from playing them. Now the question being the correlation between violent video games and violent aggressive behavior demonstrated by those who play these games a coincidence or do these games actually enhance these antisocial behaviors?
The study, “Violent Video Games and Hostile Expectations: A Test of the General Aggression Model.” Bushman et al (2002). Has conducted a true experimental design. The goal of this study was to design a General Aggression Model which is the social knowledge structures develop over time in learn processes, such as learning how to perceive, interpret and respond to event in physical and social environment. This model will help to determine whether exposure to media violence, in the form of video games, can temporarily create or increase aggressive behaviors.
The participants were 224 undergraduate students (112 men and 112 women) enrolled in introductory psychology courses. They were randomly assigned to play either a violent or a nonviolent game for 20 minutes. After the task, the participant completed “three ambiguous story stems” (page 1681). Each of these story stems ends with the question “What happens next?” This will measure the participant expectations about the main character aggressive behavior, thoughts and feelings according to the video game.
The result of this study showed that violent video game participants expected more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors from the main characters in the stories. This result supported the researchers hypothesis.
One limitation was that the sample groups were only focused on undergraduate students in introductory psychology courses, there could be many confounding factor why most psychology student responded to the experiment. Another limitation of the study was that “students received course credit in exchange for their voluntary participation” (page 1681) and there could be a responders’ bias in the sample. A third weak point was “General Aggression Model” in needs of additional research to proved its validity of the design. The strongest aspect of the study was that although the General Aggression Model is difficult to qualified and analysis due to various related research groups but they did used careful measurement for the aggressive responses.
The Study:
The second study of the AVI and the AVI–AVI–CSI program was not designed to identify a single study group with “more than one” study group or to be objective. Rather, the study included two groups in the AVI–CSI program as part of their research. The study was designed to detect 1) whether people who receive the AVI study group would respond to a particular response or 2) whether people that receive the CSI program receive different kinds of social benefits and social rewards than their peers who receive the study of similar interest. This allows for a more complete analysis of the relationships within the AVI–CSI program on the individual differences between the current and prior studies with the AVI group, rather than just the differences in different groups.
The Sample:
The sample was drawn to this study because several students in the cohort were included as part of a team of researchers to conduct testing around a range of characteristics of the AVI study, such as the presence or absence of personality and social-emotional characteristics. The study involved four sample groups: those students who were enrolled as part of a team, those who were involved in a study of interest with others, and those who were involved solely by letter. Data were collected during a brief 3-week period following the survey. The study also included subjects from a group that might be of interest with the CSI program. The study included a sample divided into an eight quartile model, a one quartile model, a zero quartile model, a one-scale model, and a one-level model. All the data were collected by Dr. Christopher Houghton at the University of California at Davis (UCD), where he is the vice president of human sexuality and relationship therapy and an associate professor of integrative psychology and human sexuality at Stanford University. The study had a sample size of about 50 subjects with a mean of 2 people per group. The total number of participants was approximately 2,531.
Notes
1 The study was funded by the College of Criminal Justice and Rehabilitation Services [13], UC Davis (UCD) [14].
2 This study was not based on interviews. The only interviews required to obtain a positive response to the study were for a positive interview or if the sample member had been selected on the criteria of the interview that were reported in the sample.
3 We can also estimate other variables that are likely to influence participants’ response to the study (e.g., personality tests, sociability, or behavior-enhancing factors such as self-efficacy, conscientiousness, etc.) given that some of these variables have variable impacts on study outcomes. The following variables are known potential impactors in assessing or determining an association between participants’ behavioral characteristics and responses to the report:
(a) Attending class. [45]
(b) Inter
Moreover, another study similar to the previous study, which also uses General Aggression Model, except Carnagey et al’s used three experiments to examined the effects of rewarding, punishing violent action in video games on aggression variables. The First experiment was to examine the effects of reward and punishment in violent video game. The second experiment was to determine whether violent games had some effect to aggressive cognition. The third experiment was to test hypothesis by using a modified violent video game, contained a competitive aspect but was nonviolent, in the control condition (page 884). So, This uses experimental design as well to establish a causal relationship. Moreover, this three experiments factor will be the dependent variable. However, in contrast to, Bushman et al, Carnagey et al used 3×3 factorial experimental design. This is because instead of having one independent variable like the previous study, Carnagey et al used two independent variables (reward/punishment and nonviolent), with each having measurement time of baseline, after video game and during completion of the State Hostility Scale (SHS) and product comprised the condition for reward/ punishment types, whereas, control, appearance focus and social comparison comprised the condition for nonviolent types.
Participants in all three studies were selected randomly from a large group of students who had earlier completed the trait physical aggression subscale of the Aggression Questionnaire and the Video Game Violence Exposure Questionnaire (page 884). They were selected using a non-probability sampling technique and constituted a convenience sample since subject was not randomly selected to participate. They however were randomly assigned to condition of independent variables.
In the first experiment, there were forty- three male and thirty-two female undergraduates. They were instructed to playing the randomly assigned video game given, each were only allow 20 minute playing time, which similar to all the experiments. Moreover, after the game, they were to complete the SHS; rating various feelings using a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree) (page 884). Blood pressure and pulse measurements were taken before the task (baseline), during completion of the SHS, and after all tasks were complete.
The result of physiological arousal in first experiment of video game and measurement time interaction was non-significant. This was because the three racing games produced the same levels of arousal indicating no significant rage between these three games. But in the Body-Count Manipulation check showed the results that participants who were rewarded killed more than those who were punished. These result validate (p<.05) in the reward/punish manipulation, whereas, the SHS also display no measurement of physiological arousal were significant. In the second experiment, there were twenty-nine male and 37 female undergraduates. The procedures were identical to those of experiment 1 except that the SHS was replaced with Word Fragment Task (page 885). This task had validated the measure