epr 4
Communication Research 2014, Vol. 41(7) 879 –891
© The Author(s) 2012 Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav DOI: 10.1177/0093650212446622
crx.sagepub.com
446622CRX41710.1177/0093650212446622Co mmunication ResearchWhitaker and Bushman © The Author(s) 2011
Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA 2VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands
Corresponding Author: Brad J. Bushman, School of Communication, The Ohio State University, 3127 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH, USA. Email: bushman.20@osu.edu
“Boom, Headshot!”: Effect of Video Game Play and Controller Type on Firing Aim and Accuracy
Jodi L. Whitaker1 and Brad J. Bushman1,2
Abstract
Video games are excellent training tools. Some writers have called violent video games “murder simulators.” Can violent games “train” a person to shoot a gun? There are theoretical reasons to believe they can. Participants (N = 151) played a violent shooting game with humanoid targets that rewarded headshots, a nonviolent shooting game with bull’s-eye targets, or a nonviolent nonshooting game. Those who played a shooting game used either a pistol-shaped or a standard controller. Next, participants shot a realistic gun at a mannequin. Participants who played a violent shooting game using a pistol-shaped controller had 99% more headshots and 33% more other shots than did other participants. These results remained significant even after controlling for firearm experience, gun attitudes, habitual exposure to violent shooting games, and trait aggressiveness. Habitual exposure to violent shooting games also predicted shooting accuracy. Thus, playing violent shooting video games can improve firing accuracy and can influence players to aim for the head.
Keywords
controller, gun, pistol, shooting accuracy, violent video game
“Boom, headshot!”
Popular catchphrase of FPS (First Person Shooter) Doug, fictional pro-gamer
Video games are a multibillion dollar market, generating more than US$25 billion in the United States in 2010 (Entertainment Software Association, 2011, pp. 1-2). This is more than twice the revenue generated from Hollywood movie sales (Motion Picture Association
Article
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
880 Communication Research 41(7)
of America, 2011) and from music industry sales (Recording Industry Association of America, 2011). Many video games contain violence, particularly shooting violence involv- ing guns (Entertainment Software Association, 2011, pp. 1-2). Concern about the effects of playing violent video games has increased worldwide in the past two decades, leading to governmental hearings, censorship, and even the banning of some games (Kirsh, 2012).
A critical debate is whether playing violent video games can train people to more accu- rately and lethally fire a real gun. Violent shooting video games have even been called “murder simulators” by some writers (e.g., Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999). However, no previous research has tested whether playing violent shooting video games can teach players to more accurately shoot a gun. Through experimental testing, it is possible to determine whether playing violent shooting games can in fact teach players to more accu- rately shoot a gun. The present study fills this important gap in the literature.
Video Games and Learning Video games are effective teaching tools. They use many features of good pedagogy, such as providing immediate feedback, increasing motivation, reinforcing behaviors, and adapting to the player’s skills (Gee, 2003; Gentile & Gentile, 2008). They also provide role models for the acquisition of new behaviors (Bandura, 1977). One distinguishing feature of video games is their interactive nature (Vorderer, 2000). Viewers of television programs and films passively watch other characters behave aggressively, whereas play- ers of video games “become” the aggressive characters. Research has shown that learning is enhanced when people are actively rather than passively involved (e.g., Atlas, Cornett, Lane, & Napier, 1997; Berkowitz, 1974; Evans, Pelham, & Grudberg, 1995; Onion & Bartzokas, 1998). In addition, research on catharsis theory reveals that aggressive actions usually increase (rather than decrease) subsequent aggressive actions (e.g., Bushman, 2002; Bushman, Baumeister, & Stack, 1999; Geen & Quanty, 1977). Taken together, the research indicates that playing video games can facilitate the learning of behaviors because players are actively involved.
The interactive nature of video games presents an ideal environment in which to learn various behaviors, which may be transferred to real-world scenarios. Video games have been used to “train” many social and behavior skills (Duque, Fung, Mallet, Posel, & Fleiszer, 2008; Gentile, 2011). For example, players can learn complicated flight routines (Gopher, Weil, & Bareket, 1994) and can improve visual-spatial attention and hand-eye coordination (Green & Bavelier, 2003; Griffith, Voloschin, Gibb, & Bailey, 1983). Surgeons who play video games demonstrate increased skill, particularly with laparoscopic sur- geries (Rosenberg, Landsittel, & Averch, 2005; Rosser, Lynch, Haskamp, Gentile, & Yalif, 2007). Physical therapy patients show physical improvements after playing injury-relevant video games (Betker, Desai, Nett, Kapadia, & Szturm, 2007; Flynn, Palma, & Bender, 2007). Most relevant to the present research, the U.S. military uses violent video games to train soldiers (Grossman, 1995).
There are theoretical reasons to predict that playing violent shooting games should increase firing aim and accuracy. These predictions follow naturally from operant
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Whitaker and Bushman 881
conditioning and social learning theories. In addition, the concept of mechanistic transfer can explain how a person can learn to shoot a gun through video gameplay, especially if the controller is gun shaped.
Operant Conditioning Operant conditioning, developed by behaviorists such as Edward Thorndike and B. F. Skinner, proposes that people are more likely to repeat behaviors that have been rewarded and are less likely to repeat behaviors that have been punished (e.g., Domjan, 2003). Violent shooting games use operant conditioning principles to shape gameplay. Both negative and positive reinforcement are used to encourage players to quickly and accu- rately kill enemies. Violent video games present a threat to players in the form of enemies that attempt to kill the player’s character, which serves as an aversive stimulus. Shooting the enemies eliminates the threat. The more quickly and accurately players shoot, the more quickly the threat is eliminated—an effective form of negative reinforcement. In this manner, games can teach a person how to aim a gun.
Positive reinforcement is also offered for quickly and accurately shooting opponents. Once an enemy is killed, players earn points and advance to higher levels in the game. Some violent games reward players for shooting enemies in the head (called “head- shots”), perhaps because it is the smallest lethal target on a humanoid body. In contrast, firearms-training instructors teach individuals to shoot for the upper torso (Patrick, 1989), perhaps because it is the largest lethal target. In some games, players are also rewarded through verbal praise, by seeing or hearing words such as “Nice shot!” or “Impressive!” after killing an enemy.
Because of the dynamic and interactive nature of video games, operant conditioning of behaviors is especially effective. Players instantly discern the consequences of their vio- lent actions (i.e., quickly and accurately shooting an enemy will eliminate the threat and produce rewards), and these consequences occur each time the action is performed. These negative and positive reinforcers increase the likelihood that violent actions will be repeated.
Social Learning Theory Social learning theory posits that people can learn behaviors by observing and imitat- ing others (Bandura, 1977). The models that are imitated can be real people or fic- tional media characters (Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1961). In several classic experiments, Albert Bandura and his colleagues showed that young children imitated specific aggressive acts they observed in aggressive models (i.e., hitting a “ Bobo doll,” a large inflatable clown, that they had seen an actor hit). Children were especially likely to imitate models that had been rewarded for behaving aggressively (Bandura, 1965; Bandura, Ross, & Ross, 1963). In violent shooting games, players observe characters killing enemies. Killing enemies in violent video games is also rewarded (e.g., with points or by advancing to the next level of the game).
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
882 Communication Research 41(7)
People are especially likely to imitate role models they identify with (Bandura, 1973, 1977). The interactivity of video games facilitates identification with violent characters (e.g., Konijn, Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007). Individuals who watch a violent show may or may not identify with the violent characters in that show. Players of violent video games are much more likely to identify with violent characters because they are connected to those characters. In first-person shooter games, players have the same visual perspective as the violent character. In third-person games, players control violent characters from a more distant perspective. Through the observation of their own character and other characters in violent shooting video games, players can learn how to shoot and practice firing accurately.
Mechanistic Transfer When playing a violent shooting video game, players are able to approximate shooting guns via manipulation of a game controller. Most video games are operated by standard controllers, which contain one or more buttons and joysticks. However, some controllers are more realistic and more accurately imitate real-world objects, such as driving-wheel controllers, sword-shaped controllers, and gun-shaped controllers. Greater transfer of skills and behaviors learned in a video game should occur if the controller used to play the game is more realistic (Gentile, 2011). Players should be more adept at firing a gun if they play a shooting game with a gun-shaped controller instead of a standard controller. A gun- shaped controller may also facilitate immersion into the video game, thus strengthening learning effects (Markey & Scherer, 2009; Raney, Smith, & Baker, 2006).
Overview of Present Research No empirical research has tested whether playing violent shooting games increases firing aim and accuracy. Based on theory and related research in other domains, we predict that the type of video game played as well as the type of controller used will affect how accurately players can fire a realistic gun and whether they aim for the head. In the present experiment, partici- pants were randomly assigned to play a violent shooting game with humanoid targets (wherein extra points were given for headshots), a nonviolent shooting game with bull’s-eye targets, or a nonviolent, nonshooting game. Participants who played a shooting game used either a pistol-shaped controller or a standard controller. After playing the game for 20 min, participants shot 16 “bullets” from a realistic gun at a life-size human-shaped mannequin. We predicted the greatest number of total hits and headshots among participants who played a violent shooting game with humanoid targets and a gun-shaped controller.
Method Participants
Participants were 151 college students (51% males; M age
= 21.0; 85% White, 4% African American, 3% Hispanic American, 7% Asian American, and 1% Multiracial or Other)
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Whitaker and Bushman 883
who received extra course credit. All participants were right handed with vision at or corrected to 20/20.
Control Variables Participants first completed a number of control variables, including the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992; Cronbach’s α = .88), the Attitudes Toward Guns Scale (Branscombe, Weir, & Crosby, 1991), and the Attitudes Toward Guns and Violence Questionnaire (Shapiro, Dorman, Burkey, Welker, & Clough, 1997). The latter two scales were combined to form a composite measure of attitudes toward guns (Cronbach’s α = .89). They also indicated whether they had received firearms training (1 = yes, 0 = no) and what their three favorite video games were. The number of games listed that featured shooting was used to measure habitual exposure to shooting video games. With the exception of a deer-hunting video game, all shooting games involved killing humanoid targets and all were rated “M” (for mature players 17 and older).
Video Games After completing the surveys, participants were randomly assigned to play either a violent shooting game with realistic humanoid targets (Resident Evil 4), a nonviolent shooting game with bull’s-eye targets (the target practice game in Wii Play), or a nonviolent, non- shooting game (Super Mario Galaxy) for 20 min on a Nintendo Wii attached to a 19-in (48.3-cm) computer monitor. The video games were pretested and selected to be equal in terms of how entertaining and engaging they were but different in terms how violent they were and how much shooting was involved (see Table 1).
For the two shooting video games, participants were also randomly assigned to play with either a standard controller (in which the participant used a joystick to control the aim and pressed buttons to fire) or with a pistol-shaped controller (in which participants pointed at the screen to aim and pulled a trigger to fire). The same controllers were used for both
Table 1. Entertainment, Engagement, Violent, and Shooting Ratings of Different Types of Video Games.
Video game Entertainment
rating Enjoyment
rating Violence
rating Shooting
rating
Violent shooting 5.38 a (1.30) 5.50
a (1.85) 9.75
c (0.46) 9.89
a (0.35)
Nonviolent shooting
5.13 a (0.64) 5.00
a (1.69) 1.75
a (0.88) 9.75
a (0.46)
Nonviolent nonshooting
5.25 a (0.71) 5.38
a (1.60) 1.50
a (0.53) 1.75
c (0.89)
Note: Standard deviations are in parentheses. Ratings were made using a 10-point scale (1 = not at all, 10 = extremely). Means in the same column with the same subscript are not significantly different at the .05 level.
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
884 Communication Research 41(7)
the violent and the nonviolent shooting video games. The gameplay dynamics of the two shooting video games were equivalent: Players aimed at the target onscreen and fired, mimicking aiming and firing in the “real world.”
For both of the shooting video games, sections of the games that featured nonstop shooting gameplay were selected. All participants were monitored to ensure that they did in fact fire continuously during the 20 min of gameplay. Pretesting revealed that approxi- mately 300 shots were fired in 20 min of gameplay in both the violent and the nonviolent games. Therefore, all participants fired approximately 300 shots at either bull’s-eye or humanoid targets during the 20-min video game “training” period.
Pistol Firing After playing the video game, all participants fired a total of 16 “bullets” at a 6-ft (1.8-m) tall male-shaped mannequin target covered in hard Velcro that was located at the end of a narrow hall, 20 ft (6.1 m) away. The gun was a black airsoft training pistol that had the same weight, texture, and firing recoil of a real 9-mm semiautomatic pistol. The pistol can fire accurately up to a range of 50 to 70 ft (15.2-21.3 m) and is powered by a 12-g carbon dioxide cylinder (pressurized air). We chose a 20-ft (6.1-m) firing distance so participants could more accurately hit whatever portion of the mannequin’s body they aimed at. The “bullets” were .43 caliber rubber training rounds covered in soft Velcro. Participants fired all 16 rounds at the mannequin target. Airsoft pistols are typically used for professional firing training (such as with law enforcement and military personnel). Participants were instructed in the use of the pistol and wore safety goggles while shooting. A post-test-only design was employed to eliminate pistol-firing practice effects. A debriefing followed.
Results Preliminary Analyses
There were no main or interactive effects involving participant sex for headshots or other shots, so the data from men and women were combined.
All results for headshots and other shots remained significant even after statistically controlling for trait aggressiveness, attitudes toward guns, firearm experience, and habitual exposure to violent shooting video games. Thus, we report the simpler analyses here.
Primary Analyses Experimental effects. Total shots to the mannequin were divided into two categories:
headshots and other shots. The data were analyzed using a 2 × 5 MANOVA, with type of shot being the within-subjects factor and experimental condition being the between-subjects fac- tor. As expected, total shots to the mannequin differed significantly across conditions, F(8, 290) = 4.86, p < .0001, Wilks’s Λ = .777. Both headshots and other shots also differed across conditions, F(4, 146) = 6.07, p < .0001, η2 = .14 and F(4, 146) = 3.15, p < .016, η2 = .09,
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Whitaker and Bushman 885
respectively. The effects were bigger for headshots than for other shots. As can be seen in Figure 1, participants who played a violent shooting game using a pistol-shaped con- troller had 99% more headshots than did other participants. Post hoc tests showed that participants who played a violent shooting game using a pistol-shaped controller had the most headshots, whereas participants who played a nonviolent nonshooting game had the fewest headshots. The other participants were between these two extremes and did not differ from each other. Participants who played a violent shooting game with a pistol controller also had 33% more other shots than did other participants, but they did not differ from participants who played a violent game with a standard controller (see Figure 1). Both groups had more other shots than participants who played a nonviolent shooting game. Participants who played a nonviolent nonshooting game had the fewest other shots.
Correlational effects. Significant positive correlations were also found between habitual exposure to violent shooting games and total hits and headshots, r(149) = .20, p < .02 and r(149) = .24, p < .003, respectively, and a marginally significant positive correlation was found between habitual exposure to violent shooting games and other shots to the manne- quin, r(149) = .14, p < .09. Although the direction of causality cannot be determined, these correlations indicate that participants whose favorite video games are violent shooting ones are more accurate at firing a realistic gun.
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Nonviolent nonshooting
Nonviolent shooting (standard controller)
Nonviolent shooting (gun controller)
Violent shooting (standard controller)
Violent shooting (gun controller)
Headshots
Other shots
a
c
b
b
b
A
A, B
B, C
C
B, C
VIDEO GAME
Figure 1. Headshots and other shots as a function of video game type and controller type Note: Headshot means having different lower case letters significantly differ from each other at the .05 significance level. Other shots having different upper case letters differ from each other at the .05 significance level. Capped bars denote 1 SE.
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
886 Communication Research 41(7)
Discussion
Video games are effective teaching tools. Despite claims that video games can teach players to shoot real guns, no research has examined this issue. The present experiment provides the first empirical evidence that playing violent shooting games with realistic humanoid targets for only 20 min can in fact improve firing aim and accuracy. Those who played a violent shooting video game (that rewarded headshots) with a pistol- shaped controller had the most headshots, even though the head is a much smaller target than the torso. These results remained significant even after statistically control- ling for individual differences in aggressiveness, attitudes toward guns, firearm experi- ence, and habitual exposure to violent shooting games. The same pattern of results was found for nonheadshots, although fewer significant differences were found.
In addition, habitual exposure to violent shooting games significantly predicted total hits, headshots, and nonheadshots. Although causal inferences cannot be made, these findings indicate that people who habitually play violent shooting games are the most accurate shooters and aim for the head most often.
These findings are consistent with operant conditioning and social learning theories, as well as with the concept of mechanistic transfer. Violent shooting games positively and negatively reinforce firing a gun to kill enemies. In the violent shooting game, par- ticipants were rewarded for accurately aiming and firing at humanoid enemies who were instantly killed if shot in the head. Players were therefore more likely to repeat this behavior outside of the video game context. When presented with a human-shaped man- nequin target, they practiced the behaviors that had previously been reinforced in the video game—aiming accurately at the target and aiming for the head. Players of the violent shooting game had the opportunity to observe their character aim and fire a gun and were able to reproduce this behavior after the game was turned off.
Participants were also able to more accurately fire the realistic gun after they had played the violent shooting game with a pistol-shaped controller, which is consistent with the concept of mechanistic transfer. Just as a person might train how to use a sword by first practicing with a wooden replica, the pistol-shaped controller served as a more realistic implement with which to hone skills that more easily transferred to aiming and firing a gun in the real world. As video games are becoming more techno- logically advanced and implement more motion-controlled gameplay, more realistic controllers (including gun-shaped controllers) are gaining in popularity. This will likely facilitate greater transfer of firearm skills.
Related to the concept of mechanistic transfer, the results are also in line with Thorndike’s (1932) identical elements theory of transfer, which predicts that the trans- fer of learning from one task to another occurs as a function of the number of identical elements shared. The more identical elements shared, the greater the transfer of learn- ing. In this experiment, the transfer task involved firing a gun at a human-shaped target. The variables manipulated in the video game play were the type of the target (humanoid vs. bull’s-eye target) and type of controller (pistol-shaped vs. standard). Thus, up to two identical elements could be shared between playing the video game and firing the
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Whitaker and Bushman 887
training pistol: a humanoid target and the pistol shape. Participants who played the violent game with the pistol-shaped controller shared two elements between the tasks, and they had more headshots on the target than participants who only shared one ele- ment (target type or controller type) or no elements in common with the firing task.
The results present an interesting distinction about the way in which the realism of violence in a video game and the type of the controller used to play the game can have separate but cumulative effects on firing aim and accuracy when one fires a realistic gun. Because the violent video game featured more realistic targets, participants may have been able to better transfer aiming accuracy from that game to the mannequin target. Those who played with a pistol-shaped controller hit the mannequin target in the head more often. The similarity of the pistol-shaped controller to the training pistol may have facilitated increased precision in aiming, influencing participants to aim for the head more often. Because the realistic violent game also rewarded headshots, participants who played that game with the pistol-shaped controller may also have been influenced to repeat that learned behavior—aiming for the head when firing at the mannequin.
Overall, participants who played the realistic violent game with humanoid targets with a pistol-shaped controller were the most accurate shooters and hit the mannequin’s head most often. The presence of both realistic targets and a gun-shaped controller produced the greatest increase in subsequent firing accuracy and headshots.
Limitations and Future Directions Video games continue to increase in technical and graphical capability. Characters in games are able to look more and more realistic, and this pattern is especially prominent in violent first-person shooter video games. Based on the obtained results, it is likely that as the realism of characters in shooting games increases so too will subsequent firing accuracy, such that eventual photo-realistic target shooting games may produce the most accurate firing. If combined with gun-shaped controllers, the likelihood of firing at the head of a target should also increase.
An airsoft training pistol was used in this experiment instead of a real firearm. Though the training pistol accurately imitated a 9-mm pistol in many ways, some aspects of firing a real gun–such as the fire and smoke–could not be replicated. The somewhat tamer effects of firing the training pistol may have produced less startle in participants and allowed them to fire more accurately. However, the same pattern of results should be obtained if a real firearm were used (i.e., those who played the violent shooting game with a pistol-shaped controller should still fire more accurately and aim for the head more often). In addition, experience with firearms was included as a covari- ate in the statistical analyses and did not affect the results. Therefore, regardless of previous experience with firing real weapons, playing the realistic shooting game with a pistol-shaped controller for only 20 min still increased firing aim and accuracy with the training pistol.
Only one realistic violent video game with humanoid targets was used in this experiment, and that game rewarded headshots. Future research could test whether the percentage of
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
888 Communication Research 41(7)
headshots drop if participants play a realistic violent game that does not reward head- shots. In addition, the shots fired by participants with the realistic training pistol that hit the target were categorized as either headshots or other shots. The participants did not report for each bullet whether they aimed for the head, the torso, or some other part of the body. Thus, our analysis reflects where the participants hit the target and not neces- sarily where they aimed. However, the firing distance selected for this experiment (20 ft; 6.1 m) was determined during pretesting to be an optimal distance for most success- fully landing a hit where one aimed on the target. This suggests that participants dif- fered in where they aimed on the target as well as how accurately they fired. Future experiments could specifically test whether where participants aim on a target differs according to what video games they play. Indeed, participants could be given different instructions about where to aim (e.g., head vs. torso). The distance of the target and the type of target (e.g., humanoid vs. bull’s eye) could also be manipulated. Future research could also use different dependent variables, such as the number of shots participants take at the mannequin (all participants in the present experiment took 16 shots).
This experiment demonstrates the immediate effect of a single instance of playing a video game and its influence on firing a realistic gun. Although habitual exposure to violent shooting games significantly predicted total hits, headshots, and nonheadshots, the long-term effect of playing violent shooting games on firing aim and accuracy has not been experimentally assessed. Some experimental research has shown that the effects of violent video games on aggression can last at least 24 hr, if players ruminate about the violence in the game (Bushman & Gibson, 2011). It is therefore likely that repeated instances of shooting gameplay, in which players have more opportunities to learn and practice shooting behaviors, should also affect how accurately players fire a real gun several hours after the video game has been turned off. Experimental testing of long-term changes in how accurately a person fires a gun as well as where they aim remains a topic for future research.
Conclusion This experiment demonstrates how interactive media such as video games can affect learning and behavior. Playing a violent first-person shooting game for only 20 min increased accuracy in shooting a realistic gun, especially at the head. It is important to note that our results do not indicate that a person who plays violent shooting games is more likely to fire a real gun at a person. Playing the violent shooting game facilitated the learning of shooting behavior but does not necessarily make it more likely that the player would actually fire a real gun. These results instead indicate that if such a person were to fire a gun, he or she would fire more accurately and be more likely to aim for the head. These results indicate the powerful potential of video games to teach or increase skills, including potentially lethal weapon use.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Whitaker and Bushman 889
Funding The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
References Atlas, R., Cornett, L., Lane, D. M., & Napier, H. A. (1997). The use of animation in software train-
ing: Pitfalls and benefits. In M. Quinones & A. Ehrenstein (Eds.), Training for a rapidly changing
workplace: Applications of psychological research (pp. 281-302). Washington, DC: Association of
Psychological Science.
Bandura, A. (1965). Influence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative
responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589-595.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social leaning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
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.
Berkowitz, L. (1974). Some determinants of impulsive aggression: The role of mediated associations with
reinforcements for aggression. Psychological Review, 81, 165-176.
Betker, A. L., Desai, A., Nett, C., Kapadia, N., & Szturm, T. (2007). Game-based exercises for dynamic
short-sitting balance rehabilitation of people with chronic spinal cord and traumatic brain injuries.
Physical Therapy, 87, 1389-1398.
Branscombe, N. R., Weir, J. A., & Crosby, P. (1991). A three-factor scale of attitudes toward guns. Aggres-
sive Behavior, 17, 261-273.
Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination, distraction,
anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 724-731.
Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Stack, A. D. (1999). Catharsis, aggression, and persuasive influence:
Self-fulfilling or self-defeating prophecies? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 367-376.
Bushman, B. J., & Gibson, B. (2011). Violent video games cause an increase in aggression long after the
game has been turned off. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 29-32.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. P. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 63, 452-459.
Domjan, M. (Ed.). (2003). The principles of learning and behavior (5th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson/
Wadsworth.
Duque, G., Fung, S., Mallet, L., Posel, N., & Fleiszer, D. (2008). Learning while having fun: The use of
video gaming to teach geriatric house calls to medical students. Journal of the American Geriatrics
Society, 56, 1328-1332.
Entertainment Software Association. (2011). Essential facts about the computer and video game industry.
Washington, DC: Author.
Evans, S. W., Pelham, W., & Grudberg, M. V. (1995). The efficacy of notetaking to improve behavior and
comprehension of adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Exceptionality, 5, 1-17.
Flynn, S., Palma, P., & Bender, A. (2007). Feasibility of using the Sony Playstation 2 gaming platform for an
individual poststroke: A case report. Journal of Neurologic Physical Therapy, 31, 180-189.
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
890 Communication Research 41(7)
Gee, J. P. (2003). What video games have to teach us about learning and literacy. New York, NY:
Palgrave MacMillan.
Geen, R. G., & Quanty, M. B. (1977). The catharsis of aggression: An evaluation of a hypothesis. In
L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 1-37). New York, NY:
Academic Press.
Gentile, D. A. (2011). The multiple dimensions of video game effects. Child Development Perspectives, 5(2),
75-81.
Gentile, D. A., & Gentile, J. R. (2008). Violent video games as exemplary teachers: A conceptual analysis.
Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 37, 127-141.
Gopher, D., Weil, M., & Bareket, T. (1994). Transfer of skill from a computer game trainer to flight. Human
Factors, 36, 387-405.
Green, C. S., & Bavelier, D. (2003). Action video games modify visual attention. Nature, 423, 534-537.
Griffith, J. L., Voloschin, P., Gibb, G. D., & Bailey, J. R. (1983). Differences in eye-hand motor coordination
of video-game users and non-users. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 57, 155-158.
Grossman, D. (1995). On killing: The psychological cost of learning to kill in war and society. New York,
NY: Back Bay.
Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (1999). Stop teaching our kids to kill. New York, NY: Crown.
Kirsh, S. J. (2012). Children, adolescents, and media violence (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Konijn, E. A., Bijvank, M. N., & 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.
Markey, P. M., & Scherer, K. (2009). An examination of psychoticism and motion capture controls as mod-
erators of the effects of violent video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 407-411.
Motion Picture Association of America. (2011). Theatrical market statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
Onion, C. W. R., & Bartzokas, C. A. (1998). Changing attitudes to infection management in primary care: A
controlled trial of active versus passive guideline implementation strategies. Family Practice, 15, 99-104.
Patrick, U. W. (1989). Handgun wounding factors and effectiveness. Quantico, VA: Federal Bureau of
Investigation.
Raney, A. A., Smith, J. K., & Baker, K. (2006). Adolescents and the appeal of video games. In P. Vorderer &
J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 165-179). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Recording Industry Association of America. (2011). 2010 year-end shipment statistics. Washington, DC: Author.
Rosenberg, B. H., Landsittel, D., & Averch, T. D. (2005). Can video games be used to predict or improve
laparoscopic skills? Journal of Endourology, 19, 372-376.
Rosser, J. C., Lynch, P. J., Haskamp, L., Gentile, D. A., & Yalif, A. (2007). The impact of video games in
surgical training. Archives of Surgery, 142, 181-186.
Shapiro, J. P., Dorman, R. L., Burkey, W. M., Welker, C. J., & Clough, J. B. (1997). Development and factor analysis
of a measure of youth attitudes toward guns and violence. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 26, 311-320.
Thorndike, E. L. (1932). The fundamentals of learning. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
Vorderer, P. (2000). Interactive entertainment and beyond. In D. Zillmann & P. Vorderer (Eds.), Media enter-
tainment: The psychology of its appeal (pp. 21-36). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from
Whitaker and Bushman 891
Author Biographies
Jodi L. Whitaker is a PhD student in communication at The Ohio State University, USA.
Brad J. Bushman is a professor of communication and psychology at The Ohio State University, USA and is a professor of communication science at the VU University, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
at University of Denver on September 23, 2015crx.sagepub.comDownloaded from