write an argument essay(800 words)

O R I G I N A L P A P E R

Violent Video Games Don’t Increase Hostility in Teens, but They Do Stress Girls Out

Christopher J. Ferguson1 • Benjamin Trigani1 •

Steven Pilato1 • Stephanie Miller1 • Kimberly Foley1 •

Hayley Barr1

Published online: 21 April 2015 � Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract The impact of violent video games (VVGs) on youth remains unclear given inconsistent results in past literature. Most previous experimental studies have been done

with college students, not youth. The current study examined the impact of VVGs in an

experimental study of teens (12–18). Participants were randomized to play either a violent

or non-violent video game. Teens also reported their levels of stress and hostility both

before and after video game play. Hostility levels neither decreased nor increased fol-

lowing violent game play, and Bayesian analyzes confirmed that results are supportive of

the null hypothesis. By contrast, VVG exposure increased stress, but only for girls. The

impact of VVGs on teen hostility is minimal. However, players unfamiliar with such

games may find them unpleasant. These results are put into the context of Uses and

Gratifications Theory with suggestions for how medical professionals should address the

issue of VVG play with concerned parents.

Keywords Video games � Violence � Adolescents � Stress

Introduction

The issue of whether VVGs impact youth hostility remains hotly contested in the scholarly

community. Professional organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics [1]

and American Psychological Association [2] have released policy statements linking

VVGs to problematic behaviors in youth. However, these statements have been contro-

versial, with some scholars arguing that they are misleading and biased [3]. Recently a

group of over 230 scholars have written to the American Psychological Association [4]

& Christopher J. Ferguson [email protected]

1 Department of Psychology, Stetson University, 421 N. Woodland Blvd., Deland, FL 32729, USA

123

Psychiatr Q (2016) 87:49–56 DOI 10.1007/s11126-015-9361-7

asking that their policy statement be retired due to inaccuracies in this statement. Thus, the

issue of whether VVGs do or do not contribute to hostility in youth remains unclear.

Recent longitudinal studies of VVG play and risky aggressive behaviors among youth

have failed to support beliefs in long term effects. Such studies have suggested that VVG

effects are miniscule and may be due to competitive aspects of the games rather than

violent content [5] or are entirely negligible [6]. Others have suggested that the impact of

video games on youth well-being may be dose specific, with the best outcomes for

moderate users, with both non-users and addicted users demonstrating greater problems

[7]. Even in such circumstances, video game effect sizes appear to be very small, poten-

tially of little practical significance. One recent meta-analysis of studies of VVG use in

children found that the evidence for harmful effects on a range of mental health related

outcomes, including aggression, was weak [8]. However, it remains possible that short-

term effects of VVG exposure may exist even if long-term effects appear to be less of a

concern.

To date, approximately one hundred experimental studies of VVG effects have been

conducted, although the majority of these have been with college students and have

demonstrated considerable methodological weaknesses [9]. Such studies often match

violent and non-violent game conditions poorly introducing significant confounds [10].

Many also use unstandardized aggression outcome measures, with a demonstrated po-

tential for false positive results [11] or which have proven difficult to replicate [12, 13].

Thus, room still remains for experimental studies of youth using better methodology.

One way of addressing the potential for false-positive results that can occur in good-

faith when scholars reanalyze results over and over until they get results they expected to

see is through the pre-registration of research protocols. Such pre-registration effectively

locks in a data analysis plan, reducing the flexibility that scholars have to reanalyze data

repeatedly using different strategies until results in line with prior expectations are

achieved. Indeed, prior meta-analysis has indicated that researcher expectancy effects have

likely resulted in spurious results in VVG research [8]. Increased use of pre-registered

designs with standardized well-validated outcomes could help elucidate true effects in this

field. With this in mind, the current study seeks to improve upon existing data by using

standardized outcome measures with a pre-registered research design. The current study

will examine the evidence for two hypotheses, namely:

H1 VVG exposure results in short-term increases in hostility in youth.

H2 VVG exposure results in short-term decreases in stress in youth.

The second hypothesis was included to examine commonly expressed beliefs by youth

that video games, including VVGs can reduce stress. Some previous research has indicated

that both violent and non-violent games are effective in reducing provoked stress in youth

adults [14] but the current design will examine this in a sample of youth using day-to-day

rather than provoked stress.

Methods

As noted above, the basic design, hypotheses and analyses were pre-registered through the

Open Science Framework: https://osf.io/vn3zk/ Initial plans were made to assess parental

media supervision but, in some cases, the adolescents who participated were 18 and

unaccompanied by a parent and, thus, this measure was dropped from the initial plan.

50 Psychiatr Q (2016) 87:49–56

123

Participants

Participants in the current study were 43 youth (12–18) recruited from a small local

community in the south of the United States. Participants were offered a $10 gift certificate

as compensation for their participation. A majority of the participants (67.4 %) were male

and Caucasian American (74.4 %) with smaller numbers of African American (9.3 %)

Hispanic (7.0 %) or Asian (2.3 %) youth as well as those who identified as ‘‘other’’

(7.0 %). Mean age of the participants was 15.37 (SD = 2.38).

Measures

Trait Aggression

In addition to a demographic form including self-reported video game consumption, youth

were asked to fill out the 15-item short form of the Buss and Warren [15] aggression

questionnaire (AQ). This Likert scale survey is designed to measure trait aggression and

served as a control variable in the current study. Coefficient alpha with the current sample

was .72.

State Hostility

Feelings of hostility were operationally defined as the total score on the State Hostility

Scale [16]. The State Hostility Scale (SHS) is a 35-item, 5-point Likert-type scale in which

respondents are asked to report their current mood. A series of adjectives are presented to

the respondent and they are asked to rate how strongly they disagree or agree (i.e., 1 for

‘‘strongly disagree’’ and 5 for ‘‘strongly agree’’) with each word. In this study, the SHS was

highly reliable at pretest (Cronbach’s a = .83) and posttest (Cronbach’s a = .87).

State Stress

In order to examine current stress, the state anxiety form of the State/Trait Anxiety In-

ventory (STAI, [17]) was employed. The STAI consists of 20 Likert items such as ‘‘I feel

calm’’ or ‘‘I feel nervous’’ which measure current anxiety. With the current sample the

STAI demonstrated good internal reliability at pretest (Cronbach’s a = .84) and posttest (Cronbach’s a = .87).

Procedure

Participants and guardians were first given an informed consent form. After consenting to

the procedure, youth were first asked to fill out the SHS and STAI pre-tests. Pretesting

allows for an examination of change in scores. Randomized videogames groups did not

differ on outcome variables at pretest. Without any pretesting, any difference in scores

post-test may be due to differential decreases in hostility rather than increases and some

previous research has supported this possibility [14]. After pretesting, participants were

given a cover story regarding potential influences of video games on cognitive learning.

Participants were then randomized to play either a violent (Tomb Raider 2013) or non-

violent (FIFA) video game. These games were chosen in consultation with an expert in the

area of carefully matching video games on variables other than violent content so that

Psychiatr Q (2016) 87:49–56 51

123

confounds are not introduced (e.g. 10). Participants were allowed to play the games for a

45-min period. Following gameplay, participants filled out the posttest SHS and STAI

scores as well as the AQ. They were then debriefed, probed for suspiciousness, given the

$10 gift card and thanked for their participation. All procedures passed local IRB and were

designed to meet federal ethical standards for human participant research.

Data Analysis

As indicated in the pre-registration, data analysis consisted of a 2 9 2 mixed factorial

design (time 9 game) with trait aggression as a covariate. Bayes factors were also cal-

culated to offer further support for the null or alternate hypotheses.

Results

Hostility

Results for hostility indicated a significant interaction between time (pre/post) and trait

aggression [F(1, 40) = 6.00; p = .019 r = .36, 95 % CI .07–.60], as well as a main effect

for time itself [F(1, 40) = 4.83; p = .034 r = .33, 95 % CI .03–.57]. However, no main

effect for game condition was observed, nor any interaction with time. Because null

effects, particularly with relatively small samples can be hard to interpret, these results

were further analyzed using Bayes factors that can provide greater evidence for null results

than possible through traditional NHST. Mean differences between the violent and non-

violent game conditions were analyzed using Bayes factors calculated through a calculator

provided by Zoltan Dienes [18]. Dienes’ method for calculating Bayes factors is par-

ticularly conservative regarding support for null hypotheses. Such support is indicated by

scores lower than 1.0, whereas support for the alternative hypothesis is offered by scores

higher than 1.0. Using an assumption of d = .61 as indicated in a previous meta-analysis

[19] for the current contrast between violent and non-violent video games, the Bayes factor

for hostility was .46 indicating moderately strong support for the null hypothesis. Note that

this analysis is only for post-test data and does not include trait aggression as covariate.

Thus, combined with the already conservative nature of the Bayes factor calculator, this is

a conservative estimate of support for the null hypothesis.

Stress

Analyses of stress found no significant effects for either time or game condition. However

the interaction between the two approached significance [F(1, 40) = 3.80; p = .058

r = .29, 95 % CI - .01, .54] with participants becoming more stressed following VVG

play. Bayes factors were once again used to assess the support this result had for the

alternative hypothesis. As there is little prior research in the area of stress reduction, the

expectation of d = .61 was once again used for consistency. The Bayes factor here for post

test scores was .59 suggesting little difference between post-test scores. Nonetheless, the

interaction effect was tested in a second Bayes factor analysis, returning a value of 1.4

suggesting weak support for the alternative hypothesis (albeit in the opposing direction

from expected). An examination of means revealed that, stress level for male players did

not increase when playing the violent game (29.47 at pre vs 29.56 at post) but stress levels

52 Psychiatr Q (2016) 87:49–56

123

for female players did (30.25 at pre vs 38.63 at post) suggesting that the increase in stress

due to playing violent video games is found entirely among female players.

Discussion

Whether violent video games do or do not increase hostility in youth has been a source of

controversy now for several decades. The current study sought to address this controversy

with a randomized experimental design, preregistered and using standardized outcome

measures to reduce researcher expectancy effects. Current evidence did not support beliefs

that youth hostility increases due to VVG play. Although the sample was small, Bayes

factor analysis confirmed that the results are not likely due to Type II error and represent a

true null result. However, contrary to expectations, no support was found for the belief that

VVGs reduce stress either. Male players remained steady in terms of stress level, whereas

female players increased in stress following VVG play.

Taken together these results suggest that it is simplistic to make ‘‘one size fits all’’

statements about VVG (or non-VVG for that matter) effects. Indeed, rather than objec-

tionable content having direct effects in predictable directions, the impact of particular

games (whether violent or not) may have more to do with the degree to which players

enjoy them and match well with the game than anything specific to the game itself. For

instance, previous research has indicated that players can become hostile when frustrated

with a game, but that violent content has little impact [20]. This fits well with our ob-

servation of female participants becoming stressed after the VVG condition. Although

gaming among young females is increasing, girls continue to tend to choose fewer violent

games than boys. Thus, girls may have found the violent game to be more frustrating and a

poorer match for their interests, thus increasing stress. It may be erroneous to assume that

violent content, in particular, has a negative emotional impact on girls, and more appro-

priate to suggest that they are simply annoyed by a type of game they might not choose to

play.

This is also consistent with Uses and Gratifications Theory [21] which suggests that

media use, whether by youth or adults, is not a passive process in which media is injected

into cognition and mechanically imitated, but rather a complex process in which indi-

viduals select media according to predetermined needs and expectations. Thus, individuals

may choose specific games in expectation that those games may induce particular desired

mood states. Media use becomes an active process in which users actively select, shape and

process their media world, often in very idiosyncratic ways. From this perspective, media

effects are expected to be distinctive, subtle, and user generated rather than content

generated.

Testing such an approach with experimental designs can be challenging, given that

randomized experimental designs create an artificial situation in which participants are

forced to consume media they might not otherwise choose. When such media is incon-

sistent with what the individual might have chosen to watch or play, this could in and of

itself induce hostility that has little to do with the content of the media. However, future

experimental designs could examine for this by randomizing individuals into conditions in

which they are allowed to choose media. It may seem initially counterintuitive to ran-

domize participants into a choice condition, but such designs could allow for the ability to

examine the degree to which active participation in media relative to forced consumption

influences behavior.

Psychiatr Q (2016) 87:49–56 53

123

Regarding conversations between pediatricians and parents, data is accumulating that

blanket warnings and ‘‘abstinence only’’ advice regarding VVGs may not be terribly

constructive. Debates about VVGs in the scholarly community will undoubtedly continue

for some time, but evidence suggests that the debate over VVGs has more akin to past

moral panics regarding other media ranging from dime novels to comic books to rock

music. Thus, medical professionals may be well advised to avoid hyperbole in warnings

about video games. Instead medical professionals may wish to advocate an idiosyncratic

approach, noting that individual children may have very different responses to both VVGs

and non-VVGs, and that the level of concern is likely akin to the hostility people may feel

when playing a variety of other games (card, chess, etc.) as well. Encouraging parental

involvement in family gameplay and open conversations between parents and their chil-

dren, as well as monitoring for potential problem behaviors, whether VVGs or non-VVGs

are played (see [22]) may be more constructive than blanket proscriptions based solely on

morally valenced content.

The current study is naturally not without limitations. The most obvious of these is the

small sample size with reduced power. This was offset somewhat by the use of Bayes

factors to increase confidence in the null results for hostility. However, replication with

larger samples would be welcome. Further it is difficult to assume that single games can

adequately represent either VVGs or non-VVGs. Indeed the term ‘‘violent video game’’ is

used so loosely in academia as to apply to games ranging from Pac-Man through Minecraft

through Grand Theft Auto 5. Such a broad term arguably has very little true conceptual

utility and it may be helpful for scholars to begin to consider conceptualization of video

games that move beyond simple violent/prosocial dichotomies that are likely more mis-

leading than particularly useful [23].

In conclusion, the current study adds to data suggesting it may be time to reconsider the

narrative on the VVG debate. It is hoped that this study contributes positively to future

discussions of this issue.

Acknowledgments All authors received no grants, honorarium or other funding to contribute to this report.

Conflict of interest The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare and are solely responsible for the study design, analysis and decision to submit for publication.

References

1. American Academy of Pediatrics. Media violence policy statement. Pediatrics 124(5):1495–1503, 2009. 2. American Psychological Association. Resolution on violence in video games and interactive media.

2005. http://www.apa.org/about/governance/council/policy/interactive-media.pdf. Accessed March 7 2011.

3. Ferguson CJ. Violent video games and the supreme court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v EMA. American Psychologist 68(2):57–74, 2013.

4. Consortium of Scholars. Scholar’s Open Statement to the APA Task Force on Violent Media. 2013. http://www.scribd.com/doc/223284732/Scholar-s-Open-Letter-to-the-APA-Task-Force-On-Violent-Media- Opposing-APA-Policy-Statements-on-Violent-Media. Accessed 18 Apr 2015.

5. Willoughby T, Adachi PC, Good M. A longitudinal study of the association between violent video game play and aggression among adolescents. Developmental Psychology 48(4):1044, 2012. doi:10.1037/ a0026046.

6. Breuer J, Vogelgesang J, Quandt T, Festl R. Violent video games and physical aggression: Evidence for a selection effect among adolescents. Psychology of Popular Media Culture (in press).

54 Psychiatr Q (2016) 87:49–56

123

7. Przybylski AK. Electronic gaming and psychosocial adjustment. Pediatrics 134, e716–e722, 2014. 8. 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. Perspectives on Psychological Science (in press).

9. Griffiths M. Video game bans: the debate about guns, GTA, and real-life violence. The Independent. 2015. http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/gaming/video-game-bans-the-debate- about-guns-gta-and-reallife-violence-10057296.html. Accessed 18 Apr 2015.

10. Adachi PC, Willoughby T. The effect of violent video games on aggression: Is it more than just the violence? Aggression and Violent Behavior 16(1):55–62, 2010. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.12.002.

11. Elson M, Mohseni M, Breuer J, Scharkow M, Quandt T. Press CRTT to measure aggressive behavior: The unstandardized use of the competitive reaction time task in aggression research. Psychological Assessment 26(2):419, 2014. doi:10.1037/a0035569.

12. Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Video games and prosocial behavior: A study of the effects of non-violent, violent and ultra-violent gameplay. Computers in Human Behavior 41:8–13, 2014. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.09. 002.

13. Tear M, Nielson M. Failure to demonstrate that playing violent video games diminishes prosocial behavior. PLoS One 8(7):e68382, 2013

14. Valadez JJ Ferguson CJ. Just a game after all: Violent video game exposure and time spent playing effects on hostile feelings, depression, and visuospatial cognition. Computers in Human Behavior 28:608–616, 2012.

15. Buss AH, Warren WL. Aggression Questionnaire Manual. Los Angeles, Western Psychological Ser- vices, 2000.

16. Anderson CA, Deuser W, DeNeve K. Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 21:434–448, 1995.

17. Spielberger CD, Gorsuch RL, Lushene R, Vagg PR, Jacobs GA. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA, Consulting Psychologists Press, 1983.

18. Dienes Z. Making the most of your data with Bayes. 2014. http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/ Zoltan_Dienes/Bayes.htm. Accessed 18 Apr 2015.

19. Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, Saleem M. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Psy- chological Bulletin 136(2):151, 2010. doi:10.1037/a0018251.

20. Przybylski AK, Deci EL, Rigby CS, Ryan RM. Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 106(3), 441–457, 2014. doi:10.1037/a0034820.

21. Sherry JL, Lucas K, Greenberg BS, Lachlan K. Video Game Uses and Gratifications as Predicators of Use and Game Preference. In Vorderer P, Bryant J, Vorderer P, Bryant J (Eds) Playing Video Games: Motives, Responses, and Consequences, Mahwah, Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 213–224, 2006.

22. Griffiths MD, Kuss DJ, King DL. Video game addiction: Past, present and future. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 8(4):308–318, 2012.

23. Ivory J. Video games as a multifaceted medium: A review of quantitative social science research on video games and a typology of video game research approaches. Review of Communication Research 1(1):31–68, 2013.

Christopher J. Ferguson, PhD is department chair of psychology at Stetson University in DeLand, FL. He has authored numerous articles on the topic of video game violence. He also author of a novel, Suicide Kings, and numerous short stories. His web-site is www.christopherjferguson.com/.

Benjamin Trigani is a graduate of Stetson University, having worked in the laboratory of Dr. Ferguson. He will be attending the Massachusetts School of Professional Psychology as a doctoral student.

Steven Pilato is an undergraduate student in psychology at Stetson University. He has worked with Dr. Ferguson as a research and teaching assistant for several years.

Stephanie Miller is an undergraduate student in psychology at Stetson University. She has worked with Dr. Ferguson as a research and teaching assistant for several years.

Psychiatr Q (2016) 87:49–56 55

123

Kimberly Foley is an undergraduate student in psychology at Stetson University. She has worked with Dr. Ferguson as a research and teaching assistant for several years.

Hayley Barr is an undergraduate student in psychology at Stetson University. She has worked with Dr. Ferguson as a research and teaching assistant for several years.

56 Psychiatr Q (2016) 87:49–56

123

Copyright of Psychiatric Quarterly is the property of Springer Science & Business Media B.V. and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.