Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

Influence of Video Games on Aggressive Play in Teenaged Children with Trait Hostility
Harriet Johnston
EDPS 612.02
April 17, 2014
Amanda Medland

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

Abstract

Theeffectofvideogameplayonaggressionisatopicthatisfrequentlybeing
exploredwithincreasingexposuretovideogamesinadolescentslives.Studiesare
commonlyaddressingtheeffectsofviolentvideogamesonaggression,butlittleinsight
hasbeengainedoneffectsofnonaggressivegamesoninherentlyaggressiveindividuals.
Thisstudyexaminestheeffectof4typesofvideogames(neutral,cooperative,
competitive,andaggressive)onstudentswhowereidentifiedashavingtraithostility.A
totalof60adolescents(gradesten,eleven,andtwelve)wererandomlyassignedtoplay
oneoffourvideogamesfor20minutes.ImmediatelyafterwardsameasureofAggressive
PlayRating(APR)wascompletedbytheparticipant.Theresultsidentifiedthatdespite
beingpredisposedtohostility,participantsofneutralandcooperativevideogameplay
showedsignificantlylowerAPRscoresthandidthosewithcompetitiveoraggressive
videogameexposure.Secondly,thestudysupportedpaststudiesresultsthataggressive
andcompetitivevideogamesencouragedmoreaggressiveandhostileresponseswhen
presentedwithneutralscenarios.
Introduction
Effects of violent video games on aggression
It is no surprise that media content has been increasing in violent exposure through
television, movies, and videogames. Unbelievably, Seppa (1997) reported that children aged 12
years have viewed more than 100, 000 acts of violence on television (Bartholow, 2002) and it is
safe to assume there have been increases in this number over the past 17 years. One step further,

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

the invention of video games allows not only players to view violent acts but to participate and
control them, and since videogames have become popular, adolescence spend more time engaged
in videogame play than watching television (Greitemeyer, Agather, Turner, & Gschwendtner,
2012). With the development of the first video games, developers are continually striving to
improve on the realistic graphic quality and allow users to play out experiences that they may not
have the opportunity to experience in real life. Because of the ever changing existence of
videogames, it is likely that studies that have been completed 10-15 years prior may show
limited insight into the effects of current day videogames (Gentile, Lunch, Linder, & Walsh,
2004). Although the videogame world offers countless genres of play, including educational,
cooperative, and competitive games, almost half of adolescents play video games that are violent
(Adachi & Willoughby, 2011), with boys playing more violent video games than girls (Gentile et
al., 2004). Almost 90% of videogames have some sort of violent content; with half of those
contain serious violence towards other players or characters (Carnagey, Anderson & Bushman,
2007; Gentile et al., 2004). Adachi & Willoughby (2001) found that 31% of adolescents reported
playing video games every day and 21% play at least five days a week. With all the exposure and
participation in violent video games and the frequency that adolescents play them, it is no
surprise that there have been numerous studies that look into the effects of violent videogame
play on social interactions and choices.
Results are consistent in identifying that violent video games show short-term increases
in the aggressive or hostile behaviours, thoughts, and emotions across all participants as well as
decrease pro-social behaviours (Gentile et al., 2004; Giumetti & Markey, 2007). This has been
shown through exposure to violent video games paired with increased aggression in
interpretation of ambiguous stories (Giumetti & Markey, 2007), delivering longer electrical

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

shocks and noise to opponents (Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004), and reacting faster to aggressive
words and an increase in perceiving hostile intent (Adachi & Willoughby, 2011). Teachers have
also found that students who play more violent games are also the children who participate in
physical fights and arguments with teachers and peers (Gentile et al., 2004). Immediate affects
can be seen after video game play, although there have been more controversial studies around
the long-term effects.
Some research has identified that delays of as little as 15 minutes can reduce the
aggressive outcomes so there is no longer significant association (Greitemeyer et al., 2012),
where as others believe thatlongtermeffectsofvideogameexposurecanresultinanegative
impactonbehaviour.Adachi&Willoughby(2011)identifiedthatvideogamescancreatenot
onlyaggressiveexpectations,butalsoaggressiveschemasintheplayerandinfluencethe
individualspersonalityandviewonaggression.Anaggressiveoutlook,bias,attitudeandbeliefs
areincreasedinlongtermplayers(Gentileetal,2004),aswellasanincreaseinlikelihoodthat
theplayerswillactinanaggressivemannerwhenfrustratedwereseen(Uhlmann&Swanson,
2004).Asmoreresearchisstartingtosurfaceonthelongtermaffectsofvideogameson
behaviours,thereisalsoresearchemergingontheeffectsinrelationtoparticulartraitsinthe
individualswhoplay.
Itisknownthattherearealargeportionofindividualswhorepeatedlyplayviolentvideo
games,whatislesscertainiswhethertheseindividualschoosemoreviolentvideogamesbecause
theyaremoreaggressiveinternallyoriftheviolentvideogamesinfluencetheaggressive
behaviours(Adachi&Willoughby,2011).Researchhasbeencompletedtolookintotraitsand
howthisplaysintotheimpactsofvideogames.Itisbelievedthatadolescentsthatratedhigheron

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

hostilitymeasuresweremorelikelytopreferviolentcontentinmediaandspentmoretime
playinggamesandwatchingtelevision(Gentileetal.,2004).Inadditionthereisresearchto
supportthatadolescentswithtraithostilityalsoexperiencemoreharmfuleffectsasaresultof
violentvideogameplaying(Giumetti&Markey,2007).Onthecontrast,itisalsohypothesized
thatindividualsthatdonotshowtraithostilitywillhavelittletonoshorttermeffectsofviolent
videogames(Giumetti&Markey,2007).Aswecansee,althoughresearchisevolving,thereare
stillmanyvariablesthatneedtobeconsideredwhenlookingintotheeffectsofvideogameplay.
Despite the vast array of clinical studies conducted to determine the association of
aggression and violent or competitive video games, the insight into the effects of neutral or
cooperative video games is relatively sparse (Greitemeyeretal.,2012).
Effects of neutral or cooperative video games on aggression
Despite the evidence that children who have aggressive or hostile traits show in increases
in aggressive behaviours as a result of videogame play, there is insight into video games
encouraging prosocial behaviours as well. With the development of the Internet, this expanded
the ability for cooperative play from individuals in their homes, as well as with other players all
over the world. Greitemeyer & Cox (2013) found that approximately 76% of teenagers engage in
video game play with other players, either at home or through the Internet. This allows players to
participate in multiplayer video games in which they can work together to complete goals
(Greitmeyer & Cox, 2013). Not only have video games allowed children to participate
cooperatively, there has also been an increase in cohesion between groups seen, as members
from different cultural, and ethnic groups can come together and participate as a single group
(Adachi & Willoughby, 2012). After engaging in cooperative or team video games, the
participants were more likely to engage in cooperative and helpful behaviours after gaming, and

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

this was seen after only 15 minutes of game play, and the cooperative behaviours increased with
repeated play (Greitemeyer et al, 2012; Greitemeyer & Cox, 2013). These findings even extend
past strictly cooperative video games. Adolescents who played violent games as a team were
more cooperative in life than if they were playing violent games as a single player (Ewoldsen,
Eno, Okdie, Velez, Guadagno, & DeCoster, 2012), proposing that the effects of violence can be
lessened if played cooperatively. This shows that the social effects of video games are contingent
both on what type of game are being played as well as how it is being played (Greitemeyer &
Cox, 2013).
It is clear that aggressive videogames have at minimum short term effects on aggression,
and that cooperative games can increase cooperative behaviours in the physical world. As seen
above, trait hostility has a large impact on the effects of videogame s on behaviour, but this has
only been tested on aggressive games. There is an absence of research completed to delve into
the effects of non-aggressive game play on individuals who show trait hostility. The current
study looks into the effects of neutral, cooperative, competitive and aggressive video games on
adolescents who have been identified with trait hostility.
Method
Participants
Adolescents were collected from grades ten, eleven, and twelve classrooms in the
Calgary Board of Education (CBE). Students were recruited randomly from the overall student
population of CBE students enrolled in mainstream classes and completed the Trait Hostility
Questionnaire to identify those who tested positive for trait hostility. Sixty students were
identified in grades ten (n=20), eleven (n=20) and twelve (n=20). Children who attended special
education were excluded from the study, as were children with motor and visual impairments.

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

Fifty-five percent of the students recruited were male, forty-five female, and the mean age was
16 years.
Measures and Materials
Neutral Video Game. The Sims 3 was chosen to represent the neutral component of videogame
play in this study. The Sims 3 was released in 2009 (2010 for gaming consoles Wii and Xbox)
and is a strategic life simulation video game in which players create avatars and then participate
in relationships and activities similar to real life (Electronic Arts Inc., 2014). The Sims 3 is rated
T Teen and during this study was offered to participants on the Xbox console.
Cooperative Video Game. The New Super Mario Bros. Wii was chosen to represent the
cooperative component of videogame play. This game was released in 2009, is rated E Everyone and provides the option of multiplayer mode, the players help each other real the goal
of saving the princess (Nintendo, 2014). Participants played in the multiplayer cooperative
option during which they were paired with another similar aged student and started playing
together from the first level.
Competitive Video Game. Call of Duty: World at War Final Fronts was chosen to represent the
competitive component of videogame play. This game was released in 2008 for PlayStation 2
and is rated T Teen (Activision, 2014). Call of Duty: World at War Final Fronts is a first
person shooter game that takes place during the end of World War II. The players role in this
version of Call of Duty is to completed campaigns to stop German and Japanese soldiers using a
wide array of weaponry.
Aggressive Video Game. Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas was chosen to represent the aggressive
portion of video game play. The San Andreas was released for PlayStation 2 in 2004 and Xbox
in 2005 and is rated M Mature for ages 17 and up (Rockstar Games, 2014). Grand Theft Auto

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

is a combination of driving, third person shooting and interactive gameplay. The San Andreas
version promotes extreme violence, and sexual content. Participants could play this game on
either PlayStation 2 or Xbox consoles.
Aggressive Play Rating Protocol. The Aggressive Play Rating (APR) scores were determined
through multiple choice test questions pertaining to neutral stories. The participants were
required to read through 5 scenarios and answer a number of questions around the theme, as well
as insight into the characters actions within the story. From this an aggressive play rating score
between zero and 50 was determined.
Procedure
The participants were informed that they were participating in a study to compare the
difference of the understanding of social cues between teenaged boys and girls. The students
came to the laboratory individually and were greeted by a female experimenter who let them
know that the other examiner was running behind schedule. Each student was given an informal
questionnaire to identify what gaming console they were most comfortable with, as well as a
conversation around past video game exposure. The female experimenter questioned how often
they played video games per week, as she led them into the testing room that had one of the
video game options. The experimenter told the participants that the experimenter should be ready
for them in 20 minutes, and that they were allowed to play the video game while they waited.
Participants played the games individually, with the exception of the cooperative play, in
which they were paired. 15 participants were assigned to each videogame with the exception of
the cooperative play game; Super Mario Brothers. For Super Mario Brothers, a 16th participant
was added in order to accomplish the cooperative play aspect, but scores were not included in the
overall study. The informal assessments insured they were familiar with the gaming console and

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

they met the age restrictions set by the Entertainment Software Rating Board (i.e. E-Everyone, TTeen, M-Mature). Participants were allowed to play the videogames for 20 minutes during which
time the participants received no guidelines or instruction on to how to play the games. The
participants were notified that they would have approximately 20 minutes to play, and then an
adult would come to retrieve them. After the 20 minutes expired, a separate examiner returned
and gave them the aggressive play rating protocol from which the aggressive play rating scores
were determined. For the participants in the cooperative test group, the children were taken to a
separate room so that all participants responded independently.
Results
It was anticipated that despite trait hostility, that the APRs for Competitive and
Aggressive games played would result in higher scores than those of Neutral or Cooperative
games. In order to investigate the relationships between each video game, a four condition oneway analysis of variance (ANOVA) was completed for the APR scores. Figure 1. Shows the APR
scores of means, which were determined for Neutral, Cooperative, Competitive, and Aggressive
Video Games groups.

10

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

Fig. 1. Mean of Aggressive Play Rating after Video Game Play

35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Neutral

Cooperative

Competitive

Aggressive

A between groups one-way ANOVA shows a value of f=13.862 identifying the model is a
good fit, and at a significance value of .000, supports the effect sizes between all video game
types. In order to identify which of the groups differ from each other, post hoc tests were
completed. For this, the Tukey HSD, Games-Howell, and Dunnett t multiple comparison
procedures were completed. See Table 1 for Tukey HSD results for each group comparison.

Table 1
Comparison of Video Game Types and Aggressive Play Rating
using Tukey HSD
Type of Video Game
Neutral

Cooperat
ive

Type of Video Game

Cooperat
ive
Competit
ive
Aggressi
ve
Neutral
Competit
ive
Aggressi

Mean
Difference

Std.
Error

3.02800

3.20419

0.781

-10.00000

3.20419

0.015

-15.00000

3.20419

.000

-3.02800

3.20419

.781

-12.02800
-18.02800

3.20419
3.20419

0.001
0.000

Sig.

11

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

ve
Competit
ive

Aggressi
ve

Neutral
Cooperat
ive
Aggressi
ve

10.00000

3.20419

0.015

12.02800

3.20419

0.001

-5.00000

3.20419

0.409

Neutral
Cooperat
ive
Competit
ive

15.00000

3.20419

0.000

18.02800

3.20419

0.000

5.00000

3.20419

0.409

The Games-Howell multiple comparisons produced similar results as Tukey HSD,

supporting significant values between Neutral/Cooperative vs Aggressive/Competitive games.
Across all post hoc tests, Aggressive and Competitive Videogames produced significantly
elevated APRs throughout the study (p>0.05), while Neutral and Cooperative scores remained
lower.

Discussion
The current study indicated that despite predisposed trait hostility, participants continue
to be impacted by the type of video game they are exposed to. Participants who played the
aggressive or competitive games interpreted scenarios and play situations are more aggressive,
threatening or hostile than did those who were engaged in neutral or cooperative video game
play. It is also important to note that cooperative video game play encouraged less aggressive
responses, even though participants were indicated as having elevated hostile responses when
compared to peers. Past research has indicated that naturally aggressive personalities show
increased aggression when engaged in violent video games, where as this study supports both

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

12

that theory as well as the opposite. It is possible to encourage inherently aggressive individuals to
increase pro-social skills if they are exposed to situations where cooperation is encouraged and
celebrated. This information is helpful for the application and teaching of high-risk children to
encourage cooperative and pro-social behaviours despite having aggressive tendencies.
Strengths
The sample of participants was gathered from a vast array of locations throughout the city of
Calgary. This ensured that the sample was depictive of characteristics of school-aged children
throughout the city. Of those, all children who were identified having trait hostility were included
in the study. Assignments of groups had no relationship to the level of trait hostility, which left
the potential for higher hostile participants to be assigned to neutral or cooperative video games,
as well as participants ranking lower on trait hostility to be assigned to the more violent video
games. This random assignment allows for insight into the effect of the video game on
aggression, despite being identified as having trait hostility.
It was confirmed that all children were comfortable with the gaming controllers and
consoles. In order to allow for accurate representation of play, the participants were not given
instructions on how to play the games, with the exception of cooperative in which the presence
of a second player cued multiplayer play. Each participant was left to play the game as typically
as naturally possible, engaging in which ever video game behaviours their particular game
allowed or encouraged.
Limitations
It is important to note the limitations of this study, as they drive the potential for future
research. First, this study addresses short-term impacts of video game play on aggressive play in
children with trait hostility. Despite results showing variances in the impact of games on these

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

13

children, the impact is only identified immediately after exposure to video games. This gives
little insight into how children are being impacted in their daily lives as a result of video game
play. Secondly, despite age ratings for games (E, T, M), children have been known to play games
recommended for older children. Within our study, children under the age of 17 were not
assigned to the Aggressive game, even if they had exposure to the game outside of testing. This
has the potential to skew the data, as younger children were automatically assigned to the less
aggressive games. In order to account for this, participants could be selected so all were eligible
for each game, so selection could be truly random. Lastly, although the children were all rated as
having trait hostility, no indication of range of scores was given. This is important information
that should be considered in order to correlate with APR scores. Would a high trait hostility score
predict a higher APR score even if assigned to the neutral or cooperative group? Would a lower
trait hostility score indicate a lower APR score if assigned to aggressive or competitive games?
Future research is needed with insight into levels of trait hostility, as all individuals identified as
having trait hostility will be equal.
The present study provided insight into positive effects of video games on adolescents
with trait hostility, but leaves room for improvement and expansion in the future in order to
identify the true effects.

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

14

References
Activision. (2014). Call of duty: world at war final fronts. Retrieved from:
http://www.callofduty.com
Adachi, P.J.C., & Willoughby, T. (2011). The effect of violent video games on aggression: is it
more than just violence? Aggression and Violent Behavior, 15, 55-62,
doi:10.1016/j.avb.2010.12.002
Adachi, P.J.C., & Willoughby, T. (2012). Do videogames promoted positive youth development?
Journal of Adolescent Research 2013, 28(2), 155-165, doi: 10.1177/07435584124654522
Bartholow, B.D., & Anderson, C.A. (2002). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behaviour: potential sex differences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283290, doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1502

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

15

Carnagey, N.L., Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2007). The effect of video game violence on
physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 43, 489-496, doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.003
Electronic Arts Inc. (2014). The sims 3. Retrieved from http://www.thesims.com/en-us
Ewoldsen, D.R., Eno, C.A., Okdie, B.M., Velez, J.A., Guadagno, R.E., & DeCoster, J. (2012).
Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent
cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15(5), doi:
10.1089/cyber.2011.0308
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P.J., Linder, J.R., & Walsh, D.A. (2004). The effects of violent video game
habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 5-22, doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.002
Giumetti, G. W., & Markey, P. M. (2007). Violent video games and anger as predictors of
aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1234-1243,
doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.005
Greitemeyer, T., Agthe, M., Turner, R., & Gschwendtner, C. (2012). Acting prosocially reduces
retaliation: effects of prosocial video games on aggressive behaviour. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 42, 235-242, doi: 10.1002/ejsp.1837
Greitemeyer, T., & Cox, C. (2013). Theres no I in team: effects of cooperative video games on
cooperative behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 224-228, doi:
10.1002/ejsp.1940

Running head: VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION IN TEENS

16

Nintendo. (2014). New super Mario bros. III. Retrieved from

http://mariobroswii.com
Rockstar Games (2014). Grand theft auto: san andreas. Retrieved from
http://www.rockstargames.com/sanandreas/
Uhlmann, E., & Swanson, J. (2004). Exposure to violent video games increases automatic
aggressiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 41-52, doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.004