Bloodlust spell from bloody video games (Barlett et al., 2008)

There are a variety of choices for my latest post and things I should do:

1- My comparison of the Byron Report with the NIMF’s and other reports, mainly on the presentation of the research on video games and their recommendations.
2- My post on the connection between violent video games and violent behaviours of people, i.e. violent crime and such. I thought of writing it for weeks, thinking of expanding on what is currently known, but never had the spare time.
3- An overhyped journal article about first person shooters and the third person effect.
4- My seminar paper for my class on Nick Yee’s Proteus effect.
5- Writing up my C.V. for a part-time job.
6- My reading of an issue in the American Behavioral Scientist.

However, compelling circumstances lead me to post about an interesting article from Christopher Barlett, a grad student at Iowa State University.

Abstract

The current study utilized the General Aggression Model, with an emphasis on aggression-related priming, to explore the different effects on hostility, physiological arousal, and state aggression in those who played a violent video game (Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance) with differing levels of blood (maximum, medium, low, and off). Simple effects analyses showed that those in the maximum blood and medium blood conditions had a significant increase in hostility and physiological arousal, while those in the low blood and no blood conditions did not have such an increase in arousal and hostility. Further analyses indicated that those in the maximum and medium blood conditions used the character’s weapon significantly more often than those in the low and blood absent conditions. Implications and future research are discussed.

Playing violent video games and aggressive political opinions (Eyal et al., 2006)

Reasons why I shouldn’t be writing this blog at this moment:

1. Writing my draft for my thesis paper
2. Writing my detailed opinion piece on the Byron Report (due last week)
3. Writing my seminar paper
4. Finding a part-time job

But the one reason I’m writing is because I’m worried that I would forget the eureka moment I had during my seminar class when someone talked about political conservatism as a motivated social cognition and the mechanism behind, one of them on priming. Since VG research also touches on priming, I found one interesting article that deals with such relations. Hope someone writes me a summary.

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between young people’s exposure to media violence and their aggressive political opinions (APO), which were defined as support for positions that involve forceful resolution to social or political issues. Students from 2 U.S. universities completed surveys assessing their APO, exposure to violent media, authoritarianism, trait aggressiveness, political leaning, personal experience with crime, and demographics. Results revealed that violent television exposure significantly predicted several forms of APO above and beyond the control variables. Playing violent video games, however, predicted only a few aggressive political opinions. The results of this study support the reliability and validity of the APO measure, shed light on the relationship between exposure to violent media content and political opinions, and suggest some important differences between television and video game content in the effects process.

Relations between violent video games, family violence or intrinsic violence motivation (Ferguson et al., 2008)

WHY at this time?! I have my thesis presentation due tomorrow, my draft paper due the day after and now Brandon Erickson posted a paper by Christopher Ferguson, whose growing presence in my Video Game Psych-Research library is getting my full attention. But why at this time?!

Someone at gamepolitics.com mentioned getting a copy of the paper, but I think the publishers would want monetary compensation. Now that’s a big problem where journalists can’t get their hands on first-hand scientific information, but that’s another story. But I’m an undergrad with access…

Well for now I’m going to skip the rationale and theoretical part of the paper, it’s best to read Brandon’s post before moving on to my post here. Anyways I skimmed on to the methods and results section and skipped their discussion or interpretation part.

Abstract

Two studies examined the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression or violence in the laboratory and in real life. Study 1 participants were either randomized or allowed to choose to play a violent or nonviolent game. Although males were more aggressive than females, neither randomized exposure to violent-video-game conditions nor previous real-life exposure to violent video games caused any differences in aggression. Study 2 examined correlations between trait aggression, violent criminal acts, and exposure to both violent games and family violence. Results indicated that trait aggression, family violence, and male gender were predictive of violent crime, but exposure to violent games was not. Structural equation modeling suggested that family violence and innate aggression as predict.

Affective response to video games: effects of personality, gender and in-game reinforcement (Chumbley & Griffiths, 2006)

I am getting the impression that American and European psychologists have differing views on video game effects.

Abstract

Previous research on computer games has tended to concentrate on their more negative effects (e.g., addiction, increased aggression). This study departs from the traditional clinical and social learning explanations for these behavioral phenomena and examines the effect of personality, in-game reinforcement characteristics, gender, and skill on the emotional state of the game-player. Results demonstrated that in-game reinforcement characteristics and skill significantly effect a number of affective measures (most notably excitement and frustration). The implications of the impact of game-play on affect are discussed with reference to the concepts of “addiction” and “aggression.”

Appeal of violent video games to lower educated aggressive adolescent boys (Lemmens & Bushman, 2006)

This article came up in my mind while I was in my shower, I was thinking about the Konijn et al. (2007) article and one of its methodological limitation of using boys from a lower-echelon education level instead of a representative sample of the entire youth population. In any case, this article here looks into education as a factor in aggressiveness and violent video game use.

 Abstract

The objective of this study was to test the effect of individual differences on appeal and use of video games. Participants were 299 adolescent boys from lower and higher secondary schools in the Netherlands and Belgium. In general, boys were most attracted to violent video games. Boys that scored higher in trait aggressiveness and lower in empathy were especially attracted to violent games and spent more time playing video games than did boys lower in trait aggressiveness. Lower educated boys showed more appreciation for both violent and nonviolent games and spent more time playing them than did higher educated boys. The present study showed that aggressive and less empathic boys were most attracted to violent games. The fact that heavy users of violent games show less empathy and higher aggressiveness suggests the possibility of desensitization. Other studies have shown that playing violent games increases aggressiveness and decreases empathy. These results combined suggest the possibility of a violence cycle. Aggressive individuals are attracted to violent games. Playing violent games increases aggressiveness and decreases empathy, which in turn leads to increased appreciation and use of violent games.

I’ll read it as soon as I can… 

Lemmens, J. S., & Bushman, B. J. (2006). The appeal of violent video games to lower educated aggressive adolescent boys from two countries. CyberPsychology & Behavior, 9(5), 638-641.

Violent video games studied as a teaching tool (Gentile & Gentile, 2008)

Now Andrew Eisen asked some questions about the study in gamepolitics.com and I can’t help but to try to answer them. The best practice of getting the right answers is to e-mail the authors themselves, the contact info should be on the first page.

Abstract

This article presents conceptual and empiricalanalyses of several of the ‘‘best practices’’ of learning and instruction, and demonstrates how violent video games use them effectively to motivate learners to persevere in acquiring and mastering a number of skills, to navigate through complex problems and changing environments, and to experiment with different identities until success is achieved. These educational principles allow for the generation of several testable hypotheses, two of which are tested with samples of 430 elementary school children (mean age 10 years), 607 young adolescents (mean age 14 years), and 1,441 older adolescents (mean age 19 years). Participants were surveyed about their video game habits and their aggressive cognitions and behaviors.

The first hypothesis is based on the principle that curricula that teach the same underlying concepts across contexts should have the highest transfer. Therefore, students who play multiple violent video games should be more likely to learn aggressive cognitions and behaviors than those who play fewer.

The second hypothesis is based on the principle that long-term learning is improved the more practice is distributed across time. Therefore, students who play violent video games more frequently across time should be more likely to learn aggressive cognitions and behaviors than those who play the same types of games for equivalent amounts of time but less frequently. Both hypotheses were supported. We conclude by describing what educators can learn from the successful instructional and curriculum design features of video games.

Now on to the questions:

“Why was a second aggression sample only done with the elementary school kids?”

Can’t really answer right away, need time. Maybe after mid-december when i’m done with undergrad thesis proposal.

“How significant was the aggression increase? I look at the table in the study and I have to wonder what the difference between a .33 and .44 overall physical aggression index is.” The table he’s refering is”Table 1″

Now I might be able to answer that. Now the table only show the raw correlational data, you can’t compare correlational scores to predict something. so they used logisitic regression (see in wikipedia).

Now speaking of only the 3-5th graders, they’re trying to predict variables measured at time 1 to time 2 ( measures take on november-February and measures taken April-May). So they controlled several variables from being a factor into their calculation: sex, race, age, lag(?), weekly amounts of video game play, and time 1 hostile attribution bias.

Therefore, figure 1 is what needs to look at, but I haven’t been taught on how to read logistical regressions. so i’m just reading from the text. So controlling all these variables, they found that playing multiple violent video games influence kids concept of aggression as a normal thing and will see things in aggressive terms, so with an aggressive cognition, which would result in more aggressive behaviours. Unfortunately, I do know they have a significant effect, but how large is the effect? Well, i don’t know. Maybe it’s small like Patrick Markey said?

 Update(11/02/08): I’ve finally read the article, see my comments after the break.

Technological advancement and violence exposure (Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2007)

I am supposed to be writing something more important that, but somehow it feels more fun (or easy) to be reporting on academic studies.

Abtract

The possible impact of technological advancement on video games’ effects—particularly in the case of violent games—has often been discussed but has not been thoroughly explored by empirical research. The present investigation employed a 2 × 2 between-subjects factorial experiment to examine the interplay of technological advancement and violence by exposing participants (N = 120) to either a newer or older version of a violent or nonviolent game and measuring these factors’ effects on players’ sense of presence, involvement, physiological arousal (measured by skin conductance), self-reported arousal, and affective and cognitive aggression. The results indicate that technological advancement increased participants’ sense of presence, involvement, and physiological and self-reported arousal. Neither advancement nor violence had statistically significant effects on accessibility of players’ aggressive thoughts, but there is some tentative evidence that violent game content increased players’ state hostility. Theoretical and practical implications of findings are discussed, and recommendations are made for future research.

One of the technological variables Jack Thompson to argue his case against violent video games is realism and technological advancement. Jack Thompson et al. believes that as games become more realistic, it is more likely to generate psychos on a massacre (and more lawsuits on a court, more laws on a legislature, more restrictions on a video game, more violence on a country) because it blurs the boundaries of reality and fantasy.

Counter-arguments from gamers and the industry are that realism have nothing to do with individuals distinction between reality and fantasy because they do make a distinction between them, even among children. However, Gentile et al. (2007) argue that it is irrelevant and that only violent content in video games have an effect on individuals’ aggression, adult or child. IMO, those who don’t make a distinction between reality and fantasy would already be diagnosed with a mental disorder.

So in this study by Ivory and Kalyanaraman, they will be looking at how video games of different eras differ on individuals’ aggressive cognitions and affect. Other variables included are presence (I’m weak in explaining it: the feeling of actually being in a virtual environment while still feeling in being in the physical world), involvement (“a psychological state experienced as a consequence of focusing one’s energy and attention on a coherent set of stimuli or meaningfully related activities and events”) and arousal.

Video Game Violence and the Female Game Player: Self- and Opponent Gender Effects on Presence and Aggressive Thoughts (Eastin, 2006)

Okay this is my last one for today… I hope. Now following Dr.Eastin’s academic trail, he wrote an article published last year. Since I’m trained in APA, I do find that the words in the title seemed so wrong. All capitalized, how strange…

Abstract

Adding depth and breadth to the general aggression model, this paper presents three experiments that test the relationships among user and opponent gender representation, opponent type, presence, and aggressive thoughts from violent video game play. Studies 1 and 2 suggest that females experience greater presence and more aggressive thoughts from game play when a gender match between self and game character exists. Studies 2 and 3 indicate that playing against a human opponent (rather than a computer) increases aggressive thoughts. Finally, although Studies 1, 2, and 3 indicate that playing as a female against a male opponent increases aggressive thoughts, Studies 1 and 2 suggest that playing as a male against a female opponent consistently and significantly decreases aggressive thoughts.

In this study, Eastin examined the relations on the effect of gender representation in a series of experiments. Now, gender representation means the player’s character’s gender and the opponent’s gender, either from the character or from the opponent player. Other examined relations are the concept of presence, agency of the opponent (human player vs. computer player).

Now, the dependent variable is aggressive thoughts of players (cognition).

One of the aggression factors of violent video games is identification, it is especially true for FPS games. Some games allow a creation process of which players can represent themselves within the game world, such as height, weight, clothes, skin color, hair style and gender. Hence, this creates a connection and an emotional investment between one’s identity and the avatar’s identity. As these identities are connected, in-game behaviours activate cognitive schema within individuals. In FPS games, psychologists would usually view these in-game behaviours as aggressive and violent for good reasons. Thus, repetition of aggressive behaviours and a strong identification to violent characters would lead to more easily accessible cognitive schema of aggression. Mind you, this does not translate directly into aggressive behaviours or attitudes as said in other studies.

Eastin wondered whether gender would be a factor in character identification. For example, a women who plays a female game character would be more likely to aggress. IMO, that depends on how someone views femininity, since it being female can be as caring, compassionate and non-violent. Well I’ll have to think on it further…

Tied to gender representation is presence. I’m a little weak on the concept of presence, as it is a relatively recent concept in social science. Eastin follows presence as “feeling in one even when located in another.” (p.354) However, there are three aspects of “presence”: social, spatial and self. What Eastin is more likely looking at is self-presence and social presence, which fits in this study’s operational definition.

In relation of presence to FPS games, players experience a strong sense of presence, since it is first-person view, we can interact with game objects, or get up-close and personal with the enemy, but importantly serve a point of reference within the virtual environment. I’m not sure if you can follow my summary, but that’s the best I can do.

Digital game playing and direct and indirect aggression in early adolescence: The roles of age, social intelligence, and parent-child communication (Wallenius et al., 2007)

This article was very tricky and again found it by luck. They called video games as digital games, which confounds my search. Again, I seem to can’t resist writing more since that praise from John Rice, Am I that easily pleased?

Abstract

The roles of age, social intelligence and parent-child communication in moderating the association between digital game playing and direct and indirect aggression were examined in 478 Finnish 10- and 13-year-old schoolchildren based on self-reports. The results confirmed that digital game violence was directly associated with direct aggression, especially at age 10, but only among boys. The moderating role of social intelligence was substantiated among older boys: game violence was associated with indirect aggression among those with high level of social intelligence. Further, as hypothesized, digital game playing was associated with direct aggression especially when parent-child communication was poor, but only among boys. Our findings emphasize the importance of individual and situational factors as moderators of the link between game violence and aggression.

Wallenius et al. investigated several interesting variables on the effects of violent video games. I will name them and the rationale behind them.

From birth until adulthood, the body undergoes many developments and changes, physically and mentally. This is quite noticeable in adolescence, where hormones and rapid social changes made most of our lives seem pretty miserable. Psychologically, our mind grows as well as we learn a lot and adapt to changing social environments, from a safe kindergarten to asshole-filled high school life (yes, I hated my high school life). Adolescence goes through a lot of changes and, therefore, individuals are likely to be more tensed and aggressive. So, violent video games would have a stronger effect among adolescent, especially boys

Another concern is the brain’s hard wiring of cognitive schemas, or IMO, personality. So exposure to media violence active cognitive schemas of aggression, if this exposure is chronic and the individual is growing up. It might mean that one’s aggressive cognitive schema in the brain is more active to the detriment of other cognitive schema, such as altruism. Once these neural connections of these cognitions are established and hard-wired, a person is more aggressive than those are not chronically exposed to media violence.  So it is reasoned. Of course, the keyword is chronic, thank goodness for school, well maybe not in high school.

Indirect aggression, using human relationships, others’ feelings, thoughts and behaviours to put oneself in a favourable light and putting down another. Research on the associations between violent video games use and indirect aggression are mixed. So there might be a mediating factor, social intelligence is identified as such and it is defined as the level of social and verbal skills an individual possesses.

Finally, Wallenius et al. will investigate the associations between video game use and quality of parent-child interactions. What is known is that healthy parent-child interactions act as a protective factor on the effects of media violence and aggression. Well, I do believe that parents have one of the largest influences on their children because they are the first socialization influence in life and interact with the most. However, some studies have found that parent-child quality has no or little influence on violent video game effects on aggression. So, it still needs to be clarified.

Hostility differences between cooperative versus competitive play in video games (Eastin, 2007)

Abstract

Most research on violent video game play suggests a positive relationship with aggression-related outcomes. Expanding this research, the current study examines the impact group size, game motivation, in-game behavior, and verbal aggression have on postgame play hostility. Consistent with previous research, group size and verbal aggression both displayed a significant positive relationship with hostility. From these results, avenues for future research on anti- and prosocial outcomes from group gaming are offered.

Rationale

The differences between competitive and cooperative play is how players achieve a desired goal. That is whether a goal is interdependent with other people’s goals or not. For example in cooperative play, “I need to kill a dragon, but I can’t do it alone. So having others who share the same goal would help”. Whereas in competitive play, “I want to kill that dragon myself, but there are others who wants to. I’d better be the one who did the deed.”Therefore, between cooperative and competitive play different strategies will be adopted.

Researchers have found that competition is related to aggression. If you think of hockey, fights break out often for the slightest offences. Or the case of the headbutt of Zinedine Zidane. So, the literature says that competition is associated with frustration from being unable to achieve a goal, anger, and arguments. On the other hand, cooperative is associated with feelings of cohesion, camaraderie and agreement. Therefore, there are differences in experiences between cooperative (coop) and competitive play and this can translate into other situations as well.

Group size within MMOs can range from 2 players to thousands in a single guild. As group size increase, so does the feelings of competitiveness and disagreements. In addition, subgroups (i.e. cliques) would form that would compete with other subgroups. Decreased perceived individual achievement and competitiveness and increased perceive anonymity within a group are factors of this in-group competitiveness.