Barlett, C. P., Rodeheffer, C. D., Baldassaro, R. M., Hinkin, M

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Virginia Tech University Libraries]On: 16 February 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 785835785]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Media PsychologyPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653678

The Effect of Advances in Video Game Technology and Content on AggressiveCognitions, Hostility, and Heart RateChristopher Barlett a; Christopher D. Rodeheffer b; Ross Baldassaro b; Michael P. Hinkin b; Richard J. Harris b

a Iowa State University, b Kansas State University,

Online Publication Date: 01 October 2008

To cite this Article Barlett, Christopher, Rodeheffer, Christopher D., Baldassaro, Ross, Hinkin, Michael P. and Harris, RichardJ.(2008)'The Effect of Advances in Video Game Technology and Content on Aggressive Cognitions, Hostility, and Heart Rate',MediaPsychology,11:4,540 — 565

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/15213260802492018

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213260802492018

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t775653678

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15213260802492018

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

Media Psychology, 11:540–565, 2008

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 1521-3269 print/1532-785X online

DOI: 10.1080/15213260802492018

The Effect of Advances in Video GameTechnology and Content on AggressiveCognitions, Hostility, and Heart Rate

CHRISTOPHER BARLETTIowa State University

CHRISTOPHER D. RODEHEFFER, ROSS BALDASSARO,

MICHAEL P. HINKIN, and RICHARD J. HARRISKansas State University

Two studies were conducted that tested the moderating role of

video game graphics quality in the relationship between video

game content and aggression-related variables. In both studies,

participants played either a violent or nonviolent video game on

one of three video game systems with differing technological com-

puting power (which contributes to the realism depicted in these

video games). In Study 2, the moderating and mediating role of

immersion was also tested. Results showed that video game violence

exposure was related to aggressive cognitions and state of hostil-

ity. Video game technology did not moderate this relationship.

Finally, immersion, as an individual difference variable, did not

moderate or mediate this relationship. This suggests that aggressive

cognitions and feelings occur independent of how technologically

advanced the graphics are and the extent to which one feels asthough they are immersed in a violent video game. Implications

and future research are discussed.

Video game technology has advanced tremendously since the productionof the original video game systems, such as the Nintendo EntertainmentSystem (NES) and the Atari (and even the predecessor systems to the Atari).For example, the original NES had an 8-bit computer processor, while theNintendo 64 version had a 64-bit processor (Gallagher & Park, 2002). Suchan increase in computing power allowed for violence to be more graphicallyenhanced as depicted in video games. For instance, the violent video games

Address correspondence to Christopher Barlett, Department of Psychology, Iowa State

University, Ames, IA 50014. E-mail: [email protected]

540

Downloaded By: [Virginia Tech University Libraries] At: 03:01 16 February 2009

Video Game Technology 541

for the NES (e.g., Contra) did not contain any blood, whereas Soldier of

Fortune (for the PlayStation 2) shows in great detail shattered bone, sinew,and large amounts of blood after a character gets shot in the arm, (seeAnderson, 2003). Our primary research question was: Does the technologicaladvancement in video games moderate the relationship between video gamecontent and aggression-related variables? As well, we also tested whether ornot video game content was related to aggression. To test these researchquestions, two studies had participants play either a violent or nonviolentvideo game on one of three video game systems that differed in the degree ofcomputing power, and then participants completed measures of aggressivecognitions (Study 1 and Study 2), heart rate (Study 1 and Study 2), andaggressive feelings (only in Study 2).

GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL AND

MEDIA VIOLENCE

Multiple theoretical accounts support the hypothesis that violent video gameexposure increases aggressive behavior. These theories include Social Learn-ing Theory (Bandura, 1971), Script Theory (Huesmann, 1986), CognitiveNeoassociation Theory (Berkowitz, 1993) and Excitation Transfer Theory(Zillmann, 1971). Recently, General Aggression Model (GAM; Anderson &Bushman, 2001; Anderson & Huesmann, 2003; Bushman & Anderson, 2002;Carnagey & Anderson, 2003) has been posited as an integration of thesetheories to explain why individual difference and situational variables arerelated to aggressive behavior. Specifically, GAM assumes that any situationalfactor (e.g., heat, exposure to real life violence or media violence) is causallyrelated to aggressive behavior through one (or many) mediated pathwaysthrough one’s internal state, which consists of aggressive feelings, aggressivethoughts, and physiological arousal. These internal state variables are allrelated, such that one’s aggressive feelings are related to their aggressivethoughts, for instance. Once an aggressive behavior has transpired, thenexposure to that aggression feeds back into the beginning of GAM.

As previously stated, exposure to media violence is one situationalvariable that is related to aggressive feelings, aggressive cognitions, andphysiological arousal (see Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Violent video gameplay is one specific type of media violence of special concerning becauseviolent video games allow players to solve conflict using violent tactics. Oncethe violent acts in these games transpire, the player is typically reinforced viaextra ammunition, points, or level progression (see Gentile & Gentile, 2008).Repeated exposure to using such positive reinforcing aggressive problem-solving tactics is related to the formation of easily acceptable aggressiveknowledge structures and scripts, attitudes toward violence, physiologicaldesensitization, and other variables, which are related to one’s aggressivepersonality (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2001).


542 C. Barlett et al.

Anderson and Huesmann (2003) argued that aggressive cognitions arethe most theoretically important route to long-term aggressive personalitychanges. Exposure to violence in video games is related to the accessibilityof aggressive nodes in one’s semantic memory (Geen, 1990). For instance,exposure to pictures of violence can activate aggressive nodes that cause theactivation of other related aggressive nodes, through the process of spreadingactivation. Anderson, Benjamin, and Bartholow (1998) showed that exposureto aggressive words (such as ‘‘gun’’ or ‘‘knife’’) is related to faster reactiontimes for other aggressive-related words compared to nonaggressive words(such as ‘‘dessert’’). Activation of a number of aggressive nodes will activateone’s aggressive knowledge structure, which guides aggressive behavior.Therefore, exposure to violent video game content should activate a numberof aggressive nodes and subsequent aggressive scripts. When aggressivescripts are activated, one is more likely to behave in aggressive ways whenprovoked. Study 1 will test the hypothesis that violent video game play isrelated to activation of aggressive scripts; Study 2 will test a similar hypothesiswith activation of aggressive thoughts.

Evidence for a violent video game and aggression relationship has beendocumented in a variety of experimental (e.g., Anderson & Dill, 2000; Car-nagey & Anderson, 2005), cross-sectional (e.g., Gentile, Lynch, Linder, &Walsh, 2004), and longitudinal (e.g., Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2007)research. Further conclusions have been derived based on literature reviews(e.g., Dill & Dill, 1998; Griffiths, 1999) and meta-analyses (Anderson, 2004;Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Since the main effect of video game content hasbeen reliably demonstrated, studying the impact of possible moderating andmediating variables between video game content and aggression is especiallyimportant; video game graphics quality and the extent to which one feels im-mersed in a video game are two such factors, each of which will be discussed.

VIDEO GAME REALISM

Over the course of the history of video games, it is clear that there hasbeen an increase in video game technology, marked by better informationprocessors and memory components in video game systems. The definitionof technological advancement used in the current research focuses on thegraphics quality (i.e., pixilation on the screen and visual detail) produced bythe computing power of the video game system (similar to that of Ivory& Kalyaraman, 2007). Gallagher and Park (2002) describe the history ofvideo game technology by categorizing video game systems into eras thatdiffer in terms of the level of computing power. More powerful processorsallow for more realistic depictions of violence in violent video games. Forinstance, the original Mortal Kombat (released in 1993) was very pixilated,but still showed violence. More recent versions of Mortal Kombat (e.g.,



Mortal Kombat Armageddon for the Nintendo Wii, released in 2007), whichdepict violent actions that appear to be performed by real-life people, areless pixilated and allow the player the ability to behave more violently in thevideo game by offering more options of multiple martial arts fighting stylesand the usability of weapons.

Video game graphics quality is related to video game realism. Definingwhat we mean by realism is difficult because this term has multiple meanings.Shapiro, Pena-Herborn, and Hancock (2006) argue that two broad classesof information are important for mass media viewers to judge what theysee on the television screen as realistic or not. The first is inferential andimaginative elements of the media (also referred to as absolute perceivedrealism). This kind of information of realism involves the extent to whichthe actions, characters, environment, and other characteristics in the videogame mirror events that could actually happen in the real world (see Shapiroet al., 2006 for a more detailed review). Our previous work focused on thisdefinition and we found that realism in a violent video game is related toaggressive feelings after 30 minutes of violent video game play, althoughaggressive thoughts did not differ between a violent realistic game and aviolent unrealistic game (Barlett & Rodeheffer, in press).

The second type of information regarding making judgments of realismis the sensory information of the game—this is the definition on which ourcurrent research focuses. This type of information regards how graphicallyenhanced the video game is, which leads to the video games looking morerealistic, or ‘‘movie-like.’’ The video game violence and aggression literaturehas yielded theoretically consistent results using a variety of different videogame systems that represent the categorization of Gallagher and Park (2002),from the second era (e.g., Sega Genesis, see Ballard & Wiest, 1996), to thefourth era (e.g., PlayStation 2, see Barlett, Harris, & Bruey, 2008). Althoughanecdotal, this trend suggests that video game technology may not moderatethe relationship between video game content and aggression; however, thishas received only limited empirical support.

These two different definitions of video game realism are not completelyindependent of one another. Graphical enhancement in a video game leadsto the perception that certain acts, characters, and stimuli in a video gamecould happen in real life because the image is sharper. Shapiro et al. (2006)suggests that absolute perceived realism is important for certain variables,such as immersion, because this type of information is related to havingmore of a narrative storyline. A narrative storyline has been shown to berelated to immersion (Schneider, Lang, Shin, & Bradley, 2004). However,using the second definition of realism, it could be argued that having bettergraphics and display options could also be related to immersion becauseof the predicted relationships between sensory elements of the display andabsolute perceived realism; however this has received very little empiricalattention. Therefore, studying the moderating role of each definition of real-



ism is important in the video game effects literature and the current researchfocuses exclusively on the second definition (the sensory elements of themedium).

Theoretically, violent video game graphics quality could be related toaggression-related variables, as they are more graphically enhanced to depictviolent acts and blood in great detail and quality. Earlier versions of violentvideo games played on systems that could not depict sharp images mayappear almost ‘‘cartoon-ish’’ (e.g., square blobs of blood after a violent act);thus, it is hypothesized that depictions of violence that appear more realisticmay be related to certain aggression-related variables. Aggression-relatedpriming suggests that any depiction of violence should be related to theactivation of aggressive-related nodes and subsequent aggressive scripts, thusthe graphics quality in a violent video game should not moderate this effect.However, it is unknown what role graphics quality in a violent video gamewill have on state hostility and physiological arousal.

ROLE OF IMMERSION

Another possible moderating/mediating variable that has received much re-cent empirical attention is the influence of immersion. Immersion (or pres-ence) is defined as the extent to which one feels as though they are ‘‘in’’the video game (Schneider et al., 2004). Theoretically, immersion could bean important moderator or mediator in the relationship between video gamecontent and aggression-related variables. If a violent video game player feelsas though they are a part of the game, then they may experience more ofan intense emotional and physiological arousal response, which is relatedto aggression via the internal state in GAM. Recent studies have found thatplaying a violent video game is related to high levels of immersion (Eastin,2007; Persky & Blascovich, 2008). However, none of these studies used anonviolent video game to statistically test the moderating and/or mediatingrole of immersion in the relationship between video game content andaggression.

We are aware of only one empirical study that has tested whether or notadvances in video game technology and video game content were relatedto aggression-related variables and immersion (Ivory & Kalyaraman, 2007).These researchers employed a 2 (technological advancement; old vs. new) X2 (content; violent vs. nonviolent) factorial design to test the moderating roleof video game technology in the relationship between video game contentand aggressive feelings, aggressive thoughts, physiological arousal, and im-mersion. Results from the Ivory and Kalyaraman (2007) study revealed: a)nonsignificant main effects for video game content on any outcome vari-able; b) nonsignificant technology X content interactions for any aggression-related outcome variable; c) significantly higher arousal and presence for



the more advanced video game system; and d) nonsignificant main effectsof technological advancement on aggressive thoughts or aggressive feelings.Thus, these findings seem to suggest that immersion does not moderate ormediate the relationship between video game content and aggression-relatedvariables; however, Ivory and Kalyaraman did not find a video game contenteffect for aggressive feelings or aggressive thoughts. According to Baron andKenny (1986) one must first find a relationship between the independent anddependent variables before being able to test for moderators or mediators.In sum, there has not been any study which has been able to empiricallytest the moderating or mediating role that immersion plays between videogame content and aggression. Study 2 will be the first empirical test of thishypothesis, but first a video game content effect must be found.

STUDY 1

The purpose of Study 1 was to test the moderating role of video game graph-ics quality in the relationship between video game content and aggressivescripts and heart rate.

Method

Participants. Two hundred forty-five (128 male) students enrolled ata large Midwestern university participated in the current study for partialcourse credit. The average age of these participants was 19.07 (SD D 2.53)years and the majority of these participants were first year undergraduates(67.8%) and Caucasian (89.4%). Participants reported playing video gamesan average of 6.88 (SD D 7.89) hours per week (range D 0–20 hours).

Materials

Video games and equipment. In order to test if there are differencesin aggression-related variables between video game systems with differentvideo game technology, three video game systems were used. The firstwas the Super Nintendo Entertainment System (SNES). The second was theNintendo 64 video game system (N64). The final was the PlayStation 2 videogame system (PS2). There is an increase in computing power with eachnewer video game system, which is related to more realistic looking videogame graphics (see Galagher & Park, 2002). It should be noted that thisis a rather simplistic description of differences between these three videogame systems. Obviously these systems differ from one another besidesgraphics display quality as a function of the computing power. For instance,the controllers are all different. Also, more computing power allowed thecharacters to move in a third dimension. For instance, the characters in Mortal



Kombat 2, for the SNES, could only move up-down and/or left-right, whereasthe characters in Mortal Kombat 4 for the N64 could also move across a z-axis to change dimension. Finally, the sounds produced by the games (e.g.,cheers of the crowd in baseball games or splattering of blood in fightinggames) were enhanced. These are just a few examples of elements of thegame systems that differed as a function of computing power. However, sincecomputing power allowed for all of these enhancements, as well as bettergraphics quality (the main independent variable in the current study), wewere unable to disentangle these other potential video game characteristics(see Gallagher & Park, 2002, Ivory, 2007, and Marino, 2007, for a morethorough investigation of differences in video game systems).

In order to test if there are differences in aggression-related variablesbetween violent and nonviolent video game play, two sets of video gameswere used. The violent video games were based on the Mortal Kombat seriesand included Mortal Kombat 2 (SNES), Mortal Kombat 4 (N64), and Mortal

Kombat: Deadly Alliance (PS2). These games are violent and the objective isto control one’s characters and kill other characters using various martial artsand weapons. The second set of video games was nonviolent. These gameswere Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball (SNES), Ken Griffey Jr. Baseball (N64), andMLB 2004 (PS2). These games are nonviolent and characters are not evenallowed to touch each other to be violent (e.g., no charging the mound).These games use standard baseball rules.

Questionnaires. The first questionnaire used was the Aggression Ques-tionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992), which measures trait aggression. This 29-item questionnaire asks participants to respond to items on a 1 (extremely

uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me) Likert scale. Asample item from this scale is, ‘‘Once in awhile I cannot control the urgeto strike another person.’’ Certain items on this questionnaire are reversedscored, such that higher numbers indicate higher trait aggression. Reliabilityfor this scale was acceptable (˛ D .76).

To assess aggressive scripts, three ambiguous story stems from Bushmanand Anderson (2002) were used. Each story stem described an event thathappened to a given character, and the participants were to list what thatcharacter would do, say, think, and feel next. The first story stem describedthe character, Todd, driving his car. A driver of another car is not payingattention and hits Todd’s car. The second story stem described the character,Janet, planning a trip with a friend who decides at the last minute to notaccompany her. The third story described the character, Jane, at a restaurantwaiting over an hour for her food to arrive, and right before she is about toleave, she sees the waiter coming to her table with the food. After readingthese stories, participants were to write what the main character would do,say, think, or feel next. State aggression was quantified by classifying eachresponse statement as a thought, a feeling, or a behavior, and then countingthe number of aggressive statements in each category.



Two independent coders classified each written statement into a thought,feeling, or behavior. Feelings were operationally defined as words or phrasesthat dealt with moods or emotions (e.g., angry, frustrated, kind). Typically,feelings were one to two words in length. Behaviors were operationallydefined as some overt statement or action made by the character. Therefore,behaviors could either be the character physically moving his/her body todo something (e.g., punch, not leave a tip) or a verbal expression (e.g., ‘‘Iwant to talk to your manager’’ or ‘‘Are you OK?’’). Finally, thoughts wereclassified as expressions that were not verbalized nor were feelings (e.g., ‘‘Ihope she goes on the trip with me.’’)

After classifying each statement into feelings, thoughts, and behaviors,the coders classified each statement into aggressive or nonaggressive content.Using the definition of aggression as the intent to harm somebody whois motivated to avoid that harm (Anderson & Bushman, 2001), aggressivestatements involved feeling, thinking, or behaving in a way that would eitherhurt or intend to hurt another. For example, the following statements werecoded as aggressive, ‘‘Anger,’’ ‘‘I just want to punch him,’’ and ‘‘Yell at theother driver.’’ However, aggression could also be more subtle, and thereforethe following statements were also classified as aggressive statements, ‘‘Leavewithout tipping the waiter’’ and ‘‘Can I talk to your manager?’’ Finally, thesecond story stem had a high probability of having the character use rela-tional aggression, which is defined as a behavior intended to hurt another’sfriendships or feelings of inclusion in a peer group (Crick & Grotpeter, 1995).Therefore, the following statements were coded as aggressive, ‘‘Bribe Janetto come,’’ ‘‘Use the best friend card,’’ and ‘‘Take away our friendship if shestays.’’ The coders had an acceptable reliability for classifying each statementinto a thought, feeling, or behavior (� D .87) and rating each statement asbeing aggressive or not (' D .89). All discrepancies were resolved throughdiscussion.

The total number of statements written by participants was 7,053, ofwhich 4,682 (66.38%) were coded as behaviors, 773 (10.96%) were coded asthoughts, and 1,598 (22.66%) were coded as feelings. Furthermore, 2,503 ofthe 7,053 (35.5%) statements were coded as aggressive and 4,550 (64.5%) ofthe statements were nonaggressive. Aggressive scripts were quantified as thesummation of the total number of statements that were coded as aggressive.

The third questionnaire was a demographic questionnaire. This scalewas used to assess the participant’s age, gender, ethnicity, and year in school.Participants also indicated the average number of hours spent playing videogames for an average weekday and an average weekend.

The final questionnaire was a suspiciousness questionnaire. This ques-tionnaire asked if the participants knew about the purposes of the currentstudy as a function of the tasks and questionnaires used, or if somebodyhad told them prior to the study. Results showed that 47 (19.2%) participantsreported knowing the purposes of the current study. The number of suspi-



cious participants were distributed across all conditions [Violent, SNES (n D

7), Violent, N64 (n D 7), Violent, PS2 (n D 8), Nonviolent SNES (n D 7),Nonviolent N64 (n D 7), Nonviolent PS2 (n D 11)]. Demographically, theseparticipants did not differ from those who were not suspicious. Those whowere suspicious were removed from the primary analyses.

Physiological arousal. To assess the participant’s heart rate, a heartrate device (produced by the Tanita Corporation of America, Inc., ArlingtonHeights, Illinois) was used. This device instructed participants to place theirright index finger atop a sensor, and the device would produce an outputof the participant’s heart rate. In order to make this measurement morereliable, heart rate was measured three times, with the average of thosethree readings taken. This measure has been used in past research (Barlett,Harris, & Baldassaro, 2007; Barlett, Harris, & Bruey, 2008).

Procedure

Upon completion of the experimental credit cards and informed consent,the participant’s heart rate was taken three times and then was given theAggression Questionnaire. Participants were randomly assigned to play eitherthe violent or nonviolent video game for the SNES, N64, or PS2 video gamesystems. Participants were instructed on the function of the buttons of thecontrollers and the objective of the video game. The video game was playedfor 15 minutes. After the 15 minutes of video game play, the participant’sheart rate was measured and then they completed the second packet ofquestionnaires, which consisted of the three story stems, the demographicquestionnaire, and the suspiciousness questionnaire. Participants were thenthanked and fully debriefed.

Results

Due to the number of suspicious people removed from the analyses, allanalyses were based on the following sample sizes: Violent, SNES (n D 35),Violent, N64 (n D 34), Violent, PS2 (n D 33), Nonviolent, SNES (n D 35),Nonviolent, N64 (n D 34), and Nonviolent, PS2 (n D 27).

Correlations between variables. Zero-order correlations showed that therewere significant relationships between the Aggression Questionnaire andits subscales (all rs > .60, all ps < .05), as expected. Heart rate was notsignificantly related to any other variable (all rs < .11, all ps > .05). Scoreson the aggressive script measure was significantly related to trait aggression,the physical aggression subscale, and the hostility subscale of the AggressionQuestionnaire (all rs > .19, all ps < .05). Finally, point biserial correlationsshowed that gender was significantly related to scores on the AggressionQuestionnaire (r D .24, p < .01), the physical aggression subscale (r D .24,p < .01), the anger subscale (r D .17, p < .05), and the hostility subscale (r D



TABLE 1 Correlations Between Variables in Study 1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. AQ —2. PA .75** —3. VA .63** .31** —4. AN .63** .30** .31** —5. Hoes .80** .44** .42** .31** —6. HR2 .05 .09 .06 �.11 .10 —7. Agg S .20** .20** .08 .20** .09 .03 —8. Sex .24** .25** .07 .17* .14* �.11 �.02 —9. VG .06 .07 .07 �.02 .03 .06 .25** �.02 —

10. SYS .04 .02 .09 .04 .02 .02 �.01 �.05 .04

Mean 55.11 17.48 9.53 13.16 14.98 74.18 9.19 .06 .03 �.05SD 7.33 2.88 1.74 2.37 3.19 14.61 7.31 1.00 1.00 .81

AQ D Aggression Questionnaire; PA D Physical Aggression; VA D Verbal Aggression; AN D Anger;

Hoes D Hostility; HR2 D Heart rate at Time 2; Agg S D Aggressive scripts; Sex D Sex of participants

(1 D male, �1 D female); VG D video game content (1 D violent, �1 D nonviolent); SYS D video

game system (�1 D SNES, 0 D N64, 1 D PS2).

*p < .05, **p < .01.

.14, p < .05). Therefore, trait aggression and gender need to be statisticallycontrolled in the primary analyses (see Table 1).

Physiological arousal. A 2 (content: violent, nonviolent) X 3 (system:SNES, N64, PS2) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted with traitaggression, gender, and arousal at baseline as covariates. Results showedthat none of the main effects or interactions was statistically significant (allFs < 2.78, all ps > .05; see Table 2). Baseline heart rate was a significantcovariate, F (1,189) D 73.98, p < .001, partial �2

D .28, B D .60. No othercovariate was significant.

Aggressive scripts. A 2 (content: violent, nonviolent) X 3 (system: SNES,N64, PS2) ANCOVA was conducted with gender and trait aggression ascovariates and the number of aggressive responses written as the dependentvariable. Results showed a significant main effect of video game content,F (1,190) D 12.31, p < .01, partial �2

D .06. Aggressive scripts were moreaccessible after violent (M D 10.98) compared to nonviolent (M D 7.29)video game play. Trait aggression was a significant covariate, F (1,190) D

9.74, p < .01, partial �2D .05, B D .22. The main effect of system was

nonsignificant, F (1,190) D .98, p > .10 (see Table 2).However, this was qualified by a significant content X system interaction,

F (2,190) D 4.21, p < .02, partial �2D .04. Examination of the means and

standard deviations show that this interaction is driven by the high numberof aggressive responses by the Violent, N64 condition (M D 13.71) com-pared to the Violent, SNES condition (M D 9.91) and Violent, PS2 condition(M D 9.30). Also, the lowest number of aggressive responses was foundfor the Nonviolent, N64 condition (M D 6.38) compared to the Nonviolent,



TABLE 2 Means and Standard Deviations Per Condition in Study 1

System Content Variable Mean (SD) N

SNES Violent Heart Rate 75.34 (12.75) 35SNES Nonviolent Heart Rate 76.27 (12.57) 35N64 Violent Heart Rate 71.75 (13.70) 34N64 Nonviolent Heart Rate 68.16 (20.33) 34PS2 Violent Heart Rate 78.12 (12.31) 33PS2 Nonviolent Heart Rate 75.57 (12.82) 27

System** Content* Variable Mean (SD) N

SNES Violent Agg. S 9.91 (10.33) 35SNES Nonviolent Agg. S 7.82 (4.93) 35N64 Violent Agg. S 13.71 (6.12) 34N64 Nonviolent Agg. S 6.38 (8.37) 34PS2 Violent Agg. S 9.30 (5.24) 33PS2 Nonviolent Agg. S 8.60 (4.97) 27

Agg. S D Aggressive Scripts.

*p < .05 (main effect of content), **p < .05 (system X content interaction).

SNES D Super Nintendo Entertainment System; N64 D Nintendo 64; PS2 D

PlayStation 2.

SNES condition (M D 7.83) and the Nonviolent, PS2 condition (M D 7.74).See Table 2.

Discussion

Overall, results from the current study suggest that violent video game playis related to the activation of aggressive scripts in memory, but not physi-ological arousal. The nonsignificant main effects for heart rate may be dueto the fact that the violent and nonviolent video games used in the currentstudy were equally exciting or arousing; however, this was not specificallytested. Analysis of the video game technology variable showed that theincrease in technology was not related to aggressive scripts or heart rate.However, analysis of the aggressive scripts measure showed that there wasa significant content X system interaction. Contrary to the hypothesis of thecurrent study, the trend in the data showed that this interaction was drivenby the higher aggressive script scores for the Violent, N64 condition andlower aggressive script scores for the Nonviolent, N64 condition. Frustrationfrom playing an older version of the video games using outdated controllers(for instance) cannot be a viable explanation for this effect because thisexplanation would suggest that those who played the violent video gamewith the oldest video game system would have the highest number ofaggressive responses written. The means showed that this was not the case,because aggressive responses for the SNES games were similar to that ofthe PS2 games. Another possible explanation is that for some reason the



N64 version of the games may have been more difficult to play. This wasnot tested because the current study did not use a video game rating sheet;however, Study 2 did assess such theoretically relevant variables.

STUDY 2

The purpose of Study 2 was to conceptually replicate the findings of Study 1and test similar hypotheses using a more recent video game system anddifferent measures. Data for Study 1 was collected in the 2005–2006 academicschool year. Since then, more recent video systems have been released (e.g.,PlayStation 3, Nintendo Wii). Therefore, we wanted to replicate the findingsof Study 1, but use the Nintendo Wii as the most technologically advancedvideo game system. Results from Study 1 suggest that violent video gameplay is related to the activation of aggressive scripts; however, the effectthat technological advancement in video games has on the activation ofaggressive nodes (the precursor to aggressive scripts; Anderson & Huesmann,2003) has yet to be tested. Thus, the current study used the Word CompletionTask as a measure of aggressive thoughts. A measure of aggressive feelingswas also included in the current study in order to test all variables in theinternal state of GAM. Finally, Study 2 also tested the moderating and/ormediating role of immersion.

Method

Participants. One-hundred forty-three (94 male) individuals partici-pated in the current study for partial course credit in their General Psychologyclass. The average age of the sample was 19.20 (SD D 1.38) years. Themajority of participants were first year undergraduate students (74.1%).Seventy-nine percent of the sample was Caucasian. Participants reportedplaying an average of 6.20 (SD D 7.74) hours of video games per week(range D 0 � 36 hours).

Materials

Video games and equipment. Identical to Study 1, the video games usedfor the N64 and PS2 were used in Study 2. The current study did not usethe video games for the SNES. Since the data for this study was collectedin the 2007–2008 academic school year, we were able to use one of themost current video game systems available. We chose to use the NintendoWii to represent the video game system with the most computing power.Other recent video game systems, such as the PlayStation 3, could not beused because a version of Mortal Kombat was not commercially available in



the United States at the time of data collection. The violent video game weused was Mortal Kombat: Armageddon, which has the same objectives andviolent content as the previous versions of this game. The baseball gamefrom the Wii Sports video game was used as a nonviolent video game. Thisgame contains baseball themes, but only has three innings (rather than nineinnings in the other baseball games). Also, the player cannot control theactions of the players in the field or base runners, and can only control theswing of the batter and the throw of the pitcher, which is slightly differentthan the previous games. We did not suspect that these subtle differenceswould impact the results because ultimately these baseball games were allnonviolent. Finally, those in the Nintendo Wii conditions were told to try tolimit the amount of movement in their arms while playing these games, asthat could create heightened arousal.

Questionnaires. The first questionnaire used was the State Hostility Scale(Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995), which assesses state hostility. This is a35-item questionnaire that asks participants to rate adjectives on a 1 (not atall) to 5 (extremely) Likert scale about how they feel right now. Sample itemsinclude ‘‘I feel hostile’’ and ‘‘I feel like banging my head on a table.’’ Certainitems were reverse scored, such that higher scores indicate more aggressivefeelings. The reliability for this scale was acceptable at baseline (˛ D .87)and Time 2 (˛ D .92).

The second questionnaire was the Word Completion Task (Anderson,Carnagey, & Eubanks, 2003), which was used to assess aggressive thoughts.This questionnaire contains 96 word fragments, and participants are in-structed to fill in the blanks to complete the word in English. For instance,‘‘K I _ _’’ could be completed aggressively (KILL, KICK) or nonaggressively(KILT, KISS, KIND, KILN). There were 48 fragments at baseline and a dif-ferent 48 fragments for Time 2. The number of aggressive responses wascounted, and higher scores indicate more aggressive thoughts.

The third questionnaire was the Presence Questionnaire (Witmer &Singer, 1998), which is used to measure the amount of immersion felt by theparticipants. This is a 32-item questionnaire; however, based on the item-to-total correlations presented by Witmer and Singer, only 27 items wereused in the current study. This questionnaire asks participants to answer theitems using a 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) Likert scale. The reliability forthis measure was acceptable (˛ D .85). This scale has several subscales. Thefirst is Involvement/Control subscale (˛ D .81), which consists of 12 itemsand measures perceived control of events. A sample item includes, ‘‘Howmuch were you able to control events?’’ The second subscale is the Naturalsubscale (˛ D .73), which consists of 3 items and measures the extent towhich the video game was consistent with reality. A sample item includes,‘‘How natural did your interactions with the environment seem?’’ The thirdsubscale was the Auditory subscale (˛ D .86), which consists of 3 itemsand measures how much the acoustics of the video game was related to



immersion. A sample item includes, ‘‘How much did the auditory aspects ofthe environment involve you?’’ The fourth subscale is the Resolution subscale(˛ D .84), which measures the degree to which the resolution of the gameon the television screen was realistic and consists of 2 items. A sample itemincludes, ‘‘How closely were you able to examine objects?’’ The final subscaleis the Interface Quality subscale (˛ D .28), which measures the extent towhich the external manipulations (i.e., controller) were related to immersionand contained 3 items. A sample item includes, ‘‘How much did the visualdisplay quality interfere or distract you from performing assigned tasks orrequired activities?’’ However, due to the low reliability of this subscale, itwas not used in the primary analyses.

The fourth questionnaire was a modified version of a video game ratingsheet (Anderson & Dill, 2000). This scale consisted of ten items and partici-pants were to rate aspects of the video game they played on a 1 (not at all)to 5 (extremely) Likert scale. Participants rated the games on how violent,bloody, fun, exciting, fast-paced, realistic, realistic looking the characterswere, frustrating, difficult to play, and number of pauses the game has.

The Aggression Questionnaire (˛ D .76), heart rate measure, demo-graphic questionnaire, and suspiciousness questionnairewere identical to theones used in Study 1. Analysis of the suspiciousness questionnaire showedthat 35 (24%) of participants were suspicious. The number of suspicious par-ticipants were distributed across all conditions [Violent, N64 (n D 6), Violent,PS2 (n D 4), Violent, Wii (n D 7), Nonviolent N64 (n D 3), Nonviolent PS2(n D 7), Nonviolent, Wii (n D 6)]. Demographically, these participants didnot differ from those who were not suspicious. Those who were suspiciouswere not included in the primary analyses.

Procedure

Upon completion of the informed consent and experimental credit slips,participants were randomly assigned to play either a violent or nonviolentvideo game on either the N64, P2, or Wii video game systems. All partici-pants had their heart rate measured and then completed the first packet ofquestionnaires consisting of the State Hostility Scale, one half of the WordCompletion Task, and the Aggression Questionnaire. Upon completion ofthese questionnaires, participants were given instructions on how to playthe video game to which they were randomly assigned and played thatgame for 15 minutes. Participants then had their heart rate measured andcompleted the post-video game packet of questionnaires consisting of theState Hostility Scale, the second half of the Word Completion Task, thePresence Questionnaire, the demographic questionnaire, the video gamerating sheet, and the suspiciousness questionnaire. Participants were thenthanked and fully debriefed.



Results

Due to the number of suspicious people removed from the analyses, allanalyses were based on the following sample sizes: Violent, N64 (n D 18),Violent, PS2 (n D 20), Violent, Wii (n D 15), Nonviolent, N64 (n D 17),Nonviolent, PS2 (n D 21), and Nonviolent, Wii (n D 17) conditions. ANOVAsshowed that those who were suspicious (M D 73.74, SD D 17.19) had signif-icantly, F (1,115) D 5.48, p < .02, partial �2

D .05, more aggressive feelingsat Time 2 compared to those who were not suspicious (M D 66.65, SD D

13.37). Although no other significant differences emerged, this differencegave credence to the removal of these participants from the primary analyses.

Correlations between relevant variables. Zero-order correlations werecomputed in order to examine the relationships between the relevant de-pendent variables and their subscales. As expected, the subscales of theAggression Questionnaire were all significantly correlated with one another(ps < .05), and the subscales of the Presence Questionnaire were all sig-nificantly correlated with one another (ps < .05). Aggressive feelings andthoughts were related to one another (r D .22, p < .05). Finally, the Aggres-sion Questionnaire and subscales were all significantly related to aggressivefeelings (rs > .20, ps < .05). Point-biserial correlations showed that genderwas related to all of the trait aggression measures (rs > .19, all ps < .05)and negatively related to heart rate after video game play (r D �.23, p <

.05). These correlations suggest that trait aggression and gender need to bestatistically controlled in the primary analyses (see Table 3).

Video game ratings. In order to test whether or not the violent andnonviolent video games were different from one another on theoreticallyrelevant variables, a principal components factor analysis with Varimax ro-tation was conducted to reduce the number of ratings made for each videogame. Results showed that four factors emerged that accounted for 79.63%of the variance in the video game ratings. The first factor was the violencefactor (violent and bloody; ˛ D .96), the second factor was the frustrationfactor (difficult to play, frustrating; ˛ D .66), the third factor was the realisticfactor (realistic, realistic looking was the characters; ˛ D .80), and the finalfactor was the fun factor (exciting and fun; ˛ D .90). To test whether videogame content differed on these factors, one-way ANOVAs were conducted(see Table 4). Results showed that the violent video games (M D 3.96, SD D

.90) were significantly, F (1,104) D 339.40, p < .001, partial �2D .77, more

violent than the nonviolent video games (M D 1.17, SD D .65). No other maineffects were significant (Fs < 1.01, ps > .05). A similar statistical procedurewas conducted with video game system as the independent variable. Resultsshowed significant main effects for system on the frustrating and fun factors(Fs > 4.60, ps < .05). Post hoc analyses with a Bonferroni correction showedthat those who played the video game with the Wii (M D 3.68, SD D .93)reported that the game was significantly (p < .05) more fun compared to


TABLE 3 Correlations Between Variables in Study 2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

1. AQ —2. PA .83** —3. VA .76** .57** —4. AN .71** .44** .44** —5. Hoes .72** .42** .38** .38** —6. AT2 �.03 �.05 �.02 �.04 .02 —7. AF2 .34** .24* .20* .24* .37** .22* —8. HR2 �.04 �.08 .02 �.04 �.01 �.13 �.05 —9. PQ .09 .13 �.04 .11 .13 �.01 .03 �.20� —

10. INV .09 .11 �.05 .08 .19* .11 .08 �.16 .88** —11. NA .08 .10 �.04 .12 .02 �.05 �.14 �.15 .71** .56** —12. RES .10 .17� �.03 .14 .05 .05 �.04 �.24* .68** .49** .57** —13. SEX .43** .53** .41** .19* .14 .01 .13 �.23* .05 .06 .06 .06 —14. VG �.04 �.16� �.03 �.17� .20* .22* .20* �.24* .01 .04 �.20* .09 �.05 —15. SYS .05 .13 �.16� .06 �.01 .004 �.09 �.01 .05 .03 .21* �.14 �.03 �.04 —

Mean 80.00 27.00 16.80 17.09 19.44 8.32 66.79 74.54 101.73 10.52 6.92 10.32 .22 �.02 �.03SD 21.89 9.28 6.06 6.03 7.55 2.06 13.69 10.33 19.48 4.00 3.01 2.86 .98 1.00 .79

AQ D Aggression Questionnaire; PA D Physical Aggression; VA D Verbal Aggression; AN D Anger; Hoes D Hostility; AT2 D Aggressive Thoughts at Time 2; AF2 D

Aggressive Feelings at Time 2; HR2 D Heart rate at Time 2; PQ D Presence Questionnaire; INV D Involvement/Control; NA D Natural; RES D Resolution; SEX D

Sex of participant (�1 D female; 1 D male); VG D Video game content (�1 D Nonviolent; 1 D Violent); SYS D Video Game System (�1 D Nintendo 64; 0 D

PlayStation 2; 1 D Nintendo Wii).

�p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

555



TABLE 4 Video Game Ratings by Content and Systemin Study 2

Content Factor Mean (SD)

Violent Violence** 3.96 (.90)a

Nonviolent 1.17 (.65)b

Violent Realistic 2.19 (.98)a

Nonviolent 2.33 (.99)a

Violent Frustrating 2.99 (.91)a

Nonviolent 2.80 (1.03)a

Violent Fun 3.14 (1.14)a

Nonviolent 3.05 (1.03)a

System Factor Mean (SD)

N64 Violence 2.44 (1.58)a

PS2 2.54 (1.56)a

Wii 2.56 (1.72)a

N64 Realistic 2.07 (.88)a

PS2 2.39 (.94)a

Wii 2.29 (1.13)a

N64 Frustrating* 3.29 (1.02)a

PS2 2.67 (.81)b

Wii 2.74 (1.02)a

N64 Fun** 2.93 (1.18)a

PS2 2.79 (.96)a

Wii 3.68 (.93)b

*p < .05, **p < .01.

Means with differing letters (a or b) are significantly different

from one another.

N64 D Nintendo 64, PS2 D PlayStation 2, Wii D Nintendo

Wii.

the N64 (M D 2.93, SD D 1.18) and the P2 (M D 2.79, SD D .96), whichdid not differ from one another (p > .05). Furthermore, those who playedthe video game with the N64 (M D 3.29, SD D 1.02) reported that the gamewas significantly harder (p < .05) than those who played the game with theWii (M D 2.74, SD D 1.02) and the P2 (M D 2.67, SD D .81), which didnot differ from one another (p > .05). Although antidotal, this finding mayhave been why aggressive script activation was the most extreme for theN64 conditions in Study 1.

Aggressive feelings. A 2 (content: violent, nonviolent) X 3 (system: N64,PS2, Wii) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted with gender, traitaggression, and aggressive feelings at baseline as covariates. Results showeda significant main effect for video game content, F (1,88) D 6.42, p < .05,partial �2

D .07. Examination of the adjusted means showed that those inthe violent video game condition (M D 69.70) had higher aggressive feelingscompared to those in the nonviolent condition (M D 64.05). Aggressivefeelings at baseline was a significant covariate, F (1,88) D 32.07, p < .001,



TABLE 5 Means and Standard Deviations Per Condition in Study 2

System Content* Variable Mean (SD) N

N64 Violent Agg. Feel 69.20 (7.47) 15N64 Nonviolent Agg. Feel 65.25 (14.38) 16PS2 Violent Agg. Feel 72.26 (14.66) 19PS2 Nonviolent Agg. Feel 67.00 (12.19) 17Wii Violent Agg. Feel 68.07 (18.93) 15Wii Nonviolent Agg. Feel 58.40 (8.88) 15

System Content* Variable Mean (SD) N

N64 Violent Agg. Thou 8.71 (1.76) 17N64 Nonviolent Agg. Thou 7.67 (1.84) 15PS2 Violent Agg. Thou 9.24 (2.05) 17PS2 Nonviolent Agg. Thou 7.85 (1.63) 20Wii Violent Agg. Thou 8.36 (1.78) 14Wii Nonviolent Agg. Thou 8.12 (2.96) 17

System Content Variable Mean (SD) N

N64 Violent Heart Rate 73.29 (11.30) 16N64 Nonviolent Heart Rate 75.79 (4.77) 13PS2 Violent Heart Rate 71.56 (9.13) 18PS2 Nonviolent Heart Rate 77.89 (13.01) 21Wii Violent Heart Rate 71.05 (6.49) 13Wii Nonviolent Heart Rate 76.67 (12.07) 16

*p < .05 (main effect of content).

N64 D Nintendo 64, PS2 D PlayStation 2, Wii D Nintendo Wii.

partial �2D .27, B D .70. No other main effects, interactions, or covariates

were statistically significant (see Table 5). When the frustrating factor wasentered as a covariate, the results were similar.

Aggressive thoughts. A 2 (content: violent, nonviolent) X 3 (system:N64, PS2, Wii) ANCOVA was conducted with gender, trait aggression, andaggressive thoughts at baseline as covariates. Results showed a significantmain effect for video game content, F (1,91) D 4.03, p < .05, partial �2

D

.05. Examination of the adjusted means showed that those in the violentvideo game condition (M D 8.74) had higher aggressive thoughts comparedto those in the nonviolent condition (M D 7.89). No other main effects,interactions, or covariates were statistically significant (see Table 5). Whenthe frustrating factor was entered as a covariate, the results were similar.

Physiological arousal. A 2 (content: violent, nonviolent) X 3 (system:N64, PS2, Wii) ANCOVA was conducted with gender, trait aggression, andheart rate at baseline as covariates. Results showed that none of the maineffects or interactions was statistically significant (all Fs < 1.90, all ps > .05).Heart rate at baseline was the only significant covariate, F (1,88) D 70.15,p < .001, partial �2

D .44, B D .66. When the frustrating factor was enteredas a covariate, the results were similar (see Table 5).



Immersion. The Presence Questionnaire and subscales were analyzedusing 2 (content: violent, nonviolent) X 3 (system: N64, PS2, Wii) ANOVAs.Results showed that only the Natural subscale significantly differed betweenthe violent and nonviolent video game conditions, F (1,100) D 4.44, p < .04,partial �2

D .04. Those in the nonviolent video game condition reportedhigher (M D 11.28, SD D 4.38) natural immersion than those in the violentvideo game condition (M D 9.71, SD D 3.50). No other main effects orinteractions were significant (Fs < 2.20, ps > .05). Furthermore, no maineffects or interactions were statistically significant for the other subscales.

Due to these nonsignificant main effects of content and video gamesystem, and the nonsignificant correlation between the immersion variablesand aggression-related variables, immersion cannot be a mediator in the re-lationship between video game content and aggression-related variables (seeBaron & Kenny, 1986). However, immersion could moderate the overall rela-tionship between video game content or video game system and aggression-related variables. To test this, we created multiple content X immersioninteraction terms and system X immersion interaction terms. We tested themoderation hypothesis using several hierarchical linear regressions. For thosetesting the moderating role of immersion between video game content andaggression-related variables, the first step contained the content of the gameand the immersion variable, and the second step contained the interactionterm. Results showed that all of the content X immersion interactions werenonsignificant (all ps > .10). This suggests that immersion did not moderatethe relationship between content and aggression.

To test the moderating role of immersion between system and aggression-related variables, the same steps were repeated, but video game contentwas replaced with video game system. Results showed that the system Ximmersion interactions were nonsignificant (all ps > .10). This suggests thatimmersion did not moderate the relationship between system and aggression.

Discussion

The results of the current study suggest that video game content was relatedto the activation of aggressive thoughts and higher levels of state hostility.There was a nonsignificant main effect of video game system on any ofthese variables. Overall, these findings conceptually replicate the results fromStudy 1; however, the results did not find a significant content X systeminteraction. Although trends in the data show that those in the violent PS2condition had more activation of aggressive thoughts compared to the otherviolent video game conditions, this effect was not significant. Finally, heartrate was not affected by technology or video game content. Overall, thissuggests that independent of how graphically enhanced the violence inviolent video games appears, the depiction of violence is sufficient enoughto be related to aggression-related variables. Immersion did not moderate



or mediate the relationship between video game content and aggressionand/or video game system and aggression. This suggests that no matter howinvolved one becomes in the video game, players will have more aggressivethoughts and aggressive feelings if the content of the game they are playingis violent.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Video game technology is becoming more advanced with the continualupgrade of computer processors in video game systems. Such upgradesin technology are related to increases in the video game graphics quality,and there has been limited empirical attention given to graphics quality inthe relationship between video game content and aggression-related vari-ables. The purpose of both studies was to test the moderating role of videogame graphics quality in the relationship between video game content andaggression-related variables. Results from both studies suggest that videogame graphics quality does not seem to moderate the effect. This findingreplicates the results of Ivory and Kalyaraman (2007), but because the currentstudy found an effect of video game violence on aggression, it was possibleto test the hypothesis that graphics quality moderates this association.

Results support GAM (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Specifically,results showed that violent video game play was related to the activationof aggressive scripts, aggressive thoughts, and aggressive feelings. Thosein the nonviolent video game condition did not differ from those in theviolent video game condition on heart rate levels. This may be anticipatedbecause results from the video game ratings in Study 2 showed that theviolent and nonviolent video games were rated similarly on variables relatedto physiological arousal (i.e., exciting). Therefore, one may not expect videogame content effects on arousal if they are matched on theoretically relevantvariables (see Anderson, 2004).

The results of the current research also suggest that video game realismdid not moderate the overall effect between violent video game contentand aggression-related variables. We did not expect this effect to be foundfor aggressive thoughts or aggressive scripts. Aggression-related priming(Geen, 1990) suggests that exposure to violence is related to the activationof aggressive nodes and then aggressive scripts in memory, and makesno assumptions about the quality of violence being depicted. Therefore,a moderating effect was not anticipated.

The current study found that video game graphics quality did not mod-erate the effect of video game content and aggressive feelings. Barlett andRodeheffer (in press) found that aggressive feelings were higher for violentvideo games that depicted events that could happen in real life comparedto violent video games that did not depict such realism. Taken together, this



suggests that video game graphics quality did not moderate the effect, butthe extent to which the violent events in a video game could happen inreal life does make a difference. More work is needed to test both of thesedefinitions in the same study, but care must be taken to ensure that theviolent and nonviolent video games used in such a study are appropriateto test for such an interaction. For instance, one should use a video gamerating questionnaire (similar to Study 2) to make sure that a) the violent andnonviolent video games only differ from one another in terms of violence(see also Anderson & Dill, 2000), b) the different video game systems containgames that are violent and nonviolent that span across different technologicalperiods (see Gallagher & Park, 2002), and c) the violent and nonviolentrealistic video games contain aspects of events that could actually happen inreal life, whereas the nonrealistic games do not (see Barlett & Rodeheffer, inpress). In other words, much pilot testing or post-game ratings are neededfor a fully crossed 2 (content) X 3 (system) X 2 (realism) factorial to betested.

The results of Study 2 showed that immersion did not moderate or me-diate the relationship between video game violence and aggression-relatedvariables or video game system and aggression-related variables. Given theamount of recent attention to immersion and violent video game effects,these results were surprising. Based on the past research, immersion in aviolent video game must only be related to the perceptual effects of playinga violent video game with virtual reality compared to the same game playedon a standard video game console (see Eastin, 2007; Eastin & Griffiths,2006). Persky and Blascovitch (2008) found that immersion was a significantmediator between violent video game play in a virtual reality environmentand aggressive feelings, although this study used nonvalidated measures ofaggressive feelings and immersion while not testing video game content.Ivory and Kalyaraman (2007) found that immersion did differ between olderand newer video game technology, but immersion also did not differ be-tween violent and nonviolent video game content. Overall, the findings ofpast research and the current research seem to suggest that immersion doesnot differ between violent and nonviolent video game play, immersion isonly related to virtual reality compared to standard consol based gaming,and immersion is not a significant mediator or moderator in the relationshipbetween video game content and/or video game technology and aggression-related variables.

These findings suggest that immersion does not seem to matter much,and this supports the hypothesis that exposure to violence in video gamesis related to aggression-related variables independent of whether or not onefeels as though they are a part of the game. Some could argue that thisconclusion may appear implausible (i.e., if one is not immersed in a videogame, then one may not have been paying attention to the game, and thennot have higher aggressive thoughts or aggressive feelings). However, we



believe that immersion is not an important moderator or mediator in therelationship between video game content and aggression-related outcomes.Regarding aggressive cognitions, priming theory (Geen, 1990) posits thatthe simple observation of media violence is sufficient to activate aggressivenodes in memory, which should lead to the activation of aggressive knowl-edge structures (assuming enough spreading activation; see also Anderson& Huesmann, 2003). All participants in the current studies tried to playtheir respective video game, even if they were not proficient at the game.In other words, no participants gave up early or looked at the laboratoryroom rather than playing the video game, for example. Therefore, evenif the participants were not paying full attention to the video game (andtherefore may not be fully immersed in the game) they were still gettingat least some dosage of video game violence exposure, via trying to killtheir opponent in Mortal Kombat. This can explain the aggressive cog-nition findings, because observation of only a few acts of violence in avideo game may be enough to activate certain aggressive-related nodes inmemory, and subsequent aggressive scripts. Regarding aggressive feelings,since GAM predicts that aggressive thoughts are related to the other inter-nal state variables, aggressive feelings may be elevated after violent videogame play for those who are or are not immersed in the violent videogame. Future work may be needed to specifically test these assertions,but we feel confident that immersion is not an important moderator ormediator in the relationship between video game content and aggression-related variables.

Limitations and Future Research

Like all psychological research, the current studies do have some limitationsthat need to be addressed in future research. The first limitation is thataggressive behavior was not assessed in either study. The focus of thecurrent research was the internal state and empirical studies needed showthat video game technology moderated the relationship between video gamecontent and internal state variables before aggressive behavior could betested. Future work should test the hypotheses of the current study withaggressive behavior, but we expect that such a study would not find a videogame system effect on aggressive behavior in light of the results of the currentresearch.

The second limitation is that it is not clear that the results can begeneralized beyond Mortal Kombat and baseball games, because stimulussampling was not used (see Wells & Windschitl, 1998). We could not usestimulus sampling because the video games used had to be similar acrossmany different years of video game technological periods, and only a fewgames met this criteria. Another related concern is that we used video gamesystems that may have differed from one another on dimensions rather



than their graphics quality as a function of computer processing power. Forinstance, the Nintendo Wii allows the players to move their arms and handsin motions that resemble the movement of the character on the screen (i.e.,holding the Wii controller like a baseball bat and swinging it to cause thecharacter to swing the bat). Also, participants may have been better able toplay the video games on more modern video game systems compared toolder ones for a variety of reasons including video game controller usability,familiarity with the video game system, or the more enhanced violent andnonviolent sounds coming from the game. We do not expect the results tobe different if these variables were controlled; however, this is speculativeand future work should test this claim.

Third, video game performance was not measured in the current studyas an indirect measure of frustration (namely, lower performance is relatedto higher frustration). This limitation is more crucial for Study 1, becausethe second study had participants rate the video game on how difficultthe game was to play (a direct measure of frustration), whereas Study 1did not employ such measures. However, past research has shown thatperformance did not account for a significant portion of the variance in therelationship between video game content and relevant aggression-relatedvariables (Bartholow, Sestir, & Davis, 2005). Future research should attemptto replicate these findings and determine if video game performance isrelated to immersion.

One final limitation is based on the measure of immersion used inStudy 2. The nonsignificant main effect of video game technology is atodds of the findings of Ivory and Kalyaraman (2007). This may be due tothe fact that different measures of immersion were used. Future researchshould attempt to use multiple measures of immersion to determine whatthe mediating or moderating role of immersion is in the relationshipbetween video game content, video game system, and aggression-relatedvariables.

Final Remarks

Overall, the current study demonstrated that violent video game play isrelated to aggressive cognitions and hostility. The technological advancementin video game play does not seem to moderate this effect. Thus, as the videogame industry continues to create more technologically advanced videogame systems, the violence depicted in the these systems will be morerealistic looking, but such realism will not overshadow the impact of theviolence in certain video games. Finally, the extent to which one is immersedin the video game also does not overshadow the violence depicted in violentvideo games. Therefore, those who claim that violence in video games doesnot ‘‘affect them’’ because they are not submerged in such games, may becoming to the wrong conclusions.



REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A. (2003). Video games and aggressive behavior. In D. Ravish &J. P. Literati (Eds.), Kid stuff: Marketing sex and violence to America’s children

(pp. 143–167). Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games.

Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113–122.Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J., & Bartholow, B. D. (1998). Does the gun pull

the trigger? Automatic priming effects of weapon pictures and weapon names.Psychological Science, 9, 308–314.

Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggres-sive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, andprosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psycho-

logical Science, 12, 353–359.Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media:

The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960–971.

Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. M. (1995). Hot temperatures, hostileaffect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a General Model of AffectiveAggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 434–448.

Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings,and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 78, 772–790.Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects

on children and adolescents. UK: Oxford University Press.Anderson, C. A., & Huesmann, L. R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive

view. In M. A. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology

(pp. 296–323). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Ballard, M. E., & Wiest, J. R. (1996). Mortal Kombat: The effects of violent videogame

play on males’ hostility and cardiovascular responding. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 26, 717–730.Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning of moral judgments. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 11, 275–279.Barlett, C. P., Harris, R. J., & Baldassaro, R. (2007). The longer you play the more

hostile you feel: Examination of first person shooter video games and aggressionduring video game play. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 486–497.

Barlett, C. P., Harris, R. J., & Bruey, C. (2008). The effect of the amount of blood ina violent video game on aggression, hostility, and arousal. Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psychology, 44, 539–546.Barlett, C. P., & Rodeheffer, C. D. (in press). Effects of extended violent and nonvi-

olent video game play on aggressive thoughts, feelings, behaviors, and physi-ological arousal. Aggressive Behavior.

Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction insocial psychology research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.

Bartholow, B. D., Sestir, M. A., & Davis, E. B. (2005). Correlates and consequences ofexposure to video game violence: Hostile perceptions, empathy, and aggressivebehavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1573–1586.



Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York:McGraw-Hill.

Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expecta-tions: A test of the General Aggression Model. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 28, 1679–1686.Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Theory in the study of media violence: The

General Aggression Model. In D. A. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence and children:

A complete guide for parents and professionals (pp. 131–154). Westport, CT:Praeger.

Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The effects of reward and punishment inviolent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychological

Science, 16, 882–889.Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social-

psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722.Dill, K. E., & Dill, J. C. (1998). Video game violence: A review of the empirical

literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 3, 407–428.Eastin (2006). Video game violence and the female game player: Self-and opponent

gender effects on presence and aggressive thoughts. Human Communication

Research, 32, 351–372.Eastin, M. S., & Griffiths, R. P. (2006). Beyond the shooter game: Examining presence

and hostile outcomes among male game players. Communication Research, 33,448–466.

Gallagher, S., & Park, S. H. (2002). Innovation and competition in standard-basedindustries: A historical analysis of the U.S. home video game market. IEEE

Transactions of Engineering Management, 49, 67–82.Geen, R. G. (1990). Human aggression. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Gentile, D. A., & Gentile, J. R. (2008). Video games as exemplary teachers: A

conceptual analysis. Journal of Youth and Adolescents, 37, 127–141.Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. L., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of

violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, andschool performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5–22.

Griffiths, M. (1999). Violent video games and aggression: a review of the literature.Aggression and Violent Behavior, 4, 203–212.

Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation betweenexposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of

Social Issues, 42, 125–139.Ivory, D. (2007). Communication theorists enter hardware and software studies. Re-

trieved August 10, 2008, from http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2007/08/28/communication-theorists-enter-hardware-and-software-studies/

Ivory, J. D., & Kalyaraman, S. (2007). The effects of technological advancement andviolent content in video games on player’s feelings of presence, involvement,physiological arousal, and aggression. Journal of Communication, 57, 532–555.

Marino, M. (2007). Communication Theorists Enter Hardware and Software Studies.Retrieved from http://writerresponsetheory.org/wordpress/2007/08/28/communication-theorists-enter-hardware-and-software-studies/



Persky, S., & Blascovich, J. (2008). Immersive virtual video game play and presence:Influences on aggressive feelings and behavior. Presence, 17, 57–72.

Schneider, E. F., Lang, A., Shin, M., & Bradley, S. D. (2004). Death with a story:How story impacts emotional, motivational, and physiological responses to first-person shooter video games. Human Communication Research, 30, 361–375.

Shapiro, M. A., Pena-Herborn, J., & Hancock, J. T. (2006). Realism, imagination, andnarrative video games. In P. Vorderer & J. Bryant (Eds.), Playing video games:

Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 275–289). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological

experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1115–1125.Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring presence in virtual environments:

A Presence Questionnaire. Presence, 7, 225–240.Zillmann, D. (1971). Excitation transfer in communication-mediated aggressive be-

havior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 7, 419–434.


Documents

Barlett, C. P., Rodeheffer, C. D., Baldassaro, R. M., Hinkin, M