VVGs 1

Is Pacman Eating Our Kids?

The Influence of Violent Video Games on Children: Concepts,
Theories, Empirical Evidence, and Future Implications.

Name: Danny van Pol

CAPSTONE
17th of June, 2009
Capstone Advisor: Rob Ruiter
Course Coordinator: Wilfred van Dellen
Amount of words: 9970
 VVGs 2

INTRODUCTION

On Tuesday 20 April 1999, two students named Eric David Harris (18) and Dylan
Klebold (17) shot twelve other students and a teacher in the Columbine highschool in
Jefferson County (Colorado) after which they shot themselves. Twenty-three others got
wounded. After several years of investigation it is now clear that Harris was the mastermind
behind the shooting. Harris, aswell as Klebold, was a passionate player of the first person
shooter video game Doom. Harris even developed his own modifications (read mods) to the
game. In this version there were two shooters, each with extra weapons and unlimited ammo.
The computer opponents in the game were modified in such a manner that they did not fight
back. In that sense they were ‘playing out their game in God mode’ (Pooley, 1999, p. 32). It
was found that Harris even made a level which looked identical to the Columbine High
School already a year before the killings took place. Harris kept a diary in which he wrote in
August 1998 that the video game Doom was one of the most important things in life to him:
“Doom is so burned into my head my thoughts usually have something to do with the game.
Whether it be a level or environment or whatever. In fact a dream I had yesterday was about a
“Deathmatch” level that I have never even been to.” (Diary David Harris, ibid: 272). After
investigation the police recovered several video tapes of Harris and Klebold. In one videotape
made on March 15th, 1999, Harris already described and talked about the upcoming
massacre; “It’s going to be like fucking Doom. Tick, tick, tick, tick… Haa! That fucking
shotgun is straight out of Doom!”.
Several years later in October 2002 the notorious Beltway sniper killed ten people and
wounded another three in a killing spree spread over three weeks. The shooter, Lee Boyd
Malvo, trained his sniper skills by playing the first person shooter video game ‘Halo’. John
Allen Muhammad, an accompliance of Malvo had him train on the game as Dateline NBC
reported on December 14; ‘John Muhammad had Malvo train on this game to break down his
inhibition to kill because it switched Malvo from two-dimensional rifle range targets to virtual
human targets. Killing humans would then be easier’ (www.thefreeradical.ca). Due to the
horrific nature of these acts, the full media coverage, and the link to violent video games the
nature of these games and there effects on children and adolescents has come under public,
political, and scientific attention.
Of course there were several other motives and reasons as to why the killers did what
they did. Dr. Robert Hare, who was involved in the trials of the Columbine High School
shooting, noted that Harris was a psychopath (www.slate.com). Due to these acts and the
 VVGs 3

rapid growing of the Video Game Industry questions started to be asked as to what influence
these violent video games (VVGs) could have on the children who play these games.

Figure 1: Overall sales Video Game Industry per year.

Figure 1 shows the overall sales, including consoles, software, and accessories, of the
Video Game Industry from 2000 – 2008. Especially after 2006 there is rise in annual sales.
This is due to the release of the 7th generation of consoles including the XBOX360 (2005), the
PlayStation 3 (2006), and the Nintendo WII (2006). Compared to the first generation of
consoles which were developed between 1972 -1976 and under which the famous game
‘Pong’ belongs, the technology has not stand still. At the start of the computer age there was a
huge technological constraint which inhibited the development of new and better video games
and even resulted in a decline of annual sales. Gentile and Anderson note that ‘during the
1980s and early 1990s, the violence in video games was still fairly stylized, in large part
because of technological constraints.’ (Gentile & Anderson). Already in 2001 ‘approximately
67% of households with children own a video game system (Greenfield & Gross, 2001).
Relating this to the figure 1 shows that this number can only have increased since the last
years. By looking at the numbers and types of games sold it became already clear in the early
development of games that there was a tendency towards especially violent video games. If
we look at the market nowadays we see that a huge amount of the video games available
contain violence. When looking at the information above it becomes clear that violent video
games become more and more entrenched within our everyday society. Especially due to the
shootings, violent video games came under public attention.
 VVGs 4

Of course there is no direct and causal link between playing a violent video game on the one
hand, and committing a fierce atrocity on the other. There are certain risk factors involved
which might make certain people more vulnerable to the effects of violent video games than
others. But as more commercials start to promote video games, younger children start playing
more (violent) video games, annual sales of consoles keep rising, the shootings and there
relation to violent video games, this raises the question what the influences are of violent
video games on children and their behavior. This thesis will deal with this question by
discussing it in different subtopics. The history of video games (1) will be discussed to get an
accurate picture as to what the Video Game Industry has gone through starting from the 1970s
with the first game Pong until now. Following, important concepts, definitions and the
different types of games (2) regarding the research on violent video games will be put
forward. Because video games, and especially the video games we have nowadays are a pretty
recent phenomenon and not so much literature has been done on this specific topic, it is
needed to look at the literature of media violence (e.g. TV and movies) and a possible
relationship between media violence and video game violence (3). For that reason theories
and models (4) such as Bandura’s social learning theory, Berkowitz’s cognitive
neoassociation theory, and Dodge’s social information processing theory will be discussed in
depth and in relation to the General Aggression Model by Anderson and Bushman. Next, the
experience, content and context of gameplay will discussed (5). Furthermore there will be a
section devoted to the empirical evidence (6) which research has obtained through the years.
Another section will discuss the influence and importance of Virtual Reality Exposure
Therapy (VRET) in relation to violent video games (7). From the empirical evidence gathered
in section 6, future implications (8) for the children, parents, video game industry, and
society as a whole will be drawn.
 VVGs 5

THE HISTORY AND DEVELOPMENT OF VIDEO GAMES FROM 1970 ONWARDS

The first commercial video game ever to be developed was Pong in 1972. The game
featured two paddles, one on the left side and one on the right side, with in between a ball.
The purpose of the game is to score points by passing the ball beside the paddle. This new
invention led a lot of developers to push the boundaries ahead and experiment with what was
and was not possible and what the public would accept and what not. Only four years later, in
1976, the first violent video game was developed by Exidy Games and received a lot of
attention in the media. The name of the game was ‘Death Race’. It featured a car which had to
run over pedestrians (the alternative title of the game was ‘pedestrian’). When the player
would run over a pedestrian (called ‘gremlins’), shouts along with screams would be heard.
The pedestrian, visible as a little stick figure, turned into a gravestone. As Eddie Adlum tells,
the publisher of RePlay magazine, the pervasive effect of that game and the consequences
would soon become clear:

‘Every time you made a hit, a little cross would appear on the monitor, signifying a
grave. Nice game. Fun. Bottom line, the game really took off when TV stations started
to get some complaints from irate parents that this was a terrible example to set for
children. The industry got a lot of coast-to-coast coverage during news programs. The
end result was that Exidy sales doubled or quadrupled’ (Kent, 2001, p. 91).

The paradox of this, as indicated by Gentile and Anderson, is that in part due to the public
attention directed towards the violent video games, which made more people aware of the
video games, thus turning the public attention into free publicity for the game developers.
More people became faster aware of the games, which meant more buyers, as is indicated by
the sales of Exidy games which doubled or quadrupled. This in turn led to the development of
more violent video games. Throughout the history of video games different console systems
dominated the market for several years. The first one to dominate the market was Atari from
1977 – 1985. Contrary to all the other console systems, Atari adhered themselves to an
internal rule as founder of Atari, Nolan Bushnell tells: ‘We had an internal rule that we
wouldn’t allow violence against people. You could blow up a tank or you could blow up a
flying saucer, but you couldn’t blow up people. We felt that was not good form...’ (Kent,
2001, p. 92).
 VVGs 6

Atari also adhered to this rule by not making any real graphical improvements because they
wanted to leave most of the video games in the era as abstract and simplistic as possible. The
importance of such an internal law would become clear later on as Nintendo, who dominated
the era 1985 – 1995, did not enjoy such an internal law. ‘Nintendo improved the graphic and
audio capabilities of home console systems’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2002, p. 137). Along with
Sega, Nintendo started to experiment with what was possible. They developed games
primarily for children but that did not mean for them not to include violence. Soon video
games started to include more violence when in the late 1980s and early 1990s games such as
Mortal Kombat and Double Dragon which are called ‘beat ‘em ups’ became best sellers.
Nintendo thus, on the contrary to Atari, developed games which included violence against
other human beings and improved the graphic and audio capabilities, which Atart had not
done. Only in 1992 after overcoming a lot of technological constraints a new era of video
games called ‘first-person shooters’ emerged with the release of Wolfenstein 3D. In a first
person shooter game one views the level through the eyes of the character and in that sense is
more immersed into the game. An other important feature of Wolfenstein 3D was that
‘enemies fell and bled on the floor’ (Kent, 2001, p. 458). Before that time if an enemy was
shot, the enemy fell to the ground and shortly thereafter disappeared. By leaving them laying
on the floor bleeding, the amount of gore and violence increased. This was picked up by the
public and resulted in a revolution within the game industry. In 1993 the game played by
Harris and Klebold was released. Doom elaborated and added on the amount of gore and
blood from Wolfenstein 3D. Also this game was picked up by the public. In 1995, Sony took
over the era of the gaming industry by releasing the PlayStation. The PlayStation differed
from the older console systems in the sense that it made use of CDs, replacing the old
cartridge-based games. This led to more possibilities within the graphic arena. In technical
terms, an image consists of polygons, which are very tiny objects that can take on many
shapes. The amount of polygons per second in a game gives a pretty decent picture of the
graphic quality of the game. More polygons per second meaning better graphic quality. ‘The
original Sony PlayStation processed 350,000 pg/s. Sega’s Dreamcast ... boosted that over 3
million, and PlayStaytion 2 to 66 million pg/s. Microsoft’s Xbox, released in 2001, increased
graphic capability to 125 million pg/s’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2002, p. 138). By increasing the
amount of polygons per second one increases the graphic speed of an image. So adding more
speed and better graphics to the games results in a more realistic picture. In 2000 game
developers took this even a step further with the introduction of a new first-person shooter
called ‘Soldier of Fortune’.
 VVGs 7

For the production of this game, an ex-army colonel, distinguished 26 different killing zones
in the human body. The details of the game are so worked out that the type of gun with which
one fires, the distance between the target and the killer, and the sight where the bullet hits the
target, all play a role. For example, shooting a victim with a pistol from medium range in the
upperleft leg, would leave the target alive but walking less fast.
Because much games started to include violence and started to become more detailed
in the violence portyrayed, the ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board) was
established in 1994 to attach labels to video games according to the level of violence. As said,
the main reason for founding the ESRB was due to the increasing violent content in video
games. ESRB’s objective was to apply ratings based on content and suitability The ESRB
labels games in accord to the audiences they are suited for. Examples are ‘M’ for mature,
‘E10+ for everybody above 10 years old. The role of the ESRB will be more thoroughly
discussed in the section devoted to future implications. With the release of the Nintendo Wii
in 2006, the possibilities became even more diverse. The Nintendo Wii has all kinds of
accessories which can be used for a specific game. For example, Nintendo has developed
several different types of guns to be used in different violent video games such as Call of
Duty: World at War. Technological constraints are not a barrier anymore, the games are
becoming overall more realistic in sound, graphics, and game play. This indicates that the
effects of violent video games, which were first regarded as abstract and simplistic in the
1970s and nowadays are much more realistic aswell. The more realistic a game becomes in
terms of graphics, audio, etc., the more a player becomes immersed with, involved with, and
shows heigher levels of presence when playing the game. These are all concepts which will be
discussed later on and which have a pervasive effect the behavior of the player. Therefore it is
worth investigating the influences these violent video games have and what the future might
bear with it.
 VVGs 8

CONCEPTS, DEFINITIONS, AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF GAMES

In every field of academic study there are definitions which need to be clear to study
the topic of interest. Related to the study on the influence of violent video games on children
are especially the definitions of aggression and violence. Different researchers uphold
different kinds of definitions and there is no consent over what the working definition of
aggression is. Gentile and Anderson define aggression as ‘behavior (verbal or physical) that
(a) is intended to harm another individual; (b) is expected by the perpetrator to have some
chance of actually harming that individual; and (c) is believed by the perpetrator to be
something that the target individual wishes to avoid’ (Gentile & Anderson, p. 226). They also
argue that aggression can be seen on a continuum ranging from mild aggression (e.g. slapping
someone) to severe aggression (e.g. murder or physical assault). Violence is a severe form of
aggression which makes every form of violence a form of aggression, but not vice versa.
Though a lot of researchers agree with the definitions given by Gentile and Anderson,
Goldstein argues that ‘there is no intention to harm anyone living in video games’ (Goldstein,
2001). Goldstein is right in the sense that no living being is hurt, but by looking at Anderson
and Bushman’s definition of an individual this problem is solved. Because an individual can
be a nonhuman cartoon character, a human being, or something in between. Griffiths argues
that ‘there are numerous programmes that do not come within the definitional terms often
used by researchers’ (Griffiths, 2001, p. 210). An example of this is Tom and Jerry which
does not fall under the working definition of violence. There are a number of other definitions
on aggression but most include the intention to hurt someone (Anderson & Bushman, 2001;
Berkowitz, 1993). Because most researchers adhere to or to some similar version of the
definition of Gentile and Anderson, this definition will be used throughout the thesis.
 VVGs 9

There are numerous games on the market and they all need to be categorized into
different types and be assessed on the level of violence. The level of violence needs to be
quantified in terms of a gradual scale from 0 to 10, 10 being ‘extreme high amounts of
violence’ as in the game Manhunt. Griffiths has categorized nine different types of games:

Figure 2: Classification of Video Games

From the nine different types of games, only the last three are violent. But because there is
only very sparse literature on the different types of games and on which types do contain
violence it is not self explicatory that games, other than the three types mentioned do not
contain violence. Indeed, Gentile and Anderson have added an appendix to their article which
helps parents to identify potentially harmful video games. They refer to six questions in which
the following things stand central. The involvement of some characters trying to harm others,
the frequency of the harming, whether the harming is rewarded, whether it is portrayed as
humorous, etc. See appendix 1 at the last page. Gentile and Anderson conclude that if two or
more features are present in a game, than a parent should think critically about giving the
child access to the game or no.
 VVGs 10

The question that arises with all the different types of games available on the market is
why children and game players overall prefer the violent video games (Olson, 2004, p. 149).
The reason why they do is yet unclear and research needs to be done on this matter. What is
known is that the amount and selling of violent video games on the market are much bigger
than for nonviolent video games.
Already in 2001, Children Now reports that ‘recent content analyses of video games show that
as many as 89% of games contain some violent content’ (Children Now, 2001). Because
history has shown that violent video games sell the best, as much as 89% of all video games
now contain some level of violence. Of course the violence across the games varies from
almost insignificant to extreme levels of violence. But what can be said is that the heightened
amount of violent video games is due to the fact that most people are more interested in
playing a violent video game. It is therefore a dynamic interplay between the customer and
the producer who both want more violence in the video games for different reasons. Apart
from this, researchers report that about 50% of all games available on the market contain
serious violence (Dietz, 1998). Furthermore there are studies which have asked the subjects
through questionnaires to indicate their top 3 of video games. They found that most children
preferred violent video games (Funk, 1993; Buchman & Fuck, 1996). A problem is directly
associated with the ESRB who assesses and attaches a label to the video games. It seems that
the ESRB is still pretty reluctant in assessing and labelling games in the sense that ‘the ESRB
rates games based on information and excerpts submitted by the game manufacturer, but does
not play the game before assigning a rating’ (Thompson & Haninger, 2001, p. 597). This also
became clear when they tested 55 E-rated console video games and found that many E-rated
games contain violence, killings, and the use of weapons. Furthermore there is no indication
that these games can be played in a nonviolent way, at least that is not what is portrayed by
the developer of the game. This raises concern about the reliability of the ESRB on which will
be elaborated more thoroughly in the section on future implications.

THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN TV VIOLENCE AND VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

When studying the effects of violent video games on children and their behavior,
researchers look at classic theories from media / TV violence research (TV violence). This is
done because the research on violent video games is still pretty scarce and a same debate
surrounding media and TV violence has already been researched in the 1960s and 1970s.
 VVGs 11

This led to theories such as Bandura’s social learning theory, Berkowitz’s cognitive
neoassociation theory, and Dodge’s social information processing theory. The question
whether these theories apply to violent video games, and if, to what extent is a question of
fierce debate. Researchers argue both sides, some say that the effect of violent video games is
much less than the effect of TV violence. Others say that the effect of violent video games are
much bigger than the effects of TV violence. One should note that at the time researchers
argued that TV violence had a vast bigger effect compared to violent video games, the gaming
industry was still in its first stages of development. Changes throughout the years might have
changed the effects violent video games have. As Silvern and Williamson note ‘the graphic
quality of video games is much poorer and less realistic than on television’ (Silvern &
Williamson, 1987, p. 453). This is supported by Potter who found that children are much
more likely to imitate a certain act when it appears more realistically. Though this indeed was
the case in 1987, the question is whether it still applies nowadays. A second note brought
forward is that video games are simplistic and abstract. Games involve for example the
shooting of space crafts (e.g. Space Invaders). These video games are so much diverted from
the real world that it is almost impossible to imitate this behavior outside of the video game.
Again this point might have been true and still applies at this time, but there are more games
being developed and sold which actually do not show the simplicity and abstractness of
classic games (e.g. Call of Duty, Far Cry, Crysis). Furthermore, research literature has found
that ‘many TV and movie violence studies ... [involving] cartoonish, unrealistic characters can
increase children’s and adults’ aggression’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2002, p. 134). An example
of this is Bandura’s famous article on the ‘imitation of film-mediated aggressive models’
published in 1963 in which Bandura subjects children to either an act of real-life aggression, a
human-film aggression, or a cartoon-film aggression. His data support the fact that the
realistic or unrealistic nature of the character does not matter as was found that ‘subjects who
viewed the real-life models and the film-mediated models do not differ from eachother in total
aggressiveness’(Bandura et al., 1963, p. 7). The group who viewed the aggressive cartoon
movie depicted a total aggression score of 99, which is the highest value (Bandura, 1963).
Seeing all these objections, the question arises whether violent video games might have a
greater effect than TV violence. The support for this comes from several directions. There are
six main reasons (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Gentile & Walsh, 2002). When playing a violent
video game one becomes more identified (1) with the character as one can edit for example
the facial characteristics, bodily characteristics etc. Especially in first person shooters this
identification plays a role.
 VVGs 12

In this type of game the player views the game through the eyes of the character. This leads to
a higher identification with the character and in turn a higher identification leads to an
increase of imitating the behavior of the character. Furthermore the player is actively
participating in the game. He / she is the one who acts, e.g. fires the gun and thereby does not
merely watch what is happening as is the case in TV violence.
Researchers have made therefore a distinction between active and passive engagement.
TV violence is regarded as passive in the sense that one does not act and only watches what
happens on the screen. In violent video games the player must become active in order to
advance through the different levels. This active participation increases learning (2). And as
the participation involves a lot of violent acts to be committed, the learning of these violent
acts might have an influence on the behavior. Another reason is that one is practicing an
entire behavioural sequence over and over again (3) in a violent video game. For example a
weapon needs to be selected, it needs to be aimed at the target, one needs to shoot and after
the action needs to reload. Taking all these different steps is more effective than practicing
only a part as is the case in TV violence where only parts are portrayed. When playing a VVG
these violent acts are on a continuum of destruction (4). TV violence often involves episodes
or scenes in which violence occurs, but VVGs require a player to go on a path of destruction
to advance in the level, ‘the violence is unrelieved and uninterrupted’ (Paik & Comstock,
1994; Donnerstein, Slaby & Eron, 1994). This leads to a desensitization of violence which in
turn can lead to a decrease in empathy or guilt feelings in real life (will be elaborated on later
on). The 5th reason is that by repeating the same scripts over and over again, learning is
increased (5). In that sense it is similar to the remembrance of a phone number, which is more
easily when you repeat it more often. The last and maybe even the most important reason is
that the violence in VVGs is often rewarded (6). One receives credits or points when
committing a violent act. In some games one even obtains new weapons (e.g. Call of Duty).
By rewarding the violent acts, ‘video games teach more positive attitudes towards the use of
force as a means of solving conflicts’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2002, p. 136). This indicates
another difference between TV violence and VVGs. The TV violence is often not reward-
based but in VVGs it is almost purely reward based. Furthermore giving rewards to a certain
type of behavior increases motivation for the player to adhere to that same type of behavior.
This motivation can lead to addiction.
 VVGs 13

THEORIES AND MODELS: VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES AND AGGRESSION

This section will explain and discuss different classical theories from TV violence
research. The main theories from this research are Bandura’s social learning theory (1986),
which over the past 30 years has become increasingly cognitive in the sense that ‘most
external influences affect behavior through cognitive processes rather than directly’ (Nowak
et al., 2006, p. 140). A second theory is Berkowitz’s cognitive neoassociation theory (1984)
which is primarily concerned with priming effects and thought networks. A 3rd theory which
had its origins in the TV violence research is the social information processing theory by
Dodge (1980) which is more concerned with the hostile attribution bias.
All these theories are included in the General Aggression Model (GAM). The GAM
incorporates several other theories on human aggression (Geen, 1990; Huesmann, 1986;
Zillmann, 1983) but the three aforementioned are most important. All these theories,
including the GAM but in more detail, try to explain the link between violent video games
and aggression. Social learning theory posits that people learn within a social context through
modelling and imitating the behavior of others. Out of this theory, the social cognitive theory
developed, which argued that cognitive processes were also important in explaining behavior.
‘Cognitive factors partly determine which environmental events will be observed, what
meaning will be conferred on them, whether they leave a lasting effect, what emotional
impact and motivating power they will have, and how the information they convey will be
organized for future use’ (Nowak et al., 2006, p. 140). This indicates that learning can either
be direct through modelling and imitation, but can also be indirect because cognitive
experiences have an effect on the outcome aswell. Figure 3 shows a model of Bandura’s
social learning theory including cognitive experiences.

Figure 3: Bandura’s Social Learning Theory

 VVGs 14

The role of VVGs in this is as follows. VVGs require a player to often take aggressive
measures which in the end are rewarded with e.g. game points. Furthermore the ‘interactive
nature of video games requires active participation and a higher level of presence, or
involvement’ (Nowak et al., p. 140). The increase in presence, the active participation, and the
rewarding for committing violent acts all contribute to a higher probability of imitating and
modelling the behavior experienced in game. This would mean according to social learning
theory that aggressive behavior is increased (Bensley & Eenwyck, 2001). Berkowitz’s
cognitive neoassociation theory holds that our memory consists out of thought networks.
These thought networks are formed through linking aggressive beliefs / thoughts, emotions /
feelings, and behavioral tendencies. This means that playing VVGs which contain often
severe forms of aggression (violence) and require a lot of repetition of these forms of
aggression, leads to the construction of, elaboration on, and priming of existing thought
networks.
If one plays a vast amount of VVGs, these thought networks become more pervasive
in memory which eventually leads to aggressive behavior. Dodge’s social information
processing theory is in accordance with this. The theory puts a lot of emphasis on perceptions
and attributions. First there is cue attention and interpretation. This is the gathering and
encoding of cues in the direct environment. Second is script retrieval which is the searching
for responses to a certain situation. Third there is the evaluation of and selection of a script
which in other words is the choosing of a response in the given situation. Fourth there is script
enactment which is the executing of the chosen script. Dodge adds the concept of ‘hostile
attribution bias’ to his theory, which is in line with Berkowitz’s theory. Hostile attribution
bias is the interpretation of an incidental happening (e.g. being bumped into a puddle) into
something which is done intentionally and has an aggressive nature attached to it. In relation
to Berkowitz’s theory, children who play a lot of VVGs develop more pervasive aggressive
thought networks. Because these thought networks are so pervasive, something which in
nature is not an aggressive act, is still interpreted as such due to the fast retrieval of an
aggressive script. This means that children who play VVGs often chose for the executing of
an aggressive script in circumstances where it is unnecessary. This means that ‘hostile
attribution bias is important because children who have this social problem-solving deficit are
also more likely to act aggressively and are likely to be socially maladjusted’ (Crick &
Dodge, 1994; Dodge & Fame, 1982).
 VVGs 15

In 2001, Anderson and Bushman developed the General Aggression Model. As

explained above GAM incorporates many theories of the research on TV violence into the
model. The GAM combines all the previous mentioned theories into one model that tries to
form a theoretical explanation between VVGs and aggressive attitudes, behavior, and
cognitions. The GAM is divided into a short-term and a long-term GAM. The short-term
version tries to explain one specific episode in which a person might choose to act
aggressively (see figure 4 for more details).

Figure 4: Single Episodic GAM for Short Term Effects

The short-term version starts with looking at the input variables, these are personological or
situational. Personological variables can be for example always being in a high state of
arousal or having an aggressive personality. Situational variables are the playing of VVGs and
a provocation. The provocation might be a verbal insult. The personological and situational
variables combined have an effect on the present internal state which consist out of the current
state of affect, the current state of arousal, and the current state of cognition. If we take verbal
insult as the provocation, this has an effect on the present internal state. The effect might be
an increased heartbeat (arousal), the activation of aggressive scripts (cognition), and an
increase in state hostility (affect). Related to the theories above, this implies the following. If
one plays VVGs the amount and pervasiveness of aggressive scripts increases. This has an
effect on cognition. Furthermore, hostile attribution bias may have an effect on the current
state of affect because the verbal insult, although taken as an example, might be nothing more
than a joke. If hostile attribution is present in the person, whatever the provocation might be,
there is a higher chance of an aggressive response. The provocation might also lead to an
increase in heart rate.
 VVGs 16

The problem is that if one of the variables in the present internal state is affected, there is a
high tendency that the other variables will be affected aswell because they are interrelated.
The present internal state leads to the automatic appraisal and decision-making process. Most
of human behavior is automatic and is based on memory and behavioral scripts. Therefore the
evaluation of the present internal state is often automatic. Relating this to VVGs, more
exposure and repetition leads to the formation of quickly available aggressive scripts. The
behavior might be for example giving a slap in the face. Apart from automatic appraisal there
is also controlled reappraisal. This involves the rethinking of why the person made the
provocation and can have an effect on the elicited behavior. As research indicates, ‘people
who score high on aggressive personality have a relatively well-developed and easily
accessible array of aggression scripts that are easily activated by relatively minor provocation’
(Anderson & Dill, 2000, p. 774).
Apart from the single episode GAM there is also a long-term GAM. ‘Long-term
exposure to violent content ... may result in the development, over-learning, and
reinforcement of aggression-related knowledge structures’ (Gentile et al., 2004, p. 9). Figure 5
shows the multiple episodic GAM in relation to VVGs. By playing VVGs one is exposed to
aggression. Depending on certain risk factors (e.g. the amount of time one plays the game,
and the aggressive nature of the game) the effects of these games can become more pervasive
in memory. So, ‘each violent episode is essentially one more learning trial’ (Anderson &
Bushman, 2001, p. 355) which makes the aggressive-related scripts more complex, more
pervasive, more difficult to change. Through learning, rehearsing and the formation of new
aggression-related scripts, the personality of one might then become more aggressive,
depending on the five premises given above (aggressive beliefs and attitudes, perceptual
schemata, expectation schemata, behavior scripts, and desensitization). This increase in
aggressiveness has a profound effect on the personological variables and the situational
variables. These are the same as in the single-episodic GAM only now they are influenced by
the playing of VVGs because the purpose of this model is to explain the long term effects of
playing VVGs.
The theoretical link between VVGs and personological variables is self-explicatory in
the sense that repeated exposure to VVG leads to a more aggressive nature by having
aggressive-related scripts quickly available and also leads to the desensitization of aggression.
The increase in aggressive personality has an effect on the situational variables to which we
will come back later. A child who plays a lot of VVGs and meets other risk factors has an
increased aggressive personality.
 VVGs 17

Huesmann and colleagues (Huesmann, 1994) have developed a model which tries to explain
the link between personality and situational variables. ‘As a person becomes more aggressive,
the social environment responds’ (Anderson & Dill, 2000, p. 775). They are more likely to
interact with the people who are similar to them. This means that the social situations are
changed by playing VVGs. The child might for example show more aggressiveness towards
his parents or a teacher. In short, GAM and earlier theories on media violence try to explain
the link between exposure to violence and forthcoming possible aggressive behavior.

Figure 5: Multiple Episodic GAM for Long Term Effects

Although the GAM and the surrounding theories offer a strong theoretical explanation
for the link between VVGs and aggressive behavior, there are some things which need to be
mentioned. The GAM already says that the personological features a person brings in to the
situation has a huge effect on what behavior will be elicited. In that sense, having an
aggressive personality is a risk factor for aggression. A risk factor is a condition which puts a
person more at risk to elicit a specific type of behavior. In the case of violent video games and
its relation to aggressive behavior risk factors such as sex, age, personality, status in school
[as either bullies or victims of bullies], and the more general risk factors as poverty, history of
abuse, disorders, amount of exposure to VVGs and media violence, and self-esteem, all have
strong influences on the type of behavior one performs. ‘However, this does not mean that
most people who play VVGs will later become violent. It does mean that their risk is elevated.
If there are additional risk factors, the risk is further elevated’ (Dowd et al., 2006, p. 234).
 VVGs 18

So the more risk factors for aggression someone has, of which playing VVGs is one itself, the
more likely it is that one will more aggressive in the outside world. This in a sense diminishes
the importance of VVGs and its relationship to aggressive behavior of which the video game
industry has made practical use. They argue that ‘the TV/movie violence literature is
inconclusive’ (Anderson, 2000, p. 4) as no individual study can show a causal link between
VVGs and aggressive behavior. This is due to the different risk factors involved. It is almost
impossible to draw a causal conclusion on one specific aspect in an arena of complex
interactions in which each contributes to the eventual effect. An historical example in which
the same critique was used is the smoking/lung cancer debate. Tobacco companies have
argued for years that there was no conclusive study which proved that smoking directly
caused lung cancer. Also in this example there are different risk factors involved such as how
many cigarettes one smokes, age, cardiovascular disease history, etc. Therefore, establishing a
causal link is almost impossible, let alone from the fact that most people who smoke die from
something else than lung cancer.
Apart from this debate there is a fundamental question underlying the research of
VVGs and its link to aggressive behavior. The question is whether ‘young adolescents are
more hostile and aggressive because they expose themselves to [Violent Video Games], or
[whether the] previously hostile adolescents prefer [Violent Video Games]’ (Gentile et al.,
2004, p. 18). This is a matter of causality which will be discussed and elaborated on in the
section ‘empirical review of previously done research on VVGs’.

THE EXPERIENCE , CONTENT, AND CONTEXT OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

Different video games have different effects on the players of them. Some contain
more violence (content of the game), some are graphically more developed, and some are
played in a more realistic environment (context of the game) etc. These things have an
influence on how a player experiences the game. The highly interactive nature of first-person
shooter games has already been mentioned before. The effect this interactive nature has and
what the experience is of game play has been researched. It is noteworthy that the levels of
involvement and immersion play an important role. Involvement is defined as ‘a psychological
state in which attention and energy are focused on the medium, and immersion, defined as the
extent to which the player or person perceives being in and interacting with the mediated
environment’ (Eastin & Griffiths, 2006, p. 450).
 VVGs 19

The graphics of games which become more realistic and the increasing interactive nature of
games leads to an increase in involvement and immersion in a game. The levels of
involvement and immersion are important indicators for the level of presence which can be
defined as ‘the subjective experience of being in one place or environment, even when one is
physically situated in another’ (Witmer & Singer, 1998, p. 225). A high level of presence
leads to the feeling of playing ‘as’ a character instead of merely playing ‘with’ a character.
This is especially the case in first-person shooter games because they involve the highest level
of interaction possible. If the levels of involvement, immersion, interactivity, and presence are
high in video games which are based on violence, then it is likely that this has an effect on the
behavior of the children. With regard to this, the amount of gameplay and gender are
important factors aswell. Gender differences indicate that women are less aggressive in nature
than men, therefore the effect of VVGs is probably bigger in men because it suits their social
role better. The amount of gameplay is an important determinant factor in assessing the
influence. As is explained already in the theories above, repeated exposure to violence leads
to priming and aggressive related behavioral scripts. So when the amount of gameplay is very
high, the aggressive behavioral scripts are elaborated on and made more complex and
pervasive along with priming that occurs. This can lead to a more aggressive personality in
the long term. In effect, the continued exposure to violence in VVGs can lead in the long-term
to the desensitization of violence, which means ‘the attenuation or elimination of cognitive,
emotional, and ultimately, behavioral responses to a stimulus’ (Funk et al., 2004, p. 25).
Normally spoken, people reply in an unpleasant manner to violence. But continued exposure
leads to the removal of this unpleasant physiological feeling. This in turn leads to the
habituation and eventual to the desensitization of violence. A practical example of this is
someone with spider phobia.
Imagine a person who has an unpleasant and anxious feeling towards spiders. The best
curing method for this is exposure therapy, which means gradual exposure to the feared and
unpleasant stimulus to turn it into something which is neither feared nor unpleasant anymore.
The same thing might occurs when people are exposed to VVGs. Continued exposure to
violence which is normally perceived as an unpleasant stimulus, can be transformed into
something which is not unpleasant nor feared anymore. This desensitization to violence can
also lead to a decreased level in empathy. Empathy is best described as ‘the capacity to
perceive and to experience the state of another’ (Funk et al., 2004, p. 26). Being desensitized
to violence means that ones moral evaluation is changed. One cannot accurately perceive and
respond to cues in the outside world.
 VVGs 20

Because the moral evaluation is disengaged from reality, it is possible that decreased levels of
empathy occur. If one has a distorted moral evaluation, one cannot accurately perceive and
experience the state in which another being is finding him or herself. This in turn leads to a
decrease in prosocial behavior. Furthermore VVGs can lead to a distorted worldview in which
violence is seen as something good. The reason for this is twofold. On the one hand VVGs
directly promote violence by rewarding a player in various ways (e.g. by giving game points).
On the other hand, violence in VVGs is perceived as nonharmful because no living being is
hurt. In short, VVGs can lead to the desensitization towards violence (1), a decreased feeling
for empathy (2), a decrease in prosocial behavior (3), a distorted worldview in which violence
is perceived as something normal (4), and even proviolent behavior (5). There are sufficient
scientific studies along with theories which prove these consequences of playing VVGs. It
should be noted though that the amount of time one plays VVGs is an important factor in
assessing the probable change in behavior. Relating to the above, the catharsis hypothesis
argues that ‘engaging in aggressive behavior can actually lead to a reduction in subsequent
aggressive behavior due to a “venting off” of aggressive energy or desires’ (Dill & Dill, 1998,
p. 411). In other words, the aggressive tendencies and emotions one builds up inside one’s
body is released through playing VVGs. The initial support for this hypothesis came from the
study of media violence. Unfortunately later studies were not able to replicate the same results
(Zillman, 1998). In 2005, Jansz made a distinction between ‘lean back media’ and ‘lean
forward media’ by which he means the distinction between passively watching media
violence and actively engaging VVGs. It could be possible that the passive nature of media
violence did not allow for the cathartic effect to occur, but that the active engaging nature of
VVGs does allow for such an effect. Especially because Hokanson and Burgess found in 1962
by a study that ‘physically acting out aggression can reduce tension’ this debate over the
existence of catharsis in VVGs seemed not over. But until now no studies were able to
produce such a finding.
 VVGs 21

EMPIRICAL REVIEW OF PREVIOUSLY DONE RESEARCH ON VVGs

Although the cathartic effect has not been proven to be true in relation to VVGs, the
link between VVGs and aggressive behavior is not so straightforward either. Before going
into detail the reader should note that the first game only appeared in 1972 and that
technology has increased very fast in terms of graphical capabilities and realisticity. The
problem with assessing the effects VVGs have on behavior is that there are few reliable
experimental or correlational studies. The section on ‘implications for society and research’
discusses the main characteristics of good research studies and why there are still so few
reliable studies. Experimental and correlational studies together with longitudinal studies form
the basis of research. Experimental studies can involve the random assignment of participants
to play either a non-violent or violent video game for a certain amount of time (e.g. 15
minutes). After the 15 minutes changes in behavior will be assessed. A strength is that
experimental studies allow for strong causal statements because the change in behavior can
only be caused by the different type of game. A weakness is that is it difficult to translate
these laboratory findings into real-world measures and this is also what the Video Game
Industry has been saying. Furthermore the Video Game Industry says that the results are
inconclusive because no causal linkage has been found between VVGs and aggressive
behavior. Correlational studies involve the surveying of children about the video games they
play. This is also the strength of a correlational study because it does not face the ‘laboratory
barrier’ which experimental studies do face. A weakness of correlational studies is that they
cannot prove causality because of possible third variables or risk factors involved. So,
correlational studies are strong where experimental studies are weak and vice versa. In that
sense they build up on eachother and with help of longitudinal studies a conclusive picture
can be drawn. The first strong experimental study was conducted by Anderson and Dill in
2000. They assigned college students randomly to play either a non-violent or a violent video
game. ‘The games were matched on several important dimensions, including arousal and
frustration levels’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2006, p. 230). After having played either game the
participants were assessed on aggressive cognition and behavior. Anderson and Dill found
that ‘playing a violent video game increased both aggressive cognition and aggressive
behavior’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2006, p. 230).
 VVGs 22

The first strong correlational study was conducted in 2004 by Krahé and Möller also found
that ‘the exposure to media violence in the new medium of electronic games leads to an
increase in aggressive behavior, both in the short-term following a brief exposure and in the
long run as a result of continuous playing’ (Krahé & Möller, 2004, p. 17). In specific, they
found significant correlations between video games violence and; arguments with teachers
(1), physical fights (2), and trait hostility (3). Furthermore Anderson et al. replicated these
findings in 2004. They found that ‘video game violence exposure was related to a wide array
of aggression (e.g. verbal, aggression)’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2006, p. 230). Other studies also
replicated the relationship between VVGs and aggression (Bushman, 2002). It should be
noted though that there are strong gender differences. Males more often play VVGs and feel
more attracted to them (Anderson & Dill, 2002). Furthermore males are less sensitive to acts
of aggression than girls. This is also due to the social role which they portray where males are
more likely to act aggressively (Crick et al., 1996). Furthermore Anderson and Dill, 2002,
found that males have a more hostile view of the world. Gender is a more general risk factor
but seeing there are significant differences between males and females, these differences
might become more pervasive in the form of aggressive behavior when more risk factors are
present such as being male, having a history of abuse, having aggressive peers, etc. In short,
the amount of reliable studies which have been conducted is small but those which have been
conducted show a relationship between VVGs and aggressive behavior. More experimental
studies aswell as correlational studies are needed to assess the effects VVGs have on the short
term. Longitudinal studies are needed to assess the effects of VVGs on the long term.
Although the research is getting more united and is showing similar results, it is important to
note that the research is going slower than expected whereas technology and VVGs are
developing faster than expected. The section on implications for society and research will
elaborate more thoroughly on the problems research was, and sometimes still is, facing.
 VVGs 23

VIRTUAL REALITY EXPOSURE THERAPY AND VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

With the increasing realistic graphics and the high levels of interaction in VVGs due to
fast technological developments a new area comes to light which might be support for the
relation between VVGs and aggressive behavior. The area which is starting to have a more
pervasive influence in society is virtual reality (VR). Virtual reality encompasses an
environment which is simulated by a computer, has a high level of interaction and realistic
graphics. For now, this is probably as real as it can get. For who might think that virtual
reality has its base and most pervasive effects in the public sector involving video games, is
wrong. VR is also used as an exposure therapy. Exposure therapy involves the gradual
exposure to a feared stimulus into something not feared. Hoffman gives a little indication as
to what the possibilities of VR are in exposure therapy: ‘patients can get relief from pain or
overcome their phobias by immersing themselves in computer-generated worlds’ (Hoffman,
2004, p. 58). Burn patients have to undergo severe and painful daily wound care to prevent
infections. For burn patients, phobic patients (e.g. fear of public-speech, spiders, heights), and
PTSD patients, VR seems the way to alleviate pains, either physically or psychologically.
Figure 6 shows a burn patient who is receiving his daily wound care with help of VR. While
the nurse is taking care of him, he is playing a virtual game called SnowWorld which
‘produces the illusion of flying through an icy canyon with a frigid river and waterfall, as
snowflakes drift down ... As patients glide through the virtual canyon, they can shoot
snowballs at snowmen, igloos, robots and penguins ... When hit by a snowball, the snowmen
and igloos disappear in a puff of powder’ (Hoffman, 2004, p. 62).

Figure 6: Burn patient receives VRET during daily wound care.

 VVGs 24

Through VR the patient is thus alleviated of the pain, but how exactly? For VRET to work
one must become completely immersed in the VR (1), has to be emotionally aroused (2), and
the learned behaviors have to generalize to real-life situations (3). As humans we are capable
of giving attention to only a small part of the information our senses gather. This is also the
main idea behind VRET as Hoffman explains:

‘While a patient is engaged in a virtual-reality program, the spotlight of his or her

attention is no longer focused on the wound and the pain but drawn into the virtual
world. Because less attention is available to process incoming pain signals, patients
often experience dramatic drops in how much pain they feel and spend much less time
thinking about their pain during wound care’ (Hoffman, 2004, p. 62).

Figure 7: fMRI differences between brain parts involved in pain processing.

Figure 7 shows the differences in fMRI scans between healthy volunteers in a study who
receive a pain stimulus with or without VR. Although the results speak for themselves, even
better results can be obtained if the level of interactivity and the graphic reality are increased.
It appears that the experience of playing VVGs has great similarities to VRET. Indeed
if we compare this to the study of VVGs and aggression we see that VVGs meet the three
main qualifications for VRET to work. As told in the previous section on the experience of
game play, one becomes immersed in the game due to its highly interactive nature, and the
graphic reality. This is especially the case in first-person shooter games because of the
identification with the character. Other possibilities which might increase the level of
immersion are the use of equipments such as headphones to process auditory information, and
a goggle-like mask to process visual information. Today’s VVGs already make use of some of
the equipments which increase the level of immersion such as headphones.
 VVGs 25

But the processing of visual information still goes via a computer screen or TV screen so in
that sense it is likely that the effects of VVGs on aggressive behavior will be greater when
made use of a goggle-like mask to process visual information because this allows for a deeper
immersion into the game. The second condition, emotional arousal, is also met in VVGs. The
high levels of frustration, increased heart beat etc all heighten the level of arousal and thereby
are in accordance with VRET. The third condition on the generalization to real-life situations
of learned behaviors also applies to VVGs. This is related to the change in worldview and
having the belief that violence is not wrong. When looking at it from this perspective in
relation to VRET, it seems almost self-explicatory that if ‘VRET can elicit changes in
people’s behavior [of e.g. burn patients, phobic patients, and PTSD patients] and seeing the
strong similarities between video games and VR, VVG may also elicit the same types of
change in behavior’ (Vail-Gandolfo, 2005, p. 27). Indeed, apart from the higher level of
immersion in VR through the use of equipment, the necessary conditions for VRET to work
are present in VVGs of today already.

IMPLICATIONS FOR SOCIETY & RESEARCH

SOCIETY
Before going into detail what should be done about VVGs it should be noted that this
will be a debate about on the one hand, freedom of expression and on the other hand the
protection of the most vulnerable in our society. This conflict will arise already between the
government and the Video Game Industry in the sense that the government is there to act in
the best interest of the child (often this is also mandatory because a lot of countries have
signed and ratified the Convention on Rights of the Child) and the industry is there to
maximize their profits. Even though there is more and more evidence available for the link
between VVGs and aggressive behavior, the Video Game Industry still ‘asserts that catharsis
is an attraction and benefit of [VVGs]’ (Funk et al., 2002, p. 7). In essence there are three
parties to be held responsible in what to do about VVGs. These are the Video Game Industry,
the parents, and the rental and retail industry. The first responsibility of the Video Game
Industry is to clearly and accurately label the content of their video games. In Europe, the Pan
European Game Information (PEGI) is responsible for this and in the U.S. the ESRB.
 VVGs 26

Although labels are attached to the video games e.g. M for mature, Thompson and Haninger
who did a study on the violence in E-rated (for everyone) video games found that ‘many E-
rated games do involve violence, killing, and the use of weapons in the course of normal play’
(Thompson & Haninger, 2001, p. 596). Furthermore, the ESRB basis its rating on a few
excerpts it receives from the game manufacturer. The ESRB does not actually play the
finished game. This asks for mislabelling. Additionally it would be helpful if there was a 10-
point-scale attached to all video games on the amount of violence they contain because this
would show a more gradual image instead of the black and white distinction between non-
violent and violent distinction. Furthermore only assessing the games on age is unsatisfactory
because some children of the same age are more vulnerable to the same level of violence than
others. For that reason aswell, the formation of a 10-point-scale would be beneficial. The
second responsibility of the Video Game Industry is to market the products accordingly. This
means that M-rated games should not appear in children magazines, which often still is the
case. The third responsibility of them is to educate parents why the ratings given do matter. In
that case the video game industry can refer to scientific research. The responsibilities of the
parents is to educate themselves on the ratings that are given to the video games. Although
this should be reinforced by the video game industry, the parents should acknowledge the
importance of this by themselves. Research indicates that parents often (in 70% of the cases)
do not even know the favourite game of their child (Funk et al., 1999). Furthermore parents
are expected to behave in the best interest towards the child. This means that parents should
monitor the games their child is playing, should limit the time they play these video games,
and should promote nonviolent video games. The responsibility of the rental and retail
industry is to create policies under which children of a specific age (varies per country) may
not buy M-rated video games. The industry should enforce these policies because research
indicates that ‘children as young as 7 were able in half of all attempt to purchase M-rated
games’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2006, p. 238). Other than this there are also public policy
options which include voluntary or mandatory industry ratings, governmental ratings,
independent third party ratings, etc. The best option would be to make the ratings universal.
Nowadays there are different rating boards for video games, music, movies, and TV.
Governments in each country should enforce a universal set of ratings, most preferably done
by an independent third party. In this way contradiction and confusion is prevented.
Nowadays especially parents are ‘stuck in the full “alphabet soup” of different rating systems’
(Gentile & Anderson, 2006, p. 239).
 VVGs 27

RESEARCH
There is a lot of concern about the research that has been conducted on VVGs and the
research that still needs to be conducted. In the study of VVGs and aggressive behavior
researchers most often make use of either a questionnaire, an experimental study, or a
correlational study. Longitudinal studies are badly needed as reported by several researchers,
but due to the fact that research on VVGs is pretty recent there have no longitudinal studies
been conducted yet. This has the consequence that it is difficult to establish what the long-
term effects of exposure to VVGs are in relation to aggression. Noteworthy is that a
longitudinal study requires a lot of money which is also not yet available. Apart from this fact
there are a lot of objections made towards previous studies and a lot of questions still need to
be researched.

Figure 8: Published research on VVGs and aggression from Emes, 1997, p. 411.

When taking a look at figure 8 which is a table taken out of a review paper by Craig E. Emes
it becomes clear that there is no congruency over the effect of VVGs on aggression. Though
these studies are conducted at a minimum of fourteen years from the present it shows that
there are problems with the research on VVGs. Out of the thirteen studies conducted only four
were able to establish a connection between VVGs and aggression. Furthermore, as Olson
reports ‘some researchers use the words violence and aggression interchangeably’ (Olson,
2004, p. 146). This shows that there is already a problem at the fundamentals of the research.
Other problems concern the type of study conducted (e.g. experimental or correlational
study). Gentile and Anderson define four characteristics of experimental studies which should
be met in order to develop a good experimental study. The sample size should at least be 200
or more (1). This is often not the case which leads to a too small power in statistics and
therefore potentially good studies become worthless due to the relative small sample size.
 VVGs 28

Furthermore sample sizes often involve children from the same school who have grown up in
the same area. This, argue researchers, leads to conclusions which cannot be generalized to
the overall population. The second characteristic to be met is that violent and nonviolent
games are equated on potentially confounding dimension (2). The third characteristic is that
violent and nonviolent games which are used in the study need to be truly violent and
nonviolent in retrospect (3). This is often a problem aswell. Some studies fail to use games
which really differ in violent content, which has an effect on the second characteristic aswell.
Another problem related to this is that some nonviolent games used in studies are so boring
that they increase frustration already which has an effect on aggression aswell. This leads to
inconsistent results. Furthermore, ‘subjects may have only 10 minutes to learn and play a
game before results are measured and cannot choose when to start or stop playing’ (Olson,
2004, p. 147). Apart from the fact that this only leads to the priming of aggressive related
scripts, subjects are often busy with finding out how the game actually works. 10 Minutes is
too short for a subject to get to know how the game works and get immersed in the game. The
fourth characteristic to be met is the clear and valid measure of aggression or aggression
related variables assessed for the game-playing participants (4). As Gentile and Anderson
report, ‘some studies that purportedly study aggressive behavior have used dependent
variables that are not true aggressive behavior’ (Gentile & Anderson, 2003, p. 150). Examples
of this are the use of personality aggression scales. In 1985 the first experimental study was
conducted, and according to the four characteristics the first good and valid experimental
study was conducted in 2000 by Anderson and Dill. These problems are the same for
correlational studies in the sense that some of the characteristics overlap. Overall this
indicates that there is a lot to be done to yield scientifically valid research. Furthermore there
are also specific questions which need to be answered by scientific research such as the role
of gender differences, the relative magnitude of effects of VVGs in comparison to media
violence, ‘the period in development which during which video games pose the greatest
threat’ (Kirsh, 2003, p. 387), etc. The list can go on forever but the general picture is clear.
Though, research is making progress and as indicated in the section on empirical evidence
more research studies are showing that VVGs have an effect on aggression related behavior.
 VVGs 29

CONCLUSION

At the beginning of the research on VVGs and its relation to aggressive behavior it
was difficult to find supporting evidence for the existence of such a link. This was due to the
fact that a lot of psychological factors which are now regarded as very important in the effect
a VVG has on children and their behavior were not present at the start of the era of video
games. Games such as Death Race, Wolfenstein 3D etc. though they were major
achievements at that time, did not involve much immersion or involvement. Nowadays the
graphics become more and more realistic which allows for higher levels of immersion and
involvement which in turn increase the levels of presence, or the sense of ‘being in the
situation’. Classical theories such as Bandura’s social learning theory are still pretty good
predictors of how and why aggressive behavior might occur. The GAM offers a good
explanation as to how a person will respond in a specific situation (short-term) aswell as what
the effects of continued exposure to VVGs can be (long-term). VRET shows that through
immersion, emotional arousal, and generalization to real-life situations of learned behaviors,
virtual reality can have a great and positive effect. But is also offers an opportunity to
investigate the possible effects future VVGs might have as they come closer to virtual reality.
Furthermore, the research on VVGs and aggression is become more consistent and
incongruences of the past are being dealt with. More recent studies show a relationship
between VVGs on the one hand and aggressive related behavior on the other. It should be
noted that a causal link is almost impossible to establish because VVGs are just one of the
many risk factors which can lead to aggressive behavior. Though, this does not imply that
repeated exposure to VVGs cannot lead to an increase in aggressive nature, which can, in
specific situations also lead to aggressive behavior. Therefore the Video Game Industry is
wrong in saying that there no direct link between VVGs and aggression. It is the Video Game
Industry, parents, the rental and retail industry, and the state which should take measures
against the public policy of today. There is too much confusion over the labelling of video
games and the selling of violent M-rated to children. Measures should be undertaken to
enforce the best interests of the child.
 VVGs 30

APPENDIX

Appendix 1: Questions to be asked to help parents to identify potentially harmful video games for their children.
From Gentile & Anderson, 2003, p.152.
 VVGs 31

REFERENCES

Anderson, C. A. (2000, March 21). Violent Video Games increase Aggression and Violence.
U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation hearing of ‘‘The
Impact of Interactive Violence on Children,’’. p. 1 – 6.
Anderson, C. A. (2004). An Update on the Effects of Playing Violent Video Games. Journal of
Adolescence, vol. 27. p. 113 – 122.
Anderson, C.A., & Bushman, B.J. (2001). Effects of Violent Games on Aggressive Behavior,
Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial
Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Scientific Literature. Psychological
Science, vol. 12. p. 353 – 359.
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 Psychology, vol.
78, no. 4. p. 772 – 790.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of Film-mediated Aggressive Models.
Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, vol. 66. p. 3 – 11.
Bensley, L., & Van Eenwyk, J. (2001). Video Games and Real-Life Aggression: Review of the
Literature. Journal of Adolescence Health, vol. 29. p. 244 – 257.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its Causes, Consequences, and Control. New York:
McGraw Hill.
Children Now. (2001). Fair Play? Violence, Gender and Race in Video Games. Los Angeles,
CA: Children Now.
Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A Review and Reformulation of Social Information-
Processing Mechanisms in Children’s Social Adjustment. Psychological Bulletin,
vol. 115. p. 74 – 101.
Dietz, T. L. (1998). An Examination of Violence and Gender Role Portrayals in Video
Games: Implications for Gender Socialization and Aggressive Behavior. Sex Roles,
vol. 38. p. 425 – 442.
Dill, K. E., & Dill, J. C. (1998). Video Game Violence: A Review Of The Empirical
Literature. Aggression Violent Behavior, vol. 3. p. 407 – 428.
Dodge, K. A., & Frame, C. L. (1982). Social Cognitive Biases and Deficits in Aggressive
Boys. Child Development, vol. 53. p. 620 – 625.
 VVGs 32

Eastin, M. S., & Griffiths, R. P. (2006). Beyond the Shooter Game: Examining Presence and
Hostile Outcomes among Male Game Players. Communication Research, 33(6). p.
448- 466.
Funk, J. B., Flores, G., Buchman, D. D., & Germann, J. N. (1999). Rating Electronic Games:
Violence is in the Eye of the Beholder. Youth & Society, vol. 30. p. 283 – 312.
Funk, J. B., Buchman, D. D., Jenks, J., & Bechtoldt, H. (2002). An Evidence-Based Approach
to Examining the Impact of Playing Violent Video and Computer Games. Studies in
Media & Information Literacy Education, vol. 2, no. 4. p. 1 – 11.
Funk, J. B., Baldacci, H. B., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence Exposure in
Real-Life, Video Games, Television, Movies, and the Internet: Is There
Desensitization? Journal of Adolescence, vol. 27. p. 23 – 39.
Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Violent Video Games: The Newest Media Violence
Hazard. p. 131 – 152.
Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2006). Violent Video Games: The Effects on Youth, and
Public Policy Implications. Handbook of Children, Culture, and Violence. p. 225 –
246.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The Effects of Violent
Video Game Habits on Adolescent Hostility, Aggressive Behaviors, and School
Performance. Journal of Adolesence, vol. 27. p. 5 – 22.
Gentile, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2002). A Normative Study of Family Media Habits. Journal of
Applied Developmental Psychology, vol. 23. p. 157 – 178.
Goldstein, J. H. (1992). Sex Differences in Toy Play and Use of Video Games. In Goldstein,
J. H. (Ed.), Toys, Play and Child Development. New York: Cambridge University
Press. p. 110 - 129
Hoffman, H. G. (2004). Virtual-Reality Therapy: Patients can get Relief from Pain or
Overcome their Phobias by immersing themselves in Computer-Generated Worlds.
Scientific American. p. 58 – 65.
Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological Processes Promoting the Relation Exposure to Media
Violence and Aggressive Behavior by the Viewer. Journal of Social Issues, vol. 42. p.
125 – 139.
Huesmann, L. R. (1994). Aggressive Behavior: Current Perspectives. New York: Plenum
Press.
Kent, S. L. 2001. The Ultimate History of Video Games: From Pong to Pokemon, the Story
Behind the Craze That Touched Our Lives and Changed the World. Prima.
 VVGs 33

Kirsh, S. J. (2003). The Effects of Violent Video Games on Adolescents; the Overlooked
Influence of Development. Aggression and Violent Behavior, vol. 8. p. 377 – 389.
Krahé, B., & Möller, I. (2004). Playing Violent Electronic Games, Hostile Attributional Style,
and Agression-related Norms in German Adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, vol.
27. p. 53 – 69.
Nowak, K. L., Kremar, M., & Farrar, K. M. (2006). Examining the Relationship Between
Violent Video Games, Presence, and Aggression. University of Connecticut. p. 139
– 146.
Olson, C. K. (2004). Media Violence Research and Youth Violence Data: Why do they
Conflict? Academic Psychiatry, vol. 28, no. 2. p. 144 – 150.
Pooley, E. (1999). Portrait of a Deadly Bond. Time. p. 26 – 32.
Silvern, S. B., & Williamson, P. A. (1987). The Effects of Video Game Play on Young
Children’s Aggression, Fantasy, and Prosocial Behavior. Journal of Applied
Development Psychology, vol. 8. p. 453 – 462.
Thompson, K. M., & Haninger, K. (2001). Violent in E-Rated Video Games. JAMA, vol.
286, no. 5. p. 591 – 598.
Vail-Gandolfo, N. J. (2005). The Comparison of Violent Video Games to a Virtual Reality
Exposure Therapy Model. Graduate Student Journal of Psychology, vol. 7. p. 23 –
28.
Witmer, B. G., & Singer, M. J. (1998). Measuring Presence in Virtual Environments: A
Presence Questionnaire. Presence, vol. 7. p. 225 – 240.
Zillmann, D. (1983). Cognition-excitation Interdependencies in Aggressive Behavior.
Aggressive Behavior, vol. 14. p. 51 – 64.
Zillmann, D. (1998). The Psychology of the Appeal of Portrayals of Violence. In Goldstein, J.
H. (ed.). Why we watch: The Attractions of Violent Entertainment. New York:
Oxford. p. 179 – 211.
Beltway Sniper Trained On Sniper Video Game. Retrieved from
http://www.thefreeradical.ca/Sniper_trained_on_video_game.htm, on 14 May, 2009
Diary of David Harris. Retrieved from http://beautifulpeoplesclub.org/BPC_Blog/?p=548 on
14 May, 2009
The Depressive and the Psychopath: At last we know why the Columbine Killers did it.
Retrieved from, http://www.slate.com/id/2099203/#sb2099208, on 14 May, 2009