| |
Introduction
Socio-culturally, the impact of technology – particularly violent media
- on children is of concern to parents and to professionals such as
educators, cultural studies scholars, and psychologists (Cassell &
Jenkins, 1998). This study examines the affects of playing a violent
video game with a gun peripheral. There is evidence that violent media
consumption, including video games, contributes to aggressive behavior
(see Ballard, Hamby, Panee, & Engold, in press; or Huesmann, Moise,
Podolski, & Eron, 2003 for complete reviews). Violent video game play
increases player arousal and hostility may result in increased
behavioral aggression (e.g., C. A. Anderson & Bushman, 2001a; C. A.
Anderson & Bushman, 2002; C. A. Anderson & Dill, 2000; Ballard &
Lineberger, 1999; Ballard et al., In press; Ballard & Wiest, 1996).
There is particular concern about the impact of first-person-shooter
video games, where the player’s perspective is that of a violent
protagonist. First-person-shooter games can be played using either a
standard controller or a gun peripheral. Some psychologists believe that
such games lead to greater character identification and desensitization
to violence and subsequently increase risk for violent behavior,
particularly when played using a gun peripheral (e.g., C. A. Anderson &
Bushman, 2001a; Bushman & C. A. Anderson, 2002). David Grossman, an army
psychologist, actually asserts that violent first-person-shooter games
teach children to kill (Grossman & DeGaetano; 1999). However, there are
substantial methodological concerns and inconsistent results among
studies that examine whether or not exposure to weapons stimuli increase
aggression. Regardless, there is no research examining if video game gun
peripherals impact aggression or arousal beyond that of the game
context. Thus, the cardiovascular and behavioral effects of playing a
first-person-shooter video game with a gun peripheral versus a standard
control pad were examined.
Video game technologies have been examined from a variety of
perspectives. Cultural and media studies help inform us of the broader
socio-cultural implications of the impact of various technologies,
including video games. Henry Jenkins and his colleagues take a
contexualistic approach to examining media, viewing various media texts
as dynamically intertwined – rather than as discrete entities – and as
interacting with the social and cultural context (Jenkins, McPherson, &
Shattuc, 2002). More specifically, they have focused on how video games
might serve to affect children’s world views, including their
understanding of violence, gender, and interpersonal interactions (Cassell
& Jenkins, 1998; Jenkins et al., 2002; Subrahmanyam & Greenfield, 1998;
Wolf, 2001). Of particular concern are the violent, sexist, and
misogynistic images and stereotypes propagated by a majority of video
games (Cassell & Jenkins, 1998; Jenkins et al., 2002; Subrahmanyam &
Greenfield, 1998). However, Jenkins (1998) points out that we must not
blame video games for problems that they did not cause. He argues that
increased behavioral problems among children – boys in particular – are
due to a culmination of changes, not just technology. For example, he
argues that the loss of vast outdoor and “wild” spaces, which constrain
boys’ play to parks, vacant lots, and – more recently – inside the home,
are likely part of the locus of many of the problems that boys
experience, as well as being one of the reasons that video games are
popular among boys. That is, in the past boys sought adventure in the
free, open spaces of the outdoors, often exploring for miles in the
forests and fields around them. As such spaces have become scarce, video
games – which often offer large make believe worlds to conquer and
explore - came to provide an acceptable, gendered context for
exploration and adventure in the confines of the home. At the same time,
video games allow boys to compete in ways that help them to garner the
admiration and acceptance of their peers. Finally, video games offer
boys a venue to displace their aggression into a symbolic realm. In sum,
Jenkins (1998) argues that video games do not corrupt boys, but just
offer a different, albeit imaginary, context for them to engage in the
male bonding behaviors – including aggression - that boys have
participated in throughout the centuries.
Jenkins (1998) does emphasize the masculine nature of most video games.
Other than the violence of the games, cultural theorists and
psychologists have focused most of their attention on the gendered
nature of video games. Subrahmanyam and Greenfield (1998) indicate that
these two concerns are closely linked. They assert that as most girls do
not find violence appealing, that the violence of most video games
serves as a barrier to girls’ interest in the games. Further, Cassell
and Jenkins (1998) indicate that girls might be dissuaded from interest
in video games due to the often degrading and offensive images offered
of women. Given this, the current study focuses on boys’ responses to
violent game play.
Mark Wolf (2001), an expert in media technology, concurs that video
games are likely to inform children’s world view. While TV and movies do
affect how one sees the world, Wolf argues that video games might have a
greater impact because they are more involving – in terms of both level
of activity and the time they take to complete – than TV and movies.
Further, the interactive nature of video games creates the opportunity
for particular behaviors to be rewarded and punished, making the games
even more likely to shape children’s world view. Wolf’s (2001) views
reflect the basic concern of psychologists who have examined video game
play – that children will learn to accept violence and behave
aggressively.
Social cognitive theories regarding the impact of violent media on
aggressive cognitions and behavior are based on Bandura’s (1983)
findings that children learn scripts from aggressive models and can
imitate them spontaneously or on demand. Berkowitz (1984) and Huesmann
(1986) suggest that such scripts are readily primed by media and other
environmental stimuli and, if used to guide behavior, increase the risk
of aggression. Exposure to violent media, including video games,
increases the likelihood that participants will behave aggressively.
For example, males who played a violent game held a confederate’s hand
in ice water longer than those who played an arousing, but non-violent
game and that this effect was stronger if the game included blood and
gore (Ballard & Lineberger, 1999; Ballard and Wiest, 1996).
Similar
studies have shown that college students who play a violent video game
make more aggressive attributions on subsequent cognitive tasks than
those who played a non-violent game (Bushman, 1998; Bushman & C. A.
Anderson, 2002; Bushman & Geen, 1990). In addition to priming aggressive
scripts, research suggests that violent video game play increases state
hostility (C. A. Anderson & Bushman, 2001a, 2001b; C. A. Anderson &
Bushman, 2002; C. A. Anderson & Dill, 2000; Ballard & Wiest, 1996; Panee
& Ballard, 2002) and physiological arousal (Ballard et al., In press;
Ballard & Lineberger, 1999; Ballard & Wiest, 1996; Panee & Ballard,
2002. However, Ballard and colleagues (in press) found that video game
play in general – regardless of whether the content was violent - was
related to increased cardiovascular arousal in any particular session of
play. However, this effect diminished across a three week period,
suggesting desensitization. Further, video game play, including violent
game play, was related to reports of positive affect (Ballard et al., in
press). Some other studies have not found a link between violent video
game play and aggression (Scott, 1995; Winkel, Novak, & Hopson, 1987),
but a meta-analysis indicated that violent video games typically have
the aforementioned effects (C. A. Anderson & Bushman, 2001a)
Researchers have examined a few aspects of violent video game play that
might increase negative affect and aggression, including level of gore
(Ballard & Lineberger, 1999; Ballard & Wiest, 1996). But, the use of gun
peripherals versus standard controllers has not been examined. Previous
studies examining the impact of weapons primes on aggressive behavior
and cognition have yielded inconclusive and inconsistent results. In the
seminal study, Berkowitz and LePage (1967) administered a random number
(from 1 to 7) of electric shocks to male participants who were told that
the shocks were being administered by a peer. Participants were later
given the chance to retaliate by “shocking” the peer. In the control
condition, only the shock key was present. In the neutral condition,
sports equipment was on the table near the shock key. In the
weapons-priming condition, two guns were on the table near the shock
key. Participants were the most aggressive when they were highly aroused
(received 7 shocks) and were exposed to the guns. This study has been
criticized due to the strong likelihood of demand characteristics
resulting from the conspicuous presence of weapons in an unexpected
context.
Most of the attempts to replicate Berkowitz and LePage (1967) have
failed to indicate a weapons priming affect and those that have found
the effect have often been marred by confounds. Ellis, Weinir, and
Miller (1971) gave male undergraduates 0, 2, or 8 shocks under
conditions of no weapons, weapons presented as being in the room for
another purpose, or weapons presented as belonging to a police officer
confederate. The participants were given the opportunity to shock a
student or police officer confederate. Counter to the findings of
Berkowitz and LePage (1967), the presence of weapons inhibited
aggression, particularly among participants who were highly aroused
participants or paired with a police officer confederate.
Similarly, Buss, Booker, and Buss (1972) performed a direct replication
of Berkowitz and LePage (1967) and found that exposure to a weapon
failed to increase aggression. Buss and colleagues (1972) performed four
additional experiments where ½ of the participants in each study shot a
gun under the context of target shooting. Later, participants were given
the opportunity to shock a confederate in a teacher-learner paradigm.
Two experiments showed no differences in aggression between shooters and
non-shooters, one experiment indicated that shooters were more
aggressive, and one experiment found that shooters were less aggressive.
Given these results, Buss and colleagues (1972) argued that no
weapons-priming effect exists.
Using a different paradigm, Cahoon and Edmonds (1984; 1985) also failed
to find a weapons-priming effect. They presented participants with a
negative, positive, or neutral evaluation, ostensibly from a peer. They
exposed ½ of the participants to weapons that were purportedly in the
room for a law enforcement seminar. Participants were allowed to express
hostility and aggression toward the peer who had “evaluated” them.
Weapons exposure did not affect aggression toward the peer. A second
study (1985) employed a similar procedure, expect that the weapons were
presented either positively (for home defense) or negatively (were used
in violent crimes). Regardless of how the weapons were presented, there
was no priming effect.
Some studies have garnered mixed results. Page and Scheidt (1971)
performed three replications of Berkowitz and LePage (1967). Two of the
experiments did not support a weapons-priming effect, but the third
study did. However, demand characteristics were high in the third
experiment, lending support to criticisms that the results Berkowitz and
LePage (1967) found were due to demand characteristics. Given this, Page
and O’Neal (1977) performed a study that was designed to reduce demand
characteristics by presenting the procedures as two separate studies
performed by two different experimenters. While it is not clear from
their brief report if demand characteristics were eliminated, they did
find a weapons-priming effect.
A few other studies have found evidence of a weapons-priming effect.
Frodi (1975), in a replication of Berkowitz and LaPage (1967) with a
Swedish sample, found a main effect of weapons-priming on aggressive
behavior, but not on self-reported feelings of hostility. As in
Berkowitz and LaPage, there was an interaction between participant
arousal due to provocation and weapons exposure, where the most
aggressive participants where those who had received the most shocks and
were exposed to the weapon. To extend this line of research, Caprara,
Renzi, Amolini, D’Imperio, and Travaglia (1984) examined the
weapons-priming effect in light of both provocation and individual
differences in irritability. Participants completed a learning task and
were given either a positive or negative evaluation of their
performance. Then they were exposed to slides of guns or furniture or to
no slides. Individual differences in trait irritability were also
measured. There were significant main effects for all three factors
(type of slide, provocation, and irritability) and an interaction
between irritability and provocation. They conclude that a weapons
effect exists and that provocation is not necessary to elicit this
effect. The most aggressive participants were those who were irritable,
had been provoked, and were exposed to aggressive slides, suggesting
that personality and mood moderated the weapons effect.
More recently, Craig Anderson and colleagues (C. A. Anderson, K. B.
Anderson, & Deuser, 1996; C. A. Anderson, Benjamin & Bartholow, 1998)
examined the weapons-priming effect. C. A. Anderson et al. (1998)
performed two studies where participants viewed priming stimuli that
were words (experiment 1) or pictures (experiment 2) featuring weapons
or non-weapons (animals or plants). Following exposure to the priming
stimuli, the participants were asked to read aloud aggressive and
non-aggressive words that were presented on a computer screen. The speed
with which the words were read served as the dependent measure. Both
studies yielded the expected interaction of priming stimulus (weapon
versus non-weapon) and word type (aggressive versus non-aggressive);
participants read aggressive words more quickly when they had been
exposed to pictures of weapons than when exposed to pictures of animals.
However, this cognitive priming effect was not replicated when weapons
primes were compared to plant primes. In another experiment Craig
Anderson and colleagues (1996) manipulated room temperature (from 55º
-95º Fahrenheit) and photo primes (guns or nature scenes). As predicted,
they found that uncomfortable room temperatures increased feelings of
hostility, whereas the gun primes did not; the gun photos increased
hostile cognitions whereas extreme temperatures did not. Despite these
contradictory findings, they conclude that weapons primes increase both
hostile and aggressive cognitions.
The studies described above used real guns or photo stimuli of guns.
Turner and Goldsmith (1976) examined the impact of toy guns on
children’s aggressive behavior in free play. Compared with “usual” toys
(e.g., blocks, coloring books, cars, etc.) and toy airplanes, they found
that children demonstrated more mock aggressive free play following
exposure to toys guns than to the other toys. While video game gun
peripherals might be considered toys, they are not realistically
designed. Due to the controversial nature of violent video games and
first person shooter games, gun peripherals are typically white with
orange markings and are “furturistic” in design. Therefore the gun used
in our study did not resemble real or traditional toy firearms
Most studies examining at the weapons-priming effect have used guns as
stimuli, but Berkowitz and Frodi (1977) had undergraduate males aggress
against a confederate using a noise machine and later used the noise
machine as an aggressive cue for ½ of the participants. In addition, vis
a vis Bandura, Ross, and Ross (1963/1997), some of the participants were
reinforced for their aggression against the confederate, while others
were punished or given no feedback. As hypothesized, Berkowitz and Frodi
(1977) found that males who were reinforced for their use of aggression
and then exposed to the noise machine as an aggressive cue rated an
essay “written” by the confederate more harshly than other participants.
Those who had been punished for their use of aggression and were exposed
to the noise machine gave the highest essay ratings.
In sum, only a few experiments have found a weapons priming effect,
while most studies have failed to find this effect. These
inconsistencies may occur either because there is no weapons priming
effect and/or due to differences in methodology and dependent measures
(Carlson, Marcus-Newhall, & Miller, 1990; Turner, Simons, Berkowitz, &
Frodi; 1977). Participants’ sophistication, familiarity with weapons,
fear of weapons, differences in appraisal, contextual features, and
demand characteristics have been suggested as confounding factors
(Carlson et al., 1990; Page & Scheidt, 1971; Turner et al., 1977). In an
effort to tease apart these effects, Simons and Turner (1976; Turner &
Simons, 1974) manipulated demand characteristics and found that
participant sophistication and awareness of the hypothesis inhibited the
weapons effect. However, others (e.g., Page & Scheidt, 1971) have
suggested that the weapons-priming effect is more likely to occur when
demand characteristics are high. The present study employed a video game
context where the presence of the gun peripheral was self-explanatory
and unlikely to arouse suspicion, particularly in light of the fact that
cardiovascular responses to video game play were actually being
examined.
Statement of Problem and Hypothesis
Playing violent video games often primes aggressive cognitions and
increases physiological arousal, negative emotion, and aggression (e.g.,
C. A. Anderson & Bushman, 2001a; C. A. Anderson & Dill, 2000; Ballard &
Lineberger, 1999; Chambers & Ascione, 1985). Some argue that exposure to
a weapon primes individuals to behave more aggressively (Anderson et
al., 1998; Bushman, 1998), but the evidence is inconsistent. This study
examined whether playing a violent video game with a gun peripheral
increases aggression or arousal more than playing the same violent game
with a standard controller. This might have practical implications for
parents, retailers, and game manufacturers.
In this study, participants played a first person shooter, “House of the
Dead 2 (HOTD2),” using a gun peripheral or standard controller. One-half
of the participants who played the game with the standard controller
were exposed to the gun peripheral and vice versa. Given the weak and
inconsistent findings of a weapons priming effect – coupled with the
fact that video game gun peripheral do not look like real guns - the
primary hypotheses was that cardiovascular reactivity, self-reported
aggression, and behavioral aggression would not differ among
participants who played with the gun peripheral, who saw the gun
peripheral on top of the TV during game play, or who did not see the gun
peripheral. The second hypothesis was that findings that violent game
play increases cardiovascular reactivity would be replicated.
Methods
Participants
Participants were 60 male high school students, aged 13-18 (M = 15.69);
there was a fairly even distribution of boys across this range (13 yr =
11; 14 yr = 8; 15 yr = 10; 16 yr = 9; 17 yr = 1; 18 yr = 12). As
discussed earlier, boys were used as participants as they are the
typical consumers of violent video games. Participants were recruited
from the community using flyers and TV public service announcements;
many of the boys were recruited from flyers posted in local video game
retailers. Most (n = 56) were white, the remainder were
African-American, Portuguese, Italian, and Filipino. Most (n = 35) of
the boys were from intact homes, seven were from single-parent homes,
and 18 were in blended families. Most participants were from middle or
upper-middle class families, although the sample ranged from lower to
upper class. During recruitment the boys were asked not to exercise,
smoke or intake caffeine for 3 hours prior to the experiment, in order
not to confound the cardiovascular data. The participants were avid,
experienced gamers. For the period when they were examined, which was
during the summer when the boys were out of school, the boys reported an
average of 22.67 (sd = 26.04) hours of video game play across mediums
(e.g., home consoles, hand held games, and arcade games) and contexts
(e.g., home, car, friend’s, arcades). They spent an average of 5.24 (sd
= 7.67) hours per week playing first person shooter games, such as
HOTD2. Experience gamers were recruited since video game play is –
theoretically – of most concern when children spend a great deal of time
engaged in this activity. Thus, for reasons of practical significance
and external validity, it is important to examine the responses of
experience gamers. Participants were paid $25.00 for their participation
in the one-hour procedure.
Apparatus and
Materials
House of the Dead 2© (HOTD2, manufactured by SEGA® for the Dreamcast™),
a first person shooter horror game, was used as the video game stimulus.
This game was selected by a focus group of undergraduate video game
players and psychology majors; they chose this game because it (a)
worked well with either a controller or gun peripheral, (b) had
up-to-date graphics and style, (c) included violence that was not
antisocial in nature (e.g., the violence is aimed at fantastical
creatures by a “good guy” protagonist), and (d) was relatively new, yet
popular. The protagonist of HOTD2 is a government agent whose goal is to
destroy a zombie colony and rescue human characters. The protagonist
uses a gun against the zombies; antagonists punch, bite, and throw
objects toward the protagonist. The game is rated Mature (intended for
players 17 and older) by the Electronic Software Rating Board, due to
animated violence and gore. HD2 can be played with a standard controller
or gun peripheral. Due to the controversial nature of gun peripherals,
most console manufacturers do not produce them and the companies that
create them assure that they have a non-realistic appearance. The
Starfire Lightblaster© is produced by InterAct® for the Sega Dreamcast.
The Lightblaster is a typical video game gun peripheral – it is white
with orange detailing. The Lightblaster was developed primarily for use
with violent video games. A few non-violent console games were produced
that could be used with the peripheral, but they were obscure and are no
longer available. Thus, a true control condition – playing a non-violent
game using the Lightblaster - was not practical for the study.
An Omron Model HEM-707 Automatic Oscillometric Digital Blood Pressure
and Pulse Rate Monitor with Fuzzy Logic was used to monitor heart rate
and blood pressure. An adult or pediatric blood pressure cuff was
attached to the participants’ non-dominant arm, which was stabilized by
the arm of the recliner to control for movement artifact. Two resting
measures were taken 5 min apart during a relaxation/adaptation period
before the participants began game-play; the average of the two resting
measures was used in the analysis. Cardiovascular reactivity was
measured at 3, 8, 13, and 18 min during game-play and at 2 and 7 min
after game-play. Heart rate and blood pressure measures were recorded
onto a data sheet from a digital LCD display.
The HEM-707 uses fuzzy logic to determine cuff inflation; the cuff is
inflated by an electric pump. Heart rate and blood pressure are detected
by a semiconductor pressure sensor. The monitor is easy to use and is
reliable for blood pressure (+/-3mmHg) and heart rate (+/- 4 bpm; Omron,
n.d.). In terms of validity, laboratory measures of cardiovascular
reactivity are significantly, positively related to cardiovascular
reactivity in the field (Jain, Schmidt, Johnston, Brabant, & von zur
Muehlen, 1999). In applied terms, heart rate deceleration generally
occurs during relaxation, stimulation of the parasympathetic nervous
system, and as an orienting response. Heart rate typically increases
with stress, physical exertion, and/or stimulation of the sympathetic
nervous system. Likewise, increases in blood pressure are related to
stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system, anxiety, and physical
activity (e.g., Nance & Hoy, 1996).
The participants completed the 10 item state anger subscale of the
State-Trait Anger Inventory (STAXI; Spielberger, 1996). This subscale
measures the intensity of current anger and was used to assure that
initial differences in state anger did not confound the results.
Participants rated statements (e.g., I am mad.) on a Likert-type scale
from 1 = “Not at all” to 4 = “Very much so.” The internal consistency of
the state anger subscale is .93. The participants also completed the 34
item Aggression Questionnaire (AQ; Buss & Warren, 2000) to assess
differences in self-reported aggression following game play. The AQ has
five subscales: physical aggression (e.g., I have threatened people I
know.), verbal aggression (e.g., My friends say I argue a lot.), anger
(e.g., I flare up quickly, but get over it quickly.), hostility (e.g.,
At times I have gotten a raw deal out of life.), and indirect aggression
(e.g. I like to play practical jokes.). Statements are rated on a Likert-type
scale from 1 = “Not at all like me” to 5 = “Completely like me.” The
internal consistency of the AQ total score is .94 and ranges from .71 to
.88 for the subscales. The total AQ score and each subscale score were
used in the analyses. Although the AQ is a measure of trait aggression,
if violent video games and weapons primes cause cognitive priming
effects to the degree suggested by research (i.e., C. A. Anderson et
al., 1996; 1998), participants’ interpretation of and responses to the
questions should reflect this priming bias.
The cold pressor task was used as a measure of behavioral aggression.
The cold pressor device is a rectangular stainless steel container (7 in
h X 6 in w X 9 in l ) of ice water chilled to 0º Centigrade. The tank is
labeled with two labels created using a label maker. One reads “Cold
Pressor Device” and the other reads “Chill to 0-2º C (32-32º F).” The
tank has a small thermometer attached to it to monitor the temperature
of the ice water. The cold pressor is often used as a cardiovascular
stressor or aversive stimulus in laboratory settings (Ballard &
Lineberger, 1999; Dishman, Nakamura, Jackson, & Ray, 2003).
Procedure
Two male undergraduates were trained by the first author to complete the
experimental procedure; both experimenters were in their early 20’s and
dressed casually while conducting the study so that they would not be
viewed as authority figures. Participants and their parents were met in
the lobby by the experimenter and escorted into the lab. Participants
were told that the experimenter was running the study for a graduate
student who was examining the effects of video game play on heart rate
and blood pressure. The participant was seated in a recliner in front of
a color television and video game console. The cold pressor device was
positioned to the right of the recliner; it remained covered until it
was used. The electro-sphygmomanometer was to the left of the recliner.
Participants read and signed an informed assent form; the information
contained in the form was accurate, but did not state the hypothesis of
the study. Parents read and signed an accurate and detailed informed
consent form; the consent for informed parents that HOTD2 is rated “M.”
None of the participants or parents refused or withdrew from
participation. Parents were asked to wait in a lobby down the hall until
the session was over. None of the parents asked to watch the procedure;
most of the parents actually left to run errands and returned in one
hour to pick up their son. Participants filled out the state anger
subscale of the STAXI to assure that pre-existing differences in mood
did not confound the results. The blood pressure cuff was attached to
the participant’s non-dominant arm, and two resting blood pressure and
heart rate measures were recorded 5 min apart.
Participants were given instructions on how to play HOTD2 and were shown
how to use the assigned peripheral. The participants were
counterbalanced into four groups. The control group played the game
using the standard controller with the gun peripheral out of sight. The
“priming group” played the game using the standard controller with the
gun peripheral in sight (a gun peripheral was on top of the TV;
participants were told that it was broken). The “weapons 1” group played
the game using the gun peripheral with the standard controller out of
sight. The “weapons 2” group played the game using the gun peripheral
with the standard controller in sight (on top of the TV). The
participants played the game for 20 min; this time frame was chosen to
standardize the procedure and to keep the session within a reasonable
time frame for the boys and their parents. Blood pressure and heart rate
measures were taken at 3, 8, 13, and 18 min during game play; the game
was paused when the electro-sphygmomanometer was in operation. Two
resting measures were taken at 2 and 7 min after game play. Immediately
after the last resting measure was recorded, the cold pressor was
uncovered. Participants were told that the cold pressor is used as a
laboratory stressor to assess heart rate and blood pressure reactivity.
They were asked to place their hand in the cold water until they felt
discomfort. The length of time the participant left his hand in the cold
pressor, from the first ripple on the surface of the water upon
immersion of the hand until the first drip into the water upon removal
of the hand, was recorded.
Participants were immediately presented with the anger stimulus, similar
to the provocation used by Caprara and colleagues (1984). The researcher
asked, “How do you feel about your game play today?” Most participants
replied that they had played well. The experimenter said, “You had the
worst game play of anyone that I have run in this experiment.” and asked
the participant to place the experimenter’s hand in the cold pressor
device and to leave it there until they thought he experienced
discomfort. Behavioral aggression was quantified as the amount of time
that the participant left the experimenter’s hand in the water, from the
first ripple on the surface of the water upon immersion of the hand
until the first drip into the water upon removal of the hand. Another
cardiovascular measure was taken to complete the ruse. Participants then
completed the Aggression Questionnaire. Upon completion of the one-hour
session participants were given $25.00 for their participation and were
fully debriefed. During debriefing, none of the participants indicated
that they had questioned the cover story that the study was examining
cardiovascular responses to video game play.
Results
To
determine if there were pre-existing differences in boys’ level of
anger, a one-way analyses of variance (ANOVA) was performed with STAXI
state anger scores as the dependent variable and priming condition
(i.e., control, weapon priming, weapon 1, and weapon 2 conditions) as
the independent variable. Anger did not vary across condition. One-way
ANOVAs were used to examine the effect of the independent variable,
priming condition (i.e., control, weapon priming, weapon 1, and weapon 2
conditions) on eight dependent variables – game performance, behavioral
aggression (i.e. cold pressor time), and AQ Total, Physical Aggresison,
Verbal Aggression, Anger, Hostility, and Indirect Aggression subscores.
See Table 1 for means and SDs for each dependent variable by condition.
Game performance varied significantly by condition, F(3, 56) = 4.21, p
<.01. Post Hoc analysis with Tukey tests revealed that participants from
the weapons 1 and weapons 2 groups performed significantly better than
those from the control and priming conditions (p’s < .05). The other
analyses were not significant; priming condition did not affect
behavioral aggression [F(3,56) = .63, p > .60], Total AQ scores [F(3,56)
= .26, p > .86], Physical Aggression [F(3,56) = .89, p > .45], Verbal
Aggression [F(3,56) = 1.39, p > .26], Anger [F(3,56) = 1.45, p > .24],
Hostility [F(3,56)= .23, p > .87], or Indirect Aggression [F(3,56) =
1.3, p > .27]. This indicates that there was no effect of the gun
peripheral on behavioral aggression or self-reported aggression or
hostility following game play and suggests that there was not a strong
cognitive priming effect of the treatment.
Three 4 (priming condition – control, weapon priming, weapon 1, and
weapon 2 conditions) X 7 (cardiovascular measures – one average resting
measure, four game play measures, and two posttest measures)
mixed-design ANOVAs were used to examine the effect of priming condition
on cardiovascular reactivity across the session. Priming condition was a
between-participants factor and time of measurement was a
within-participants factor. An ANOVA was performed for each
cardiovascular measure. There were no significant main effects of
priming condition and no significant interactions of condition and time
of measurement for any of the cardiovascular measures, indicating that
using the gun peripheral did not affect cardiovascular reactivity.
However, there were significant within-participant main effects of time
of measurement for each cardiovascular measure, indicating changes in
arousal across the session. See Table 2 for means and standard
deviations for cardiovascular measures across time. As predicted,
systolic blood pressure varied significantly across the session [Hotelling’s
Trace F(6,51) = 12.52, p < .001]. Pair-wise comparisons show that
systolic blood pressure increased significantly from the adaptation
period to the second and third game play measures (both ps < .05).
Systolic blood pressure decreased quickly after game play; the posttest
measures were significantly lower than the adaptation and all game play
measures (all ps < .01.
Changes in diastolic blood pressure [Hotelling’s Trace F(6,51) = 8.22, p
< .001] were similar to those in systolic blood pressure. Diastolic
blood pressure increased significantly from the adaptation period to the
second game play measure (p < .001) before stabilizing. Diastolic blood
pressure began to decrease at the time of the first posttest measure,
which was significantly lower than the second game play measure (p >
.05) . Recovery was greater at the second posttest measure; diastolic
blood pressure was significantly lower during the last measure than
during the adaptation period, game play, or the first posttest measure
(all ps < .001). Heart rate increased during game play [Hotelling’s
Trace F(6,51) = 2.78, p < .05]. Heart rate was significantly lower
during adaptation than during the second and fourth game play measures
and the first posttest measure (all ps <. 05). Heart rate increased
significantly from the first game play measure to the second game play
measure (p < .01); the first game play measure was also significantly
lower than the third (p < .05) and fourth (p < .01) game play measures.
Both posttest measures (p < .01 and p < .05, respectively) were also
significantly greater than the first game play measure, indicating that
recovery was slower for heart rate than blood pressure.
|
Table 1
Descriptive statistics for Outcome Variables by Condition |
| |
| |
Priming Condition |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Variable |
Control
|
Weapon
Priming |
Weapon 1 |
Weapon 2a |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Performance |
51.2 (8.2) |
51.4 (8.6) |
59.4 (5.8) |
56.3 (7.2)* |
|
|
Cold Pressor |
31.1 (17.6) |
25.6 (15.9) |
24.2 (14.5) |
29.9 (16.2) |
|
|
State Anger |
46.0 (1.9) |
47.4
(5.2) |
46.2
(2.5) |
47.9 (9.1) |
|
|
Total AQ Score |
47.5
(3.4) |
49.7 (9.7) |
48.3 (5.9) |
48.6 (7.2) |
|
|
AQ Physical
|
47.5 (4.5) |
46.5 (8.4) |
50.1 (10.3) |
45.4 (8.9) |
|
|
AQ Verbal |
53.2 (4.4) |
51.9 (11.2) |
49.1
(8.3) |
55.7 (10.9) |
|
|
AQ Anger |
44.7 (5.1) |
50.2 (10.9) |
45.4 (6.8) |
44.9 (9.4) |
|
|
AQ Hostility |
46.3 (5.1) |
48.1 (11.6) |
46.5 (6.2) |
48.3 (9.5) |
|
|
AQ Indirect |
48.1 (6.0) |
52.1
(7.7) |
47.6
(6.3) |
49.3 (7.0) |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Notes:
Standard deviations are in parentheses. *p > .01; aWeapon Priming =
weapon was present, but not used; Weapon 1 = used the gun peripheral
with the standard controller out of sight; Weapon 2 = used the gun
peripheral with the standard controller in sight. |
| |
|
Table 2
Descriptive statistics for Cardiovascular Measures Across Time |
| |
Time
of Measurement
|
|
|
Variable |
Average
Resting |
Game Play 1 |
Game Play 2 |
Game Play 3 |
Game Play 4 |
Post 1 |
Post 2 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Heart Rate
|
73.8 (11.0) |
73.2 (12.4) |
75.7 (12.0) |
75.1
(12.5) |
76.0 (11.9) |
75.7 (12.7) |
74.8 (11.6) |
|
Systolic BP |
123.1 (11.3) |
124.3 (12.1) |
125.0 (11.5) |
125.1 (11.3) |
124.7 (11.2) |
120.4 (11.7) |
118.1 (10.8) |
|
Diastolic BP |
70.3 (7.1) |
69.8 (1.7) |
72.0 (7.8) |
71.3 (8.3) |
70.6 (8.2) |
70.2 (7.9) |
67.5 (6.8) |
|
|
|
Standard
deviations are in parentheses. |
Discussion
Our hypothesis that cardiovascular arousal, self-reported
aggression, and behavioral aggression would not increase
with exposure to a weapons prime during violent video game
play was supported. Specifically, weapons-priming condition
was related to superior video game performance, but was not
related to group differences in heart rate, diastolic blood
pressure, systolic blood pressure, state anger,
self-reported aggression, or behavioral aggression.
Participants who used or were exposed to the gun peripheral
did not demonstrate greater arousal or aggression than those
in a control group, nor did using the gun peripheral have a
greater effect than simple exposure to the gun peripheral.
The most parsimonious explanation for the failure to find a
weapons-priming effect, based on a preponderance of the
literature, is that there is no consistent weapons priming
effect, particularly in the absence of overt demand
characteristics. In this study, the video game context
provided a reasonable rationale for the presence of the
weapon; no obfuscation or cover story was necessary to
explain why the gun was present. It has been argued that
experimental demand characteristics may be the primary
reason that the weapons priming effect has been found (e.g.,
Buss et al., 1972; Carson et al., 1990; Page & Scheidt,
1971). However, despite the contradictory evidence, many
contend that there is a weapons priming effect (Anderson et
al., 1998; Bushman, 1998). If this is the case, the weapons
priming effect does not seem to generalize to video game gun
peripherals. The gun peripheral did not resemble a real gun
or a traditional toy gun. Some researchers (Carlson et al.,
1990; Turner et al., 1977) argue that the weapons-priming
effect is most likely to occur when participants are
negatively aroused by viewing a weapon. Since a video game
gun peripheral has no capacity to injure and is used for an
activity that is perceived as enjoyable (e.g., Ballard et
al., in press) exposure to the peripheral is unlikely to
elicit fear and more likely to elicit excitement or other
positive emotions, which would diminish the priming effect.
This question could be answered by comparing participants
who are exposed to no weapons, toy weapons, video game gun
peripherals, or real weapons. Regardless, our results
indicate that video game peripherals have no practical
affect on the cardiovascular arousal or aggression of game
players beyond the impact of the violent game.
The second hypothesis, that violent video game play would
result in cardiovascular reactivity, was supported.
Participants demonstrated significant increases heart rate
and blood pressure across the course of violent game play,
suggesting increased sympathetic nervous system arousal
(Nance & Hoy, 1996). Although blood pressure recovered well
prior to the end of the session, heart rate remained high at
the second posttest measure. These results are consistent
with those of other studies indicating that playing violent
video games are physiologically arousing (e.g., C. A.
Anderson & Bushman, 2001a; C. A. Anderson & Dill, 2000;
Ballard & Lineberger, 1999; Panee & Ballard, 2002). As
almost all of the video games designed to be played using a
gun peripheral are violent, this arousing effect is likely
across games. However, Ballard and colleagues (in press)
found that non-violent video game play increases
cardiovascular arousal as well, so it may be that any video
game play increases arousal. Arousal is not invariably
negative. If arousal if coupled with positive emotion,
aggression is unlikely. However, if arousal is coupled with
negative environmental or interpersonal stimuli, aggression
might result (e.g. C. A. Anderson & Bushman, 2001a, 2001b;
2002). However, Jenkins (1998) argues that aggressive
behavior as long been a part of the culture of boys and that
video game content is likely to reflect rather than cause
this association. Nonetheless, studies examining various
game peripherals across violent and non-violent game genres
in contexts eliciting varying emotions would help tease this
out further.
A few limitations of the study deserve mention. The primary
limitation is the relatively small, homogeneous sample of
boys. While representative of the local community, the
sample was overwhelmingly white, so the results may not
generalize to more diverse samples. A second limitation is
that this study does not address concerns that
first-person-shooters teach players to aim and shoot a
weapon with a high degree of precision or that they
desensitize players to the gore and death associated with
gun violence (Grossman & DeGaetano; 1999). Studies could be
designed to evaluate if first person shooters games increase
accuracy with real firearms, in the absence of other
training. The issue of desensitization is more complex, as
multiple media (TV, movies, popular music, music videos) are
arousing and often include violent images or use of weapons.
Thus, it would be difficult in a laboratory study to
untangle the cumulative, complex effects of exposure to
myriad sources of media that is arousing and/or violent in
nature.
A few strengths of the study also deserve mention. The
primary strength of the study is that adolescent
participants, experienced in video game play, were recruited
from the community. This increases the practical and
contextual validity of the study, as most games are targeted
at adolescent males. A second strength is the multi-measure
method; physiological, personality, and behavioral data were
all gathered. Finally, the weapons prime was embedded in a
context that would not arouse suspicion about the presence
of the weapon per se, which was a primary weakness in most
of the previous weapons-priming studies.
In Sum, our results suggest that type of game peripheral
does not have an affect on the physiological or behavioral
outcomes of violent video game play, particularly in the
case of first-person shooters. Thus, while parents and other
consumers should be concerned about the violent content of
video games and the negative effects of this violence, the
means by which children play violent games does not appear
to affect immediate outcomes.
References
Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E.
(1996). Examining an affective aggression framework:
Weapon and temperature effects on Aggressive thoughts,
affect, and attitudes. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 366-376.
Anderso, 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. (2001a). Effects of
violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive
cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and
prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the
scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12,
353-359.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001b). Human
aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
27-51.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Media
violence and societal violence. Science, 295,
2377-2378.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and
aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the
laboratory and life. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.
Ballard, M. E., & Lineberger, R. (1999) Video game
violence and confederate gender: Effects on reward and
punishment among college males. Sex Roles, 41,
541-558.
Ballard, M. E., Hamby, R. H., Panee, C. D., & Engold, E.
D. (In press). Repeated exposure to video game play
results in decreased cardiovascular and affective
responding. Media Psychology.
Ballard, M. E. & Wiest, J. R. (1996). Mortal Kombat: The
effects of violent video game play on male’s hostility
and cardiovascular responding. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 26, 717-730.
Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanisms of
aggression. In R. G. Geen and E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.),
Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews: Vol. 1.
Theoretical and methodological issues (pp. 1-40). New
York: Academic Press.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963/1997).
Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Reprinted
in R. Diessner (Ed.). Sources: Notable Selections in
Human Development, pp. 171-178. Guildford, CN: Dushkin/McGraw-Hill.
Berkowitz, L., & LePage, A. (1967). Weapons as
aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,
7, 202-207.
Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A. (1977). Stimulus
characteristics that can enhance or decrease aggression:
Associations with prior positive or negative
reinforcements for aggression. Aggressive Behavior,
3, 1-15.
Berkowitz, L. (1984). Some effects of thoughts on anti-
and prosocial influences of media events: A cognitive-neoassociation
analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 410-427.
Bushman, B. J. (1998). Priming effects of media violence
on the accessibility of aggressive constructs in memory.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
537-545.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video
games and hostile expectations: A test of the General
Aggression Model. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 1679-1689.
Bushman, B. J., & Geen, R. G. (1990). Role of
cognitive-emotional mediators and individual differences
in the effects on media violence on aggression.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,
156-163.
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. L. (2000). Aggression
Questionnaire. Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological
Services.
Buss, A., Booker, A., & Buss, E. (1972). Firing a weapon
and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,
22, 296-302.
Cahoon D. D., & Edmonds, E. M. (1984). Guns/no guns and
the expression of social hostility. Bulletin of the
Psychonomic Society, 22, 305-308.
Cahoon D. D., & Edmonds, E. M. (1985). The weapons
effect: fact or artifact? Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, 23, 57-60.
Caprara, G. V., Renzi, R., Amolini, P., D’Imperio, G., &
Travaglia, G. (1984). The eliciting cue value of
aggressive slides reconsidered in a personological
perspective: The weapons effect and irritability.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 313-322.
Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A., & Miller, N. (1990).
Effects of situational aggression cues: A quantitative
review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
58, 622-633.
Cassell, J., & Jenkins, H. (1998). Chess for girls?
Feminism and computer games. In J. Cassell & H. Jenkins
(Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and
computer games, (pp. 2-45). Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Chambers, J. H., & Ascione, F. R. (1987). The effects of
prosocial and aggressive video games on children’s
donating and helping. Journal of Genetic Psychology,
148, 499-505.
Dishman, R. K., Nakamura, Y.; Jackson, E. M., & Ray, C.
A. (2003). Blood pressure and muscle sympathetic nerve
activity during cold pressor stress: Fitness and gender.
Psychophysiology, 40, 370-380.
Ellis, D. P., Weinir, P., & Miller, L. (1971). Does the
trigger pull the finger? An experimental test of weapons
as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Sociometry, 34,
453-465.
Frodi, A. (1975). The effect of exposure to weapons on
aggressive behavior from a cross-cultural perspective.
International Journal of Psychology, 10, 283-292.
Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (1999). Stop Teaching Our
Kids to Kill: A Call to Action Against TV, Movie, &
Video Game Violence. New York: Crown Publishers.
Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes
promoting the relation between exposure to media
violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer.
Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125-139.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise, J., Podolski, C. P., & Eron, L.
D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between children’s
exposure to television violence and their aggressive and
violent behavior in young adulthood: 1977-1992.
Developmental Psychology, 39, 201-221.
Jain, A., Schmidt, T. F. H., Johnston, D. W., Brabant,
G., & von zur Muehlen, A. (1999). The relationship
between heart rate and blood pressure reactivity in the
laboratory and in the field: Evidence using continuous
measures of blood pressure, heart rate and physical
activity. Journal of Psychophysiology, 12,
362-375.
Jenkins, H. (1998). Complete freedom of movement: Video
games as gendered play spaces. In J. Cassell & H.
Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender and
computer games, (pp. 262-297). Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Jenkins, H., McPherson, T, & Shattuc, J. (2002). The
culture that sticks to your skin: A manifesto for a new
cultural studies. In H. Jenkins, T. McPherson, & J.
Shattuc (Eds.), Hop on Pop: The politics and pleasures
of popular culture, (pp. 26-42 ). Durham, NC: Duke
University Press.
Nance, P. W., & Hoy, C. S. G. (1996). Assessment of the
autonomic nervous system, Physical Medicine and
Rehabilitation, 10, 15-35.
Page, D., & O’Neal, E. (1977). “Weapons effect” without
demand characteristics. Psychological Reports, 41,
29-30.
Page, M. M., & Scheidt, R. J. (1971). The elusive
weapons effect: Demand awareness, evaluation
apprehension, and slightly sophisticated subjects.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20,
304-318.
Panee, C. D., & Ballard, M. E. (2002). High versus low
aggressive priming during video game training: effects
on game violence, hostility, heart rate, and blood
pressure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32,
2458-2474.
Scott, D. (1995). The effect of video games on feelings
and aggression. Journal of Psychology
Interdisciplinary and Applied, 129, 121-132.
Simons, L. S., & Turner, C. W. (1976). Evaluation
apprehension,, hypothesis awareness, and the weapons
effect. Aggressive Behavior, 2, 77-87.
Spielberger, C. D. (1996). State-trait anger expression
inventory professional Manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological
Assessment Resources, Inc.
Subrahmanyam, K., & Greenfield, P. M. (1998). Computer
games for girls: What makes them play. In J. Cassell &
H. Jenkins (Eds.), From Barbie to Mortal Kombat: Gender
and computer games, (pp. 46-71). Cambridge, MA: The MIT
Press.
Turner, C. W., & Goldsmith, D. (1976). Effects of toy
guns and airplanes on children’s antisocial free play
behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology,
21, 303-315.
Turner, C. W., & Simons, L. S. (1974). Effects of
subject sophistication and evaluation apprehension on
aggressive responses to weapons. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 341-348.
Turner, C. W., Simons, L. S., Berkowitz, L., & Frodi, A.
(1977). The stimulating and inhibiting effects of
weapons on aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior,
3, 355-378.
Winkel, M., Novak, D. M., & Hopson, H. (1987).
Personality factors, subject gender, and the effects of
aggressive video games on aggression in adolescents.
Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 211-223.
Wolf, M. J. P. (2001). Introduction. In M. J. P. Wolf
(Ed.), The medium of the videogame (pp. 1-9). Austin,
TX: University of Texas Press.
Acknowledgements
This study was funded by the Cratis D. Williams Graduate
School and the Wise Family Psychology Research Fund. We
would like to thank Mark Zrull and Mike Furr for their
feedback and Dave Cline and Tommy Wentz for running the
participants.
|
|
|
