The Effects of Video and Computer Games on Aggression and Multi-Tasking
http://www.addictioninfo.org/articles/3801/1/The-Effects-of-Video-and-Computer-Games-on-Aggression-and-Multi-Tasking/Page1.html
Misc Author
Miscellaneous authors not listed elsewhere.
By Misc Author
Published on 09/24/2009
This article examines potential positive and negative effects that video and computer games have on our society. Two important effects are aggression and cognitive abilities, both of
which are supported by research. This article also covers a few areas
that are less approached by research, such as whether games can reduce
aggression.
This article examines potential positive and negative effects that video and computer games have on our society. Two important effects are aggression and cognitive abilities, both of
which are supported by research. This article also covers a few areas
that are less approached by research, such as whether games can reduce
aggression.By Kyle Faust
University of Rhode Island
Abstract
This article examines potential positive and negative effects that video and computer games have on our society.
Two important effects are aggression and cognitive abilities, both of which are supported by research. This article also covers a few areas that are less approached by research, such as whether games can reduce aggression.
In order to address some of these important questions, I propose an experimental study. The study would use two games to measure aggression and multi-tasking (the ability to effectively perform multiple tasks at once) in order to observe some of the effects the games may have.
If the results are similar to previous research, it is likely that multi-tasking will improve from puzzle game use and aggression will increase from violent game use. Such findings would imply that games can be both beneficial and detrimental to society, depending on their use.
Video and computer games continue to become more popular in our society as time progresses. More and more children are growing up experiencing video and computer games not only as recreation, but as a potential learning tool.
As the games continue to become more popular, society has become dubious about this relatively unknown entity, and many questions have arisen about the games. Perhaps the most frequent of these questions is, "Just what effects are these games capable of?"
Such a question has many potential answers.
Most frequently, this question is answered in a negative light, with a focus on the negative effects caused by video and computer games. However, the potential positive effects of video and computer games have received comparatively less attention.
For this reason, it seems particularly important to discuss some of the research describing the potential positive effects of games. This article will discuss some of these potential positive effects, followed by a discussion of some of the potential negative effects.
Potential Positive Effects of Video and Computer Games
A single-group pre-test post-test study by Clarke and Schoech (1995) found that computer games may prove beneficial in therapy, especially for adolescents. A computer game was developed to aid therapists in helping clients with impulse-control.
The game was programmed to give players numerous choices and encouraged them to make high impulse-control choices. The game was administered to four adolescent clients who lacked effective impulse-control over a four week period of time.
Results indicated that the game allowed the clients to become more enthusiastic and cooperative about treatment, though it is somewhat unclear how enthusiasm and cooperation were measured (likely from observation).
Though this study has a small sample size and a somewhat unspecified form of measurement (not to mention the threats caused by being a single-group pre-test post-test design), it still raises an interesting question for further studies.
A larger and more statistically supported experimental study by Alvarez et al (2007) also found that games could be useful for therapeutic approaches. More specifically, they found that a computer game could be used for cognitive training.
The study used the game to assist treatment for major depression and cognitive impairment. Patients that were exposed to the game experienced a substantial increase in intellectual performance and a slight decrease in depression compared to the groups not exposed to the game.
However, it is important to mention that the study was in need of more refined tests, which is noted by the authors (Alvarez et al., 2007).
For both studies, it seems that replication is in order before solid conclusions are drawn.
It has also been found that interactive health computer and video games can educate children on managing diseases. One study found that a diabetes game reduced diabetes-related emergencies by 77 percent after the children played the game for six months (Lieberman, 2000).
In addition to computer and video games, virtual reality games can prove very beneficial. They have the potential to train cognitive skills necessary for occupations such as aviation without putting a person in a potentially dangerous situation.
With proper assessment, flight simulators can serve to develop the cognitive skills necessary for flying (Tichon, 2007). Virtual reality can also be used to rehabilitate balance and mobility in elderly subjects and victims of traumatic brain injury (Bisson et al., 2007).
It can further be used as a cognitive-behavioral form of treatment, and was found to be quite helpful in treating clients who suffered from a fear of flying (Kahan et al., 2000).
It will be interesting to consider further benefits that may develop as technology continues to advance the realism of virtual reality.
Video games may also serve as excellent teaching tools for children. It has been found that adventure games such as "The Kingdom of Myrrh" can be beneficial in developing academic skills for both gifted children and children with learning disabilities (Mather, 2001).
It seems likely that many children who normally have difficulty learning from traditional academic methods may benefit greatly from these types of games in a classroom setting.
A non-equivalent comparison group study involving 46 kindergarten participants found that computer games may develop information-processing skills (Yuji, 1996). In the study, children were classified into player and non-player groups based on their enthusiasm for games (there was no random assignment).
The player and non-player group had similar scores on the given processing-skills test, but they had much faster reaction times.
Given the fact that self selection was used in the study, it is challenging to draw many conclusions from this study alone. Still, the results were similar to another non-equivalent comparison group of computer game practice and reaction time, indicating that there does seem to be a possible improvement in information-processing and reaction times (McSwegin, 1988).
Computer games may also benefit spatial visualization, hand-eye coordination, serial processing, and creativity (Greenfield, 1984, 1987).
Other researchers have gone even further by stating that games can have strong cognitive benefits, such as pattern recognition, patience, and system thinking (Johnson, 2005).
Still, it seems that all of this research is lacking in random assignment.
It seems as though computer and video games can offer many potential benefits, although additional research in the area is certainly necessary, particularly involving the potential cognitive benefits of the games.
Since there does not appear to be much research involving the potential cognitive benefits of the games that uses a pre-test post-test control group design with random assignment, I feel this is an essential consideration for a study.
University of Rhode Island
Abstract
This article examines potential positive and negative effects that video and computer games have on our society.
Two important effects are aggression and cognitive abilities, both of which are supported by research. This article also covers a few areas that are less approached by research, such as whether games can reduce aggression.
In order to address some of these important questions, I propose an experimental study. The study would use two games to measure aggression and multi-tasking (the ability to effectively perform multiple tasks at once) in order to observe some of the effects the games may have.
If the results are similar to previous research, it is likely that multi-tasking will improve from puzzle game use and aggression will increase from violent game use. Such findings would imply that games can be both beneficial and detrimental to society, depending on their use.
Video and computer games continue to become more popular in our society as time progresses. More and more children are growing up experiencing video and computer games not only as recreation, but as a potential learning tool.
As the games continue to become more popular, society has become dubious about this relatively unknown entity, and many questions have arisen about the games. Perhaps the most frequent of these questions is, "Just what effects are these games capable of?"
Such a question has many potential answers.
Most frequently, this question is answered in a negative light, with a focus on the negative effects caused by video and computer games. However, the potential positive effects of video and computer games have received comparatively less attention. For this reason, it seems particularly important to discuss some of the research describing the potential positive effects of games. This article will discuss some of these potential positive effects, followed by a discussion of some of the potential negative effects.
Potential Positive Effects of Video and Computer Games
A single-group pre-test post-test study by Clarke and Schoech (1995) found that computer games may prove beneficial in therapy, especially for adolescents. A computer game was developed to aid therapists in helping clients with impulse-control.
The game was programmed to give players numerous choices and encouraged them to make high impulse-control choices. The game was administered to four adolescent clients who lacked effective impulse-control over a four week period of time.
Results indicated that the game allowed the clients to become more enthusiastic and cooperative about treatment, though it is somewhat unclear how enthusiasm and cooperation were measured (likely from observation).
Though this study has a small sample size and a somewhat unspecified form of measurement (not to mention the threats caused by being a single-group pre-test post-test design), it still raises an interesting question for further studies.
A larger and more statistically supported experimental study by Alvarez et al (2007) also found that games could be useful for therapeutic approaches. More specifically, they found that a computer game could be used for cognitive training.
The study used the game to assist treatment for major depression and cognitive impairment. Patients that were exposed to the game experienced a substantial increase in intellectual performance and a slight decrease in depression compared to the groups not exposed to the game.
However, it is important to mention that the study was in need of more refined tests, which is noted by the authors (Alvarez et al., 2007).
For both studies, it seems that replication is in order before solid conclusions are drawn.
It has also been found that interactive health computer and video games can educate children on managing diseases. One study found that a diabetes game reduced diabetes-related emergencies by 77 percent after the children played the game for six months (Lieberman, 2000).
In addition to computer and video games, virtual reality games can prove very beneficial. They have the potential to train cognitive skills necessary for occupations such as aviation without putting a person in a potentially dangerous situation.
With proper assessment, flight simulators can serve to develop the cognitive skills necessary for flying (Tichon, 2007). Virtual reality can also be used to rehabilitate balance and mobility in elderly subjects and victims of traumatic brain injury (Bisson et al., 2007).
It can further be used as a cognitive-behavioral form of treatment, and was found to be quite helpful in treating clients who suffered from a fear of flying (Kahan et al., 2000).
It will be interesting to consider further benefits that may develop as technology continues to advance the realism of virtual reality.
Video games may also serve as excellent teaching tools for children. It has been found that adventure games such as "The Kingdom of Myrrh" can be beneficial in developing academic skills for both gifted children and children with learning disabilities (Mather, 2001).
It seems likely that many children who normally have difficulty learning from traditional academic methods may benefit greatly from these types of games in a classroom setting.
A non-equivalent comparison group study involving 46 kindergarten participants found that computer games may develop information-processing skills (Yuji, 1996). In the study, children were classified into player and non-player groups based on their enthusiasm for games (there was no random assignment).
The player and non-player group had similar scores on the given processing-skills test, but they had much faster reaction times.
Given the fact that self selection was used in the study, it is challenging to draw many conclusions from this study alone. Still, the results were similar to another non-equivalent comparison group of computer game practice and reaction time, indicating that there does seem to be a possible improvement in information-processing and reaction times (McSwegin, 1988).
Computer games may also benefit spatial visualization, hand-eye coordination, serial processing, and creativity (Greenfield, 1984, 1987).
Other researchers have gone even further by stating that games can have strong cognitive benefits, such as pattern recognition, patience, and system thinking (Johnson, 2005).
Still, it seems that all of this research is lacking in random assignment.
It seems as though computer and video games can offer many potential benefits, although additional research in the area is certainly necessary, particularly involving the potential cognitive benefits of the games.
Since there does not appear to be much research involving the potential cognitive benefits of the games that uses a pre-test post-test control group design with random assignment, I feel this is an essential consideration for a study.
Potential Negative Effects of Video and Computer Games
Though video and computer games have many potentially positive effects, the majority of research has focused on the potential negative effects caused by the games. There are a number of potential negative effects caused by games.
One of the most frequently discussed negative effects in both psychology and among the public is the potential effects caused by violence in certain games. Many researchers and concerned parents believe that these violent games will desensitize players and make them more aggressive.
It is widely believed that violent media in general desensitizes people. Anderson and Huesmann (2003) believe that the observation of violence in the media can change our beliefs about aggression in both the short and long term, making us more likely to view aggression and violence as acceptable.
They further note that an increase in aggression due to the media has been consistently found in research regardless of the type of study.
Their belief is further developed in social learning theory, which assumes that people learn social behavior by observation and imitation, repeating behavior that is rewarded (Myers, 2008).
Based on this theory, aggression could potentially increase if violence was both observed and rewarded (which is often the case in violent television shows, where a person who commits a violent act is rewarded rather than punished).
People experiencing high levels of aggression can create detrimental effects for society, including (but not limited to) criminal behavior. One longitudinal study involving 856 youths found that early childhood viewing of violence on television was positively related to antisocial behavior 10 years later (Eron et al., 1972).
This study also controlled for other potential variables that may have caused aggression, such as initial aggression and social class (Lefkowitz et al., 1997).
This research does not mean to suggest that violence in the media solely determines aggression. According to Anderson and Huesmann (2003), the primary causes of aggression are a convergence of situational instigators (such as aversive conditions) and multiple personological characteristics (such as hostile world schemas).
Media (including video and computer games) would be considered an environmental modifier. Such a modifier would influence personological characteristics, which leads to some serious potential effects.
It seems that most forms of violent media could potentially increase aggression and possibly lead to very serious repercussions for our society. Unsurprisingly, this applies to video and computer games as well.
If anything, it is possible that video games can have even more pronounced effects than television, since players are actively involved in harming others in the games (Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman, 2007).
Though Anderson believes that the results of previous studies speak for themselves, there are still some researchers who disagree with these findings.
Unsworth, Devilly, and Ward (2006) strongly oppose the belief that video and computer games increase violence, and they have cited a few additional researchers who found that general media violence is not a significant factor in crime rates and that there are no detrimental effects from game playing.
Unsworth, Devilly, and Ward (2006) conducted a single-group pre-test post-test study with 107 participants, having the participants play a violent video game (Quake 2) and measuring their level of anger before, during, and after game play.
The results found that the majority of participants (77) experienced no change in anger ratings. It was explained that these results likely occurred because personality played the largest role in whether or not participants experienced an increase in anger from the games.
A correlational study by Grusser, Thalemann, and Griffiths (2007) found similar results. The study had a very large pool of over 7000 participants, and found only weak evidence to support the idea that aggressive behavior is interrelated with excessive gaming.
Though it is important to note that the study was assessing overall gaming rather than violent games in particular, it is still surprising, considering the large number of gamers who play violent games (Grusser, Thalemann, and Griffiths, 2007).
The findings in both studies certainly differ from the majority of findings, and there is the possibility that extraneous variables or other threats to validity played a role in the results.
Nevertheless, the findings are still worth assessing further in follow up studies that make use a control group design.
For most research studying video and computer game violence, the results tend to find much more of an effect, particularly concerning a desensitization to violence. Researchers (Wei, 2007; Anderson and Dill, 2000; Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Luthman, 2008) argue that desensitization to violence is likely to not only lead to an acceptance of violence, but to an increase in aggression.
A pre-test post-test control group design study by Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman (2007) used 257 participants and measured their heart rates and galvanic skin responses after they had played either a violent or nonviolent video game.
The participants randomly assigned to a violent game had a lower heart rate and galvanic skin response, indicating that they experienced desensitization to violence.
This desensitization took place even after a mere 20 minutes of violent game play. A similar study by Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Luthman (2008) found the same overall results.
Again, participants exposed to a highly violent video game exhibited weaker reactions to violence, and further presented stronger reactions to aggressive cues.
Interestingly, the study differed from the work of Carnagey et al because it measured heart and respiration rates during game play itself, and found that the participants heart and respiration rates decreased. This indicates that players became more relaxed while playing, possibly becoming desensitized to the violence almost immediately (Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Luthman, 2008).
Overall, most research on the topic is in agreement that desensitization occurs in response to game playing and may be associated with subsequent aggression.
It has also been found that the games can have an outright effect on aggression and violent behavior.
Studies such as a correlational study conducted by Wei (2007) and a pre-test post-test study conducted Anderson and Dill (2000) found that exposure to a violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior.
The study by Anderson and Dill (2000) seems effective in terms of how it was conducted, since it used a large pool of participants (210), random selection, a control group, and a widely used measurement of aggression (the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire).
It is also possible that some people are more vulnerable to the effects of video and computer game violence than others, much as Anderson and Huesmann (2003) theorized. A pre-test post-test control group study by Ravaja et al. (2008) investigated the emotional responses caused by violent video games and nonviolent video games.
The study also measured psychoticism from the Eysneck Personality Questionnaire. The violent game lead to negative emotional responses both when the player was killed and when the player was killing others for participants with a low psychoticism score, but those who scored high on psychoticism experienced far less anxiety.
Neither group experienced anxiety from the nonviolent game, but did experience positive emotional responses when succeeding in the game. Such results indicate that psychotic individuals may be particularly vulnerable to becoming desensitized to video and computer game violence (Ravaja et al., 2008).
This certainly raises an interesting question for future studies, which may consider whether or not individuals with a high psychoticism score experience greater increases in aggression as a result of playing violent video or computer games.
Development of a Study
It seems clear from the vast majority of research that video and computer games can have both positive and negative effects. From the research conducted, it seems as though many games are of far less potential benefit and far more harmful than others.
Though many games have the potential to be of benefit, it seems as though the violence in the games itself is of no potential benefit. The majority of researchers agree that the violent games can increase aggression and lead to desensitization, though there is not complete agreement in the field.
It is worth noting that most of the statistically sound research regarding game effects is performed by researchers measuring the effects of video game violence (such as Anderson) and is based upon social learning theory.
However, these studies are not designed to assess any positive effects caused by games. Less conclusive experimental research has been done on the positive effects of games, especially the effects the games can have on cognitive abilities (since most of the research in the area of cognitive abilities is single-group pre-test post-test or correlational).
This is a serious issue in the research that needs to be addressed if possible.
Most of the previous studies cited measured effects only during or immediately after exposure to a violent game. For this reason, it seems important to determine if the effects continue over an extended period of time, even without exposure.
Due to some limitations in the field of research involving the effects of video and computer games, I believe that it could be of tremendous benefit to create a pre-test post-test control group study that exposes participants to a game that is potentially positive and a game that is violent and potentially negative.
The study would also measure effects over an extended period of time, which would be a new addition to the experimental studies conducted in the past.
Although previous studies have measured two types of games before, they have not done so with the purpose of measuring cognitive effects. It will be interesting to compare the effects of a violent game to a nonviolent game that may be cognitively beneficial.
There is always a chance that these violent games are beneficial, but if potential positive effects are found to be the same in a nonviolent game, then it would be challenging to justify the need for the violent aspect in the first place.
This could perhaps lead to a decrease in the violence in games (which could potentially prove valuable in decreasing aggression).
For the study in mind, participants would be exposed to either a violent horror and shooting game or a nonviolent puzzle game. Such games would most effectively be found based on previous research.
I believe that Tetris would be perfect as a puzzle game, and Silent Hill would be perfect as a violent game.
Before the actual study would be performed, pilot testing would be done to determine the suitability of Tetris and Silent Hill. Since it would be nearly impossible to measure overall cognitive abilities in a time efficient manner, the study will focus on measuring multi-tasking skills, which can be assessed very effectively and efficiently.
Multi-tasking is defined as the capacity to hold in mind or work on two or dimensions of a problem simultaneously.
Based on the majority of research, I would hypothesize that the group exposed to a violent game would show an increase in aggression during the study and after the study ends (based on the social learning theory) while the nonviolent puzzle group would remain stable.
I would also hypothesize that the nonviolent puzzle group would show an increase in multi-tasking skills, and that the violent game group may experience an increase in multi-tasking skills as well (though likely not as great as that of the puzzle group).
Method
Participants
Ideally, the study should involve 300 undergrad students (male and female). The 300 participants will be given some incentive to participate, such as extra credit in a college course. Students would be informed of the study through their professors or from an experimenter during class.
They would be encouraged to participate by signing their names on a list handed out by a professor or an experimenter.
Design
Participants should be randomly assigned to one of three groups: the violent game group, the nonviolent puzzle group, or a control group (in which no games are used). The independent variable would be the type of game a participant is exposed to, and the dependent variables are aggression and multi-tasking.
The factorial design is 3 X 2, with 100 participants assigned to each group.
Procedure
A large lab setting would be ideal for the study, but any large building on the university campus would suffice. The building will be used for administering both the tests and the game play. Participants will first complete two tests in groups. First, the participants will complete the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire.
The questionnaire is a very well known measure of aggression and has been used in many previous studies (Anderson and Dill, 2000). The test uses factor analyses to yield four scales of aggression, which show internal consistency and stability over time.
The four scales (physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility) intercorrelated strongly enough to indicate an overall trait of aggression (AQ; Buss and Perry, 1992).
After completing the Aggression Questionnaire, participants will complete the Trail Making Test.
The test is composed of two sections, which involve connecting circles as quickly as possible in sequence. The first test uses numerical sequence, while the second uses both numbers and letters. The test is designed to measure the participants rapid visual scanning and multi-tasking, which is a general characteristic of brain functioning.
Further, the Trail Making test is known as one of the best measures of general brain functions (Reitan and Wolfson, 1993).
After participants have completed both tests, they will be given access to multiple PC's in a computer lab (except for the control group). Participants of the violent game group will be given access to Silent Hill, which is a particularly violent horror and shooter game where the player frequently kills zombies and other inhuman monsters while also using problem solving skills in order to advance in the game.
Participants of the nonviolent game group will be given access to Tetris, a simple puzzle game that requires players to create lines out of falling blocks that have a variety of shapes. The game continues to increase in difficulty as players begin to advance in the game by successfully forming lines.
The PC will require players to log in and out before playing and will measure the amount of time participants spend on the game.
Participants will be allowed to play the games as frequently as they would like, but should spend a minimum of one hour a week playing the game they are assigned. The time will not simply be left at an hour because it will allow time to be considered as an additional variable.
Again, a pilot study should be used to assess the value of these two games for the study beforehand.
All three groups will complete the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and the Trail-Making Test two additional times. After four weeks, tests will be given again, and the participants in the Silent Hill and Tetris groups will no longer be given access to the PC's and will stop playing the games in the lab.
After another four weeks, all participants will be given both tests one final time, at which point they will be compensated for their participation and debriefed about the purpose of the study.
One of the most frequently discussed negative effects in both psychology and among the public is the potential effects caused by violence in certain games. Many researchers and concerned parents believe that these violent games will desensitize players and make them more aggressive.
It is widely believed that violent media in general desensitizes people. Anderson and Huesmann (2003) believe that the observation of violence in the media can change our beliefs about aggression in both the short and long term, making us more likely to view aggression and violence as acceptable.
They further note that an increase in aggression due to the media has been consistently found in research regardless of the type of study.
Their belief is further developed in social learning theory, which assumes that people learn social behavior by observation and imitation, repeating behavior that is rewarded (Myers, 2008).
Based on this theory, aggression could potentially increase if violence was both observed and rewarded (which is often the case in violent television shows, where a person who commits a violent act is rewarded rather than punished).
People experiencing high levels of aggression can create detrimental effects for society, including (but not limited to) criminal behavior. One longitudinal study involving 856 youths found that early childhood viewing of violence on television was positively related to antisocial behavior 10 years later (Eron et al., 1972).
This study also controlled for other potential variables that may have caused aggression, such as initial aggression and social class (Lefkowitz et al., 1997).
This research does not mean to suggest that violence in the media solely determines aggression. According to Anderson and Huesmann (2003), the primary causes of aggression are a convergence of situational instigators (such as aversive conditions) and multiple personological characteristics (such as hostile world schemas).
Media (including video and computer games) would be considered an environmental modifier. Such a modifier would influence personological characteristics, which leads to some serious potential effects.
It seems that most forms of violent media could potentially increase aggression and possibly lead to very serious repercussions for our society. Unsurprisingly, this applies to video and computer games as well.
If anything, it is possible that video games can have even more pronounced effects than television, since players are actively involved in harming others in the games (Carnagey, Anderson, and Bushman, 2007).
Though Anderson believes that the results of previous studies speak for themselves, there are still some researchers who disagree with these findings.
Unsworth, Devilly, and Ward (2006) strongly oppose the belief that video and computer games increase violence, and they have cited a few additional researchers who found that general media violence is not a significant factor in crime rates and that there are no detrimental effects from game playing.
Unsworth, Devilly, and Ward (2006) conducted a single-group pre-test post-test study with 107 participants, having the participants play a violent video game (Quake 2) and measuring their level of anger before, during, and after game play.
The results found that the majority of participants (77) experienced no change in anger ratings. It was explained that these results likely occurred because personality played the largest role in whether or not participants experienced an increase in anger from the games.
A correlational study by Grusser, Thalemann, and Griffiths (2007) found similar results. The study had a very large pool of over 7000 participants, and found only weak evidence to support the idea that aggressive behavior is interrelated with excessive gaming.
Though it is important to note that the study was assessing overall gaming rather than violent games in particular, it is still surprising, considering the large number of gamers who play violent games (Grusser, Thalemann, and Griffiths, 2007).
The findings in both studies certainly differ from the majority of findings, and there is the possibility that extraneous variables or other threats to validity played a role in the results.
Nevertheless, the findings are still worth assessing further in follow up studies that make use a control group design.
For most research studying video and computer game violence, the results tend to find much more of an effect, particularly concerning a desensitization to violence. Researchers (Wei, 2007; Anderson and Dill, 2000; Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Luthman, 2008) argue that desensitization to violence is likely to not only lead to an acceptance of violence, but to an increase in aggression.
A pre-test post-test control group design study by Carnagey, Anderson and Bushman (2007) used 257 participants and measured their heart rates and galvanic skin responses after they had played either a violent or nonviolent video game.
The participants randomly assigned to a violent game had a lower heart rate and galvanic skin response, indicating that they experienced desensitization to violence.
This desensitization took place even after a mere 20 minutes of violent game play. A similar study by Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Luthman (2008) found the same overall results.
Again, participants exposed to a highly violent video game exhibited weaker reactions to violence, and further presented stronger reactions to aggressive cues.
Interestingly, the study differed from the work of Carnagey et al because it measured heart and respiration rates during game play itself, and found that the participants heart and respiration rates decreased. This indicates that players became more relaxed while playing, possibly becoming desensitized to the violence almost immediately (Staude-Muller, Bliesener, and Luthman, 2008).
Overall, most research on the topic is in agreement that desensitization occurs in response to game playing and may be associated with subsequent aggression.
It has also been found that the games can have an outright effect on aggression and violent behavior.
Studies such as a correlational study conducted by Wei (2007) and a pre-test post-test study conducted Anderson and Dill (2000) found that exposure to a violent video game increased aggressive thoughts and behavior.
The study by Anderson and Dill (2000) seems effective in terms of how it was conducted, since it used a large pool of participants (210), random selection, a control group, and a widely used measurement of aggression (the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire).
It is also possible that some people are more vulnerable to the effects of video and computer game violence than others, much as Anderson and Huesmann (2003) theorized. A pre-test post-test control group study by Ravaja et al. (2008) investigated the emotional responses caused by violent video games and nonviolent video games.
The study also measured psychoticism from the Eysneck Personality Questionnaire. The violent game lead to negative emotional responses both when the player was killed and when the player was killing others for participants with a low psychoticism score, but those who scored high on psychoticism experienced far less anxiety.
Neither group experienced anxiety from the nonviolent game, but did experience positive emotional responses when succeeding in the game. Such results indicate that psychotic individuals may be particularly vulnerable to becoming desensitized to video and computer game violence (Ravaja et al., 2008).
This certainly raises an interesting question for future studies, which may consider whether or not individuals with a high psychoticism score experience greater increases in aggression as a result of playing violent video or computer games.
Development of a Study
It seems clear from the vast majority of research that video and computer games can have both positive and negative effects. From the research conducted, it seems as though many games are of far less potential benefit and far more harmful than others.
Though many games have the potential to be of benefit, it seems as though the violence in the games itself is of no potential benefit. The majority of researchers agree that the violent games can increase aggression and lead to desensitization, though there is not complete agreement in the field.
It is worth noting that most of the statistically sound research regarding game effects is performed by researchers measuring the effects of video game violence (such as Anderson) and is based upon social learning theory.
However, these studies are not designed to assess any positive effects caused by games. Less conclusive experimental research has been done on the positive effects of games, especially the effects the games can have on cognitive abilities (since most of the research in the area of cognitive abilities is single-group pre-test post-test or correlational).
This is a serious issue in the research that needs to be addressed if possible.
Most of the previous studies cited measured effects only during or immediately after exposure to a violent game. For this reason, it seems important to determine if the effects continue over an extended period of time, even without exposure.
Due to some limitations in the field of research involving the effects of video and computer games, I believe that it could be of tremendous benefit to create a pre-test post-test control group study that exposes participants to a game that is potentially positive and a game that is violent and potentially negative.
The study would also measure effects over an extended period of time, which would be a new addition to the experimental studies conducted in the past.
Although previous studies have measured two types of games before, they have not done so with the purpose of measuring cognitive effects. It will be interesting to compare the effects of a violent game to a nonviolent game that may be cognitively beneficial.
There is always a chance that these violent games are beneficial, but if potential positive effects are found to be the same in a nonviolent game, then it would be challenging to justify the need for the violent aspect in the first place.
This could perhaps lead to a decrease in the violence in games (which could potentially prove valuable in decreasing aggression).
For the study in mind, participants would be exposed to either a violent horror and shooting game or a nonviolent puzzle game. Such games would most effectively be found based on previous research.
I believe that Tetris would be perfect as a puzzle game, and Silent Hill would be perfect as a violent game.
Before the actual study would be performed, pilot testing would be done to determine the suitability of Tetris and Silent Hill. Since it would be nearly impossible to measure overall cognitive abilities in a time efficient manner, the study will focus on measuring multi-tasking skills, which can be assessed very effectively and efficiently.
Multi-tasking is defined as the capacity to hold in mind or work on two or dimensions of a problem simultaneously.
Based on the majority of research, I would hypothesize that the group exposed to a violent game would show an increase in aggression during the study and after the study ends (based on the social learning theory) while the nonviolent puzzle group would remain stable.
I would also hypothesize that the nonviolent puzzle group would show an increase in multi-tasking skills, and that the violent game group may experience an increase in multi-tasking skills as well (though likely not as great as that of the puzzle group).
Method
Participants
Ideally, the study should involve 300 undergrad students (male and female). The 300 participants will be given some incentive to participate, such as extra credit in a college course. Students would be informed of the study through their professors or from an experimenter during class.
They would be encouraged to participate by signing their names on a list handed out by a professor or an experimenter.
Design
Participants should be randomly assigned to one of three groups: the violent game group, the nonviolent puzzle group, or a control group (in which no games are used). The independent variable would be the type of game a participant is exposed to, and the dependent variables are aggression and multi-tasking.
The factorial design is 3 X 2, with 100 participants assigned to each group.
Procedure
A large lab setting would be ideal for the study, but any large building on the university campus would suffice. The building will be used for administering both the tests and the game play. Participants will first complete two tests in groups. First, the participants will complete the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire.
The questionnaire is a very well known measure of aggression and has been used in many previous studies (Anderson and Dill, 2000). The test uses factor analyses to yield four scales of aggression, which show internal consistency and stability over time.
The four scales (physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility) intercorrelated strongly enough to indicate an overall trait of aggression (AQ; Buss and Perry, 1992).
After completing the Aggression Questionnaire, participants will complete the Trail Making Test.
The test is composed of two sections, which involve connecting circles as quickly as possible in sequence. The first test uses numerical sequence, while the second uses both numbers and letters. The test is designed to measure the participants rapid visual scanning and multi-tasking, which is a general characteristic of brain functioning.
Further, the Trail Making test is known as one of the best measures of general brain functions (Reitan and Wolfson, 1993).
After participants have completed both tests, they will be given access to multiple PC's in a computer lab (except for the control group). Participants of the violent game group will be given access to Silent Hill, which is a particularly violent horror and shooter game where the player frequently kills zombies and other inhuman monsters while also using problem solving skills in order to advance in the game.
Participants of the nonviolent game group will be given access to Tetris, a simple puzzle game that requires players to create lines out of falling blocks that have a variety of shapes. The game continues to increase in difficulty as players begin to advance in the game by successfully forming lines.
The PC will require players to log in and out before playing and will measure the amount of time participants spend on the game.
Participants will be allowed to play the games as frequently as they would like, but should spend a minimum of one hour a week playing the game they are assigned. The time will not simply be left at an hour because it will allow time to be considered as an additional variable.
Again, a pilot study should be used to assess the value of these two games for the study beforehand.
All three groups will complete the Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire and the Trail-Making Test two additional times. After four weeks, tests will be given again, and the participants in the Silent Hill and Tetris groups will no longer be given access to the PC's and will stop playing the games in the lab.
After another four weeks, all participants will be given both tests one final time, at which point they will be compensated for their participation and debriefed about the purpose of the study.
Results
I hypothesized that participants randomly assigned to a violent video game would show increased levels of aggression (as measured by the Aggression Questionnaire).
This increase will likely be higher in participants that play the games more frequently. Such a hypothesis would be supported if participants in the Silent Hill group experienced a significant increase in score on the four aggression factors.
The most important support would be if a large majority of participants experienced an increase in score. If 90% or more of the participants experienced an increase in score, this would surely be significant.
Since the Aggression Questionnaire is meant to be stable over time, such a change would indicate an increase in aggression likely due to the violence in the game.
Participants in the Tetris group and the control group will almost certainly experience no change in any of their aggression scores, which would further support the effect violent games can have. Deciding when the results would be considered significant should be based upon the significant findings of previous studies, such as those completed by Anderson.
I also hypothesized that participants randomly assigned to a nonviolent puzzle game would show increased multi-tasking abilities (as measured by the Trail Making Test). The multi-tasking ability increases will likely be higher in participants that play the games more frequently.
This hypothesis would be supported if participants in the Tetris group experienced a significant increase in the speed and accuracy in which they complete the test. It would be even more strongly supported if the majority of
participants experienced an improvement in speed and accuracy (again, 90% or more would be considered
significant).
Such results would provide very strong support that video and computer puzzle games might have a positive effect on cognitive ability (particularly concerning multi-tasking abilities). It is also questionable if a violent video game will have any effect on multi-tasking, since the games are typically not measured in such a manner.
Further, it is challenging to predict if the changes in scores will continue over time, given the lack of longitudinal studies for research assessing both aggression and cognitive benefits.
Based on social learning theory and the script theory of Anderson and Huesmann (2003), any increase in score on the Aggression Questionnaire and the Trail Making Test should remain over time.
However, there is a chance that participants might begin to develop new scripts with superior rewards (or observe less violent behaviors with superior rewards) in which case their increase in aggressive behavior might decrease.
It also seems likely that some scales of aggression would be more significantly increased than others
(perhaps physical aggression would have the largest increase).
Last, it is important to mention that there is a possibility that some questions on the Aggression Questionnaire may need to be updated in order to account for a potential overlap in the pre-test post-test.
For instance, a question which asks if a person has ever felt a certain way should be changed to asking if
they felt a certain way in the past few weeks. This will be essential in order to obtain accurate measurements of changes that may occur.
Discussion
Assuming that the actual results are found to be similar, these anticipated findings would certainly support the hypothesis. The study would support that violent games lead to a potential increase in aggression.
The study would also support that puzzle games can possibly lead to improvement in multi-tasking and overall cognitive ability.
The findings that violent video games are potentially increasing aggression would be well supported with the current literature. It is important to keep in mind that some experiments have found different results (Unsworth, Devilly, and Ward, 2006).
However, the majority of research typically finds a positive correlation. That is not to say that researchers who have found contrary information are incorrect, because far more research still needs to be done.
However, for the time being, it seems more likely that the study will find violent video and computer games possibly leading to some increase in aggression.
Hopefully, this will draw more attention to the need to reduce violence in games. The reduction in violence
might be particularly important for individuals that score higher on personality traits like psychoticism, who
are more vulnerable than most people to the violent effects of games (Ravaja et al., 2008).
The findings that nonviolent puzzle games are potentially beneficial for a person's cognitive functioning is further supported by research as well (although the research is not as conclusive as the research concerning violent games).
There seems to be very little dispute that certain games can have at least some beneficial effects, and Tetris appears to be the sort of game that offers few drawbacks. Further, there are many other potentially positive effects that games can have (Mather, 2001; Lieberman, 2001; Tichon, 2007; Johnson, 2005, etc).
Strengths and Limitations of Study
This study would prove very valuable in a number of ways. It would be seek answers to some questions that have not yet been assessed by a pre-test post-test control group experimental design, such as the potential cognitive benefits of a computer or video game and whether a violent game may also have some sort of benefit.
It would also gain all of the benefits of a pre-test post-test control group design, making the results of the study more statistically supported than most other studies, which would be less conclusive due to a larger number of potential threats.
The study also uses well recognized forms of measurements, making the experiment more reliable and valid.
Last, the study considers both the positive and negative effects of games, rather than focusing on one particular area alone.
Although the findings of the study could prove to be very important in understanding the benefit and harm video and computer games can have, the study is certainly not free of flaws. First, the study has focused only on one major weakness of the computer and video games.
It did not discuss another frequently noted issue that becomes more serious as the games increase in popularity; the potential addictive properties of the games. There is still much dispute as to how serious of an issue this is, but there are a number of studies that have found evidence indicating that games can be similar to other forms of addiction, particularly gambling (Thaleman et al., 2007).
In any article discussing the positive and negative effects of video and computer games, discussion of the potentially addictive properties is essential, especially due to the dispute in research on the topic.
There are also many positive effects of games that have been left out as well, and there are further variables of game use (such as competitive gaming) that should additionally be considered in future research.
Another weakness is that the study cannot possibly measure the earliest effects of the video and computer games, since nearly every college student has been exposed to the games at some point or another.
For some participants, the games are still not going to have the same effect they would have if a person was playing them for the first time. In other words, some of the participants exposed to the violent games might already frequently play them at home, making them far less likely to experience an increase in aggression than someone who has never played a violent game before.
Random assignment and a large applicant pool solve this problem to some extent, but it is still a potential limitation nonetheless. It would also be impossible to prevent a person from playing violent or nonviolent games outside of the study, which might also impact results.
Another problem is that there is no way to prevent the participants from being exposed to violent or nonviolent sources unrelated to the games. For instance, some of the participants assigned to the nonviolent positive interaction group might watch a great deal of violence on television or experience a stressful event that makes them more aggressive over a brief period of time.
This is yet another reason why random assignment and the largest applicant pool possible is very important.
Potential Future Research
Even though the study does have some potential flaws, these problems can be remedied by future research (or improved upon before the study begins).
The potential for video game addiction should be an area of ongoing research. Although there is much dispute as to whether or not the games are addictive, it is clear that some children and adults suffer serious repercussions as a result of their frequent game play.
This may have little to do with the games themselves, but regardless of cause, solutions need to be developed to assist those who suffer negatively as a result of frequent game use. A study analyzing some of the possible treatments would be essential.
It is rather surprising that there is such a great deal of research in some areas of video and computer games, but so little in others. Research on games that could reduce aggression is minimal, and research on strategy games seems to be equally lacking.
This is exceptionally puzzling, because many of the strategy games involve a high amount of decision-making skills found only in games like chess. One study took a look at some of the challenges found in strategy games and what types of factors would increase challenge (Hsu, Wen, and Wu, 2007).
The study did touch upon some of the strategic depth behind the games and what creates enjoyment for the players, but it did not discuss if the games had a positive or negative effect for the participants.
Clearly, there is a strong need for more research in this area, because it seems very important to evaluate if computer and video strategy games can improve decision-making skills or other cognitive skills. If games like Tetris have been found to have positive effects, one would assume that many of the strategy games, which require much more critical thinking and in depth analysis, would have even more profound effects.
I would hope that future studies would include strategy games. It might even be possible to compare them to games that have already been found to be beneficial and compare the differences between them.
In addition, competitive gaming is another area to strongly consider in research. Competitive gaming involves competing in large tournaments for prize money, and typically draws the best players in the world at a variety of popular games.
Gaming at this level becomes similar to a competitive sport, even to the point where certain players can make a living off of tournament winnings. Typically, the majority of the population has no idea that certain games are treated in this manner, and research should begin to study the effects of competitive gaming and how it has changed the world of gaming in both positive and negative ways.
In discussing future studies, there is another area of video and computer games that deserves more attention; self identity and the social networks established around the games. Our identity has a profound influence on us, and our identity can be strongly influenced by the groups that we belong to in society (Hogg and Abrams, 2007).
Many people would not immediately assume video games or computer games could serve as a social group, but most games have developed their own separate social networks, both online (through online functioning, which is being applied to nearly every type of video or computer game) and in real life (through competitive gaming or less formal gatherings).
As games continue to grow in popularity, more and more of them have begun to develop and create social communities based on video and computer games. One such community based on a popular Nintendo game has over 100,000 members (Smashboards, 2008), and many other massive communities exist based on other popular games as well.
Although there is some research on the social context of games (Jansz and Martens, 2005), it seems very important for future studies to consider what types of effects the gaming communities can have on a persons self identity.
Currently, it seems difficult to determine if these effects are more positive or more negative, but future research could certainly shed some light. It is further worth noting that most of the literature and studies on self identity have been directed towards the internet rather than towards games.
A number of studies have found the internet to have both positive and negative effects on identity, such as increases or decreases in social anxiety and loneliness (Ando and Sakamoto, 2007).
Would similar effects occur from being a member of a social community that frequently meets in real life?
Logically, one might conclude that social anxiety and loneliness would be even more likely to decrease as a person becomes a member of such a community, but future studies would need to evaluate such effects.
Another potential future study is one that considers the effects of games potentially decreasing aggression. If video and computer games can be used as helpful teaching tools for both academics and therapy, perhaps they could be used to lower aggression as well.
One such study already exists, although it is worth noting that Clarke and Schoech (1984) provided potential evidence to support this theory as well. Hobbs and Yan (2007) created a single-group pre-test post-test study using three highly aggressive fifth grade students and exposing them to an aggression intervention game.
The study measured game effects by using questions designed to assess attribution of peer intent, emotional and behavior responses. The results found that the three participants experienced the intervention in different ways.
However, all of them experienced positive effects in peer intent, meaning that they were able to interact more positively with fellow peers according to the questionnaires. Since the experiment is subject to various threats, no strong conclusions can be made, but it does provide a valuable idea to consider.
Based on the theory of Anderson and Huesmann (2003), humans are strongly affected by the scripts they develop, and both video and computer games play a role in the development of these scripts.
Assuming that the games encourage positive interactions with others by offering rewards, it seems logical to hypothesize that games could reduce aggression in people as they learn more effective scripts for
resolving their frustrations.
A statistically strong pre-test post-test control group study testing if aggression can be decreased seems incredibly valuable.
One last idea for a future study would be to find a game that combines puzzle elements with a game that encourages positive social interaction. Such a game must exist, but even if it does not, one could surely be created.
If both games can have such strong benefits, they could potentially become even more helpful if they were combined into a single game.
To conclude, video and computer games continue to become more popular and continue to play a larger role in our society. The games seem capable of doing both a great deal of good (teaching, improving information-processing skills, etc) and a great deal of bad (increasing aggression, potentially leading to addiction, etc).
As the games are still a new part of our society, it seems likely that additional effects of the games will be found as time goes on, and it is essential that research continues to address our knowledge of these games and determine their strengths and weaknesses.
With an understanding of the games, it will be possible to use their strengths to achieve a great deal of benefit for society, and it will also be possible to remove or find solutions to address the repercussions of the games.
This increase will likely be higher in participants that play the games more frequently. Such a hypothesis would be supported if participants in the Silent Hill group experienced a significant increase in score on the four aggression factors.
The most important support would be if a large majority of participants experienced an increase in score. If 90% or more of the participants experienced an increase in score, this would surely be significant.
Since the Aggression Questionnaire is meant to be stable over time, such a change would indicate an increase in aggression likely due to the violence in the game.
Participants in the Tetris group and the control group will almost certainly experience no change in any of their aggression scores, which would further support the effect violent games can have. Deciding when the results would be considered significant should be based upon the significant findings of previous studies, such as those completed by Anderson.
I also hypothesized that participants randomly assigned to a nonviolent puzzle game would show increased multi-tasking abilities (as measured by the Trail Making Test). The multi-tasking ability increases will likely be higher in participants that play the games more frequently.
This hypothesis would be supported if participants in the Tetris group experienced a significant increase in the speed and accuracy in which they complete the test. It would be even more strongly supported if the majority of
participants experienced an improvement in speed and accuracy (again, 90% or more would be considered
significant).
Such results would provide very strong support that video and computer puzzle games might have a positive effect on cognitive ability (particularly concerning multi-tasking abilities). It is also questionable if a violent video game will have any effect on multi-tasking, since the games are typically not measured in such a manner.
Further, it is challenging to predict if the changes in scores will continue over time, given the lack of longitudinal studies for research assessing both aggression and cognitive benefits.
Based on social learning theory and the script theory of Anderson and Huesmann (2003), any increase in score on the Aggression Questionnaire and the Trail Making Test should remain over time.
However, there is a chance that participants might begin to develop new scripts with superior rewards (or observe less violent behaviors with superior rewards) in which case their increase in aggressive behavior might decrease.
It also seems likely that some scales of aggression would be more significantly increased than others
(perhaps physical aggression would have the largest increase).
Last, it is important to mention that there is a possibility that some questions on the Aggression Questionnaire may need to be updated in order to account for a potential overlap in the pre-test post-test.
For instance, a question which asks if a person has ever felt a certain way should be changed to asking if
they felt a certain way in the past few weeks. This will be essential in order to obtain accurate measurements of changes that may occur.
Discussion
Assuming that the actual results are found to be similar, these anticipated findings would certainly support the hypothesis. The study would support that violent games lead to a potential increase in aggression.
The study would also support that puzzle games can possibly lead to improvement in multi-tasking and overall cognitive ability.
The findings that violent video games are potentially increasing aggression would be well supported with the current literature. It is important to keep in mind that some experiments have found different results (Unsworth, Devilly, and Ward, 2006).
However, the majority of research typically finds a positive correlation. That is not to say that researchers who have found contrary information are incorrect, because far more research still needs to be done.
However, for the time being, it seems more likely that the study will find violent video and computer games possibly leading to some increase in aggression.
Hopefully, this will draw more attention to the need to reduce violence in games. The reduction in violence
might be particularly important for individuals that score higher on personality traits like psychoticism, who
are more vulnerable than most people to the violent effects of games (Ravaja et al., 2008).
The findings that nonviolent puzzle games are potentially beneficial for a person's cognitive functioning is further supported by research as well (although the research is not as conclusive as the research concerning violent games).
There seems to be very little dispute that certain games can have at least some beneficial effects, and Tetris appears to be the sort of game that offers few drawbacks. Further, there are many other potentially positive effects that games can have (Mather, 2001; Lieberman, 2001; Tichon, 2007; Johnson, 2005, etc).
Strengths and Limitations of Study
This study would prove very valuable in a number of ways. It would be seek answers to some questions that have not yet been assessed by a pre-test post-test control group experimental design, such as the potential cognitive benefits of a computer or video game and whether a violent game may also have some sort of benefit.
It would also gain all of the benefits of a pre-test post-test control group design, making the results of the study more statistically supported than most other studies, which would be less conclusive due to a larger number of potential threats.
The study also uses well recognized forms of measurements, making the experiment more reliable and valid.
Last, the study considers both the positive and negative effects of games, rather than focusing on one particular area alone.
Although the findings of the study could prove to be very important in understanding the benefit and harm video and computer games can have, the study is certainly not free of flaws. First, the study has focused only on one major weakness of the computer and video games.
It did not discuss another frequently noted issue that becomes more serious as the games increase in popularity; the potential addictive properties of the games. There is still much dispute as to how serious of an issue this is, but there are a number of studies that have found evidence indicating that games can be similar to other forms of addiction, particularly gambling (Thaleman et al., 2007).
In any article discussing the positive and negative effects of video and computer games, discussion of the potentially addictive properties is essential, especially due to the dispute in research on the topic.
There are also many positive effects of games that have been left out as well, and there are further variables of game use (such as competitive gaming) that should additionally be considered in future research.
Another weakness is that the study cannot possibly measure the earliest effects of the video and computer games, since nearly every college student has been exposed to the games at some point or another.
For some participants, the games are still not going to have the same effect they would have if a person was playing them for the first time. In other words, some of the participants exposed to the violent games might already frequently play them at home, making them far less likely to experience an increase in aggression than someone who has never played a violent game before.
Random assignment and a large applicant pool solve this problem to some extent, but it is still a potential limitation nonetheless. It would also be impossible to prevent a person from playing violent or nonviolent games outside of the study, which might also impact results.
Another problem is that there is no way to prevent the participants from being exposed to violent or nonviolent sources unrelated to the games. For instance, some of the participants assigned to the nonviolent positive interaction group might watch a great deal of violence on television or experience a stressful event that makes them more aggressive over a brief period of time.
This is yet another reason why random assignment and the largest applicant pool possible is very important.
Potential Future Research
Even though the study does have some potential flaws, these problems can be remedied by future research (or improved upon before the study begins).
The potential for video game addiction should be an area of ongoing research. Although there is much dispute as to whether or not the games are addictive, it is clear that some children and adults suffer serious repercussions as a result of their frequent game play.
This may have little to do with the games themselves, but regardless of cause, solutions need to be developed to assist those who suffer negatively as a result of frequent game use. A study analyzing some of the possible treatments would be essential.
It is rather surprising that there is such a great deal of research in some areas of video and computer games, but so little in others. Research on games that could reduce aggression is minimal, and research on strategy games seems to be equally lacking.
This is exceptionally puzzling, because many of the strategy games involve a high amount of decision-making skills found only in games like chess. One study took a look at some of the challenges found in strategy games and what types of factors would increase challenge (Hsu, Wen, and Wu, 2007).
The study did touch upon some of the strategic depth behind the games and what creates enjoyment for the players, but it did not discuss if the games had a positive or negative effect for the participants.
Clearly, there is a strong need for more research in this area, because it seems very important to evaluate if computer and video strategy games can improve decision-making skills or other cognitive skills. If games like Tetris have been found to have positive effects, one would assume that many of the strategy games, which require much more critical thinking and in depth analysis, would have even more profound effects.
I would hope that future studies would include strategy games. It might even be possible to compare them to games that have already been found to be beneficial and compare the differences between them.
In addition, competitive gaming is another area to strongly consider in research. Competitive gaming involves competing in large tournaments for prize money, and typically draws the best players in the world at a variety of popular games.
Gaming at this level becomes similar to a competitive sport, even to the point where certain players can make a living off of tournament winnings. Typically, the majority of the population has no idea that certain games are treated in this manner, and research should begin to study the effects of competitive gaming and how it has changed the world of gaming in both positive and negative ways.
In discussing future studies, there is another area of video and computer games that deserves more attention; self identity and the social networks established around the games. Our identity has a profound influence on us, and our identity can be strongly influenced by the groups that we belong to in society (Hogg and Abrams, 2007).
Many people would not immediately assume video games or computer games could serve as a social group, but most games have developed their own separate social networks, both online (through online functioning, which is being applied to nearly every type of video or computer game) and in real life (through competitive gaming or less formal gatherings).
As games continue to grow in popularity, more and more of them have begun to develop and create social communities based on video and computer games. One such community based on a popular Nintendo game has over 100,000 members (Smashboards, 2008), and many other massive communities exist based on other popular games as well.
Although there is some research on the social context of games (Jansz and Martens, 2005), it seems very important for future studies to consider what types of effects the gaming communities can have on a persons self identity.
Currently, it seems difficult to determine if these effects are more positive or more negative, but future research could certainly shed some light. It is further worth noting that most of the literature and studies on self identity have been directed towards the internet rather than towards games.
A number of studies have found the internet to have both positive and negative effects on identity, such as increases or decreases in social anxiety and loneliness (Ando and Sakamoto, 2007).
Would similar effects occur from being a member of a social community that frequently meets in real life?
Logically, one might conclude that social anxiety and loneliness would be even more likely to decrease as a person becomes a member of such a community, but future studies would need to evaluate such effects.
Another potential future study is one that considers the effects of games potentially decreasing aggression. If video and computer games can be used as helpful teaching tools for both academics and therapy, perhaps they could be used to lower aggression as well.
One such study already exists, although it is worth noting that Clarke and Schoech (1984) provided potential evidence to support this theory as well. Hobbs and Yan (2007) created a single-group pre-test post-test study using three highly aggressive fifth grade students and exposing them to an aggression intervention game.
The study measured game effects by using questions designed to assess attribution of peer intent, emotional and behavior responses. The results found that the three participants experienced the intervention in different ways.
However, all of them experienced positive effects in peer intent, meaning that they were able to interact more positively with fellow peers according to the questionnaires. Since the experiment is subject to various threats, no strong conclusions can be made, but it does provide a valuable idea to consider.
Based on the theory of Anderson and Huesmann (2003), humans are strongly affected by the scripts they develop, and both video and computer games play a role in the development of these scripts.
Assuming that the games encourage positive interactions with others by offering rewards, it seems logical to hypothesize that games could reduce aggression in people as they learn more effective scripts for
resolving their frustrations.
A statistically strong pre-test post-test control group study testing if aggression can be decreased seems incredibly valuable.
One last idea for a future study would be to find a game that combines puzzle elements with a game that encourages positive social interaction. Such a game must exist, but even if it does not, one could surely be created.
If both games can have such strong benefits, they could potentially become even more helpful if they were combined into a single game.
To conclude, video and computer games continue to become more popular and continue to play a larger role in our society. The games seem capable of doing both a great deal of good (teaching, improving information-processing skills, etc) and a great deal of bad (increasing aggression, potentially leading to addiction, etc).
As the games are still a new part of our society, it seems likely that additional effects of the games will be found as time goes on, and it is essential that research continues to address our knowledge of these games and determine their strengths and weaknesses.
With an understanding of the games, it will be possible to use their strengths to achieve a great deal of benefit for society, and it will also be possible to remove or find solutions to address the repercussions of the games.
References
Author
Kyle Faust, University of Rhode Island
Campus Representative, Advocacy Coordinating Team (ACT)
American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS)
California Psychological Association of Graduate Students (CPAGS)
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Clinical Psychology
References
Alvarez, M., Sotres, J., Leon, S., Estrella, J., Sosa, J. (2008). Computer Program in the Treatment of Major Depression and Cognitive Impairment in University Students. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 24, 816-826.
Anderson, C.A., Bushman, BJ., Carnagey, N. (2006). The effect of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 43, 489-496.
Anderson, C.A, Bushman, BJ. (2001). Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior. Psychological Science, Vol. 12, 353-359.
Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K. (2000). Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 4, 772-790.
Anderson, C.A., & Huesmann, R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view. Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 259-288). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Ando, R., Sakamoto, A. (2008). The Effects of Cyber-Friends on Loneliness and Social Anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 24, 993-1009.
Bisson, E., Contant, B., Sveistrup, H., Lajoie, Y. (2007). Functional Balance and Dual-Task Reaction Times in Older Adults. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 1, 16-24.
Buss, A., Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 63, No. 3, 452-459.
Clarke, B., Schoech, D. (1984). A Computer-Assisted Therapeutic Game for Adolescents. Using Computers in Clinical Practice, Vol 11, 121-140.
Grusser, S.M., Thalemann, R.,Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Excessive Computer Game Playing. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 2, 290-294.
Hobbs, J., Yan, L. (2007). Cracking the walnut: Using a computer game to impact cognition, emotion, and behavior of highly aggressive fifth grade students. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 24, Issue 2, 421-438.
Hogg, M.A, & Abrams, D. (2007). Intergroup behavior and social identity. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 335-360). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage
Hsu, S., Wen, M., Wu, M. (2007). Exploring Design Features for Enhancing Players' Challenge in Strategy Games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 3, 393-397
Janez, J., Tanis, M. (2007). Appeal of Playing Online First Person Shooter Games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No 1, 133-136.
Janez, J., Martens, L. (2005). Gaming at a LAN Event: The Social Context of Playing Video Games. New Media and Society, Vol. 7, 333-355.
Johnson, Steven. (2005). Your Brain on Video Games. March 7th, 2008, Discover.
Kahan, M., Tanzer, J., Darvin, D., Borer, F. (2000). Virtual Reality-Assisted Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Fear of Flying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 3, No. 3, 387-392.
Lieberman, DA. (2001). Management of Chronic Pediatric Diseases with Interactive Health Games: Theory and Research Findings. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, Vol. 24, 26-38.
Mather, N. (1986). Fantasy and Adventure Software with the LD Student. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol 19, No. 1, 56-58.
Myers, D. (2008). Aggression:Hurting Others. Social Psychology, Ninth Edition (pp. 366-370). McGraw-Hill, NY.
Ravaja, N., Turpeinen, M., Saari, T., Puttonen, S. (2008). The Psychophysiology of James Bond. Emotion, Vol 8, No 1, 114-120.
Reitan, R.M., & Wolfson, D. (1993). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. S. Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press.
Smashboards, Retrieved March 15th, 2008, from www.smashboards.com
Smyth, Joshua. (2007). Beyond Self-Selection in Video Game Play: An Experimental Examination of the Consequences of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game Play. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 5, 717-721.
Staude-Muller, F., Bliesener, T., Luthman, S. (2008). Hostile and Hardened? An Experimental Study on Desensitization to Violence and Suffering Through Playing Video Games. Swiss Journal of Psychology, Vol 67, 41-50.
Stevens, S., Morris, T. (2007). College Dating and Social Anxiety: Using the Internet as a Means of Connecting to Others. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 5, 680-689.
Thalemann, R., Wolfing, K., Grusser, S.M. (2007). Specific Cue Reactivity on Computer Game-Related Cues in Excessive Gamers. Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol 121, No. 3, 614-618.
Tichon, J. (2007). Training Cognitive Skills in Virtual Reality. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 2, 286-289.
Unsworth, G., Devilly, G., Ward, T. (2007). The Effects of Playing Violent Video Games on Adolescents. Psychology, Crime, and Law, Vol 13, 383-394.
Wei, R. (2007). Effects of Violent Videogames on Chinese Adolescents' Pro-Violence Attitudes, Attitudes Toward Others, and Aggressive Behavior. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No 3, 371-380.
Yuji, H. (1996). Computer Games and Information-Processing Skills. Perceptual & Motor Skills, Vol. 83, 643-647.
Kyle Faust, University of Rhode Island
Campus Representative, Advocacy Coordinating Team (ACT)
American Psychological Association of Graduate Students (APAGS)
California Psychological Association of Graduate Students (CPAGS)
Doctoral Candidate, Department of Clinical Psychology
References
Alvarez, M., Sotres, J., Leon, S., Estrella, J., Sosa, J. (2008). Computer Program in the Treatment of Major Depression and Cognitive Impairment in University Students. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 24, 816-826.
Anderson, C.A., Bushman, BJ., Carnagey, N. (2006). The effect of Video Game Violence on Physiological Desensitization to Real-Life Violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 43, 489-496.
Anderson, C.A, Bushman, BJ. (2001). Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Physiological Arousal, and Prosocial Behavior. Psychological Science, Vol. 12, 353-359.
Anderson, C.A., & Dill, K. (2000). Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and Behavior in the Laboratory and in Life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 78, No. 4, 772-790.
Anderson, C.A., & Huesmann, R. (2003). Human aggression: A social-cognitive view. Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 259-288). Thousand Oaks, CA:Sage.
Ando, R., Sakamoto, A. (2008). The Effects of Cyber-Friends on Loneliness and Social Anxiety. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 24, 993-1009.
Bisson, E., Contant, B., Sveistrup, H., Lajoie, Y. (2007). Functional Balance and Dual-Task Reaction Times in Older Adults. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 1, 16-24.
Buss, A., Perry, M. (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol 63, No. 3, 452-459.
Clarke, B., Schoech, D. (1984). A Computer-Assisted Therapeutic Game for Adolescents. Using Computers in Clinical Practice, Vol 11, 121-140.
Grusser, S.M., Thalemann, R.,Griffiths, M.D. (2007). Excessive Computer Game Playing. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 2, 290-294.
Hobbs, J., Yan, L. (2007). Cracking the walnut: Using a computer game to impact cognition, emotion, and behavior of highly aggressive fifth grade students. Computers in Human Behavior, Vol 24, Issue 2, 421-438.
Hogg, M.A, & Abrams, D. (2007). Intergroup behavior and social identity. Hogg & J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage Handbook of Social Psychology (pp. 335-360). Thousand Oaks, Ca: Sage
Hsu, S., Wen, M., Wu, M. (2007). Exploring Design Features for Enhancing Players' Challenge in Strategy Games. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 3, 393-397
Janez, J., Tanis, M. (2007). Appeal of Playing Online First Person Shooter Games. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No 1, 133-136.
Janez, J., Martens, L. (2005). Gaming at a LAN Event: The Social Context of Playing Video Games. New Media and Society, Vol. 7, 333-355.
Johnson, Steven. (2005). Your Brain on Video Games. March 7th, 2008, Discover.
Kahan, M., Tanzer, J., Darvin, D., Borer, F. (2000). Virtual Reality-Assisted Cognitive-Behavioral Treatment for Fear of Flying. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 3, No. 3, 387-392.
Lieberman, DA. (2001). Management of Chronic Pediatric Diseases with Interactive Health Games: Theory and Research Findings. Journal of Ambulatory Care Management, Vol. 24, 26-38.
Mather, N. (1986). Fantasy and Adventure Software with the LD Student. Journal of Learning Disabilities, Vol 19, No. 1, 56-58.
Myers, D. (2008). Aggression:Hurting Others. Social Psychology, Ninth Edition (pp. 366-370). McGraw-Hill, NY.
Ravaja, N., Turpeinen, M., Saari, T., Puttonen, S. (2008). The Psychophysiology of James Bond. Emotion, Vol 8, No 1, 114-120.
Reitan, R.M., & Wolfson, D. (1993). The Halstead-Reitan Neuropsychological Test Battery. S. Tucson, AZ: Neuropsychology Press.
Smashboards, Retrieved March 15th, 2008, from www.smashboards.com
Smyth, Joshua. (2007). Beyond Self-Selection in Video Game Play: An Experimental Examination of the Consequences of Massively Multiplayer Online Role-Playing Game Play. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 5, 717-721.
Staude-Muller, F., Bliesener, T., Luthman, S. (2008). Hostile and Hardened? An Experimental Study on Desensitization to Violence and Suffering Through Playing Video Games. Swiss Journal of Psychology, Vol 67, 41-50.
Stevens, S., Morris, T. (2007). College Dating and Social Anxiety: Using the Internet as a Means of Connecting to Others. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 5, 680-689.
Thalemann, R., Wolfing, K., Grusser, S.M. (2007). Specific Cue Reactivity on Computer Game-Related Cues in Excessive Gamers. Behavioral Neuroscience, Vol 121, No. 3, 614-618.
Tichon, J. (2007). Training Cognitive Skills in Virtual Reality. CyberPsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No. 2, 286-289.
Unsworth, G., Devilly, G., Ward, T. (2007). The Effects of Playing Violent Video Games on Adolescents. Psychology, Crime, and Law, Vol 13, 383-394.
Wei, R. (2007). Effects of Violent Videogames on Chinese Adolescents' Pro-Violence Attitudes, Attitudes Toward Others, and Aggressive Behavior. Cyberpsychology & Behavior, Vol 10, No 3, 371-380.
Yuji, H. (1996). Computer Games and Information-Processing Skills. Perceptual & Motor Skills, Vol. 83, 643-647.