Running Head VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN .docx

Running Head: VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN
1
VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN
5
Video Game Violence and Children
Michele L. Jackson
Argosy University Online
Abstract
Over the past few years, violence in America has been on the
rise. In today's society children are becoming more and more
violent, causing many experts to wonder if there is a correlation
between video games and violent behaviors displayed by
youthful offenders. It has been argued for years by
Psychologists that children who play violent video games
become desensitized after extensive video game playing; a once
helpful outgoing child would show signs of behavioral
problems. Other experts believe that third party variables such
as environment, peer pressure, home life and mental illness
contribute to those youthful crimes and that a correlation
between video game playing and youth violence does not exist.
Research Proposal
Thesis: Violent video games do not result in violent youths or
individuals.
Explanation:
Research conducted by D.M. Daane, (2003) states that “video
games do not make children violent without other variables in
place, such as environment and mental health status.”

Christopher Ferguson (2011) concluded in his research that
there is no direct link between an individual’s behavior and
violent video games. Bringing up some doubt on other studies
that claim the two were related.
Sub points:
1. Violence in the real world has decreased prior to the increase
in video games sales.
2. Media narrative revolving violent video games and violence
behavior have been caused by limited resources and attention
necessary for the society to challenge crime problems.
3. Playing the video games has a minor soothing effect on
youths with symptoms of attention deficit thus reduced cases of
bullying or negative aggressiveness?
Possible Objections:
1. Extensive video game playing can result in behavioral
problems in children (Bavelier, Green, et al, 2011).
2. Violent video games lead to students becoming “listless in
school”, (Bavelier, et al, 2011), resulting in bad grades.
3. Young children who are addicted to video games set
themselves apart from society consequently they develop
shyness and become less informed on reality.
Response to Objections:
1. While there are cases where violent video games have led to
aggressive behaviors, there are other underlying variables to
consider for these actions; such as mental health problems, peer
pressure, abusive environment (Daane, 2003).
2. Children would rather play video games instead of doing
school work, it is up to the parent or guardian to ensure that the
child completes their school assignments prior to playing video

games.
3. If parents chose for their children to play video games with
violent content, it is their responsibility to intervene when their
child becomes addicted, and begins to display behaviors that are
abnormal for their child (Gentile, Lynch, et al, 2014).
Video Game Violence and Children: An Annotated Bibliography
Bavelier, D., Green, C. S., Han, D. H., Renshaw, P. F.,
Merzenich, M. M., & Gentile, D. A. (2011). Brains on video
games. Nature Reviews.Neuroscience, 12(12), 763-8.
doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn3135
The study conducted by Bavelier, Han, Renshaw, Merzenich,
and Gentile is very useful when determining the effects that
violent game playing has on brain functions in youth. The
research proves that extensive game playing has been shown to
have several negative effects on cognition and an increase in
ADHD related behaviors. School age children become listless,
in school, resulting in poor grades. Long term effects of violent
video game playing results in antisocial behaviors, children
become decentralized to the gore and violence they are seeing.
Daane, D. M. (2003). Child and adolescent violence. Orthopedic
Nursing, 22(1), 23-9; quiz 30-1. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/195969126?accountid=3489
9
The research conducted in this article is very pertinent in
proving the point that other variable factors such as home,
environment and mental health status are the contributing
factors to violence among children. A clever quote from this
information would be: “living in a violent community creates
stress and depression in children and is a significant predictor
of aggressive acting-out behaviors” (Daane, 2003). Video games
do not make children violent, without other variables in place.

Ferguson, C. J. (2011). Video games and youth violence: A
prospective analysis in adolescents. Journal of Youth and
Adolescence, 40(4), 377-91. Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/858659823?accountid=3489
9
Christopher J. Ferguson, an associate Professor of Clinical and
Forensic Psychology at A&M University in Texas whose
research focused on the positive and negative effects of violent
video games and children. The research conducted within this
source is very pertinent in explaining why there is no
correlation between violent video games and heightened
aggression in children. Ferguson points out relevant facts such
as home environment, peer pressure, mental health problems
that could lead to violence caused by youthful offenders,
completely discrediting studies that have failed to list third
party variables as factors to youth violence.
Gentile, D., Lynch, P., Linder, J., & Walsh, D. (February,
2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent
hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance. Journal
of Adolescence, 27(1), 5-22. Retrieved April 28, 2015, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.libproxy.edmc.edu/science/article
/pii/S0140197103000927
The research led by Douglas Gentile is very pertinent when
proving the correlation between extensive video game playing
and violent behaviors. The study shows that the more a child
plays violent, realistic video games the more aggressive they
become. School performance begins to suffer, and the addicted
video game player becomes aggressive towards others. An
important statement from this research would be: “Over-
learning and reinforcement of aggression related knowledge and
structures results in aggressive actions against others” (Gentile,
D., et al, 2004).

Greitemeyer, T., & Mugge, D. (2014). Video games do affect
social outcomes: A Meta-Analytic review of the effects of
violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 40(5), 578-589.
Greitemeyer and Mugge conducted an unbiased research on the
outcome of video game playing. They have concluded that
playing video games can have a “positive effect or negative
effect on the players, it depends on the person and the situation
variables”. (Greitemeyer, Mugge, 2014).
E M P I R I C A L R E S E A R C H
Video Games and Youth Violence: A Prospective Analysis
in Adolescents
Christopher J. Ferguson
Received: 24 September 2010 / Accepted: 9 November 2010 /
Published online: 14 December 2010
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010
Abstract The potential influence of violent video games
on youth violence remains an issue of concern for psy-
chologists, policymakers and the general public. Although
several prospective studies of video game violence effects
have been conducted, none have employed well validated

measures of youth violence, nor considered video game
violence effects in context with other influences on youth
violence such as family environment, peer delinquency,
and depressive symptoms. The current study builds upon
previous research in a sample of 302 (52.3% female)
mostly Hispanic youth. Results indicated that current levels
of depressive symptoms were a strong predictor of serious
aggression and violence across most outcome measures.
Depressive symptoms also interacted with antisocial traits
so that antisocial individuals with depressive symptoms
were most inclined toward youth violence. Neither video
game violence exposure, nor television violence exposure,
were prospective predictors of serious acts of youth
aggression or violence. These results are put into the
context of criminological data on serious acts of violence
among youth.
Keywords Computer games � Mass media � Aggression �
Violence � Adolescence

Introduction
Concerns about the potential influence of violent video
games on serious acts of youth aggression and violence
have been debated in the general public, among policy
makers and among social scientists for several decades. At
present, a general consensus on video game violence
effects has been elusive, with great debate occurring among
scholars in this field. Some scholars have concluded that
strong video game violence effects on aggression have
been conclusively and causally demonstrated in wide
segments of the population (e.g., Anderson et al. 2008;
Anderson 2004). Others have concluded that video game
violence may have only weak effects on youth aggression,
or may only influence some youth, particularly those
already at-risk for violence (e.g., Giumetti and Markey
2007; Kirsh 1998; Markey and Scherer 2009). Still others
have concluded that video game violence effects on youth
aggression are either essentially null, or that the field of

video game violence studies has difficulties with method-
ological problems to such an extent that meaningful con-
clusions cannot be made about the existing research (e.g.,
Durkin and Barber 2002; Kutner and Olson 2008; Olson
2004; Savage and Yancey 2008; Sherry 2007; Unsworth
et al. 2007). For instance, as some have noted (e.g., Olson
2004), the increased popularity of video game play among
youth has been correlated with a societal reduction in youth
violence rather than an increase in youth violence.
The divergence in findings may be understood as a
function of methods used. As has been found for television
research (Ferguson and Kilburn 2009; Savage and Yancey
2008; Paik and Comstock 1994), studies of video games
that use well validated measures of aggression or violence
find less evidence for harmful effects, as do studies that
employ greater statistical controls for third variables
Although several prospective studies of video game effects refer
to
themselves as ‘‘longitudinal’’, none use multiple assessment

periods
over years that typically mark longitudinal designs. Rather they
are
short-term prospective studies by and large.
C. J. Ferguson (&)
Department of Behavioral, Applied Sciences and Criminal
Justice, Texas A&M International University,
Laredo, TX 78045, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:377–391
DOI 10.1007/s10964-010-9610-x
(Ferguson and Kilburn 2009). Thus, put generally, it
appears that more careful controls are correlated with
weaker effects, which essentially was the conclusion of
Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) in their review of the
research. For example, Ybarra et al. (2008) found weak
bivariate correlations between video game violence expo-
sure and youth violence. However, as indicated in their

Fig. 2, these correlations vanished once other relevant
factors were controlled, such as family environment and
personality. Similarly, Ferguson and colleagues (Ferguson
et al. 2008) found that controlling for ‘‘third’’ variables in a
correlational study, and using a well-standardized aggres-
sion measure in an experimental design (as opposed to ad
hoc unstandardized measures often used as discussed in
Ferguson et al. 2008) resulted in no correlational or
experimental evidence for harmful effects.
Prospective Studies of Violent Video Game Effects
At present, a small number of prospective designs have
examined video game violence influences on player
aggression. Thus far, results have been mixed and arguably
limited by use of aggression measures that do not neces-
sarily tap well into serious aggression or violence, nor use
sophisticated controls for third or confounding variables.
As such, the generalizability of existing prospective
designs to behavioral outcomes of most interest, namely

serious/pathological aggression and criminally violent
behavior, may be limited (see Gauntlett 1995; Savage and
Yancey 2008 for a discussion of aggression measure
validity issues). Below, a review of prospective studies of
video game violence appearing in peer-reviewed journals
follows.
The first prospective study of video game violence was
by Williams and Skoric (2005). This study was unusual
in that it employed an experimental design, randomly
assigning 213 volunteers to either play a violent on-line
game Asheron’s Call 2, or to a control group that did not
play the game (none of the participants had previously
played the game). Outcome measures included a scale of
normative beliefs in aggression (NOBAGS) as well as a
self-report measure of engaging in verbal aggression such
as arguments and name calling with others. Results indi-
cated that, controlling for previous game exposure, ran-
domized exposure to the violent game did not influence

players’ normative beliefs in aggression, nor frequency of
verbal altercations. However, this study has some signifi-
cant weaknesses. First, the prospective period was fairly
short (1 month). Second, the outcome measures are more
relevant for mild or non-serious aggression (i.e., intention
physical assaults were not measured) and cannot be gen-
eralized to more serious aggressive acts. Further the out-
come measures related to constructs such as ‘‘normative
beliefs’’ in aggression are among those criticized for not
predicting actual aggressive behavior effectively (Savage
and Yancey 2008).
Anderson et al. (2008) reported on several prospective
studies, two occurring with Japanese samples and one with
an American sample, all involving youth. The prospective
periods in these studies ranged from 3 to 6 months. The
authors found small but statistically significant prospective
effects (ranging from .075 to .152, suggesting the covari-
ance between video game violence exposure and aggres-

sion may range between .5 and 2.3% when time 1
aggression is controlled). Although the authors interpret
these findings as highly significant and generalizable to
serious youth violence, it is not clear how to interpret such
small effects (falling mainly near or below Cohen’s 1992
guidelines for trivial findings). None of these prospective
results control for third variables, thus it is possible that the
actual effects may even be lower than reported here.
Finally, the aggression measures used in this study again
fall under the category of those that have been criticized in
the past for validity problems (Gauntlett 1995; Savage and
Yancey 2008), particularly when generalizing to serious
aggression or violence.
Shibuya et al. (2008) report a prospective study of 591
fifth-grade Japanese youth with a prospective period of
1-year. Gender and living area (urban or rural) were con-
trolled as third variables, but other variables known to be
predictive of youth violence (peer delinquency, depressive

symptoms, family environment, etc.) were not. The out-
come measure was trait aggression, once again not clearly
well-validated as a predictor of serious youth aggression
and violence (Gauntlett 1995; Savage and Yancey 2008).
Interestingly in this study, time spent playing violent video
games (exposure to violent games 9 time spent playing
interaction) was related to reduced trait aggression (b =
-.15) in boys, but had no influence on girls. Weaknesses of
this study are similar to those above. Although the authors
did control for gender and living area, other third variables
were not controlled, nor was a well-validated measure of
serious aggression employed.
Finally, Moller and Krahe (2009) provide a prospective
analysis of 143 German youth with a 30 month prospective
period. Outcome measures included normative beliefs
about aggression (NOBAGS. similar to Williams and
Skoric 2005), hostile attribution bias and a measure of trait
aggression (divided into physical and relational aggression

subscales). Results of this study were inconsistent. At Time
1, video game violence exposure was not related to phys-
ical aggression (b = .09, NS), but was slightly related to
relational aggression (i.e., arguing, spreading rumors,
similar to Williams and Skoric 2005, b = .19). In the
prospective analyses, exposure to violent video games did
not have direct effects on either physical aggression
378 J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:377–391
123
(b = .11, NS) or relational aggression (b = .02, NS), but
did potentially indirectly influence physical aggression
through a small moderating relationship with normative
aggressive beliefs (b = .26). This indirect relationship was
not found for relational aggression.
In summary, among existing prospective studies of
video game violence on aggression, two do not find evi-
dence of effects or (in the case of Shibuya et al. 2008)
suggest violent game exposure may reduce aggression for
boys. One study (Moller and Krahe 2009) finds inconsistent

evidence for an indirect relationship between video game
violence and physical but not relational aggression, but no
evidence for direct effects, and the last finds consistent
effects but of small magnitude. Arguably, across these
studies, prospective analyses of video game violence
effects raise little cause for alarm.
Despite whether individual prospective studies appear to
support or not support causal beliefs in negative video
game violence effects, these studies display several con-
sistent flaws including the failure to consider and control
for third variables (family environment, peer delinquency,
etc.) and reliance on outcome measures that are not well
validated as measures of pathological youth aggression and
violence. To qualify in the latter category, it would be
desirable for outcome measures to demonstrate high pre-
dictive validity coefficients (.3–.4 or above) with patho-
logical outcomes. Otherwise, it is unclear if research
studies are merely examining minor fluctuations in normal,

even healthy levels of aggression (see Hawley and Vaughn
2003). The intent here is not to be overly critical of the
above studies, it is merely to argue that much remains to be
known about the prospective influences of violent video
games on pathological aggression.
Three Theoretical Views of the Video
Game Violence/Serious Aggression Relationship
There are three basic views of the potential relationship
between video game violence exposure and serious
aggressive behavior among youth. Quite simply, these are:
first, video game violence exposure has a learning-based
causal influence on subsequent serious aggression; second,
individuals with high levels of a priori aggression are
subsequently drawn to video game violence or; third that
any correlation between the video game playing and
aggression is due to underlying third variables. Each of
these views present different hypotheses for the ways in
which video game violence and serious aggression/youth

violence relate.
The ‘‘causal’’ view, namely that video game violence
exposure causes subsequent serious aggression in players,
has roots in Bandura’s social learning experiments in
which children modeled aggressive behavior of adults in
experimental videos (e.g., Bandura et al. 1961, 1963),
although elements of the same view can be traced back at
least to the Payne Fund studies of movie violence (Blum-
mer 1933) or even Plato’s concerns that Greek plays would
cause rebelliousness and licentiousness in youth who
watched them (Griswold 2004). As noted above, much of
the debate on video game violence focuses on whether this
theoretical perspective is ‘‘true.’’ Proponents of this view
tend to express considerable certitude (e.g., Anderson
2004; Huesmann 2007) where as detractors suggest that
existing evidence is not sufficient to support this view
(Cumberbatch 2008; Mitrofan et al. 2009; Olson 2004;
Savage and Yancey 2008) or suggest the causal view relies

on outdated tabula rasa theories (Pinker 2002).
The second view, that a priori aggression leads to
extensive video game violence use, is most often offered as
a counterargument by skeptical scholars (e.g., Freedman
2002; Gauntlett 1995) to the causal view. However, this
basic position is likely consistent with both social and
biological theories that emphasize influences more proxi-
mal to youth than media effects, such as family environ-
ment, peer influences and evolutionary and biological
influences (e.g., Beaver et al. 2007, 2009; Buss and
Shackelford 1997; Pinker 2002). Similarly, research has
indicated that exposure to and selection of different forms
of media is not a passive process but that individuals
actively seek out certain forms of media and these prefer-
ences are correlated with pre-existing personality profiles
(e.g., McCown et al. 1997; Rentfrow and Gosling 2003). In
relation to video game violence, two models have emerged
that typify this view to varying degrees. First the ‘‘catalyst’’

model developed by Ferguson et al. (2008) suggests that
serious aggression and violence results from a combination
of genetic and proximal environmental influences (such as
family and peers) but that distal environmental factors such
as media, have little influence on behavior. Patrick Markey
(Giumetti and Markey 2007; Markey and Scherer 2009)
has developed a somewhat different view in which a priori
personality traits such as psychoticism interact with violent
video game exposure to produce serious aggression.
Finally, it could be argued that video game violence use
and serious aggression have little real influence on each
other. Some correlation between aggression and video
game violence use may exist, but such correlations are
expected to be rather small in size, and due to underlying
third variables rather than any direct relationship between
aggression and video game violence. For example, boys
play more violent video games and are more inclined
toward aggressive and violent behavior than girls. As such,

gender is an obvious and important ‘‘third’’ variable,
although one still overlooked in some studies. Similarly,
aggressive or antisocial personality traits may direct indi-
viduals to be more inclined to violent games and violent
J Youth Adolescence (2011) 40:377–391 379
123
behavior. Peer and family influences may have a similar
impact, and individuals with certain mental health prob-
lems may be both more inclined toward aggression and
seek violent games as a form of cathartic release (Olson
2010). This perspective appears to be endorsed by research
indicating that video game use, including the use of violent
games, is widespread among even non-violent youth, par-
ticularly boys (e.g., Lenhart et al. 2008; Kutner and Olson
2008; Olson et al. 2007). It is important to note that tem-
poral sequencing cannot rule out this possibility. For
instance, maturational processes that lead to increased

violent video game use in early childhood may not nec-
essarily produce increased aggression until later in ado-
lescence. Thus, the temporal sequence of video game
violence use and the emergence of aggression, even if
correlated, does not rule out the influence of third variables.
The Current Study
The current study intends to improve upon past designs in
several ways. First, the present study will focus to a much
greater extent on clinical and criminological measures that
are well validated as outcome measures for pathological,
serious aggression and rule-breaking (i.e., parent and youth
report versions of the Child Behavior Checklist; CBCL),
bullying other children (the Olweus Bullying Question-
naire; OBQ) and criminologically violent behavior (Neg-
ative Life Events, NLE). A focus on these clinical and
criminological outcome measures will help illuminate the
potential impact of violent game exposure on serious levels
of aggression and violent crime among youth. Second,

most previous prospective studies have employed only
basic controls and have not considered the potential influ-
ence of third variables.
Several hypotheses will be tested in the current article.
First, it is hypothesized that exposure to violent content in
video games will be consistent across time (H1). Second,
the frequency of exposure to violent content in video
games at Time 1 will predict serious aggressive behavior
across outcome measures 1-year later once third variables
have been controlled (H2). Third, aggression level (com-
posite across aggression measures) at Time 1 will be pre-
dictive of video games exposure at Time 2 (H3).
As a note, H2 and H3 essentially are opposing per-
spectives, both presented in the affirmative. Finding evi-
dence for H2 but not H3 would support the overarching
theory that video game violence exposure comes first in the
temporal pattern, where as finding evidence for H3 but not
H2 would suggest that aggressive tendencies come first in

the temporal sequence. Finding support for H2 and H3
would suggest the relationship is bidirectional, whereas
finding evidence for neither H2 nor H3 would suggest that
the interaction between violent video game exposure and
aggression is limited (meaning that children’s choice to
play violent video games is not dependent upon their
aggressiveness nor vice versa).
Methods
Participants
Participants in the current study were recruited from a prior
study of youth violence (Ferguson et al. 2009). This study
examined cross section data on correlates of youth violence
in a sample of 603 mainly Hispanic youth. Results from
this study indicated that depressive symptoms and peer
delinquency were the best predictors of concurrent
aggression and violence, as were antisocial traits and
parental psychological aggression. Video game and tele-
vision violence were not strong correlates of youth vio-

lence. The present study presents prospective data not
included in the prior study, thus there is no resubmission of
prior existing data (i.e., data presented here do not overlap
with that presented in the previous study). 536 children
(89%) from the original sample volunteered to participate
in this prospective design at Time 1 (T1). As with the
discussion of the T2 dropout below, the sample who vol-
unteered for the prospective study did not systematically
differ from those who did not. As this sample was drawn
from a small Hispanic-majority city population on the
border of Mexico, this sample of youth were almost all
(519; 96.8%) Hispanic. Proportions of Caucasian, African
American, Asian American and other ethnic groups were
all at 1% or less. This ethnic composition is consistent with
the ethnic composition of the city from which the sample
was drawn and represents a ‘‘convenience’’ sample,
meaning that Hispanics were not specifically recruited for a
theoretical reason. However, to date, no prospective (and

few cross sectional or experimental) studies of video game
violence have considered Hispanic majority samples. As
such, examining such a sample may help generalize this
research to ethnic groups beyond Causasians and Japanese.
All participants were between the ages of 10 and 14 at T1
(M = 12.34, SD = 1.33) as this age was viewed as that
likely to see high rates of video game play (Griffiths and
Hunt 1995; Lenhart et al. 2008; Olson et al. 2007) yet
young enough that developmental processes may still be
strong and easily observable. About an equal number of
boys (275, 51.3%) and girls (261, 48.7%) were included in
the study. Children included in this study were from the
general community, not specifically at-risk children for
serious aggression.
123
Recruitment

Recruitment of a representative community sample of
youth was obtained using a modified multimethod
‘‘snowball’’ approach. Snowball sampling, like other forms
of non-random sampling, is not without the potential for
certain kinds of biases. At the same time snowball sam-
pling has been shown to be an effective sampling approach
under most conditions and is better at detecting ‘‘hidden
populations’’ as may be the case with violent youth, than
are institutional sampling techniques (Goodman 1961;
Salganik and Heckathorn 2002). In snowball sampling,
respondents for a sample are drawn from associates nom-
inated by an initial group of study participants. Several
variations on this approach were used in this study in an
attempt to achieve as representative a sample as possible.
First an approach similar to that used by McCrae et al.
(2002) in which college students at a local university
nominated relatives or associates within the targeted age
range for inclusion in exchange for extra credit, was

employed. Second, several community social organizations
were approached for nominations of children to be inclu-
ded in the study. Third, the study was advertised in the
local newspaper and on several popular local FM radio
stations (catering to both English and Spanish language
music), including interviews between the DJ and lead
investigator on several radio stations during prime (i.e.,
morning traffic) listening hours. These interviews were
very brief, requesting participants for a study of ‘‘youth
health.’’ No discussion of video games or youth violence
took place during any of these media appeals. Families
were encouraged to nominate themselves for the study. No
compensation was offered for participation.
Analysis of T2 Nonresponse/Drop-Out
All participants who volunteered at T1 were contacted
again approximately 12 months later for the Time 2 (T2)
assessment. T2 assessments were conducted via phone
interview with a trained research assistant using a stan-

dardized scripted interview comprised mainly of items
taken from the outcome assessments (CBCL, OBS, NLE)
and video game use. At T2 302 children and their families
completed the follow up assessment representing a com-
pletion rate of 56%. This figure is reasonably representative
of dropout rates typical in prospective studies although at
greater issue is whether drop-out is selective or random
(Wolke et al. 2009). In particular, were children with
greater rates of serious aggression or violent behaviors to
drop from the study than children without these problem
behaviors, results obtained in this study would potentially
be confounded. To examine for this potential t-test com-
parisons on all outcome variables (CBCL parent and child
report, OBQ, NLE violent and non-violent crime subscales,
all of which are described below) were conducted. All
t-test comparisons were non-significant (p [ .05) lending
confidence to the conclusion that drop-out in this study was
random rather than selective. Gender (52.3% female), age
and ethnicity composition of the final T2 sample of 302

children was essentially identical in proportion to that
reported above for the T1 original sample. Given that the
local city includes a fairly high proportion of both migrant
workers and transient government employees (e.g., Border
Patrol, FBI. DEA. etc.,), some degree of dropout was
expected. Retention rates for the current study reflect the
general pattern from other prospective studies of video
game violence. Williams and Skoric (2005) report a
retention rate of approximately 75% at 3 months, Shibuya
et al. (2008) report a retention rate of 62% at 1-year,
whereas Moller and Krahe (2009) report a retention rate of
48% at 30 months. Anderson et al. (2008) do not report
retention rates.
Measures
With exceptions noted below, all materials used Likert-
scale items and demonstrate psychometric properties suit-
able for use in multiple regression and path analyses. All
measures were included in the T1 assessment. For the T2

follow up, only the media exposure, depressive symptoms
and outcome variables were reassessed. Alphas reported
are for T1; T2 alphas did not differ greatly.
Media Violence Questionnaire
Child participants were asked to list their 3 favorite tele-
vision shows and video games and estimate how often they
play or view the media in question. Many media studies in
the past asked respondents to rate violence levels in media
they watched, although this runs the risk of variable esti-
mates between respondents. In the current study, I took a
slightly different approach, using existing Entertainment
Software Ratings Board (ESRB) video game ratings as an
estimate of video game violence exposure. ESRB ratings
were obtained for each game reported by the respondent,
and ordinally coded (a maximal score of 6 for ‘‘Adults
Only,’’ 5 for ‘‘Mature,’’ 4 for ‘‘Teen,’’ etc.). This ordinal
coding system was designed to correspond to the levels of
the ESRB rating system. The ESRB system has been

supported by the Federal Trade Commission (2009) and
the Parent Teacher Association (2008) as effective and
reliable.
Many factors go into an ESRB rating, including lan-
guage, sexual content, and use of (or reference to) drugs or
gambling. However, among those factors that determine
the age-based rating, violence appears to take priority. Of
123
the 30 ‘‘content descriptors’’ that accompany ratings, ten
concern violence. Descriptors of listed games were
reviewed to ensure that high ratings had not been obtained
primarily for sexual content; this was not the case for any
of the games reported by youth. The ESRB rating system
was also tested by pulling a random sample of ten com-
mercially available games (Lego Star Wars II: The Original
Trilogy, Call of Duty 4, F.E.A.R., Bioshock, Race Pro,

Baja: Edge of Control, Sonic Unleashed, Spiderman 3,
Silent Hill: Homecoming. Lego Indiana Jones). Each of the
games were played (for approximately 45 min each) by
two independent student RAs (one male, one female, nei-
ther heavy gamers). The RAs had not played any of the
games previously, and was not aware of the ESRB ratings
for each game. The RAs were provided with and trained on
a standardized 5-point violence assessment ranking system
and asked to code each game on this system after playing.
Each RA was alone while playing and ranking the games
and did not know of each others’ ratings. Interrater reli-
ability was high (kappa = .95). The RAs’ rankings, which
focused exclusively on violence, were then correlated with
the categorical ESRB ratings for each game. The correla-
tion between the mean RA rankings and the ESRB ratings
was .98, providing external evidence for validity of the
ESRB ratings as estimates of violent content.
The ESRB ratings were multiplied against the respon-

dents’ reported time spent playing each game then summed
across the 3 games listed. For television ratings a similar
approach was employed using the TV Parental Guidelines
System (PGS; i.e., TV-Y through TV-MA). As with the
video game ratings, the television ratings were checked for
violent content using the external check process described
above. The sampled television shows were Wizards of
Waverly Place, Hannah Montana, Spongebob Squarepants,
South Park, Zoey 101, Heroes, CSI, Chowder, WWE
Superstars and Robot Chicken, all shows reported by youth
in our current database as among those watched. Interrater
reliability between the RAs for rating violent content in the
shows was kappa = .88. The correlation between the mean
RA rating and the PGS was .89, lending evidence to the
validity of using the PGS system as an estimate of violent
content in television shows.
This general approach has been used with success in the
past (Olson et al. 2009). As with all attempts to assess

game or television content exposure, this is only an esti-
mate; however, it removes some of the subjectivity inher-
ent in previous methods.
Negative Life Events
The Negative Life Events instrument is a commonly used
and well validated measure of youth behaviors used in
criminological research (NLE; Paternoster and Mazerolle
1994) and includes the following scales used in this study
as third variables:
1. Neighborhood problems (e.g., How much of a problem
are each of the following in your neighborhood?
Vandalism, traffic, burglaries, etc.; alpha in current
sample = .86).
2. Negative relations with adults (e.g., My parents think I
break rules, My parents think I get in trouble, etc.;
alpha = .95)
3. Antisocial personality (e.g., It’s important to be honest
with your parents, even if they become upset or you

get punished, To stay out of trouble, it is sometimes
necessary to lie to teachers, etc.; alpha = .70)
4. Family attachment (e.g., On average, how many after-
noons during the school week, from the end of school or
work to dinner, have you spent talking, working, or
playing with your family, etc.; alpha = .86)
5. Delinquent peers (e.g., How many of your close
friends purposely damaged or destroyed property that
did not belong to them, etc.; alpha = .84).
This measure tapped multiple constructs related to family,
peer and school environment as well as delinquent
behavior and beliefs. Scales described here are used as
predictor third variables, although two scales (violent
crimes and non-violent crimes) related to delinquent
behaviors (described below) function as outcome variables.
There are no item overlaps between subscales.
Family Environment
The Family Environment Scale (FES; Moos and Moos

2002) is a 90-item true–false measure designed to assess
styles of family interaction and communication. Research
on this instrument has demonstrated good internal consis-
tency and test–retest reliability, as well as validity in dis-
tinguishing between functional families and families
experiencing a variety of dysfunctions including psychiat-
ric and substance abuse problems and physical abuse. The
family conflict subscale (alpha = .57) was used in the
current project. Sample items include ‘‘We fight a lot in our
family’’ and ‘‘Family members sometimes get so angry
they throw things.’’
Family Violence
The child’s primary guardian was asked to fill out the
Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS; Straus et al. 2003), a measure
of positive and negative behaviors occurring in marital or
dating relationships. The CTS has been shown to have
good reliability and corresponds well to incidents of dating
and family violence. It is used here to get a measure of

conflict and aggression occurring between the primary
123
caregiver and their spouse or romantic partners and thus a
sense of the child’s exposure to domestic violence. Sub-
scales related to physical assaults (e.g., ‘‘I beat up my
partner’’; ‘‘I pushed or shoved my partner’’; alpha = .88)
and psychological aggression (‘‘I insulted or swore at my
partner’’; ‘‘I called my partner fat or ugly’’; alpha = .81)
were used in the current study. The physical assaults sub-
scale was found to have a significantly skewed distribution
and a square-root transformation was conducted to produce
a normalized distribution.
Depressive Symptoms
The withdrawal/depression scale of the Child Behavior
Checklist Youth Self-Report (YSR; Achenbach and Resc-
orla 2001) indicated child depressive symptoms. This scale

has no item overlaps with the aggression/rule breaking
scales described below. Depressive symptoms were reas-
sessed at T2 and this variable, current depressive symp-
toms, is used in the regression equations described below.
Coefficient alpha of the scale with the current sample was
.80. Sample items include ‘‘I feel sad’’ and ‘‘I would rather
be alone.’’
Serious Aggression
Regarding mental health, youth and their primary care-
givers filled out the Child Behavior Checklist (CBCL,
Achenbach and Rescorla 2001). The CBCL consists of a
youth self-report and parent report on problematic behav-
iors which may represent psychopathology. The CBCL is a
well researched and validated tool for measuring behav-
ioral problems in children and adolescents. Research
indicates the CBCL is highly valid in diagnosing serious
externalizing behavior problems in children including
conduct disorder (Hudziak et al. 2004; Tackett et al. 2003).

Caregivers filled out the parental version of the CBCL,
whereas children filled out the YSR on themselves. These
indices were used to indicate outcomes related to delin-
quency and aggressiveness. All alphas with the current
sample were above .70. Sample items for the aggression
scale (from the child prospective, parents items are simply
reworded) include ‘‘I attack people’’ and ‘‘I threaten oth-
ers’’ and for the rule breaking scale ‘‘I lie or cheat’’ and ‘‘I
skip school.’’
Bullying
The Olweus Bullying Questionnaire (OBQ; Olweus 1996)
was used to measure bullying behaviors in the current
study. This measure is commonly used and well researched
with high reliability and validity reported. With the current
sample, alpha was .83. Sample items include ‘‘In the past
month I have called another kid ‘‘stupid, fat, ugly’’ or other
mean names’’ and ‘‘In the past month I have Forced
another kid to do something they didn’t want to do.’’

Delinquent Behavior
The NLE questionnaire, described above has a subscale
related to general delinquency (e.g., How many times in
the following year have you stolen something worth more
than $50, etc.). The general delinquency scale can be fur-
ther divided into non-violent (alpha = .96) and violent
(alpha = .98) criminal activities. As indicated above, these
scales are widely used in criminological research and do
not overlap in items with the third variable predictor scales
described above.
Statistical Analyses
Main analyses consisted of hierarchical multiple regression
equations. Separate hierarchical multiple regressions were
run for each of the outcome measures related to patho-
logical aggression (parent and child versions of the CBCL
aggression and rule-breaking scales, violent and non-
violent crime commission as reported on the NLE, and
bullying behavior). In each case, gender, depressive

symptoms and T1 pretest score for the specific scale were
entered on the first step, NLE variables (neighborhood,
negative adult relationships, antisocial personality, family
attachment and delinquent peers) were entered on the
second step, the FES conflict scale was entered on the third
step, CTS psychological aggression and physical assault
were entered on the fourth step and television and video
game violence exposure entered on the fifth step. Lastly,
interaction terms between antisocial traits and depressive
symptoms and media violence exposure (a composite of
television and video games) were included on the final
step. The antisocial, depressive symptoms and media vio-
lence terms were first centered before creating the inter-
action terms to avoid multicollinearity. This hierarchy was
designed theoretically to extend from most proximal vari-
ables outward (e.g., Bronfenbrenner 1979). Out of concern
that placing video game violence exposure in the last step
may artificially reduce the predictive value of this variable

on youth aggression, each regression equation was then
rerun with video game violence exposure included as a step
1 variable. Multicollinearity was examined using tolerance
and VIF statistics and found to be acceptable in all cases.
Highest VIF values were 1.9, and lowest tolerance values
were .54, which fall within most recommended acceptable
guidelines (Keith 2006). Secondary analyses involved the
use of path analysis to test alternate causal models
regarding the development of pathological youth
123
aggression as well as temporal relationships between video
game violence exposure and youth violence outcomes.
Power Analysis
A post-hoc power analysis was conducted to examine the
sensitivity of the current design and sample to pick up
small effects. Results indicated that the current design is

capable of detecting effects as statistically significant at or
just below the r = .14 level, close to Cohen’s threshold for
trivial effects (Cohen 1992).
Results
Prevalence of Violent Game Exposure and Criminal
Activity
At T2 75% of children reported playing some video games
on computer, console or other devices in the preceding
month. 40.4% of children reported playing games with
violent content as indicated by their own self-ratings of
violence in games. Using the ESRB ratings, 20.9% repor-
ted playing an M-rated game in the preceding month.
Consistent with past research (Griffiths and Hunt 1995;
Olson et al. 2007), boys were more likely to play violent
video games than girls [t(234) = 6.65, p B .001, r = .40,
.30 B r B .49]. Video game violence exposure was not
correlated with age of the child r = .02, nor reported GPA
of the child (r = -.02), nor did hours spent playing video

games predict GPA (r = -.09).
As for criminal activity, at T2 22 children (7.3%)
reported engaging in at least one criminally violent act over
the previous 12 months based specifically on the results
from the NLE. Most common violent crimes were physical
assaults on other students and strong-arm robbery (i.e.,
using physical force to take an object or money from
another person). Regarding non-violent crimes, 52 (19.2%)
of children reported engaging in at least one non-violent
crime over the past 12 months based on the NLE. Most
common non-violent crimes include thefts of small objects
(i.e., shoplifting) and thefts occurring on school property.
The commission of violent and non-violent crimes was
highly correlated (r = .51, p B .01, .42 B r B .59).
Consistency Among Parent and Child Reports
of Aggression on the CBCL and YSR
One intended strength of the current research design is that
it includes both parent and child report based outcome

assessments. Consistency between child and parent report
on the CBCL/YSR rule-breaking scales was r = .57
(.49 B r B .64), and for aggressive behavior, r = .52
(.43 B r B .60). Paired samples t-tests indicated that chil-
dren tended to report both higher levels of rule-breaking
[t(301) = 8.16, r = .43, .34 B r B .52] and aggression
[t(301) = 6.62, r = .36, .26 B r B .46]. Taken together,
these results suggest that parents have a good idea of the
‘‘gist’’ of how problematic the behavior of their children is
relative to other children, but generally are unaware of the
full scope of children’s behavior problems.
Consistency in Video Game Violence Exposure Over
Time (H1)
Table 1 presents bivariate correlations between video game
violence exposure at time 1 and time 2.
Video game violence exposure at T1 was significantly
correlated with video game violence exposure at T2
(r = .33, p B .01, .23 B r B .43); however, the effect size

was small, allowing a considerable amount of variance
across time in video game violence exposure, probably as
children put away older games and pick up news games
that are different in genre and violence content.
Long-Term Relationships Between Aggression
and Video Game Violence Exposure (H2, H3)
Bivariate Correlations Between Video Game Violence
Exposure at T1 and Violence and Aggression Related
Outcomes
Table 1 presents bivariate correlations between video game
violence exposure at T1 and aggression related outcomes at
T1 and T2. A Bonferroni correction due to multiple com-
parisons of p = .004 was applied. As can be seen, bivariate
correlations between T1 video game violence exposure
were significant only for bullying at T1, and T2, but not for
the other six outcome variables. Those results that were
significant were still small in size with none reaching
r = .2.

Table 1 T1 Video game violence bivariate correlations with
aggression and violence related outcomes at T1 and T2
Outcome variable Time 1
outcome
Time 2
outcome
CBCL rule breaking (parent report) .05 .05
YSR rule breaking (child report) .12 .10
CBCL aggression (parent report) .06 .01
YSR aggression (child report) .12 .06
OBQ .18* .18*
NLE violent crimes .06 .09
NLE non-violent crimes .03 .07
* p B .004
123
Prospective Hierarchical Multiple Regressions (H2)

Seven sets of hierarchical multiple regressions were run
with the steps described above in the procedure section.
These results are presented in Table 2. Steps in the hier-
archical model are broken down by double solid lines in the
Table, with delta R2 reported at each step. Standardized
regression coefficients (beta-weights) presented are for the
final model in each case, as all model steps were statisti-
cally significant. A representation of the depressive
symptoms/antisocial personality interaction (using a com-
posite of the aggression/violence/bullying measures) is
provided in Fig. 1. Both variables were split into four
categories (i.e., ‘‘quartiles’’) based on mean and standard
deviation scores to make visualization easier; however, it
should be clearly stated that continuous scores were used in
the regression model. Quartiles based on means and stan-
dard deviations were viewed as more clinically meaningful
than percentile splits. As can be seen, the influence of
depressive symptoms on violence was most severe for

individuals with preexisting antisocial personality traits. In
each case, reversing the step on which the video game
violence variable was entered did not influence results.
For the child-report aggression YSR outcome variable,
current level of depressive symptoms predicted aggres-
siveness and this was a strong predictor (b = .66) of T2
aggression as was the interaction between antisocial traits
and depressive symptoms (b = .15). Video game violence
exposure was not predictive of T2 aggression.
For the child-report rule-breaking YSR outcome vari-
able, current level of depressive symptoms predicted rule
breaking and this was a strong predictor (b = .62) of T2
rule breaking whereas peer delinquency at T1 was a sig-
nificant but weaker predictor (b = .12) as was the antiso-
cial/depressive symptoms interaction (b = .12). Video
game violence exposure was not predictive of T2 rule-
breaking.
For the parent-report aggression CBCL outcome vari-
able, T1 CBCL aggression (b = .22), current depressive
symptoms (b = .54), the antisocial/depressive symptoms
interaction (b = .14) and parental level of psychological
abuse in relationships (b = .15) were all predictive of T2
aggression. Video game violence exposure was not pre-

dictive of T2 aggression.
For the parent-report rule-breaking CBCL outcome
variable, T1 CBCL rule breaking (b = .20), current
depressive symptoms (b = .52), and parental level of
psychological abuse in relationships (b = .15) were all
predictive of T2 rule-breaking. Video game violence
exposure was not predictive of T2 rule-breaking.
For NLE non-violent crimes at T2, T1 commission of
nonviolent crimes (b = .26) was significant predictive of
T2 commission on non-violent crimes as was the
interaction of antisocial traits and depressive symptoms
(b = .12) and between antisocial traits and media violence
(b = .18). An examination of this latter interaction sug-
gested that individuals who were low in antisocial traits,
but who were exposed to more violent media committed
fewer non violent crimes than their peers. However, the
most antisocial youth who also consumed the most violent
media committed more non-violent crimes than their peers.
Direct video game violence exposure was not predictive of
T2 non-violent criminal behavior.
For NLE violent crimes at T2, attachment to family at

T1 served as a protective factor (b = -.15) at T2, whereas
the interaction between antisocial traits and depressive
symptoms (b = .17) and between antisocial traits and
media violence (b = .14). An examination of this latter
interaction suggested that individuals who were low in
antisocial traits, but who were exposed to more violent
media committed fewer violent crimes than their peers.
However, the most antisocial youth who also consumed the
most violent media committed more violent crimes than
their peers. No other variables were significant predictors
of T2 violent criminal behavior. Video game violence
exposure was not predictive of T2 violent criminal
behavior.
For the OBQ at T2, only current depressive symptoms
(b = .32) and T1 antisocial personality (b = .12) were
significant predictors. Video game violence exposure was
not predictive of T2 bullying behavior.
The above regressions were rerun with T1 depressive
symptoms replacing current (T2) depressive symptoms on
step 1. T1 depressive symptoms did not prove to be pre-

dictive of T2 aggressive or violent outcomes in any of the
equations. As such, current depressive symptoms rather
than a past history of depressive symptoms is most pre-
dictive of violent outcomes. In each of these regressions
with T1 depressive symptoms, T1 violent video game
exposure remained non-significant as a predictor of T2
aggression and violence outcomes.
Prospective Video Game Violence Analysis (H3)
To examine the temporal sequence between aggression and
video game violence use, a hierarchical multiple regression
was run with video game violence use at T2 as the
dependent variable. Ordering of variables was the same as
described for the regressions above, with the exception that
video game violence exposure at T1 was entered on step 1
(just as aggression T1 variables were included on step 1 for
the aggression regressions). T1 aggression was entered
along with T1 television violence exposure on step 5 (this
gave T1 aggression the same positioning in this regression

as T1 video game exposure had in the aggression regres-
sions). In order to avoid multicollinearity, a composite
123
T
a
b
le
2
M
u
lt
ip
le
re
g
re
ss
io
n
re

su
lt
s
fo
r
m
u
lt
ip
le
m
e
a
su
re
s
o
f
p
a
th
o
lo
g
ic

a
l
y
o
u
th
a
g
g
re
ss
io
n
a
t
T
2
P
re
d
ic
to
r
v

a
ri
a
b
le
Y
S
R
a
c
Y
S
R
rb
c
C
B
C
L
a
p
C
B
C
L

rb
p
N
V
C
ri
m
e
V
C
ri
m
e
B
u
ll
y
M
a
le
g
e
n
d

e
r
.0
4
.0
7
-
.0
1
-
.0
6
-
.0
2
.0
5
-
.0
6
T
2
d
e
p

re
ss
iv
e
sy
m
p
to
m
s
.6
6
(.
5
9
,
.7
3
)*
.6
2
(.
5
5

,
.6
9
)*
.5
4
(.
4
6
,
.6
1
)*
.5
2
(.
4
3
,
.6
0
)*
.0
3

.0
7
.3
2
(.
2
2
,
.4
2
)*
P
re
te
st
sc
o
re
.1
1
.1
0
.2

2
(.
1
1
,
.3
3
)*
.2
0
(.
0
9
,
.3
0
)*
.2
6
(.
1
5
,
.3

7
)*
.0
1
.0
9
D
R
2
.4
1
*
.3
8
*
.3
5
*
.3
1
*
.0
7
*

.0
1
.1
3
*
N
e
ig
h
b
o
rh
o
o
d
p
ro
b
le
m
s
.0
5
-

.0
2
.0
3
.0
0
.0
7
-
.0
3
.0
7
N
e
g
.
re
l.
w
it
h
a
d

u
lt
s
.0
4
-
.0
2
.0
5
.0
5
-
.0
1
.0
8
.0
3
A
n
ti
so
c

ia
l
p
e
rs
o
n
a
li
ty
.0
8
.0
9
.0
0
.0
2
-
.0
4
-
.0
1

.1
2
(.
0
4
,
.2
1
)*
F
a
m
il
y
a
tt
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
.0
6

.0
4
.0
4
.0
1
.0
0
-
.1
5
(-
.0
7
,
-
.2
4
)*
.1
0
D
e
li

n
q
u
e
n
t
p
e
e
rs
.0
8
.1
2
(.
0
4
,
.2
1
)*
-
.0
4
.0

6
.0
6
.0
4
.0
7
D
R
2
.0
3
*
.0
2
.0
1
.0
1
.0
1
.0
4
.0

3
F
E
S
c
o
n
fl
ic
t
-
.0
7
-
.5
.0
1
.0
3
.0
3
.0
3
-

.0
6
D
R
2
.0
1
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
.0
0
C
T
S
p
sy

c
h
o
lo
g
ic
a
l
a
g
g
.
-
.0
1
-
.0
3
.1
5
(.
0
7
,

.2
4
)*
.1
5
(.
0
7
,
.2
4
)*
-
.1
2
.0
8
-
.1
0
C
T
S
p

h
y
si
c
a
l
a
b
u
se
-
.0
2
-
.0
4
.0
4
-
.0
9
-
.0
4
.0

6
D
R
2
.0
0
.0
0
.0
3
*
.0
2
*
.0
2
.0
1
.0
1
T
e
le
v

is
io
n
v
io
le
n
c
e
.0
4
.0
7
-
.0
4
-
.0
9
-
.0
4
-
.0

8
.0
5
V
id
e
o
g
a
m
e
v
io
le
n
c
e
-
.0
3
-
.0
1
-
.0

1
.0
9
.0
7
.0
7
.1
2
D
R
2
.0
0
.0
1
.0
0
.0
1
.0
0
.0

0
.0
2
A
n
ti
so
c
ia
l/
D
S
in
t.
.1
5
(.
0
7
,
.2
4
)*
.1

2
(.
0
4
,
.2
1
)*
1
4
(.
0
6
,
.2
3
)*
.0
8
.1
2
(.
0
4

,
.2
1
)*
.1
7
(.
0
8
,
.2
8
)*
.0
5
A
n
ti
so
c
ia
l/
m
e

d
ia
in
t.
.0
1
-
.0
2
.0
6
.0
2
.1
8
(.
0
9
,
.2
9
)*
.1
4

(.
0
6
,
.2
3
)*
.0
3
D
R
2
.0
2
*
.0
1
.0
2
*
.0
1
.0
4

*
.0
4
*
.0
1
N
u
m
b
e
rs
in
p
a
re
n
th
e
se
s
re
p
re

se
n
t
9
5
%
c
o
n
fi
d
e
n
c
e
in
te
rv
a
l
fo
r
st
a
n

d
a
rd
iz
e
d
re
g
re
ss
io
n
c
o
e
ffi
c
ie
n
ts
.
C
o
n

fi
d
e
n
c
e
in
te
rv
a
ls
in
c
lu
d
e
d
o
n
ly
fo
r
si
g
n

ifi
c
a
n
t
re
su
lt
s.
P
re
te
st
sc
o
re
=
T
1
sc
o
re
fo
r
th

e
sp
e
c
ifi
c
o
u
tc
o
m
e
m
e
a
su
re
.
It
a
li
c
iz
e
d

v
a
lu
e
s
re
p
re
se
n
t
st
e
p
s
in
th
e
re
g
re
ss
io
n
m

o
d
e
l.
A
d
ju
st
e
d
R
2
is
re
p
o
rt
e
d
fo
r
e
a
c
h

st
e
p
in
th
e
h
ie
ra
rc
h
ic
a
l
m
o
d
e
ls
Y
S
R
a
c
y

o
u
th
se
lf
re
p
o
rt
,
a
g
g
re
ss
io
n
,
c
h
il
d
,
Y
S

R
rb
c
y
o
u
th
se
lf
re
p
o
rt
,
ru
le
b
re
a
k
in
g
,
c
h

il
d
,
C
B
C
L
a
p
c
h
il
d
b
e
h
a
v
io
r
c
h
e
c
k

li
st
,
a
g
g
re
ss
io
n
,
p
a
re
n
t,
C
B
C
L
rb
p
c
h

il
d
b
e
h
a
v
io
r
c
h
e
c
k
li
st
,
ru
le
b
re
a
k
in
g

,
p
a
re
n
t,
N
V
C
ri
m
e
n
o
n
v
io
le
n
t
c
ri
m
e
,

N
L
E
,
V
C
ri
m
e
v
io
le
n
t
c
ri
m
e
,
N
L
E
,
B

u
ll
y
O
lw
e
u
s
B
u
ll
y
in
g
Q
u
e
st
io
n
n
a
ir
e
,

D
S
d
e
p
re
ss
iv
e
sy
m
p
to
m
s
*
S
ta
ti
st
ic
a
l
si

g
n
ifi
c
a
n
c
e
123
aggression measure was created from the sum of the
seven individual aggression measures. This composite
measure showed high consistency (alpha = .81). The
resulting regression equation was statistically significant
[F(15,250) = 6.20, R = .52, adj R2 = .23] through the last
step. Male gender (b = .31, .20 B r B .41), current (T2)
level of depressive symptoms (b = .30, .19 B r B .40) and
T1 video game use (b = .16, .05 B r B .27) were all sig-
nificant predictors of T2 video game use. Aggressive
behavior at T1 was not predictive of video game use at T2.
Adding aggression to step 1 rather than step 5 of the

regression did not change the outcome.
Path Analysis of Temporal Sequencing of Video Game
Violence Exposure and Aggression (H2, H3)
Path analysis can be used to test the temporal sequence of
video game violence exposure and aggressive behavior,
using each variable and T1 and T2. If video game violence
exposure at T1 is predictive of aggression at T2, but
aggression at T1 is not predictive of video game violence
exposure at T2 this lends support to causal beliefs that
video game violence exposure leads to subsequent
aggression as the alternative hypothesis (that aggression
leads to subsequent video game violence use) is ruled out
(however the data remains correlational, and alternate
explanations based on third variables cannot be ruled out).
The basic path analysis was based on that used by
Moller and Krahe (2009), and is represented in Fig. 2.
Using path analysis, goodness of fit can be evaluated both
through a non-significant chi-squared analysis, as well as

by several goodness of fit indices such as the ‘‘Adjusted
Goodness of Fit Index’’ or root mean squared error of
approximation (RMSEA).
Separate path analyses were run with T1 video game
exposure leading to T2 aggression and T1 aggression
leading to T2 video game exposure (these paths are rep-
resented by the divided arrows in Fig. 2). Aggression was
measured by the T1 and T2 composite measures described
above. Neither of these proved to be good fits to the data,
nor did a combined path analysis with T1 aggression and
video game violence exposure both leading to T2 aggres-
sion and video game violence exposure.
Next, a path model was developed based on the
regression results with aggression pre-score, current
depressive symptoms, and the antisocial/depressive symp-
toms interaction each functioning as separate, direct con-
tributors to the composite youth aggression measure at T2.
Although close to the criteria described above, this model

did not prove a good fit. Antisocial personality traits were
then added to the model as a contributor to T1 aggression.
This model proved to be a good fit to the data [v2(6) =
23.8, p C .05, NFI = .91, CFI = .92, RMSEA = .09] and
is presented in Fig. 3.
Discussion
The issue of video game violence exposure remains
a pressing one in Western society. The US State of
California, as well as nations ranging from Australia and
Switzerland to China and Venezuela, are considering
efforts to restrict youth access to violent video games. As
of yet, the empirical understanding of the long-term
influences of video games on youth violence remain
murky. Although several short-term prospective studies of
youth violence have been published (Anderson et al. 2008;
Moller and Krahe 2009; Shibuya et al. 2008; Williams and
Skoric 2005), these have been inconsistent in results and
have been limited by the low clinical validity of the

aggression/violence measures used, and paucity of statis-
tical controls for other relevant variables. The current study
represents the first prospective study to employ well-vali-
dated clinical measures of aggression and violence, and to
control carefully for a number of other relevant factors that
may influence youth violence.
Interaction Effect of Depression and Antisocial
Personality on Composite Aggression Score
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
1 2 3 4
Depression Quartile
Antisocial 1st Quartile

Antisocial 2nd Quartile
Antisocial 3rd Quartile
Antisocial 4th Quartile
C
o
m
p
o
s
it
e
A
g
g
re
s
s
io
n
Fig. 1 Depressive symptoms/antisocial interaction
Fig. 2 Initial time sequenced path model

123
Several important conclusions can be made from the
current study. First, hypothesis H1, that video game use
would be consistent over time, was moderately supported
by the current data with a stability coefficient at 1 year of
r = .33, as indicated in the bivariate correlations. This
indicates moderate stability in video game violence expo-
sure over time, but this stability coefficient is far smaller,
for instance, than that seen in personality research (McCrae
et al. 2002). This suggests that children’s video game genre
selection may be reasonably variable over time.
Relevant to H2, that video game violence exposure at T1
would prospectively predict serious acts of aggression at
T2, no evidence was found to support this hypothesis either
in the regression analyses for the seven outcome measures,
or for the path analysis using the composite aggression
score. No evidence across any of the outcome measures

supported H2. This remained true whether video game
violence exposure was entered on step 1 or step 5 of the
hierarchical multiple regressions. It would be reasonable to
express the concern that, despite a reasonable level of
power in the current analysis, small effects might have
been missed. However, with the exception of bullying
(b = .12), all of the effects for video game violence
exposure were at or below Cohen’s (1992) suggested
threshold of r = .10 for trivial effects (the effect for bul-
lying nonetheless fell below Ferguson’s 2009 recommen-
dations for interpretation of practical significance). The
effect for bullying was slightly larger than for other out-
comes. It is important not to overinterpret this, as the
bullying finding remained non-significant and very small in
effect size. Nonetheless, it may be simply that less serious
forms of aggression show slightly higher relations with
video game violence than do more serious forms of
aggression, an observation made previously in the literature
(Ferguson and Kilburn 2009).

It appears reasonable to conclude that, in the current
sample, little evidence supported a significant predictive
relationship between violent video game exposure and
serious user aggression. Results of the current study are, in
fact, not out of league with previous prospective studies, all
of which have found only small effects (hovering on either
side of r = .10) of video game violence on subsequent
aggression. What seems to vary between reports is the
language used in interpreting these effects ranging from
attempts to generalize findings to serious acts of youth
violence (Anderson et al. 2008) to the conclusion that such
small effects effectively represent null findings (Williams
and Skoric 2005). It may be prudent for scholars to be more
temperate and conservative in their interpretations in the
future, particularly where effect sizes have tended to be
generally weak.
In the current study, results by and large are at or below
r = .10 with confidence intervals that, as such, cross the

zero mark and thus, irrespective of statistical significance,
do not provide support for H2. It may be argued that some
scholars have, in the past, been overzealous in arguing for
strong, consistent and general effects, when evidence
backing such conclusions is limited (see Sherry 2007 for a
similar conclusion). The current study, however, is the first
prospective study to carefully examine pathological/serious
youth aggression and violent behavior using well validated
clinical measures. Thus, generalizability to serious youth
aggression is more possible with the current study than
with those previously mentioned.
For criminal behaviors (both violent and non-violent),
although no direct effects of video games or television
violence were seen, total media violence consumption
interacted with antisocial traits. Interestingly, for children
with low antisocial traits, media violence exposure was
associated with less criminal behavior. Only for the most
Fig. 3 Final ‘‘good fit’’ path

model
123
antisocial children was media violence exposure associated
with more violent crimes. There are two possible expla-
nations for this phenomenon. First, antisocial children who
are most inclined toward criminal behavior may also be
those most likely to select violent media. This is the
explanation favored by Ferguson et al. (2008) based on
similar findings as well as by Kutner and Olson (2008).
However, Giumetti and Markey (2007) alternatively sug-
gest that, although violent video games are harmless for the
vast majority of children, for those with preexisting high
antisocial traits, video game violence may exacerbate these
traits. More data is needed to ascertain which of these
possibilities is correct. These findings also should be tem-
pered by their small effect size and the fact that the media

interaction term was not a good fit for the path analysis.
Related to H3, that a priori aggressiveness predicts T2
video game use, no greater support for this view was found
in either the regression analyses or path analysis than for
H1. Indeed, aggressiveness and video game violence use do
not seem to be highly predictive of one another, at least
prospectively. Of the theoretical perspectives discussed
earlier in the article, the ‘‘third variable’’ perspective that
aggression and video game violence have little causal
impact on each other, is best supported by the results of the
current study.
Of the third variables that predicted T2 serious aggres-
sion and violence, by far the best predictor was current
(T2) depressive symptoms in both the regression and path
analyses. As such, this variable warrants some discussion.
The effect size for the T2 depressive symptoms variable on
pathological aggression was, by the standards of social
science, large (Cohen 1992), ranging between .5 and .62

for the CBCL outcomes, and .32 for bullying (but non-
significant for criminal behavior). Also depressive symp-
toms and antisocial traits appeared to interact, such that
individuals with high antisocial traits who also were
depressed were most likely to engage in aggressive and
criminal acts. By contrast, T1 depressive symptoms were
not predictive of T2 serious aggression. These results
suggest that current mood states may be more important in
the etiology of aggressiveness than historical influences, at
least for children and young adolescents. Although some
T1 third variables, such as peer delinquency and parental
psychological aggression in romantic relationships, were
predictive of some serious aggression outcomes, these
effects were generally small and inconsistent across mea-
sures. Therefore, in the current analysis, depressive
symptoms stand out as particularly strong predictors of
youth violence and aggression.
Some research has indicated that low serotonergic

functioning is related both to increased levels of depressive
symptoms and serious aggressive behavior (Carver et al.
2008) and results of the current study may reflect this.
Similarly a US Secret Service and US Department of
Education (2002) evaluation of adolescent and young adult
‘‘school shooters’’ (a group often linked with violent video
games in the popular press) found that 78% had a history of
feeling suicidal prior to their assault, and 61% had a history
of significant depressive symptoms or despondency,
although this often went undiagnosed (the figure above
reflects psychological autopsy results in which diaries or
blogs of shooters reflected serious depressive symptoms
that was not brought to the attention of mental health
professionals). Thus, current levels of depressive symp-
toms may be a key variable of interest in the prevention of
serious aggression in youth.
Results from the current study suggest that long-term
prediction of youth violence remains spotty at best and

practitioners may need to be careful not to ‘‘profile’’ youth
who have not committed serious aggressive acts. Predictive
results based on sociological variables (or video game use)
may run the risk of significant overidentification of ‘‘at
risk’’ status. Practitioners and policy makers may be eager
to identify and intervene with at-risk youth, but where
long-term prediction remains unreliable, the potential for
damage as well as good should temper and restrain efforts
in this realm.
No study is without flaws, and it is important to docu-
ment them in a research report. It should be reemphasized
that the current sample is non-random. Although efforts
were made to get the most representative sample possible,
generalizations from a non-random sample should be
undertaken only with caution. The current sample also was
a Hispanic-majority sample. Although this represents an
important extension of prospective designs into a previ-
ously neglected ethnic group, generalization to other ethnic

groups and cultures may be unwarranted. Furthermore, it is
not possible for a single research design to consider all
possible third variables. Important third variables that were
not considered in the current study but which have been
identified as important in other research (e.g., Pratt and
Cullen 2005) include poverty, substance abuse, school
influences, self-control and genetics. Further research
designs may wish to consider these predictor variables in
the future. The aggression related outcome measures used
here were designed to tap into more serious forms of
aggression, than in previous prospective studies. However,
it is reasonable to note differences even between these
measures. Arguably the severely violent criminal behaviors
referenced by the NLE differ from bullying behaviors
tapped by the OBQ. Thus, caution is warranted in gener-
alizing across these outcomes.
In conclusion, the current study finds no evidence to
support a long-term relationship between video game vio-

lence use and subsequent aggression. Although debates
about video game violence effects on player aggression are
123
likely to continue for some time, it is suggested that the
degree of certainty and statements regarding the strength of
causal effects should be revised in a conservative direction
(similar calls have been made by other scholars, e.g.,
Cumberbatch 2008, Freedman 2002; Olson 2004, Savage
and Yancey 2008; Sherry 2007). A reasonable argument
and debate for small influences could probably still be
made (e.g., Markey and Scherer 2009), although statements
reflecting strong, broad effects generalizable to serious acts
of youth violence are at current, likely unwarranted. This is
particularly important to note given that, as video games
have become more widespread over the past few decades,
the incidence rate of criminal youth violence has declined

sharply; it has not increased as feared (Childstats.gov
2009). Naturally, video games are an unlikely cause of this
youth violence decline (to conclude otherwise would be to
indulge in the ecological fallacy), however these results
suggest a mismatch between public fears of violent video
games and actual trends in youth violence (i.e., fears of
juvenile superpredators never materialized, see Muschert
2007). It is argued here that scientists must be cautious to
remain conservative in their conclusions lest the public be
misinformed. A continued debate over violent video games
will likely be positive and constructive, but such a debate
must be made with restraint. It is hoped that the current
article will contribute to such a debate.
References
Achenbach, T. M., & Rescorla, L. A. (2001). Manual for
ASEBA
school-age forms & profiles. Burlington, VT: University of
Vermont.
Anderson, C. (2004). An update on the effects of playing
violent

video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113–122.
Anderson, C., Sakamoto, A., Gentile, D., Ihori, N., Shibuya, A.,
Yukawa, S., et al. (2008). Longitudinal effects of violent video
games on aggression in Japan and the United States. Pediatrics,
122(5), e1067–e1072.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1961). Transmission of
aggression through imitation of aggressive models. Journal of
Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63, 575–582.
Bandura, A., Ross, D., & Ross, S. A. (1963). Imitation of film-
mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social
Psychology, 66, 3–11.
Beaver, K. M., Shutt, J. E., Boutwell, B. B., Ratchford, M.,
Roberts,
K., & Barnes, J. C. (2009). Genetic and environmental
influences
on levels of self-control and delinquent peer affiliation: Results
from a longitudinal sample of adolescent twins. Criminal Justice
and Behavior, 36, 41–60.
Beaver, K. M., Wright, J. P., DeLisi, M., Walsh, A., Vaughn,
M. G.,
Boisvert, D., et al. (2007). A gene 9 gene interaction between
DRD2 and DRD4 is associated with conduct disorder and

antisocial behavior in males. Behavioral and Brain Functions, 3,
Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://www.behavioraland
brainfunctions.com/content/3/1/30.
Blummer, H. (1933). Movies and conduct. New York:
MacMillan.
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1979). The ecology of human development:
Experiments by nature and design. Cambridge, MA: Harvard
University Press.
Buss, D., & Shackelford, T. (1997). Human aggression in
evolution-
ary psychological perspective. Clinical Psychology Review, 17,
605–619.
Carver, C., Johnson, S., & Joormann, J. (2008). Serotonergic
function,
two-mode models of self-regulation, and vulnerability to
depres-
sion: What depression has in common with impulsive aggres-
sion. Psychological Bulletin, 134(6), 912–943. doi:10.1037/
a0013740.
Childstats.gov. (2009). America’s children: Key national
indicators of
well-being, 2009. Retrieved December 30, 2009, from http://
www.childstats.gov/.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112,
155–159.

Cumberbatch, G. (2008). Mass media: Continuing controversies.
In
D. Albertazzi, & P. Cobley (Eds.), London: Pearson Education.
Durkin, K., & Barber, B. (2002). Not so doomed: Computer
game
play and positive adolescent development. Applied Develop-
mental Psychology, 23, 373–392.
Federal Trade Commission. (2009). Marketing violent
entertainment
to children. Retrieved March 14, 2010, from http://www.ftc.gov/
os/2009/12/P994511violententertainment.pdf.
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). An effect size primer: A guide for
clinicians
and researchers. Professional Psychology: Research and Prac-
tice, 40(5), 532–538.
Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of
media
violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Pediatrics, 154(5),
759–763.
Ferguson, C. J., Rueda, S., Cruz, A., Ferguson, D., Fritz, S., &
Smith,
S. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal relation-
ship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence

motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 311–332.
Ferguson, C. J., San Miguel, C., & Hartley, R. D. (2009). A
multivariate analysis of youth violence and aggression: The
influence of family, peers, depression and media violence.
Journal of Pediatrics, 155(6), 904–908.
Freedman, J. (2002). Media violence and its effect on
aggression:
Assessing the scientific evidence. Toronto: University of
Toronto
Press.
Gauntlett, D. (1995). Moving experiences: Understanding
television’s
influences and effects. Luton: John Libbey.
Giumetti, G. W., & Markey, P. M. (2007). Violent video games
and
anger as predictors of aggression. Journal of Research in
Personality, 41, 1234–1243.
Goodman, L. A. (1961). Snowball sampling. Annals of
Mathematical
Statistics, 32, 148–170. doi:10.1214/aoms/1177705148.
Griffiths, M., & Hunt, N. (1995). Computer game playing in
adolescence: Prevalence and demographic indicators. Journal
of Community and Applied Social Psychology, 5, 189–193.
Griswold, C. (2004). Plato on rhetoric and poetry. The Stanford
Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved January 5, 2010, from

http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2004/entries/plato-
rhetoric/.
Hawley, P., & Vaughn, B. (2003). Aggression and adaptive
function:
The bright side to bad behavior. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly, 49,
239–242.
Hudziak, J., Copeland, W., Stanger, C., & Wadsworth, M.
(2004).
Screening for DSM-IV externalizing disorders with the child
behavior checklist: A receiver-operating characteristic analysis.
Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 45(7), 1299–1307.
doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00314.x.
Huesmann, L. (2007). The impact of electronic media violence:
Scientific theory and research. Journal of Adolescent Health,
41(6), S6–S13. doi:10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.005.
Keith, T. (2006). Multiple regression and beyond. Boston:
Pearson.
123
http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/3/1/30
http://www.behavioralandbrainfunctions.com/content/3/1/30
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013740
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013740
http://www.childstats.gov/

http://www.childstats.gov/
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/12/P994511violententertainment.pd
f
http://www.ftc.gov/os/2009/12/P994511violententertainment.pd
f
http://dx.doi.org/10.1214/aoms/1177705148
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/spr2004/entries/plato-rhetoric/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2004.00314.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2007.09.005
Kirsh, S. (1998). Seeing the world through Mortal Kombat-
colored
glasses: Violent video games and the development of a short-
term hostile attribution bias. Childhood: A Global Journal of
Child Research, 5(2), 177–184.
Kutner, L., & Olson, C. (2008). Grand theft childhood: The
surprising
truth about violent video games and what parents can do. New
York: Simon & Schuster.
Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., MacGill, A., Evans, C., &
Mitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games and civics: Teens gaming
experiences are diverse and include significant social
interaction
and civic engagement. Retrieved January 2, 2010 from http://
www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/263/report_display.asp.
Markey, P. M., & Scherer, K. (2009). An examination of
psychot-
icism and motion capture controls as moderators of the effects

of
violent video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 25,
407–411.
McCown, W., Keiser, R., Mulhearn, S., & Williamson, D.
(1997).
The role of personality and gender in preferences for exagger-
ated bass in music. Personality and Individual Differences, 23,
543–547.
McCrae, R., Costa, P., Terracciano, A., Parker, W., Mills, C.,
De
Fruyt, F., et al. (2002). Personality trait development from age
12
to age 18: Longitudinal, cross-sectional and cross-cultural
analyses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6),
1456–1468. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1456.
Mitrofan, O., Paul, M., & Spencer, N. (2009). Is aggression in
children with behavioural and emotional difficulties associated
with television viewing and video game playing? A systematic
review. Child: Care, Health and Development, 35(1), 5–15.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00912.x.
Moller, I., & Krahe, B. (2009). Exposure to violent video games
and

aggression in German adolescents: A longitudinal analysis.
Aggressive Behavior, 35, 79–89.
Moos, R., & Moos, B. (2002). Family environment scale
manual. Palo
Alto: Mindgarden.
Muschert, G. (2007). The Columbine victims and the myth of
the
juvenile superpredator. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice,
5(4), 351–366.
Olson, C. (2004). Media violence research and youth violence
data:
Why do they conflict? Academic Psychiatry, 28, 144–150.
Olson, C. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in
the
context of normal development. Review of General Psychology,
14(2), 180–187. doi:10.1037/a0018984.
Olson, C., Kutner, L., Baer, L., Beresin, E., Warner, D., &
Nicholi, A.
(2009). M-rated video games and aggressive of problem
behavior among young adolescents. Applied Developmental
Science, 13(4), 1–11.
Olson, C., Kutner, L., Warner, D., Almerigi, J., Baer, L.,
Nicholi, A., et al.
(2007). Factors correlated with violent video game use by

adolescent
boys and girls. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 77–83.
Olweus, D. (1996). The revised Olweus Bully/Victim
Questionnaire.
Bergen, Norway: University of Bergen.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television
violence
on anti-social behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication
Research, 21, 516–546.
Parent Teacher Association. (2008). ESRB and PTA launch new
national campaign to educate parents about game ratings,
parental controls and online video game safety. Retrieved
March
14, 2010, from http://www.pta.org/2787.htm.
Paternoster, R., & Mazerolle, P. (1994). General strain theory
and
delinquency: A replication and extension. Journal of Research
in
Crime and Delinquency, 31(3), 235–263.
Pinker, S. (2002). The blank slate: The modern denial of human
nature. New York, NY: Penguin.
Pratt, T., & Cullen, C. (2005). Assessing macro-level predictors
and
theories of crime: A meta-analysis. In Michael. Tomry (Ed.),
Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 32, pp. 373–450).

Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rentfrow, P., & Gosling, S. (2003). The do re mi’s of everyday
life:
The structure and personality correlates of music preferences.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(6),
1236–1256. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1236.
Salganik, M., & Heckathorn, D. (2002). Sampling and
estimation in
hidden populations using respondent driven sampling. Sociolog-
ical Methodology, 34(1), 193–240. doi:10.1111/j.0081-1750.
2004.00152.x.
Savage, J., & Yancey, C. (2008). The effects of media violence
exposure on criminal aggression: A meta-analysis. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 35, 1123–1136.
Sherry, J. (2007). Violent video games and aggression: Why
can’t we
find links? In R. Preiss, B. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, &
J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass Media effects research: Advances
through
meta-analysis (pp. 231–248). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Shibuya, A., Sakamoto, A., Ihori, N., & Yukawa, S. (2008). The
effects of the presence and context of video game violence on
children: A longitudinal study in Japan. Simulation and Gaming,

39(4), 528–539. doi:10.1177/1046878107306670.
Straus, M., Hamby, S., & Warren, W. (2003). The conflict
tactics
scales handbook. Los Angeles, CA: WPS.
Tackett, J., Krueger, R., Sawyer, M., & Graetz, B. (2003).
Subfactors
of DSM-IV conduct disorder: Evidence and connections with
syndromes from the child behavior checklist. Journal of
Abnormal Child Psychology, 31(6), 647–654. doi:10.1023/
A:1026214324287.
United States Secret Service and United States Department of
Education. (2002). The final report and findings of the Safe
School Initiative: Implications for the prevention of school
attacks in the United States. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf.
Unsworth, G., Devilly, G., & Ward, T. (2007). The effect of
playing
violent videogames on adolescents: Should parents be quaking
in
their boots? Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 383–394.
Williams, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). Internet fantasy violence: A
test of
aggression in an online game. Communication Monographs, 72,
217–233.
Wolke, D., Waylan, A., Samara, M., Steer, C., Goodman, R.,

Ford, T.,
et al. (2009). Selective drop-out in longitudinal studies and non-
biased prediction of behavior disorders. The British Journal of
Psychiatry, 195, 249–256. doi:10.1192/bjp.bp.108.053751.
Ybarra, M., Diener-West, M., Markow, D., Leaf, P., Hamburger,
M.,
& Boxer, P. (2008). Linkages between internet and other media
violence with seriously violent behavior by youth. Pediatrics,
122(5), 929–937.
Author Biography
Christopher J. Ferguson is an associate professor of clinical and
forensic psychology at Texas A&M International University.
His
research has focused on the positive and negative effects of
violent
video games, and on youth violence more broadly. He lives in
Laredo,
TX with his wife and young son.
123
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/263/report_display.asp
http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/263/report_display.asp
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1456

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2214.2008.00912.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018984
http://www.pta.org/2787.htm
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1236
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00152.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0081-1750.2004.00152.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1046878107306670
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026214324287
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1026214324287
http://www.secretservice.gov/ntac/ssi_final_report.pdf
http://dx.doi.org/10.1192/bjp.bp.108.053751
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further
reproduction prohibited without permission.
Video Games and Youth Violence: A Prospective Analysis in
AdolescentsAbstractIntroductionProspective Studies of Violent
Video Game EffectsThree Theoretical Views of the Video Game
Violence/Serious Aggression RelationshipThe Current
StudyMethodsParticipantsRecruitmentAnalysis of T2
Nonresponse/Drop-OutMeasuresMedia Violence
QuestionnaireNegative Life EventsFamily EnvironmentFamily
ViolenceDepressive SymptomsSerious
AggressionBullyingDelinquent BehaviorStatistical
AnalysesPower AnalysisResultsPrevalence of Violent Game
Exposure and Criminal ActivityConsistency Among Parent and
Child Reports of Aggression on the CBCL and YSRConsistency
in Video Game Violence Exposure Over Time (H1)Long-Term
Relationships Between Aggression and Video Game Violence
Exposure (H2, H3)Bivariate Correlations Between Video Game
Violence Exposure at T1 and Violence and Aggression Related
OutcomesProspective Hierarchical Multiple Regressions
(H2)Prospective Video Game Violence Analysis (H3)Path
Analysis of Temporal Sequencing of Video Game Violence
Exposure and Aggression (H2, H3)DiscussionReferences
<<

/ASCII85EncodePages false
/AllowTransparency false
/AutoPositionEPSFiles true
/AutoRotatePages /None
/Binding /Left
/CalGrayProfile (Gray Gamma 2.2)
/CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated v2 300% 050ECI051)
/sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1)
/CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error
/CompatibilityLevel 1.3
/CompressObjects /Off
/CompressPages true
/ConvertImagesToIndexed true
/PassThroughJPEGImages true
/CreateJobTicket false
/DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual
/DetectBlends true
/DetectCurves 0.1000
/ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB
/DoThumbnails true
/EmbedAllFonts true
/EmbedOpenType false
/ParseICCProfilesInComments true
/EmbedJobOptions true
/DSCReportingLevel 0
/EmitDSCWarnings false
/EndPage -1
/ImageMemory 1048576
/LockDistillerParams true
/MaxSubsetPct 100
/Optimize true
/OPM 1
/ParseDSCComments true
/ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true
/PreserveCopyPage true

/PreserveDICMYKValues true
/PreserveEPSInfo true
/PreserveFlatness true
/PreserveHalftoneInfo false
/PreserveOPIComments false
/PreserveOverprintSettings true
/StartPage 1
/SubsetFonts false
/TransferFunctionInfo /Apply
/UCRandBGInfo /Preserve
/UsePrologue false
/ColorSettingsFile ()
/AlwaysEmbed [ true
]
/NeverEmbed [ true
]
/AntiAliasColorImages false
/CropColorImages true
/ColorImageMinResolution 149
/ColorImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning
/DownsampleColorImages true
/ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/ColorImageResolution 150
/ColorImageDepth -1
/ColorImageMinDownsampleDepth 1
/ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeColorImages true
/ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterColorImages true
/ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/ColorACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.40
/HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1]
>>
/ColorImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15

>>
/JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000ColorImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasGrayImages false
/CropGrayImages true
/GrayImageMinResolution 149
/GrayImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning
/DownsampleGrayImages true
/GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/GrayImageResolution 150
/GrayImageDepth -1
/GrayImageMinDownsampleDepth 2
/GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeGrayImages true
/GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode
/AutoFilterGrayImages true
/GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG
/GrayACSImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.40
>>
/GrayImageDict <<
/QFactor 0.15
>>
/JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256

/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/JPEG2000GrayImageDict <<
/TileWidth 256
/TileHeight 256
/Quality 30
>>
/AntiAliasMonoImages false
/CropMonoImages true
/MonoImageMinResolution 599
/MonoImageMinResolutionPolicy /Warning
/DownsampleMonoImages true
/MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic
/MonoImageResolution 600
/MonoImageDepth -1
/MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000
/EncodeMonoImages true
/MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode
/MonoImageDict <<
/K -1
>>
/AllowPSXObjects false
/CheckCompliance [
/None
]
/PDFX1aCheck false
/PDFX3Check false
/PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false
/PDFXNoTrimBoxError true
/PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]

/PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true
/PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
0.00000
]
/PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None)
/PDFXOutputConditionIdentifier ()
/PDFXOutputCondition ()
/PDFXRegistryName ()
/PDFXTrapped /False
/CreateJDFFile false
/Description <<
/ARA
<FEFF06270633062A062E062F06450020064706300647002006
27064406250639062F0627062F0627062A002006440625064606
340627062100200648062B062706260642002000410064006F00
620065002000500044004600200645062A064806270641064206
290020064406440637062806270639062900200641064A002006
27064406450637062706280639002006300627062A0020062F06
31062C0627062A002006270644062C0648062F06290020062706
44063906270644064A0629061B0020064A064506430646002006
41062A062D00200648062B062706260642002000500044004600
2006270644064506460634062306290020062806270633062A06
2E062F062706450020004100630072006F006200610074002006
4800410064006F00620065002000520065006100640065007200
2006250635062F0627063100200035002E003000200648062706
4406250635062F062706310627062A0020062706440623062D06
2F062B002E0635062F0627063100200035002E00300020064806
27064406250635062F062706310627062A002006270644062306
2D062F062B002E>
/BGR
<FEFF04180437043f043e043b043704320430043904420435002
004420435043704380020043d0430044104420440043e0439043a

0438002c00200437043000200434043000200441044a043704340
4300432043004420435002000410064006f006200650020005000
44004600200434043e043a0443043c0435043d04420438002c002
0043c0430043a04410438043c0430043b043d043e0020043f0440
04380433043e04340435043d04380020043704300020043204380
441043e043a043e043a0430044704350441044204320435043d00
20043f04350447043004420020043704300020043f04400435043
4043f0435044704300442043d04300020043f043e04340433043e
0442043e0432043a0430002e002000200421044a0437043404300
4340435043d043804420435002000500044004600200434043e04
3a0443043c0435043d044204380020043c043e043304300442002
0043404300020044104350020043e0442043204300440044f0442
002004410020004100630072006f0062006100740020043800200
0410064006f006200650020005200650061006400650072002000
35002e00300020043800200441043b04350434043204300449043
80020043204350440044104380438002e>
/CHS
<FEFF4f7f75288fd94e9b8bbe5b9a521b5efa76840020004100640
06f006200650020005000440046002065876863900275284e8e9a
d88d2891cf76845370524d53705237300260a853ef4ee54f7f7528
0020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c0020004100640
06f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035002e00
3000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c676562535f00521b5efa7684
00200050004400460020658768633002>
/CHT
<FEFF4f7f752890194e9b8a2d7f6e5efa7acb76840020004100640
06f006200650020005000440046002065874ef69069752865bc9a
d854c18cea76845370524d5370523786557406300260a853ef4ee5
4f7f75280020004100630072006f0062006100740020548c002000
410064006f0062006500200052006500610064006500720020003
5002e003000204ee553ca66f49ad87248672c4f86958b555f5df25e
fa7acb76840020005000440046002065874ef63002>
/CZE
<FEFF005400610074006f0020006e00610073007400610076006
5006e00ed00200070006f0075017e0069006a007400650020006b
0020007600790074007600e101590065006e00ed00200064006f0

06b0075006d0065006e0074016f002000410064006f0062006500
20005000440046002c0020006b00740065007200e900200073006
50020006e0065006a006c00e90070006500200068006f006400ed
002000700072006f0020006b00760061006c00690074006e00ed0
020007400690073006b0020006100200070007200650070007200
6500730073002e002000200056007900740076006f01590065006
e00e900200064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074007900200050
00440046002000620075006400650020006d006f017e006e00e90
020006f007400650076015900ed00740020007600200070007200
6f006700720061006d0065006300680020004100630072006f006
20061007400200061002000410064006f00620065002000520065
006100640065007200200035002e0030002000610020006e006f0
076011b006a016100ed00630068002e>
/DAN
<FEFF004200720075006700200069006e0064007300740069006
c006c0069006e006700650072006e0065002000740069006c0020
006100740020006f0070007200650074007400650020004100640
06f006200650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d00
65006e007400650072002c0020006400650072002000620065006
400730074002000650067006e0065007200200073006900670020
00740069006c002000700072006500700072006500730073002d0
07500640073006b007200690076006e0069006e00670020006100
660020006800f8006a0020006b00760061006c006900740065007
4002e0020004400650020006f0070007200650074007400650064
00650020005000440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e0
074006500720020006b0061006e002000e50062006e0065007300
2000690020004100630072006f00620061007400200065006c006
c006500720020004100630072006f006200610074002000520065
006100640065007200200035002e00300020006f00670020006e0
079006500720065002e>
/ESP
<FEFF005500740069006c0069006300650020006500730074006
100200063006f006e0066006900670075007200610063006900f3
006e0020007000610072006100200063007200650061007200200
064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f007300200050004400
46002000640065002000410064006f00620065002000610064006

50063007500610064006f00730020007000610072006100200069
006d0070007200650073006900f3006e0020007000720065002d0
065006400690074006f007200690061006c002000640065002000
61006c00740061002000630061006c0069006400610064002e002
000530065002000700075006500640065006e0020006100620072
0069007200200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074006f00730
020005000440046002000630072006500610064006f0073002000
63006f006e0020004100630072006f006200610074002c0020004
10064006f00620065002000520065006100640065007200200035
002e003000200079002000760065007200730069006f006e00650
07300200070006f00730074006500720069006f00720065007300
2e>
/ETI
<FEFF004b00610073007500740061006700650020006e0065006
900640020007300e4007400740065006900640020006b00760061
006c006900740065006500740073006500200074007200fc006b0
06900650065006c007300650020007000720069006e0074006900
6d0069007300650020006a0061006f006b007300200073006f006
20069006c0069006b0065002000410064006f0062006500200050
00440046002d0064006f006b0075006d0065006e0074006900640
0650020006c006f006f006d006900730065006b0073002e002000
20004c006f006f0064007500640020005000440046002d0064006f
006b0075006d0065006e007400650020007300610061007400650
02000610076006100640061002000700072006f00670072006100
6d006d006900640065006700610020004100630072006f0062006
100740020006e0069006e0067002000410064006f006200650020
00520065006100640065007200200035002e00300020006a00610
020007500750065006d0061007400650020007600650072007300
69006f006f006e00690064006500670061002e000d000a>
/FRA
<FEFF005500740069006c006900730065007a002000630065007
30020006f007000740069006f006e00730020006100660069006e
00200064006500200063007200e90065007200200064006500730
0200064006f00630075006d0065006e0074007300200041006400
6f00620065002000500044004600200070006f007500720020007
5006e00650020007100750061006c0069007400e9002000640027

Running Head VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN .docx

Running Head VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Running Head VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN .docx

Similar to Running Head VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN .docx (20)

More from MARRY7

More from MARRY7 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Running Head VIDEO GAME VIOLENCE AND CHILDREN .docx