1. Matthew Croak MS2009
149038219 4/1/2015
Violent Video Games and Their Negative Effects
Violent videogames have a level of interaction that other forms of media do not have.
It is this level of user participation, combined with gameplay incentive, that can have a
direct and negative influence on the level of aggression in users. The element of decision-
making can impact the moral engagement in those who play these violent videogames.
Other forms of media can promote and romanticize violence, but there is something about
video game exposure and interaction that has a greater impact on a person’s own violent
ambitions.
For centuries, violence has been perpetuated through society by political influence,
territorial conquest, cultural discrimination and the like. Humans are and have been a
violent species. History has shown us that mankind has a capacity for bloodshed far
beyond what typical moral constructs depict as acceptable. Nazis and the Jews, American
colonists and Native American Indians, Blacks and Whites, social and political disputes
have resulted in violent confrontation. But with social adaptation and legislative
ratification, a civilized nation is expected to become less aggressive. As new forms of
knowledge and understanding are born, present day society should become less prone to
violence. But it seems that society has in fact become more violent, or at least more
accepting of violence, than ever before. Entertainment is one facet of modern society has,
in some ways, made violence admirable.
Violence has become a theme in various forms of entertainment. Many popular sports
around the world feature forms of violent confrontation, such as boxing, American
football, Ultimate Fighting, and the more theatrical World Wrestling Entertainment. In

2. movies, violence is used similarly to entertain and engage audiences. Films like Scarface,
The Godfather, The Saw series, have an abundance of violence, bloodshed, murder and
crime. So if all of these forms of entertainment and influence are not being restricted,
then why does the videogame industry receive such criticism? What makes a violent
movie more acceptable than a violent videogame? Why do violent sports, sports that you
can attend for public viewing, receive less social aversion than videogames? One
framework for violent videogames suggests that it is the actual participation in gameplay
that makes videogame violence a danger to impressionable youth.
Craig A. Anderson, a professor at Iowa State, said “large numbers of children and
youths [are] activity participating in entertainment violence that [is] way beyond anything
available to them on television or in movies.” (Anderson, from lecture PowerPoint) In
other forms of media entertainment, this participation in the entertainment violence was
never an issue. It may excite audiences to see Batman beating up the Joker on TV, or
seeing someone getting shot to death in Scarface. But without the actual participation of
the viewer, the effects do not manifest in the viewer the same way they do for video game
users. The viewer has never actually had the opportunity to act violently in other forms of
media entertainment. Viewers never had the ability to choose whether or not to actively
engage in the media violence. But what videogames provide that films and other media
cannot, is the ability for the viewer to be a part of the story, a part of the violence. Users
are inserted into the storyline directly through virtual involvement. And while users are
not physically engaged in the violence with real people and things, by means of virtual
reality they can still act violently. This action is a big part of the foundation of

3. Anderson’s video game framework. A study performed by an Italian research team
provides evidence to support Anderson’s framework.
The study performed was rather simple. There were two groups of high school
students, one group played violent video games and the other played non-violent
videogames. Both groups played their games for 35 minutes. After the 35 minutes, there
were tests that the participants would have to take. In order to assess the gamers self
control, users were told that they were allowed to eat from a bowl of M&M’s placed near
the computer. However, the users were also told that eating too much candy to fast was
unhealthy. Then there were two more points of assessment, one that measured aggression
and the other measured the tendency to lie or cheat. The test that measured aggression
gave the winners of the games the opportunity to blast the loser with loud noise as loud
and for as long as they wanted to. The other point of assessment, which measured
tendency to cheat, required the participants to answer ten questions. And for every
question they got right they were allowed to take a raffle ticket. The participants were
allowed to score themselves and take raffle tickets at their own discretion.
After the study was completed, the results indicated that violent video games did have
an affect on the users. “Participants who played a violent video game for only 35 minutes
exhibited less self-control, cheated more, and behaved more aggressively than did
participants who played a nonviolent video game.” (Gabbiadini, 455) Those who played
the violent videogames tended to eat more M&Ms, blast the losers louder and longer, and
take more raffle tickets than they truly earned. This study supports Anderson’s
framework because it highlights the level of involvement that the participants have while
playing the games. They have the capability to choose whether or not they eat a lot of

4. M&Ms despite being told how unhealthy they are. They could choose how loud and for
how long they blasted the losers, and they could choose how honest to be when taking
raffle tickets.
The level of decision-making on the part of the participants can be correlated to their
level of involvement in media. Since they were able to choose the outcome of the game
(or at least choose their actions) they tended to act more violently depending on the level
of violence in the video games they played. The violent video game group played Grand
Theft Auto III or Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. Whereas the non-violent video game
group played Pinball 3D or Mini Golf 3D. The type of game is an important
consideration in Anderson’s framework. In the Grand Theft Auto games, the user has a
wider range of actions to choose from (specifically actions that are violent). Therefore,
they have a deeper level of involvement and decision-making, whereas the non-violent
video games did not have as much violent versatility. There are very few violent options
(if any) for the users to participate in and the gamers are not rewarded for acting
violently. Therefore, they are less aggressively inclined.
In his journal article, Video Games and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings and Behavior
in the Laboratory and in Real Life, Professor Anderson talks about the Columbine
massacre. The massacre, committed by Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold in 1999, may have
been influenced by the level of gameplay interaction and involvement that the two boys
had when they played Doom. “Harris and Klebold enjoyed playing the bloody, shoot-'em-
up video game Doom, a game licensed by the U.S. military to train soldiers to effectively
kill.” (Anderson, 772) Anderson goes on to explain that the two students took the
gameplay interaction to a whole new level beyond simply playing the game in its original

5. domain. The two were actually able to customize the game. They gave themselves
unlimited ammunition and actually rendered the other subjects in the game completely
powerless, as they couldn’t fight back. This introduces a new level of immersion into the
gaming spectrum: creation.
By giving the gamers the opportunity to create the scenario in which they will act
violently, Doom was able to perpetuate the violent decision-making that may have had a
hand in influencing the two boys to commit their violent acts. The level of creativity and
decision-making corresponds to knowledge and learning where the aggressive
involvement can shape a person’s views toward violence. Anderson’s theoretical
approach is called the General Affective Aggression Model (GAAM). It gives insight on
how knowledge and learned perception of violence can influence aggressive behavior. “It
does so by noting that the enactment of aggression is largely based on knowledge
structures.” (Anderson, 773)
The model begins with two input variables: personological variables and situational
variables. Personological variables are variables that come from the users themselves and
not directly from outside sources. They are more intrinsic characteristics, such as an
aggressive personality. The situational variables are variables that come from any outside
influence on the users determined by external situations and circumstances. In his article,
Anderson uses video game play provocation as the situational variable. “Both kinds of
input variables-personological and situational-can influence the present internal state of
the person-cognitive, affective, and arousal variables.” (Anderson, 773)
In his article, Gabbiadini references Albert Bandura’s Moral Disengagement Theory,
which was presented in 1999. The theory explains that generally speaking, people tend to

6. participate in or follow certain principles that are deemed by society (or their own
intrinsic values) to be morally acceptable. By participating in these standards of morality,
they also denounce and avoid anything to the contrary that could be considered immoral.
“However, some people convince themselves that moral standards do not apply to them
in a particular context, creating a version of reality in which reprehensible conduct
becomes morally acceptable.” (Gabbiadini referencing Bandura, 452) This level of
personal convincing can be further influenced by situational variables (if not totally
determined by personological variables). With media being so prevalent in today’s
society, it seems impossible to be immune to its influence, either consciously or
subconsciously.
These other forms of media, such as advertisements, social networking and TV/film,
can affect the behavior of a person. In today’s society, such a large media presence can
influence the actions of the media recipients (the media audience). For example, when
someone with bad skin sees and advertisement for a particular skin-care product and how
effective it is at relieving acne symptoms, the viewer will be more inclined to purchase
the product than they were before seeing the advertisement. This is also an example of a
situational variable. But what makes this situational variable different from the situational
variable of violent video games is the level of personal implication in the media element.
In the advertisement, the product presentation does not really give the viewer a choice. It
does not offer them alternatives or tell them that they are beautiful the way they are. It
does not blatantly say that the audience has to buy the product, but it does not present any
other alternatives. And of course, the advertisement media provides a more commercially
endowed situational variable rather than a moral one.

7. But in violent video games (particularly role play games-RPGs-like Grand Theft
Auto), you have the ability to decide whether or not to commit a violent crime. Other than
the criminal tasks that are required, there is a capacity of free range for the user to
commit whatever violent acts they want. You may be asked by subjects in the game to
commit crimes in order to further your status in the game’s plot line, but there are points
that are not necessarily part of the story. As in the Grand Theft Auto games, you may be
asked to sabotage a certain facility or establishment, but you are not required to receive
pleasure from a prostitute (or kill her after the fact) in order to advance the story. But you
can still be rewarded for committing unnecessary acts of violence and crime. And it is
this level of personal negotiation (personological variable) that is fostered by the video
game interaction (situational variable) that influences a person’s aggressive tendencies. A
prime example of the user-discretion element in violent video games is the incentive in
Call of Duty’s online multiplayer gaming option.
In Call of Duty, users can play online against other gamers who are playing the same
game on the same gaming system. So if a gamer is playing Call of Duty: Black Ops on
XBOX 360, that gamer has the ability to play against other users who are also playing
Black Ops on XBOX 360. There are different options for online gameplay, such as
“Team Death Match” and “Search and Destroy” where you and your team are posed
against another organized team (or teams) of online players with the objective of winning
the match. Aside from winning the match, you can gain another form of incentive called
experience points. “Experience Points (XP) are a numerical quantity exclusive to
multiplayer that dictates a player's level and progress in that level.” (Call of Duty Wiki,
XP) Typically, players can earn ten points per opponent killed (depending on the option

8. of gameplay). You are rewarded one fifth of the points per kill if you injure the opponent
and another teammate kills them. You are helping your teammate kill the opponent. This
is called an assist. You also get points for things like kill-streaks, when you kill a large
number of players in a row.
The bottom line for Call of Duty players: the more you kill and longer you keep
killing, the more experience points you get. The game designers even go as far as to
increase the incentive gamers receive if they try as hard as they can to kill an opponent
while someone else is killing them. Kill points are doubled when you kill an opponent as
you are dying. This is the benefit of the Last Stand Perk. If you have this perk, you can
crawl around on the ground with a pistol and still continue to kill enemies rather than just
dying after being shot. You are rewarded twice as many points per kill if you kill
someone while your “bleeding out.” This form of incentive encourages users to keep
killing beyond initial defeat. You are rewarded more if you can manage to keep killing
until the very end of your participation in the game. In addition to the Last Stand Perk,
most gameplay options permit you to “respawn” (start over with a new life) after a short
period of cyber death. So even after a player dies they can keep killing. Things like
headshots (one shot kills) and streak kills are all participatory and to some extent
voluntary choices. Users can choose which perks to apply to your avatar in order to make
you a more effective killer. Users can also choose how they kill an opponent and by what
means (weapons choice). It is this element of gamer discretion that is greater exemplified
in the Grand Theft Auto.
In the Grand Theft Auto game series, there is a form of incentive that, like Call of
Duty’s experience points, goes beyond monetary value. In these games, stars are used to

9. represent your criminal status. This is called your “Wanted Level.” Depending on how
much crime you have committed or how severe your crimes were, your wanted level
ranges from one star to as many as six. “Relatively minor crimes committed within sight
of the police may attract one star…Committing serious crimes is likely to earn multiple
stars outright.” (GTA Wiki, Wanted Level in GTA) And of course, the acts of violence are
the ones that get you the most stars. Acts such as assaulting an officer with a melee
weapon or your bare hands, hitting pedestrians with your car (or weapons), or setting
fires earn you one star. These acts of violence are not considered to be very noteworthy in
the game, but in real life are taken very seriously. By treating these acts with such little
respect, the violent game desensitizes the user to the severity of their violent choices. The
user does not treat assault or robbery as critically in the game as defined by real world
moral constructs.
In order to receive more stars, you will have to commit more notorious acts of crime
and violence. These acts include actually killing a police officer (not just assaulting),
continuing to retaliate against police reinforcement, and continual collateral damage
(such as killing pedestrians while fleeing law enforcement). Users do earn multiple stars
for your wanted level during certain missions (required parts of the game storyline), but it
seems like on missions, where you do not have as much freedom to stray from the task, it
would be more difficult to achieve a higher wanted level. If a gamer really wants to rack
up the wanted stars, they will need some free time to kill as many police officers and
people as you can. Or on the contrary, users do not have to kill any people outside the
parameters of the missions. It is completely up to their discretion whether or not to kill as
many people and do as much damage as possible. But with the incentive of both money

10. and wanted level, Grand Theft Auto encourages gamers to go on their own personal
rampage. The incentives of these games promote violence and simultaneously demote
self-control and moral engagement.
Whether it is the experience points in Call of Duty or the wanted level in Grand Theft
Auto, this is the encouragement that experts like Anderson use a part of the foundation for
their framework surrounding the influence of violent video games. “Recent video games
reward players for killing innocent bystanders, police, and prostitutes, using a wide range
of weapons.” (Anderson, from lecture PowerPoint) These rewards are often times
achieved through voluntary acts of violence on the part of the user. This is one of the key
points brought up by experts like Craig Anderson and Allesandro Gabbiadini as to why
violent video games are so much more influential than other forms of violent media. The
element that separates violent video games from other forms of media is the level of
participation and immersion of the audience. Gamers are not simply watching someone
else’s representation of violence in a movie, or reading about a real world act of violence
in the news. In video games, users can actually participate in the violence and choose the
means in which they assert their aggression. The decision to act violently is more
attractive to game users than the choice to participate in non-violence because in violent
video games you are often rewarded for violent participation and violent creativity. It is
the incentive for violence that perpetuates aggression in the user. And it is the actual
participation that desensitizes the user to violence. Exposure to violent video games as
well as user involvement and discretion in such games can corrupt a gamer’s moral
perspective, resulting in moral disengagement.

11. Referencing
 Anderson, Craig. (2000). Videogames and Aggressive Thoughts, Feelings, and
Behavior in the Laboratory and in Real Life. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology. Vol. 78, No. 4. American Psychological Association.
 Anderson, Craig. (2003). “Violent Videogames: Myths, Facts and Unanswered
Questions” Psychological Science Agenda. American Psychological Association.
http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx
 Gabbiadini, Allesandro. (2013). Interactive Effect of Moral Disengagement and
Violent Video Games on Self-Control, Cheating, and Aggression. Social
Psychology and Personality Science. DOI: 10.1177/1948550613509286
 Jacobs, Tom. “Violent Video Games and Bad Behavior: The Evidence Mounts”
Pacific Standard, California. (2014) http://www.psmag.com/navigation/books-
and-culture/violent-video-games-bad-behavior-evidence-mounts-74372/
 GTA Wiki. “Wanted Level in GTA IV” Wikia Inc., Delaware. (2014).
http://gta.wikia.com/Wanted_Level_in_GTA_IV#
 Call of Duty Wiki. “XP” Wikia Inc., Delaware. (2014).
http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/XP