1. Running Head: THE EFFECT OF VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES ON DECISION MAKING 1
The Effect of Violent Video Games
On Decision Making
Charles Vincent
University of North Texas
2. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 2
Abstract:
This paper examines the emerging debate over whether or not violent video games have a causal
effect on aggression in young people. It opens with an introduction and then moves forward to
examine the history of video game violence, and the fact that adolescents are regularly exposed
to this media. The paper then examines the debate surrounding this issue. It looks at several
different studies which show evidence both for and against a causal effect. While the current
research in this area is limited, this paper does attempt to thoroughly review the literature that is
available. And while larger long term studies are still needed to prove a correlation, it is
important that this issue continue to be debated and explored.
3. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 3
The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making
Introduction
Video games have become a popular medium for play among children and adolescents. While
these games offer a source of fun and escapist entertainment, their rise in popularity has also
prompted concern in the popular press and culture as to the effect of violent video games on the
decision making processes of young adults. This debate has been fueled by a series of highly
televised school shootings over the past decade. This paper presents a brief history outlining the
rise of violence in video games and explores the exposure of children and adolescents to this
relatively new media. It also examines a proposed model which accounts for decision making
and cognitive processing of aggression in relation to video games. It will also examine other
supportive and opposing views to this model.
A brief history of violent video games and the exposure of adolescents to them
Video games started to appear on in popular culture in the 1970s. Atari, Inc. released the first
arcade style game titled Pong in 1974. The game was a virtual simulation of a ping pong game
between two players. In its first year of release Pong sold more than ten thousand units at a little
more than a thousand dollars per unit (Gunter, 1998). In 1976 Atari entered the at-home video
game market with Pong. That same year more than twenty other competitors entered the market.
4. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 4
In late 1976, Fairchild Camera and Instruments entered the market with the first fully
programmable video system. The system was programmed by inserting an electronic cartridge
into the game console. From this point on, fully programmable consoles dominated the market.
In fact, by the end of the 1980s video games dominated the game market to the extent that 16 out
of the 20 top games of the year where video games (Gunter, 1998). Starting in the late 1980s,
video game manufacturers began to experiment with what the market would accept in terms of
violence. It became clear that video games with a moderate level of violence sold better(Kent,
2001). One on one fighting games such as Street Fighter, Mortal Kombatand Double Dragon
became best sellers. Nintendo became the market leader in the late 1980s, and, like Atari before
them, had clear game standards including “No excessive blood and violence” and “No sex”
(Kent, 2001). Unfortunately for Nintendo the market seemed to be demanding blood and gore.
When Nintendo and Sega both released versions of Mortal Kombat for their competing consoles,
Nintendo released a version of the game with a reduced level of blood and violence. The Sega
version outsold the Nintendo version three to one(Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2008). In 1992,
the first major “first person shooter” game was released titled Wolfenstein 3D. A first person
shooter allows the player to become more immersed in the experience by playing the game from
the perspective of the actor as opposed to viewing the action of the game in a removed way. The
game also featured other realistic touches. According to Kent (2001) “Part of Wolfenstien’s
popularity sprang from its shock value. In previous games, when players shot enemies, the
injured targets fell and disappeared. In Wolfenstein 3D, enemies fell and bled on the floor”. In
1993, the next major first person shooter titled Doom was released which featured more blood
and violence, and allowed the user to hunt other users in addition to computer generated
5. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 5
characters. Another game worth mentioning is Soldier of Fortune which was released in 2000.
The game was designed with the help of an ex-army colonel and featured 26 different “kill
zones” on the body. The game also provided new levels of realism by causing realistic damage to
targets based on the part of the body hit, and the distance from which the shot was fired. This
level of immersive violence has been coupled with an increasing amount of exposure to children
and adolescents.
In the mid-1980s children and adolescents spent an average of four hours a day playing video
games. This time included home and arcade games. In the early 1990s the playing time of arcade
games had decreased and the play time for home video games had increased but the average
game play time had stayed relatively the same, two hours a week for girls and four hours a week
for boys. The amount of play has increased since that time. A 2002 study showed that boys
averaged 13 hours a week of game play a week while girls averaged five hours a week(Anderson
& Carnagey, 2009). Even though a correlation between the amount of time spent playing
between girls and boys exist, it appears that both males and females are spending an increased
amount of time engaging in video games. It is also interesting to note that amount of time
watching television has remained the same as time spent playing video games has
increased(Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2008). It also appears that parents are not heavily
involved in filtering the video games in which their children are engaged. In a 2004 survey of
eighth and ninth graders only fifteen percent of students said that their parent “always” or
“often” checked the rating of video games before allowing their children to buy or rent them.
(Anderson, et al., 2010). It also appears that parents are not highly involved in the amount of
time that children spent playing video games. According to Walsh’s (2000) survey eighty-nine
6. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 6
percent of the teens surveyed (Walsh, 2000) reported that their parents did not place time limits
on the amount of time they were allowed to play video games.
Aggression and Debate
The discussion of how violent video games effect decision making and rationality revolves
around how they affect aggression in adolescents. While change in aggression and the behavior
that stems from it does serve as a good indicator for altered decision making, it is problematic as
used in studies. Aggression rates differ greatly across countries and cultures. “In general cultures
characterized by collectivistic values, high moral discipline, a high level of egalitarian
commitment, low uncertainty avoidance and which emphasized vales which are heavily
Confucian showed lower levels of aggression that their counter parts” (Anderson, et al.,
2010).Aggression in countries also varies by the measure used. The United States for example,
has higher homicide rates that its Asian and European counterparts, but it has similar or lower
rates for other types of violent crime such as assault. According to Anderson et al.(2010),there
are at least five reasons to expect smaller media violence effect sizes in Eastern societies than in
Western societies. The first reason may be contextual, that is, a smaller effect size may result
from the way violence is conceptualized in the United States in comparison to Japan. Whereas
action and sports games are the most popular in the U.S., Roleplaying style games are the most
popular in Japan. Role playing games often involve a greater level of strategy and cooperative
play against computer controlled players. Thus the context for violence becomes different.
Second, People in Japan are more likely to pay attention to situational context than people in
7. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 7
Western cultures. A third reason is that different cultures dictate different processing of emotions
and their emotion-action linkages. “Whereas people in an independent contexts view emotional
situations mainly from their own perspectives… people in interdependent contexts assess the
emotional meaning from the perspective of other people or a generalized other.” (Anderson, et
al., 2010). Anderson et al. also points out that Eastern culture tend to foster socially engaging
emotions while Western Cultures tend to foster socially disengaging emotions. A fourth reason
that effect may be lessened in different cultures is the context in which the video game is played.
Anderson et al. cite unpublished studies to show that, in Eastern cultures, children are more
likely to have limited access to video games at home. This would imply that in Eastern cultures
children are more likely to play video games in public spaces in which their actions can be
monitored. The fifth difference in Eastern and Western cultures that may account for effect deals
with the fact that studies have shown in the Eastern culture that frequent and infrequent gamers
tended to have the same amount of friends. While in Western cultures, frequent gamers tended to
have fewer friends than their infrequent gamer counterparts.
Another difficulty that lies in using aggression as an indicator for the effect of video game
violence lies in the very definition of aggression itself. Authors sometimes use the same term to
describe different concepts. This has led to controversy over the issue of media violence.
According to Anderson et al.(2007),social scientists and psychologists have adopted an exact
definition for human aggression. They define aggression as “(a) a behavior that is intended to
harm another individual, (b) the behavior is expected by the perpetrator to have some chance of
actually harming that individual, and (c) the perpetrator believes that the target individual is
motivated to avoid the harm.” Because the 2007 Anderson et al. study serves as a focal point for
8. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 8
the debate around the effect of video game violence, it is important to note the three sub types of
aggression which the study uses. The first sub type is that of physical aggression. This type of
aggression involves causing physical harm to a subject i.e. that of pinching, slapping, hitting,
stabbing, and shooting. The researchers state that the psychological community has converged
toward an agreement that this type of aggression exist in a continuum ranging from mild to
severe, and that violence, or violent behavior, refers to physical aggression in the severe rang of
this continuum. The second type of aggression is termed as verbal aggression. This type of
aggression involves verbal threats or insults that are intended to harm the target individual. These
can also include written expressions of aggression. The third type of aggression is relational
aggression. This type of aggression involves the intent to harm a target by damaging an existing
relationship, or to feelings of inclusion, group acceptance or friendship. Anderson et al. states
that males are more likely to engage in physical aggression, females are more likely to engage in
relational aggression, and both sexes are equally as likely to engage in verbal aggression.
The General Aggression Model
Anderson et al.(2007) outlines a unified theoretical model for human aggression which they term
as the General Aggression Model. The general aggression model distinguishes between
processes which operate in a current situation or proximate causes and processes, and variables
and processes which occur in the long term, distal causes and processes. Basically, “distal risk
factors for aggression are those that facilitate proximate factors that directly increase aggression,
or that decrease normal inhibitions against aggression. For the most part, distal factors influence
9. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 9
the individual’s personal preparedness to aggress, that is, aggressive personality.” The general
aggressive model relies on the assumption that human memory, processes and decision making
can be represented as a complex set of nodes. Nodes become linked through experience, and
nodes that are simultaneously activated gain associative strength with each other. Nodes with
similar meaning are also linked. Large clusters of linked nodes of concepts are known as
knowledge structures. The accessibility of a knowledge structure is dependent on how many
nodes to it and within it have been activated. When the knowledge structure has become
sufficiently activated above its threshold, the structure becomes activated and used. According to
Anderson et al. (2007)“This knowledge structure approach highlights the role of learning in the
development of aggressive (and non-aggressive) individuals. From this social-cognitive
approach, personality is the sum of a person’s knowledge structures.”
The processes by which knowledge structures become activated is cognitive but can over time
become automated and operate without awareness. Anderson et al. state that each life experience
can thusly be viewed as a learning trial. These ultimately lead to the automation of a variety of
knowledge structures. The importance of automation of knowledge structure in attaining
developmental stages is also underlined. According to the general aggressive model, aggressive
tendencies are most likely to surface in children who grow up in aggressive environments, with
aggressive role models, where aggression is rewarded and likely to achieve results. The acquired
aggression knowledge structures are likely to exhibit themselves as violent behavior when
situational factors both instigate and disinhibit aggression. Anderson et al. provide a list of
proximal and distal risk factors for aggression.
10. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 10
Proximal Risk Factors Distal Risk Factors
Situational Instigators Environmental modifiers
o Provocation o Family practices
o Frustration o Community Violence
o Pain and Discomfort o Culture of violence/hate
o Bad mood o Media Violence
o Social stress o Extreme social environments
o Aggressive Primes (media Biological modifiers
violence) o Low serotonin
Personal Preparedness o Low arousal
o Inflated/unstable high self o Executive functioning deficits
esteem o ADHD
o Pro-aggression beliefs o Other genetic factors
o Pro-aggression attitudes
o Hostile world schemas
o Aggression scripts
o Aggression-related goals
Anderson et al.(2007) provide three studies using the general aggression model to test
hypothesis. The first study examined four main questions and three supplementary questions.
The most important finding in this study was that a short term context increase in aggressive
behavior could be caused by short exposure to violent children’s game content. The aggression
producing content of the game did not appear to be mitigated by the fact that the violence was
cute and cartoonish or by the fact that the characters where non-human. The second finding was
that the effect was only marginally larger for younger children when compared to the effect on
older children. The third finding was that games with an ESRB T-rating produced slightly less
of an aggressive effect compared to that of the children’s game. The fourth finding was that
parental involvement tended to inhibit the effect of increased aggression. This held true for both
children and adolescents. The second study examined high school students and reinforced the
finding of previous studies which showed a correlation between violent video games and
11. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 11
increased aggression. The study also showed a corresponding relationship between attraction and
exposure to violent video games in social circumstances where the norms condoning physical
aggression. This study also revealed positive associations between game violence and
downstream variables indicated by the general aggression theory model including hostility, anger
and positive attitudes toward violence. Three additional findings are also noted. The first being
that video game violence effects on aggression and violence are especially robust, which
Anderson et al. believes can rule out a number of important other alternative explanations.
Second, those large segments of the population are susceptible to video game violence. The third
important finding was that new media has a greater effect on aggressive behavior than old media.
That is, Video Games have a greater effect than music and videos. The authors also place a note
of caution with this finding as some studies which explore aggressive effect of old media do not
use the same mechanism as this study. The third study was the most interesting, and probably the
most relevant, of the three studies. It consisted of a longitudinal study of two to six months.
Though this study was short as compared to other longitudinal studies which deal with media
violence, it still produced several effects of repeated exposure to violent video games. These
included increases in hostility attribution bias, increase in verbal aggression, decrease in pro-
social behavior, and demonstrates a link between total screen time and school performance
The relationship between video game violence and later aggressive behavior was stronger for
physically aggressive behavior and weaker for relationally aggressive behavior. Anderson et al.
argue that this third study lends considerable support to the theoretical proposition that long term
exposure to violent content in video games leads to an increase in aggressive behavior. “It did so
directly; the correlation between Time 1 Video Game violence and Time 2 aggression remained
12. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 12
significant even after Time 1 aggression was statistically controlled.” The authors believe that
while violent media in general reached a threshold some time ago to support strong causal
statements regarding the relationship between violence and aggression, they now believe that
there is enough evidence to support a strong casual statement in regard to video game violence
specifically.
The existence of a correlation between aggression and violent video games has been supported
through many articles(Anderson & Carnagey, 2009)(Anderson, Bushman, & Rothstein,
2010)(Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2008) (Anderson, et al., 2010) (Carnagey & Anderson,
2005) (Gunter, 1998) (Huesmann, 2010), but it also has its detractors. One of the main debaters
on the subject is Christopher Ferguson.
Ferguson raises several concerns about current research on the issue of aggression caused by
violence in video games (Ferguson, Olson, Kutner, & Warner, 2010).Many aggression measures
used demonstrate poor validity. Ferguson et al. state that many measures used in video game
studies to represent aggression do not well model aggression in real life. They argue that many
studies fail to account for other variables which contribute to violence including genetics,
gender, family violence and so forth. Ferguson et al. also argue for a potential citation bias.
Scholars of the effect of media have a tendency to ignore work, even their own, which
contradicts their hypothesis. They also state that a publication bias exists. Studies with more
significant results have a higher likelihood of being published than those with null results. They
express further concern about small effect sizes. Estimates on the size of effect for violent video
games on aggressive behavior range from zero to four percent. It could be argued that these
13. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 13
effects are too small to produce meaningful results. They also claim that there exists an
unstandardized use of aggression measures.
The researchers argue that these and other reasons point to a difficulty in establishing a true
relationship between aggressive behavior and video game violence. They present their own study
to test two main hypotheses:
1. Any relationship between video game playing and delinquency will be moderated by
other relevant third variables: potential risk and protective factors such as trait
aggression, family environment, stress, participation in extracurricular activities, and
perceived support from peers and family.
2. Any relationship between video game playing and bullying behavior will be moderated
by other relevant variables such as the above.
Seventh and eighth grade students in two middle schools in the mid-Atlantic region of the United
States where included in this study. 1,254 students completed the survey. 47% of the students
identified themselves as male, and 53% identified themselves as female. 53 % were from a
comparatively affluent suburban area and 47% were from a school located in a lower
socioeconomic area. 81% of students in the sample had at least some recent exposure to violent
video games. Preference for violent video games did not correlate to age. Ferguson et al. reached
the conclusion that current evidence does not suggest a significant correlation between violent
video games and youth violence and bullying.
Anderson et al (2010) respond to this with their own multivariate analysis. They conclude that
their social-cognitive model fits the current data, and that this has important implications for
14. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 14
public policy debate. This particular meta-analytical review included more restrictive
methodological quality inclusion criteria than in past meta-analysis, cross cultural comparisons,
longitudinal studies for all outcomes except physiological arousal, conservative statistical
controls, multiple moderator analysis, and sensitivity analysis.
Anderson et al’ state that concerning basic theory additional research is needed, especially on the
impact of violent video games on empathy, desensitization, and pro-social behavior. Additional
studies with longer longitudinal periods are needed. Concerning public policy they believe that
there is enough evidence in existence to show that debate should move toward how to deal with
the damage of violent video games instead of centering around whether or not the problem
actually exists.They continue to reiterate that people learn and that content matters.
In the reply to this meta-analysis(Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010) criticize Anderson et al.’s use of
“biased,” unpublished studies. They also show that while the sale of violent games has risen the
incidence of youth violence has gone down. The correlation coefficient for this phenomenon
being r = -.95.They also criticize the size of the effect observed in Anderson et al.’s analysis as
being too small to suggest significance, and they believe that external factors being better
controlled could reduce the observed effect to near zero. Ferguson & Kilburn also suggest that
policy makers would do better to spend time addressing issues which contribute greater to
aggression like poverty, peer interaction, family violence and Generation X Environment
interactions.
Anderson et al. aggressively defend their study(Anderson, Bushman, & Rothstein, 2010). They
stated that they completed a study using “state-of-the-art meta-analysis” on violent video game
15. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 15
effects that included more than ten times as many participants as the Ferguson et al. study. They
state that they created and tested strict inclusion criteria, and that their use of unpublished studies
was appropriate. They agree with Ferguson and his colleagues thatthe amount of magnitude of
effect observed could be conceived as trivial, but they believe it is not. Overall Anderson et al.
maintain their position that violent video game exposure is a causal risk factor for youth
aggression. Huesmann (2010) also supports the findings of Anderson et al. (2010) and states that
it is time to acknowledge that violent video games increase “risk” for aggressive behaviors.
Conclusion
It appears that the debate over whether violent video games cause adverse effects in adolescents
is far from over. While it has been shown that violent media in general leads to more aggressive
behavior, and it stands to reason that video games as a more immersive form of media would be
more likely to create a deeper imprint of modeled behavior, It is still important that significant
long term studies are needed to demonstrate the lasting effects of violent video games. A more
concrete system of measuring aggressive behavior is also needed so that results can be more
easily observed and quantified. While the discussion has become heated at times, the import
thing is that the discussion continues in the interest of decreasing violence among young people.
17. The Effect of Violent Video Games on Decision Making 17
Ivory, J. D., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2007). The Effects of Technological Advancement and
Violent Content in Video Games on Players' Feelings of Presence, Involvment,
Physiological Arousal, and Aggression. Journal of Communication, 532-555.
Kent, S. (2001). The Ultimate History of Vdeo Games. Roseville: Prima Publishing.
Olson, C. K., Kutner, L. A., Warner, D. E., Almerigi, J. B., Baer, L. P., Nicholi, A. M., et al.
(2007). Factors Correlated with Violent Video Game Use by Adolescent Boys and Girls.
Journal of Adolescent Health, 77-83.
Przybylski, A. K., Ryan, R. M., & Rigby, C. S. (2009). The Motivating Role of Violence in
Video Games . Personality and Social Psycology Bulletin, 243-259.
Sternberg, R. J. (2009). Cognitive Psycology. Belmont: Cengage Learning.
Walsh, D. (2000). Fifth annual video and computer game report card. Minneapolis: National
Institute on Media and the Family.
