video games encourage violence essay

October 2, 2018

Do Violent Video Games Trigger Aggression?

A study tries to find whether slaughtering zombies with a virtual assault weapon translates into misbehavior when a teenager returns to reality

By Melinda Wenner Moyer

Getty Images

Intuitively, it makes sense Splatterhouse and Postal 2 would serve as virtual training sessions for teens, encouraging them to act out in ways that mimic game-related violence. But many studies have failed to find a clear connection between violent game play and belligerent behavior, and the controversy over whether the shoot-‘em-up world transfers to real life has persisted for years. A new study published on October 1 in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences tries to resolve the controversy by weighing the findings of two dozen studies on the topic.

The meta-analysis does tie violent video games to a small increase in physical aggression among adolescents and preteens. Yet debate is by no means over. Whereas the analysis was undertaken to help settle the science on the issue, researchers still disagree on the real-world significance of the findings.

This new analysis attempted to navigate through the minefield of conflicting research. Many studies find gaming associated with increases in aggression, but others identify no such link. A small but vocal cadre of researchers have argued much of the work implicating video games has serious flaws in that, among other things, it measures the frequency of aggressive thoughts or language rather than physically aggressive behaviors like hitting or pushing, which have more real-world relevance.

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

Jay Hull, a social psychologist at Dartmouth College and a co-author on the new paper, has never been convinced by the critiques that have disparaged purported ties between gaming and aggression. “I just kept reading, over and over again, [these] criticisms of the literature and going, ‘that’s just not true,’” he says. So he and his colleagues designed the new meta-analysis to address these criticisms head-on and determine if they had merit.

Hull and colleagues pooled data from 24 studies that had been selected to avoid some of the criticisms leveled at earlier work. They only included research that measured the relationship between violent video game use and overt physical aggression. They also limited their analysis to studies that statistically controlled for several factors that could influence the relationship between gaming and subsequent behavior, such as age and baseline aggressive behavior.

Even with these constraints, their analysis found kids who played violent video games did become more aggressive over time. But the changes in behavior were not big. “According to traditional ways of looking at these numbers, it’s not a large effect—I would say it’s relatively small,” he says. But it’s “statistically reliable—it’s not by chance and not inconsequential.”

Their findings mesh with a 2015 literature review conducted by the American Psychological Association, which concluded violent video games worsen aggressive behavior in older children, adolescents and young adults. Together, Hull’s meta-analysis and the APA report help give clarity to the existing body of research, says Douglas Gentile, a developmental psychologist at Iowa State University who was not involved in conducting the meta-analysis. “Media violence is one risk factor for aggression,” he says. “It's not the biggest, it’s also not the smallest, but it’s worth paying attention to.”

Yet researchers who have been critical of links between games and violence contend Hull’s meta-analysis does not settle the issue. “They don’t find much. They just try to make it sound like they do,” says Christopher Ferguson, a psychologist at Stetson University in Florida, who has published papers questioning the link between violent video games and aggression.

Ferguson argues the degree to which video game use increases aggression in Hull’s analysis—what is known in psychology as the estimated “effect size”—is so small as to be essentially meaningless. After statistically controlling for several other factors, the meta-analysis reported an effect size of 0.08, which suggests that violent video games account for less than one percent of the variation in aggressive behavior among U.S. teens and pre-teens—if, in fact, there is a cause-and effect relationship between game play and hostile actions. It may instead be that the relationship between gaming and aggression is a statistical artifact caused by lingering flaws in study design, Ferguson says.  

Johannes Breuer, a psychologist at GESIS–Leibniz Institute for the Social Sciences in Germany, agrees, noting that according to “a common rule of thumb in psychological research,” effect sizes below 0.1 are “considered trivial.” He adds meta-analyses are only as valid as the studies included in them, and that work on the issue has been plagued by methodological problems. For one thing, studies vary in terms of the criteria they use to determine if a video game is violent or not. By some measures, the Super Mario Bros. games would be considered violent, but by others not. Studies, too, often rely on subjects self-reporting their own aggressive acts, and they may not do so accurately. “All of this is not to say that the results of this meta-analysis are not valid,” he says. “But things like this need to be kept in mind when interpreting the findings and discussing their meaning.”

Hull says, however, that the effect size his team found still has real-world significance. An analysis of one of his earlier studies, which reported a similar estimated effect size of 0.083, found playing violent video games was linked with almost double the risk that kids would be sent to the school principal’s office for fighting. The study began by taking a group of children who hadn’t been dispatched to the principal in the previous month and then tracked them for a subsequent eight months. It found 4.8 percent of kids who reported only rarely playing violent video games were sent to the principal’s office at least once during that period compared with 9 percent who reported playing violent video games frequently. Hull theorizes violent games help kids become more comfortable with taking risks and engaging in abnormal behavior. “Their sense of right and wrong is being warped,” he notes.

Hull and his colleagues also found evidence ethnicity shapes the relationship between violent video games and aggression. White players seem more susceptible to the games' putative effects on behavior than do Hispanic and Asian players. Hull isn’t sure why, but he suspects the games' varying impact relates to how much kids are influenced by the norms of American culture, which, he says, are rooted in rugged individualism and a warriorlike mentality that may incite video game players to identify with aggressors rather than victims. It might “dampen sympathy toward their virtual victims,” he and his co-authors wrote, “with consequences for their values and behavior outside the game.”

Social scientists will, no doubt, continue to debate the psychological impacts of killing within the confines of interactive games. In a follow-up paper Hull says he plans to tackle the issue of the real-world significance of violent game play, and hopes it adds additional clarity. “It’s a knotty issue,” he notes—and it’s an open question whether research will ever quell the controversy.

Do Video Games Promote Violence? Answered by Research

There is a lot of debate about whether video games promote violence or not. Many experts believe that video games that encourage violence bring out violent tendencies in gamers. However, research has a clear answer.

Several studies have shown that video games increase aggression. Over the past five decades, studies have shown that engaging with violent media, including playing violent video games, increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior. However, aggressive behavior does not always lead to real-world violence and crime. Moreover, there are other more significant risk factors for real-world violence, than violent video games.

In this blog post, we will examine studies on whether video games promote violence or not, what experts think, and how video games affect the brain.

 If you are worried about someone's relationship with video games, take this quiz to gain more insight into why they play games:

Where Did We Get the Idea That Video Games Promote Violence?

Can playing video games lead to violence?

Even before video games existed, the idea that violent media results in violent behavior in youth was widely debated. People and news media often blamed television shows and movies with violent graphic scenes for the youth’s violent acts. In fact, over the past 50 years, researchers have conducted many studies that show that watching violent television, watching violent films, or playing violent video games increases the likelihood of aggressive behavior.

Anderson and co. published a comprehensive meta-analysis of the effects of violent video games. They concluded that the “evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increase in aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect and decrease in empathy and prosocial behavior.”

However, Anderson says that violent media, including video games, are only among the many risk factors for aggressive and violent behavior. A healthy, well-adjusted person who gets exposed to a few risk factors, including violent video games, will not suddenly become a criminal. However, there is an impact of video games on aggression and anti-social behavior.

Click here to check out the parent’s guide to managing a short-tempered child/

Let’s discuss how violent video games affect your child’s brain and what you can do to wean your child off violent video games.

How Do Video Games Affect the Brain

Video games affect the brain in multiple ways. They affect our learning circuitry, emotional circuitry, and a psychological pattern called the triumph circuit. You can learn more about how video games affect the brain in this article. For now, we will go over the correlation between video games and violent behavior.

Numerous studies show that exposure to violent video games leads to a significant increase in aggression. Moreover, young men who are already prone to aggression are especially vulnerable to video games’ aggression-enhancing effects.

Some studies have tried to contest this finding. For example, Kuhn et al. conducted a longitudinal study that took a sample of 90 college students and divided them into three groups. For two months, one group played the violent video game Grand Theft Auto V, one played the generally considered prosocial game Sims 3, and one played no games. The researchers found no statistically significant changes in aggressive behavior among the three groups after two months.

However, it is essential to note that this study’s sample size was too small (90 initial participants, others dropping out further into the study). The mean age was 28, and more than half of the participants were women. That is much different from the young, 18 to 25-year-old males that are typically at risk of increased aggression from exposure to violent video games. Moreover, the participants were only advised to play for at least 30 minutes a day, which does not seem to be enough for a statistically significant behavior change, even over two months. Other studies that show similar results suffer from similar methodological issues.

All gamers know the surge of adrenaline that they experience when they find themselves in high-stress gameplay situations. The research backs this up — studies have found that video games trigger the fight-or-flight response, which causes the release of adrenaline and cortisol. These hormones prepare your body for high-stress situations by:

• Dilating your pupils to let in more light and thus, improve your vision.
• Blood flow to extremities gets reduced while blood flow to the muscles, brain, legs, and arms increases.
• The heartbeat and breathing rate increases to provide more oxygen to other parts of the body, to fuel its sudden increase in demand for fuel.
• The muscles tense and become primed for quick movement, which results in trembling.

The fight-or-flight response evolved to combat physical dangers. However, our minds and bodies cannot distinguish between real danger (an attack from a tiger) and fake danger (death in a video game). Therefore, the response is the same in either case. The body is not designed to sustain this response for hours. The fight or flight response is designed to kick in and help you get to safety and then turn off. However, when gamers play intense, violent video games for several hours, the fight-or-flight response stays “on” the entire duration. It results in prolonged secretion of adrenaline and cortisol.

Over time, persistent surges of adrenaline can damage your blood vessels , increase your blood pressure, and elevate your risk of heart attacks or stroke. It can also result in anxiety, weight gain, headaches, and insomnia.

Emotional Suppression

The amygdala is the part of our brain that governs negative emotions such as fear, anger, shame, etc. fMRI studies have shown that when we experience negative emotions and turn on a video game, the activity in the amygdala reduces. Therefore, video games suppress negative emotions.

Over time, this results in the development of a sub-clinical condition called alexithymia. Alexithymia is the inability to determine your inner emotional state. Men are especially susceptible to developing alexithymia. That is because societally, they are only encouraged to display anger.

When we suppress negative emotions such as fear, shame, and frustration, they don’t just vanish. They lie dormant and often come out during intense gaming sessions in the form of anger. That is one reason for gamer rage being so commonplace and possibly why video games increase aggression.

Do Violent Video Games Affect Children?

Children pick up behaviors through a process called observational learning. Overall, if your child gets exposed to many violent games, they are likely to develop some aggressive behaviors, especially if they play video games excessively.

Click here to check out this article on how to reduce your child’s time spent playing video games.

For kids and teens 5 to 18 years, experts recommend that parents place limits on time spent playing video games. Gaming should not take up time that would otherwise go towards getting enough sleep and physical activity. Parents should set limits on their kid’s gaming hours to keep gaming from affecting their schoolwork, chores, and physical activity.

Additionally, parents should also make sure that their child is playing video games suitable for their age group.

Entertainment Software Rating Board rates and labels all video games. Steer clear of any games they rate “M” for “mature.” Those are for ages 17 and up, and can contain heavy-duty violence, strong language, and sexual content. Also, keep in mind that even games that are “suitable for children” may contain cartoon violence.

Whether your child will become violent as a result of playing violent video games is not known. However, James Ivory, professor and researcher , says that when it comes to actual serious criminal violence, there’s virtually no evidence that video games matter.” Instead, other predictors of violent crime such as poverty, substance abuse, and child abuse seem to be much more relevant.

What if My Child Plays Excessive Video Games?

If your child or teenager struggles to reduce their gaming habit, then we can help. Ultimately, the most successful path forward to overcome video game addiction for 90% of kids is to become a healthy gamer. Building a healthy relationship with them and helping them overcome their video game addiction can reduce the effects of video games that promote violence.

Healthy Gamer Parent Coaching is a 12-week virtual coaching solution created by Dr. Alok Kanojia, known as Dr. K, the world expert on video game psychology. It covers the most frustrating, difficult, and common dynamics around excessive gaming.

• 12 Weeks of Parent Coaching: Work with your Healthy Gamer Coach in a group format with up to 5 other families to develop strategies and reflect on progress and setbacks in a supportive environment.
• 12 Learning Modules: Cover key concepts of gamer psychology, parent-child communication, and boundary-setting to create an alliance with your child.
• Approach your child’s unique circumstances and psychology in weekly 90-minute Parent Coaching Sessions with a Healthy Gamer Coach.

For 12 consecutive weeks, participants get access to a workshop and Q&A with Dr. K and weekly support groups led by Healthy Gamer Coaches. The dual support structure helps parents get started and follow-through in helping their children combat excessive gaming.

Build the Life You Want to Live

Mental Health Newsletter

Get the latest in mental health research, industry updates, and more, latest posts, hg at the american psychiatric association annual conference 2022.

HG High-Level Research Methodology

The scientific benefits of touching grass.

Work with an HG Coach

Explore dr. k's guide to mental health, quick links, dr. k’s guide to parenting gamers.

Parent Coaching

Connect with us

• Where We Work
• Publications
• Toolkits & Guides
• Data Collection Tools
• Fact Sheets
• All Resources

Do Video Games Influence Violent Behavior?

By:  Roanna Cooper, MA and Marc Zimmerman, PhD, MI-YVPC Director

An op-ed article appeared recently in the The New York Times  discussing the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down California’s law barring the sale or rental of violent video games to people under 18.  The author, Dr. Cheryl Olson,   describes how the proposed law was based on the erroneous assumption that such games influence violent behavior in real life.

Dr. Olson suggests that the deliberately outrageous nature of violent games, though disturbing, makes them easily discernible from real life and suggests that the interactivity could potentially make such games less harmful.

She raises the question of how these two behaviors can be linked if youth violence has declined over the last several years while violent video game playing has increased significantly during the same period.

This analysis ignores the fact that such variation may be explained by factors other than the link between the two. A spurious variable–a third variable that explains the relationship between two other variables—may explain the negative correlation of video game playing and violent behavior. As one example, socioeconomic status may explain both a decline in violent behavior and an increase in video game playing. More affluent youth have the means and time to buy and play video games, which keeps them safely inside while avoiding potentially violent interactions on the street.  Dr. Olsen also cites several studies that have failed to show a connection between violent video game playing and violent behavior among youth.

This conclusion, however, may not be as clear cut as it appears.

Youth violence remains a significant public health issue

The decline of youth violence notwithstanding, it remains a significant public health issue that requires attention.Youth homicide remains the number one cause of death for African-American youth between 14 and 24 years old, and the number two cause for all children in this age group. Furthermore, the proportion of youth admitting to having committed various violent acts within the previous 12 months has remained steady or even increased somewhat in recent years ( http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/108/5/1222.full.pdf+html ).  Although the Columbine tragedy and others like it make the headlines, youth are killed everyday by the hands of another.  A more critical analysis of the link between video game playing and violence is necessary for fully understanding a complex problem like youth violent behavior that has many causes and correlates.

Studies support a link between violent video games and aggressive behavior

Researchers have reported experimental evidence linking violent video games to more aggressive behavior, particularly as it relates to children who are at more sensitive stages in their socialization.  These effects have been found to be particularly profound in the case of child-initiated virtual violence.

• In one study, 161 9- to 12-year olds and 354 college students were randomly assigned to play either a violent or nonviolent video game.  The participants subsequently played another computer game in which they set punishment levels to be delivered to another person participating in the study (they were not actually administered).  Information was also gathered on each participant’s recent history of violent behavior; habitual video game, television, and move habits, and several other control variables.  The authors reported three main findings: 1) participants who played one of violent video games would choose to punish their opponents with significantly more high-noise blasts than those who played the nonviolent games; 2) habitual exposure to violent media was associated with higher levels of recent violent behavior; and 3) interactive forms of media violence were more strongly related to violent behavior than exposure to non-interactive media violence.
• The second study was a cross-sectional correlational study of media habits, aggression-related individual difference variables, and aggressive behaviors of an adolescent population.  High school students (N=189) completed surveys about their violent TV, movie, and video game exposure, attitudes towards violence, and perceived norms about violent behavior and personality traits.  After statistically controlling for sex, total screen time and aggressive beliefs and attitudes, the authors found that playing violent video games predicted heightened physically aggressive behavior and violent behavior in the real world in a long-term context.
• In a third study, Anderson et al. conducted a longitudinal study of elementary school students to examine if violent video game exposure resulted in increases in aggressive behavior over time.  Surveys were given to 430 third, fourth, and fifth graders, their peers, and their teachers at two times during a school year.  The survey assessed both media habits and their attitudes about violence.  Results indicated that children who played more violent video games early in a school year changed to see the world in a more aggressive way and also changed to become more verbally and physically aggressive later in the school year.  Changes in attitude were noticed by both peers and teachers.
• Bushman and Huesmann, in a 2006 Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine article , examined effect size estimates using meta-analysis to look at the short- and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults.  They reported a positive relationship between exposure to media violence and subsequent aggressive behavior, aggressive ideas, arousal, and anger across the studies they examined.  Consistent with the theory that long-term effects require the learning of beliefs and that young minds can easier encode new scripts via observational learning, they found that the long-term effects were greater for children.
• In a more recent review, Anderson et al. (2010) also analyzed 136 studies representing 130,296 participants from several countries.  These included experimental laboratory work, cross-sectional surveys and longitudinal studies.  Overall, they found consistent associations between playing violent video games and many measures of aggression, including self, teacher and parent reports of aggressive behavior.  Although the correlations were not high (r=0.17-0.20), they are typical for psychological studies in general and comparable with other risk factors for youth violence suggested in the 2001 Surgeon General’s Report on youth violence .

Violent video games may increase precursors to violent behavior, such as bullying

Although playing violent video games may not necessarily determine violent or aggressive behavior, it may increase precursors to violent behavior.  In fact, Dr. Olson points out that violent video games may be related to bullying, which researchers have found to be a risk factor for more serious violent behavior. Therefore, video game playing may have an indirect effect on violent behavior by increasing risk factors for it.  Doug Gentile notes that the only way for violent video games to affect serious criminal violence statistics is if they were the primary predictor of crime, which they may not be.  Rather, they represent one risk factor among many for aggression ( http://www.apa.org/monitor/2010/12/virtual-violence.aspx ).

Should video games be regulated?

L. Rowell Huesmann (2010) points out that violent video game playing may be similar to other public health threats such as exposure to cigarette smoke and led based paint .  Despite not being guaranteed, the probability of lung cancer from smoking or intelligence deficits from lead exposure is increased.  Nevertheless, we have laws controlling cigarette sales to minors and the use of lead-based paint (and other lead-based products such as gasoline) because it is a risk factor for negative health outcomes.  Huesmann argues the same analysis could be applied to video game exposure.  Although exposure to violent video games is not the sole factor contributing to aggression and violence among children and adolescents, it is a contributing risk factor that is modifiable.

Violent behavior is determined by many factors

Finally, most researchers would agree that violent behavior is determined by many factors which may combine in different ways for different youth. These factors involve neighborhoods, families, peers, and individual traits and behaviors. Researchers, for example, have found that living in a violent neighborhood and experiencing violence as a victim or witness is associated with an increased risk for violent behavior among youth. Yet, this factor alone may not cause one to be violent and most people living in such a neighborhood do not become violent perpetrators. Similarly, researchers have found consistently that exposure to family violence (e.g., spousal and child abuse, fighting and conflict) increases the risk for youth violent behavior, but does not necessarily result in violent children. Likewise, researchers have found that first person killing video game playing is associated with increased risk for violent behavior, but not all the time. Yet, constant exposure to violence from multiple sources, including first person violent video games, in the absence of positive factors that help to buffer these negative exposures is likely to increase the probability that youth will engage in violent behavior.

Despite disagreements on the exact nature of the relationship between violent video game playing and violent or aggressive behavior, significant evidence exists linking video game playing with violent behavior and its correlates.  Although we are somewhat agnostic about the role of social controls like laws banning the sale of violent video games to minors, an argument against such social controls based on the conclusion  that the video games have no effect seems to oversimplify the issue. A more in-depth and critical analysis of the issue from multiple perspectives may both help more completely understand the causes and correlates of youth violence, and provide us with some direction for creative solutions to this persistent social problem.

Share this:

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

• View all journals
• My Account Login
• Explore content
• About the journal
• Publish with us
• Sign up for alerts
• Open access
• Published: 13 March 2018

Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study

• Simone Kühn 1 , 2 ,
• Dimitrij Tycho Kugler 2 ,
• Katharina Schmalen 1 ,
• Markus Weichenberger 1 ,
• Charlotte Witt 1 &
• Jürgen Gallinat 2  

Molecular Psychiatry volume  24 ,  pages 1220–1234 ( 2019 ) Cite this article

548k Accesses

102 Citations

2341 Altmetric

Metrics details

• Neuroscience

It is a widespread concern that violent video games promote aggression, reduce pro-social behaviour, increase impulsivity and interfere with cognition as well as mood in its players. Previous experimental studies have focussed on short-term effects of violent video gameplay on aggression, yet there are reasons to believe that these effects are mostly the result of priming. In contrast, the present study is the first to investigate the effects of long-term violent video gameplay using a large battery of tests spanning questionnaires, behavioural measures of aggression, sexist attitudes, empathy and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), mental health (depressivity, anxiety) as well as executive control functions, before and after 2 months of gameplay. Our participants played the violent video game Grand Theft Auto V, the non-violent video game The Sims 3 or no game at all for 2 months on a daily basis. No significant changes were observed, neither when comparing the group playing a violent video game to a group playing a non-violent game, nor to a passive control group. Also, no effects were observed between baseline and posttest directly after the intervention, nor between baseline and a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention period had ended. The present results thus provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games in adults and will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective on the effects of violent video gaming.

Similar content being viewed by others

Anger is eliminated with the disposal of a paper written because of provocation

Yuta Kanaya & Nobuyuki Kawai

Microdosing with psilocybin mushrooms: a double-blind placebo-controlled study

Federico Cavanna, Stephanie Muller, … Enzo Tagliazucchi

Persistent interaction patterns across social media platforms and over time

Michele Avalle, Niccolò Di Marco, … Walter Quattrociocchi

The concern that violent video games may promote aggression or reduce empathy in its players is pervasive and given the popularity of these games their psychological impact is an urgent issue for society at large. Contrary to the custom, this topic has also been passionately debated in the scientific literature. One research camp has strongly argued that violent video games increase aggression in its players [ 1 , 2 ], whereas the other camp [ 3 , 4 ] repeatedly concluded that the effects are minimal at best, if not absent. Importantly, it appears that these fundamental inconsistencies cannot be attributed to differences in research methodology since even meta-analyses, with the goal to integrate the results of all prior studies on the topic of aggression caused by video games led to disparate conclusions [ 2 , 3 ]. These meta-analyses had a strong focus on children, and one of them [ 2 ] reported a marginal age effect suggesting that children might be even more susceptible to violent video game effects.

To unravel this topic of research, we designed a randomised controlled trial on adults to draw causal conclusions on the influence of video games on aggression. At present, almost all experimental studies targeting the effects of violent video games on aggression and/or empathy focussed on the effects of short-term video gameplay. In these studies the duration for which participants were instructed to play the games ranged from 4 min to maximally 2 h (mean = 22 min, median = 15 min, when considering all experimental studies reviewed in two of the recent major meta-analyses in the field [ 3 , 5 ]) and most frequently the effects of video gaming have been tested directly after gameplay.

It has been suggested that the effects of studies focussing on consequences of short-term video gameplay (mostly conducted on college student populations) are mainly the result of priming effects, meaning that exposure to violent content increases the accessibility of aggressive thoughts and affect when participants are in the immediate situation [ 6 ]. However, above and beyond this the General Aggression Model (GAM, [ 7 ]) assumes that repeatedly primed thoughts and feelings influence the perception of ongoing events and therewith elicits aggressive behaviour as a long-term effect. We think that priming effects are interesting and worthwhile exploring, but in contrast to the notion of the GAM our reading of the literature is that priming effects are short-lived (suggested to only last for <5 min and may potentially reverse after that time [ 8 ]). Priming effects should therefore only play a role in very close temporal proximity to gameplay. Moreover, there are a multitude of studies on college students that have failed to replicate priming effects [ 9 , 10 , 11 ] and associated predictions of the so-called GAM such as a desensitisation against violent content [ 12 , 13 , 14 ] in adolescents and college students or a decrease of empathy [ 15 ] and pro-social behaviour [ 16 , 17 ] as a result of playing violent video games.

However, in our view the question that society is actually interested in is not: “Are people more aggressive after having played violent video games for a few minutes? And are these people more aggressive minutes after gameplay ended?”, but rather “What are the effects of frequent, habitual violent video game playing? And for how long do these effects persist (not in the range of minutes but rather weeks and months)?” For this reason studies are needed in which participants are trained over longer periods of time, tested after a longer delay after acute playing and tested with broader batteries assessing aggression but also other relevant domains such as empathy as well as mood and cognition. Moreover, long-term follow-up assessments are needed to demonstrate long-term effects of frequent violent video gameplay. To fill this gap, we set out to expose adult participants to two different types of video games for a period of 2 months and investigate changes in measures of various constructs of interest at least one day after the last gaming session and test them once more 2 months after the end of the gameplay intervention. In contrast to the GAM, we hypothesised no increases of aggression or decreases in pro-social behaviour even after long-term exposure to a violent video game due to our reasoning that priming effects of violent video games are short-lived and should therefore not influence measures of aggression if they are not measured directly after acute gaming. In the present study, we assessed potential changes in the following domains: behavioural as well as questionnaire measures of aggression, empathy and interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs (such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness, risk taking, delay discounting), and depressivity and anxiety as well as executive control functions. As the effects on aggression and pro-social behaviour were the core targets of the present study, we implemented multiple tests for these domains. This broad range of domains with its wide coverage and the longitudinal nature of the study design enabled us to draw more general conclusions regarding the causal effects of violent video games.

Materials and methods

Participants.

Ninety healthy participants (mean age = 28 years, SD = 7.3, range: 18–45, 48 females) were recruited by means of flyers and internet advertisements. The sample consisted of college students as well as of participants from the general community. The advertisement mentioned that we were recruiting for a longitudinal study on video gaming, but did not mention that we would offer an intervention or that we were expecting training effects. Participants were randomly assigned to the three groups ruling out self-selection effects. The sample size was based on estimates from a previous study with a similar design [ 18 ]. After complete description of the study, the participants’ informed written consent was obtained. The local ethics committee of the Charité University Clinic, Germany, approved of the study. We included participants that reported little, preferably no video game usage in the past 6 months (none of the participants ever played the game Grand Theft Auto V (GTA) or Sims 3 in any of its versions before). We excluded participants with psychological or neurological problems. The participants received financial compensation for the testing sessions (200 Euros) and performance-dependent additional payment for two behavioural tasks detailed below, but received no money for the training itself.

Training procedure

The violent video game group (5 participants dropped out between pre- and posttest, resulting in a group of n  = 25, mean age = 26.6 years, SD = 6.0, 14 females) played the game Grand Theft Auto V on a Playstation 3 console over a period of 8 weeks. The active control group played the non-violent video game Sims 3 on the same console (6 participants dropped out, resulting in a group of n  = 24, mean age = 25.8 years, SD = 6.8, 12 females). The passive control group (2 participants dropped out, resulting in a group of n  = 28, mean age = 30.9 years, SD = 8.4, 12 females) was not given a gaming console and had no task but underwent the same testing procedure as the two other groups. The passive control group was not aware of the fact that they were part of a control group to prevent self-training attempts. The experimenters testing the participants were blind to group membership, but we were unable to prevent participants from talking about the game during testing, which in some cases lead to an unblinding of experimental condition. Both training groups were instructed to play the game for at least 30 min a day. Participants were only reimbursed for the sessions in which they came to the lab. Our previous research suggests that the perceived fun in gaming was positively associated with training outcome [ 18 ] and we speculated that enforcing training sessions through payment would impair motivation and thus diminish the potential effect of the intervention. Participants underwent a testing session before (baseline) and after the training period of 2 months (posttest 1) as well as a follow-up testing sessions 2 months after the training period (posttest 2).

Grand Theft Auto V (GTA)

GTA is an action-adventure video game situated in a fictional highly violent game world in which players are rewarded for their use of violence as a means to advance in the game. The single-player story follows three criminals and their efforts to commit heists while under pressure from a government agency. The gameplay focuses on an open world (sandbox game) where the player can choose between different behaviours. The game also allows the player to engage in various side activities, such as action-adventure, driving, third-person shooting, occasional role-playing, stealth and racing elements. The open world design lets players freely roam around the fictional world so that gamers could in principle decide not to commit violent acts.

The Sims 3 (Sims)

Sims is a life simulation game and also classified as a sandbox game because it lacks clearly defined goals. The player creates virtual individuals called “Sims”, and customises their appearance, their personalities and places them in a home, directs their moods, satisfies their desires and accompanies them in their daily activities and by becoming part of a social network. It offers opportunities, which the player may choose to pursue or to refuse, similar as GTA but is generally considered as a pro-social and clearly non-violent game.

Assessment battery

To assess aggression and associated constructs we used the following questionnaires: Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire [ 19 ], State Hostility Scale [ 20 ], Updated Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance Scale [ 21 , 22 ], Moral Disengagement Scale [ 23 , 24 ], the Rosenzweig Picture Frustration Test [ 25 , 26 ] and a so-called World View Measure [ 27 ]. All of these measures have previously been used in research investigating the effects of violent video gameplay, however, the first two most prominently. Additionally, behavioural measures of aggression were used: a Word Completion Task, a Lexical Decision Task [ 28 ] and the Delay frustration task [ 29 ] (an inter-correlation matrix is depicted in Supplementary Figure 1 1). From these behavioural measures, the first two were previously used in research on the effects of violent video gameplay. To assess variables that have been related to the construct of impulsivity, we used the Brief Sensation Seeking Scale [ 30 ] and the Boredom Propensity Scale [ 31 ] as well as tasks assessing risk taking and delay discounting behaviourally, namely the Balloon Analogue Risk Task [ 32 ] and a Delay-Discounting Task [ 33 ]. To quantify pro-social behaviour, we employed: Interpersonal Reactivity Index [ 34 ] (frequently used in research on the effects of violent video gameplay), Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale [ 35 ], Reading the Mind in the Eyes test [ 36 ], Interpersonal Competence Questionnaire [ 37 ] and Richardson Conflict Response Questionnaire [ 38 ]. To assess depressivity and anxiety, which has previously been associated with intense video game playing [ 39 ], we used Beck Depression Inventory [ 40 ] and State Trait Anxiety Inventory [ 41 ]. To characterise executive control function, we used a Stop Signal Task [ 42 ], a Multi-Source Interference Task [ 43 ] and a Task Switching Task [ 44 ] which have all been previously used to assess effects of video gameplay. More details on all instruments used can be found in the Supplementary Material.

Data analysis

On the basis of the research question whether violent video game playing enhances aggression and reduces empathy, the focus of the present analysis was on time by group interactions. We conducted these interaction analyses separately, comparing the violent video game group against the active control group (GTA vs. Sims) and separately against the passive control group (GTA vs. Controls) that did not receive any intervention and separately for the potential changes during the intervention period (baseline vs. posttest 1) and to test for potential long-term changes (baseline vs. posttest 2). We employed classical frequentist statistics running a repeated-measures ANOVA controlling for the covariates sex and age.

Since we collected 52 separate outcome variables and conduced four different tests with each (GTA vs. Sims, GTA vs. Controls, crossed with baseline vs. posttest 1, baseline vs. posttest 2), we had to conduct 52 × 4 = 208 frequentist statistical tests. Setting the alpha value to 0.05 means that by pure chance about 10.4 analyses should become significant. To account for this multiple testing problem and the associated alpha inflation, we conducted a Bonferroni correction. According to Bonferroni, the critical value for the entire set of n tests is set to an alpha value of 0.05 by taking alpha/ n  = 0.00024.

Since the Bonferroni correction has sometimes been criticised as overly conservative, we conducted false discovery rate (FDR) correction [ 45 ]. FDR correction also determines adjusted p -values for each test, however, it controls only for the number of false discoveries in those tests that result in a discovery (namely a significant result).

Moreover, we tested for group differences at the baseline assessment using independent t -tests, since those may hamper the interpretation of significant interactions between group and time that we were primarily interested in.

Since the frequentist framework does not enable to evaluate whether the observed null effect of the hypothesised interaction is indicative of the absence of a relation between violent video gaming and our dependent variables, the amount of evidence in favour of the null hypothesis has been tested using a Bayesian framework. Within the Bayesian framework both the evidence in favour of the null and the alternative hypothesis are directly computed based on the observed data, giving rise to the possibility of comparing the two. We conducted Bayesian repeated-measures ANOVAs comparing the model in favour of the null and the model in favour of the alternative hypothesis resulting in a Bayes factor (BF) using Bayesian Information criteria [ 46 ]. The BF 01 suggests how much more likely the data is to occur under the null hypothesis. All analyses were performed using the JASP software package ( https://jasp-stats.org ).

Sex distribution in the present study did not differ across the groups ( χ 2 p -value > 0.414). However, due to the fact that differences between males and females have been observed in terms of aggression and empathy [ 47 ], we present analyses controlling for sex. Since our random assignment to the three groups did result in significant age differences between groups, with the passive control group being significantly older than the GTA ( t (51) = −2.10, p  = 0.041) and the Sims group ( t (50) = −2.38, p  = 0.021), we also controlled for age.

The participants in the violent video game group played on average 35 h and the non-violent video game group 32 h spread out across the 8 weeks interval (with no significant group difference p  = 0.48).

To test whether participants assigned to the violent GTA game show emotional, cognitive and behavioural changes, we present the results of repeated-measure ANOVA time x group interaction analyses separately for GTA vs. Sims and GTA vs. Controls (Tables  1 – 3 ). Moreover, we split the analyses according to the time domain into effects from baseline assessment to posttest 1 (Table  2 ) and effects from baseline assessment to posttest 2 (Table  3 ) to capture more long-lasting or evolving effects. In addition to the statistical test values, we report partial omega squared ( ω 2 ) as an effect size measure. Next to the classical frequentist statistics, we report the results of a Bayesian statistical approach, namely BF 01 , the likelihood with which the data is to occur under the null hypothesis that there is no significant time × group interaction. In Table  2 , we report the presence of significant group differences at baseline in the right most column.

Since we conducted 208 separate frequentist tests we expected 10.4 significant effects simply by chance when setting the alpha value to 0.05. In fact we found only eight significant time × group interactions (these are marked with an asterisk in Tables  2 and 3 ).

When applying a conservative Bonferroni correction, none of those tests survive the corrected threshold of p  < 0.00024. Neither does any test survive the more lenient FDR correction. The arithmetic mean of the frequentist test statistics likewise shows that on average no significant effect was found (bottom rows in Tables  2 and 3 ).

In line with the findings from a frequentist approach, the harmonic mean of the Bayesian factor BF 01 is consistently above one but not very far from one. This likewise suggests that there is very likely no interaction between group × time and therewith no detrimental effects of the violent video game GTA in the domains tested. The evidence in favour of the null hypothesis based on the Bayes factor is not massive, but clearly above 1. Some of the harmonic means are above 1.6 and constitute substantial evidence [ 48 ]. However, the harmonic mean has been criticised as unstable. Owing to the fact that the sum is dominated by occasional small terms in the likelihood, one may underestimate the actual evidence in favour of the null hypothesis [ 49 ].

To test the sensitivity of the present study to detect relevant effects we computed the effect size that we would have been able to detect. The information we used consisted of alpha error probability = 0.05, power = 0.95, our sample size, number of groups and of measurement occasions and correlation between the repeated measures at posttest 1 and posttest 2 (average r  = 0.68). According to G*Power [ 50 ], we could detect small effect sizes of f  = 0.16 (equals η 2  = 0.025 and r  = 0.16) in each separate test. When accounting for the conservative Bonferroni-corrected p -value of 0.00024, still a medium effect size of f  = 0.23 (equals η 2  = 0.05 and r  = 0.22) would have been detectable. A meta-analysis by Anderson [ 2 ] reported an average effects size of r  = 0.18 for experimental studies testing for aggressive behaviour and another by Greitmeyer [ 5 ] reported average effect sizes of r  = 0.19, 0.25 and 0.17 for effects of violent games on aggressive behaviour, cognition and affect, all of which should have been detectable at least before multiple test correction.

Within the scope of the present study we tested the potential effects of playing the violent video game GTA V for 2 months against an active control group that played the non-violent, rather pro-social life simulation game The Sims 3 and a passive control group. Participants were tested before and after the long-term intervention and at a follow-up appointment 2 months later. Although we used a comprehensive test battery consisting of questionnaires and computerised behavioural tests assessing aggression, impulsivity-related constructs, mood, anxiety, empathy, interpersonal competencies and executive control functions, we did not find relevant negative effects in response to violent video game playing. In fact, only three tests of the 208 statistical tests performed showed a significant interaction pattern that would be in line with this hypothesis. Since at least ten significant effects would be expected purely by chance, we conclude that there were no detrimental effects of violent video gameplay.

This finding stands in contrast to some experimental studies, in which short-term effects of violent video game exposure have been investigated and where increases in aggressive thoughts and affect as well as decreases in helping behaviour have been observed [ 1 ]. However, these effects of violent video gaming on aggressiveness—if present at all (see above)—seem to be rather short-lived, potentially lasting <15 min [ 8 , 51 ]. In addition, these short-term effects of video gaming are far from consistent as multiple studies fail to demonstrate or replicate them [ 16 , 17 ]. This may in part be due to problems, that are very prominent in this field of research, namely that the outcome measures of aggression and pro-social behaviour, are poorly standardised, do not easily generalise to real-life behaviour and may have lead to selective reporting of the results [ 3 ]. We tried to address these concerns by including a large set of outcome measures that were mostly inspired by previous studies demonstrating effects of short-term violent video gameplay on aggressive behaviour and thoughts, that we report exhaustively.

Since effects observed only for a few minutes after short sessions of video gaming are not representative of what society at large is actually interested in, namely how habitual violent video gameplay affects behaviour on a more long-term basis, studies employing longer training intervals are highly relevant. Two previous studies have employed longer training intervals. In an online study, participants with a broad age range (14–68 years) have been trained in a violent video game for 4 weeks [ 52 ]. In comparison to a passive control group no changes were observed, neither in aggression-related beliefs, nor in aggressive social interactions assessed by means of two questions. In a more recent study, participants played a previous version of GTA for 12 h spread across 3 weeks [ 53 ]. Participants were compared to a passive control group using the Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire, a questionnaire assessing impulsive or reactive aggression, attitude towards violence, and empathy. The authors only report a limited increase in pro-violent attitude. Unfortunately, this study only assessed posttest measures, which precludes the assessment of actual changes caused by the game intervention.

The present study goes beyond these studies by showing that 2 months of violent video gameplay does neither lead to any significant negative effects in a broad assessment battery administered directly after the intervention nor at a follow-up assessment 2 months after the intervention. The fact that we assessed multiple domains, not finding an effect in any of them, makes the present study the most comprehensive in the field. Our battery included self-report instruments on aggression (Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire, State Hostility scale, Illinois Rape Myth Acceptance scale, Moral Disengagement scale, World View Measure and Rosenzweig Picture Frustration test) as well as computer-based tests measuring aggressive behaviour such as the delay frustration task and measuring the availability of aggressive words using the word completion test and a lexical decision task. Moreover, we assessed impulse-related concepts such as sensation seeking, boredom proneness and associated behavioural measures such as the computerised Balloon analogue risk task, and delay discounting. Four scales assessing empathy and interpersonal competence scales, including the reading the mind in the eyes test revealed no effects of violent video gameplay. Neither did we find any effects on depressivity (Becks depression inventory) nor anxiety measured as a state as well as a trait. This is an important point, since several studies reported higher rates of depressivity and anxiety in populations of habitual video gamers [ 54 , 55 ]. Last but not least, our results revealed also no substantial changes in executive control tasks performance, neither in the Stop signal task, the Multi-source interference task or a Task switching task. Previous studies have shown higher performance of habitual action video gamers in executive tasks such as task switching [ 56 , 57 , 58 ] and another study suggests that training with action video games improves task performance that relates to executive functions [ 59 ], however, these associations were not confirmed by a meta-analysis in the field [ 60 ]. The absence of changes in the stop signal task fits well with previous studies that likewise revealed no difference between in habitual action video gamers and controls in terms of action inhibition [ 61 , 62 ]. Although GTA does not qualify as a classical first-person shooter as most of the previously tested action video games, it is classified as an action-adventure game and shares multiple features with those action video games previously related to increases in executive function, including the need for hand–eye coordination and fast reaction times.

Taken together, the findings of the present study show that an extensive game intervention over the course of 2 months did not reveal any specific changes in aggression, empathy, interpersonal competencies, impulsivity-related constructs, depressivity, anxiety or executive control functions; neither in comparison to an active control group that played a non-violent video game nor to a passive control group. We observed no effects when comparing a baseline and a post-training assessment, nor when focussing on more long-term effects between baseline and a follow-up interval 2 months after the participants stopped training. To our knowledge, the present study employed the most comprehensive test battery spanning a multitude of domains in which changes due to violent video games may have been expected. Therefore the present results provide strong evidence against the frequently debated negative effects of playing violent video games. This debate has mostly been informed by studies showing short-term effects of violent video games when tests were administered immediately after a short playtime of a few minutes; effects that may in large be caused by short-lived priming effects that vanish after minutes. The presented results will therefore help to communicate a more realistic scientific perspective of the real-life effects of violent video gaming. However, future research is needed to demonstrate the absence of effects of violent video gameplay in children.

Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: a meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychol Sci. 2001;12:353–9.

Article   CAS   Google Scholar  

Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, et al. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review. Psychol Bull. 2010;136:151–73.

Article   Google Scholar  

Ferguson CJ. Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2015;10:646–66.

Ferguson CJ, Kilburn J. Much ado about nothing: the misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychol Bull. 2010;136:174–8.

Greitemeyer T, Mugge DO. Video games do affect social outcomes: a meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 2014;40:578–89.

Anderson CA, Carnagey NL, Eubanks J. Exposure to violent media: The effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2003;84:960–71.

DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. The general aggression model: theoretical extensions to violence. Psychol Violence. 2011;1:245–58.

Sestire MA, Bartholow BD. Violent and non-violent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. J Exp Soc Psychol. 2010;46:934–42.

Kneer J, Elson M, Knapp F. Fight fire with rainbows: The effects of displayed violence, difficulty, and performance in digital games on affect, aggression, and physiological arousal. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;54:142–8.

Kneer J, Glock S, Beskes S, Bente G. Are digital games perceived as fun or danger? Supporting and suppressing different game-related concepts. Cyber Beh Soc N. 2012;15:604–9.

Sauer JD, Drummond A, Nova N. Violent video games: the effects of narrative context and reward structure on in-game and postgame aggression. J Exp Psychol Appl. 2015;21:205–14.

Ballard M, Visser K, Jocoy K. Social context and video game play: impact on cardiovascular and affective responses. Mass Commun Soc. 2012;15:875–98.

Read GL, Ballard M, Emery LJ, Bazzini DG. Examining desensitization using facial electromyography: violent video games, gender, and affective responding. Comput Hum Behav. 2016;62:201–11.

Szycik GR, Mohammadi B, Hake M, Kneer J, Samii A, Munte TF, et al. Excessive users of violent video games do not show emotional desensitization: an fMRI study. Brain Imaging Behav. 2017;11:736–43.

Szycik GR, Mohammadi B, Munte TF, Te Wildt BT. Lack of evidence that neural empathic responses are blunted in excessive users of violent video games: an fMRI study. Front Psychol. 2017;8:174.

Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Failure to demonstrate that playing violent video games diminishes prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e68382.

Tear MJ, Nielsen M. Video games and prosocial behavior: a study of the effects of non-violent, violent and ultra-violent gameplay. Comput Hum Behav. 2014;41:8–13.

Kühn S, Gleich T, Lorenz RC, Lindenberger U, Gallinat J. Playing super Mario induces structural brain plasticity: gray matter changes resulting from training with a commercial video game. Mol Psychiatry. 2014;19:265–71.

Buss AH, Perry M. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1992;63:452.

Anderson CA, Deuser WE, DeNeve KM. Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. 1995;21:434–48.

Payne DL, Lonsway KA, Fitzgerald LF. Rape myth acceptance: exploration of its structure and its measurement using the illinois rape myth acceptance scale. J Res Pers. 1999;33:27–68.

McMahon S, Farmer GL. An updated measure for assessing subtle rape myths. Social Work Res. 2011; 35:71–81.

Detert JR, Trevino LK, Sweitzer VL. Moral disengagement in ethical decision making: a study of antecedents and outcomes. J Appl Psychol. 2008;93:374–91.

Bandura A, Barbaranelli C, Caprara G, Pastorelli C. Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1996;71:364–74.

Rosenzweig S. The picture-association method and its application in a study of reactions to frustration. J Pers. 1945;14:23.

Hörmann H, Moog W, Der Rosenzweig P-F. Test für Erwachsene deutsche Bearbeitung. Göttingen: Hogrefe; 1957.

Anderson CA, Dill KE. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2000;78:772–90.

Przybylski AK, Deci EL, Rigby CS, Ryan RM. Competence-impeding electronic games and players’ aggressive feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2014;106:441.

Bitsakou P, Antrop I, Wiersema JR, Sonuga-Barke EJ. Probing the limits of delay intolerance: preliminary young adult data from the Delay Frustration Task (DeFT). J Neurosci Methods. 2006;151:38–44.

Hoyle RH, Stephenson MT, Palmgreen P, Lorch EP, Donohew RL. Reliability and validity of a brief measure of sensation seeking. Pers Individ Dif. 2002;32:401–14.

Farmer R, Sundberg ND. Boredom proneness: the development and correlates of a new scale. J Pers Assess. 1986;50:4–17.

Lejuez CW, Read JP, Kahler CW, Richards JB, Ramsey SE, Stuart GL, et al. Evaluation of a behavioral measure of risk taking: the Balloon Analogue Risk Task (BART). J Exp Psychol Appl. 2002;8:75–84.

Richards JB, Zhang L, Mitchell SH, de Wit H. Delay or probability discounting in a model of impulsive behavior: effect of alcohol. J Exp Anal Behav. 1999;71:121–43.

Davis MH. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Cat Sel Doc Psychol. 1980;10:85.

Google Scholar  

Mehrabian A. Manual for the Balanced Emotional Empathy Scale (BEES). (Available from Albert Mehrabian, 1130 Alta Mesa Road, Monterey, CA, USA 93940); 1996.

Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S, Hill J, Raste Y, Plumb I. The “Reading the Mind in the Eyes” Test revised version: A study with normal adults, and adults with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 2001;42:241–51.

Buhrmester D, Furman W, Reis H, Wittenberg MT. Five domains of interpersonal competence in peer relations. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1988;55:991–1008.

Richardson DR, Green LR, Lago T. The relationship between perspective-taking and non-aggressive responding in the face of an attack. J Pers. 1998;66:235–56.

Maras D, Flament MF, Murray M, Buchholz A, Henderson KA, Obeid N, et al. Screen time is associated with depression and anxiety in Canadian youth. Prev Med. 2015;73:133–8.

Hautzinger M, Bailer M, Worall H, Keller F. Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI). Beck-Depressions-Inventar (BDI): Testhandbuch der deutschen Ausgabe. Bern: Huber; 1995.

Spielberger CD, Spielberger CD, Sydeman SJ, Sydeman SJ, Owen AE, Owen AE, et al. Measuring anxiety and anger with the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI) and the State-Trait Anger Expression Inventory (STAXI). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers; 1999.

Lorenz RC, Gleich T, Buchert R, Schlagenhauf F, Kuhn S, Gallinat J. Interactions between glutamate, dopamine, and the neuronal signature of response inhibition in the human striatum. Hum Brain Mapp. 2015;36:4031–40.

Bush G, Shin LM. The multi-source interference task: an fMRI task that reliably activates the cingulo-frontal-parietal cognitive/attention network. Nat Protoc. 2006;1:308–13.

King JA, Colla M, Brass M, Heuser I, von Cramon D. Inefficient cognitive control in adult ADHD: evidence from trial-by-trial Stroop test and cued task switching performance. Behav Brain Funct. 2007;3:42.

Benjamini Y, Hochberg Y. Controlling the false discovery rate: a practical and powerful approach to multiple testing. J R Stat Soc. 1995;57:289–300.

Wagenmakers E-J. A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychon Bull Rev. 2007;14:779–804.

Hay DF. The gradual emergence of sex differences in aggression: alternative hypotheses. Psychol Med. 2007;37:1527–37.

Jeffreys H. The Theory of Probability. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1961.

Raftery AE, Newton MA, Satagopan YM, Krivitsky PN. Estimating the integrated likelihood via posterior simulation using the harmonic mean identity. In: Bernardo JM, Bayarri MJ, Berger JO, Dawid AP, Heckerman D, Smith AFM, et al., editors. Bayesian statistics. Oxford: University Press; 2007.

Faul F, Erdfelder E, Lang A-G, Buchner A. G*Power3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behav Res Methods. 2007;39:175–91.

Barlett C, Branch O, Rodeheffer C, Harris R. How long do the short-term violent video game effects last? Aggress Behav. 2009;35:225–36.

Williams D, Skoric M. Internet fantasy violence: a test of aggression in an online game. Commun Monogr. 2005;72:217–33.

Teng SK, Chong GY, Siew AS, Skoric MM. Grand theft auto IV comes to Singapore: effects of repeated exposure to violent video games on aggression. Cyber Behav Soc Netw. 2011;14:597–602.

van Rooij AJ, Kuss DJ, Griffiths MD, Shorter GW, Schoenmakers TM, Van, de Mheen D. The (co-)occurrence of problematic video gaming, substance use, and psychosocial problems in adolescents. J Behav Addict. 2014;3:157–65.

Brunborg GS, Mentzoni RA, Froyland LR. Is video gaming, or video game addiction, associated with depression, academic achievement, heavy episodic drinking, or conduct problems? J Behav Addict. 2014;3:27–32.

Green CS, Sugarman MA, Medford K, Klobusicky E, Bavelier D. The effect of action video game experience on task switching. Comput Hum Behav. 2012;28:984–94.

Strobach T, Frensch PA, Schubert T. Video game practice optimizes executive control skills in dual-task and task switching situations. Acta Psychol. 2012;140:13–24.

Colzato LS, van Leeuwen PJ, van den Wildenberg WP, Hommel B. DOOM’d to switch: superior cognitive flexibility in players of first person shooter games. Front Psychol. 2010;1:8.

PubMed   PubMed Central   Google Scholar  

Hutchinson CV, Barrett DJK, Nitka A, Raynes K. Action video game training reduces the Simon effect. Psychon B Rev. 2016;23:587–92.

Powers KL, Brooks PJ, Aldrich NJ, Palladino MA, Alfieri L. Effects of video-game play on information processing: a meta-analytic investigation. Psychon Bull Rev. 2013;20:1055–79.

Colzato LS, van den Wildenberg WP, Zmigrod S, Hommel B. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improvement in working memory but not action inhibition. Psychol Res. 2013;77:234–9.

Steenbergen L, Sellaro R, Stock AK, Beste C, Colzato LS. Action video gaming and cognitive control: playing first person shooter games is associated with improved action cascading but not inhibition. PLoS ONE. 2015;10:e0144364.

Download references

Acknowledgements

SK has been funded by a Heisenberg grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG KU 3322/1-1, SFB 936/C7), the European Union (ERC-2016-StG-Self-Control-677804) and a Fellowship from the Jacobs Foundation (JRF 2016–2018).

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Center for Lifespan Psychology, Lentzeallee 94, 14195, Berlin, Germany

Simone Kühn, Katharina Schmalen, Markus Weichenberger & Charlotte Witt

Clinic and Policlinic for Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University Clinic Hamburg-Eppendorf, Martinistraße 52, 20246, Hamburg, Germany

Simone Kühn, Dimitrij Tycho Kugler & Jürgen Gallinat

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Simone Kühn .

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest.

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Electronic supplementary material

Supplementary material, rights and permissions.

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this license, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ .

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article.

Kühn, S., Kugler, D., Schmalen, K. et al. Does playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study. Mol Psychiatry 24 , 1220–1234 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Download citation

Received : 19 August 2017

Revised : 03 January 2018

Accepted : 15 January 2018

Published : 13 March 2018

Issue Date : August 2019

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

This article is cited by

The effect of competitive context in nonviolent video games on aggression: the mediating role of frustration and the moderating role of gender.

• Jinqian Liao
• Yanling Liu

Current Psychology (2024)

Exposure to hate speech deteriorates neurocognitive mechanisms of the ability to understand others’ pain

• Agnieszka Pluta
• Joanna Mazurek
• Michał Bilewicz

Scientific Reports (2023)

The effects of violent video games on reactive-proactive aggression and cyberbullying

• Yunus Emre Dönmez

Current Psychology (2023)

Machen Computerspiele aggressiv?

• Jan Dieris-Hirche

Die Psychotherapie (2023)

Systematic Review of Gaming and Neuropsychological Assessment of Social Cognition

• Elodie Hurel
• Marie Grall-Bronnec
• Gaëlle Challet-Bouju

Neuropsychology Review (2023)

Quick links

• Explore articles by subject
• Guide to authors
• Editorial policies

The evidence that video game violence leads to real-world aggression

A 2018 meta-analysis found that there is a small increase in real-world physical aggression among adolescents and pre-teens who play violent video games. Led by Jay Hull, a social psychologist at Dartmouth College, the study team pooled data from 24 previous studies in an attempt to avoid some of the problems that have made the question of a connection between gaming and aggression controversial.

Many previous studies, according to a story in Scientific American, have been criticized by “a small but vocal cadre of researchers [who] have argued much of the work implicating video games has serious flaws in that, among other things, it measures the frequency of aggressive thoughts or language rather than physically aggressive behaviors like hitting or pushing, which have more real-world relevance.”

Hull and team limited their analysis to studies that “measured the relationship between violent video game use and overt physical aggression,” according to the Scientific American article .

The Dartmouth analysis drew on 24 studies involving more than 17,000 participants and found that “playing violent video games is associated with increases in physical aggression over time in children and teens,” according to a Dartmouth press release describing the study , which was published Oct. 1, 2018, in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences .

The studies the Dartmouth team analyzed “tracked physical aggression among users of violent video games for periods ranging from three months to four years. Examples of physical aggression included incidents such as hitting someone or being sent to the school principal’s office for fighting, and were based on reports from children, parents, teachers, and peers,” according to the press release.

The study was almost immediately called in to question. In an editorial in Psychology Today , a pair of professors claim the results of the meta-analysis are not statistically significant. Hull and team wrote in the PNAS paper that, while small, the results are indeed significant. The Psychology Today editorial makes an appeal to a 2017 statement by the American Psychological Association’s media psychology and technology division “cautioning policy makers and news media to stop linking violent games to serious real-world aggression as the data is just not there to support such beliefs.”

It should be noted, however, that the 2017 statement questions the connection between “serious” aggression while the APA Resolution of 2015 , based on a review of its 2005 resolution by its own experts, found that “the link between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is one of the most studied and best established. Since the earlier meta-analyses, this link continues to be a reliable finding and shows good multi-method consistency across various representations of both violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior.”

While the effect sizes are small, they’ve been similar across many studies, according to the APA resolution. The problem has been the interpretation of aggression, with some writers claiming an unfounded connection between homicides, mass shootings, and other extremes of violence. The violence the APA resolution documents is more mundane and involves the kind of bullying that, while often having dire long-term consequences, is less immediately dangerous: “insults, threats, hitting, pushing, hair pulling, biting and other forms of verbal and physical aggression.”

Minor and micro-aggressions, though, do have significant health risks, especially for mental health. People of color, LGBTQ people , and women everywhere experience higher levels of depression and anger, as well as stress-related disorders, including heart disease, asthma, obesity, accelerated aging, and premature death. The costs of even minor aggression are laid at the feet of the individuals who suffer, their friends and families, and society at large as the cost of healthcare skyrockets.

Finally, it should be noted that studies looking for a connection between game violence and physical aggression are not looking at the wider context of the way we enculturate children, especially boys. As WSU’s Stacey Hust and Kathleen Rodgers have shown, you don’t have to prove a causative effect to know that immersing kids in games filled with violence and sexist tropes leads to undesirable consequences, particularly the perpetuation of interpersonal violence in intimate relationships.

No wonder, then, that when feminist media critic Anita Saarkesian launched her YouTube series, “ Tropes vs. Women in Video Games ,” she was the target of vitriol and violence. Years later she’d joke about “her first bomb threat,” but that was only after her life had been upended by the boys club that didn’t like “this woman” showing them the “grim evidence of industry-wide sexism.”

Read more about WSU research and study on video games in “ What’s missing in video games .”

• Work & Careers
• Life & Arts

Become an FT subscriber

Try unlimited access Only $1 for 4 weeks

Then $75 per month. Complete digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Cancel anytime during your trial.

• Global news & analysis
• Expert opinion
• Special features
• FirstFT newsletter
• Videos & Podcasts
• Android & iOS app
• FT Edit app
• 10 gift articles per month

Explore more offers.

Standard digital.

• FT Digital Edition

Premium Digital

Print + premium digital, weekend print + standard digital, weekend print + premium digital.

Today's FT newspaper for easy reading on any device. This does not include ft.com or FT App access.

• 10 additional gift articles per month
• Global news & analysis
• Exclusive FT analysis
• Videos & Podcasts
• FT App on Android & iOS
• Everything in Standard Digital
• Premium newsletters
• Weekday Print Edition
• FT Weekend Print delivery
• Everything in Premium Digital

Essential digital access to quality FT journalism on any device. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

• Everything in Print

Complete digital access to quality FT journalism with expert analysis from industry leaders. Pay a year upfront and save 20%.

Terms & Conditions apply

Explore our full range of subscriptions.

Why the ft.

See why over a million readers pay to read the Financial Times.

International Edition

The New York Times

The learning network | collateral damage researching a connection between video games and violence.

Collateral Damage? Researching a Connection Between Video Games and Violence

Teaching ideas based on New York Times content.

• See all in Health »
• See all lesson plans »

Overview | Do violent video games promote aggressive or hostile behaviors among gamers? How have social scientists tried to answer this question? Is it answerable?

In this lesson, students read about studies exploring how video games affect gamers. They learn about the challenges in adequately exploring this question, critically evaluate the evidence that both supports and rejects the connection between violent video games and aggression, and discuss the issue in a class talk show or structured debate.

Materials | Computers with Internet access, projection equipment

Warm-Up | When students arrive, have them write one or two sentences in their notebooks answering the following question:

• What emotions do you feel right now?

Then, project the cute animal video of your choice at the front of the room. Ask students:

• What emotions did you feel after watching the video?
• How did the video make you feel physically — relaxed? Tense?
• Did watching the video make you feel any differently than you did upon coming to class?

Next, at your discretion, show the students the trailer for the game “Call Of Duty” . [Note: in the interest of saving time, play the segment from 1:30 until the end.]

Ask the same three questions as above, and then ask:

• Based on this experience, can you make any generalizations about how observing different types of media can affect your mood? Why or why not?
• Do you think your response would change if we actually interacted with the videos in some way, instead of just watching, like when playing a video game?

As a segue into the main part of the lesson, take a quick poll by having students raise their hands to answer “yes”:

• Do you ever play violent video games?
• Have you played video games that are meant only for players over age 17?
• Is it hard for minors to access these games?
• Do you believe that violent video games should not be sold to minors?

Finally, explain to the class that they will now jump into the current public discussion over purported connections between violence in video games and violent behavior by assessing some of the current research in the field.

Related | In the article “Shooting In The Dark,” Benedict Carey reports on conflicting studies about the role of violent video games in promoting aggression among gamers:

The young men who opened fire at Columbine High School, at the movie theater in Aurora, Colo., and in other massacres had this in common: they were video gamers who seemed to be acting out some dark digital fantasy. It was as if all that exposure to computerized violence gave them the idea to go on a rampage — or at least fueled their urges. But did it really? Social scientists have been studying and debating the effects of media violence on behavior since the 1950s, and video games in particular since the 1980s. The issue is especially relevant today, because the games are more realistic and bloodier than ever, and because most American boys play them at some point. Girls play at lower rates and are significantly less likely to play violent games. A burst of new research has begun to clarify what can and cannot be said about the effects of violent gaming. Playing the games can and does stir hostile urges and mildly aggressive behavior in the short term. Moreover, youngsters who develop a gaming habit can become slightly more aggressive — as measured by clashes with peers, for instance — at least over a period of a year or two. Yet it is not at all clear whether, over longer periods, such a habit increases the likelihood that a person will commit a violent crime, like murder, rape, or assault, much less a Newtown-like massacre. (Such calculated rampages are too rare to study in any rigorous way, researchers agree.)

Read the entire article with your class, using the questions below.

Questions | For discussion and reading comprehension:

• For how long have social scientists studied the effects of violence in the media on behavior? Why do you think the author calls the topic “especially relevant” today?
• What are the three categories into which research on video games and aggression fall? What are correlation studies?
• In one study referenced in the article, students played the game “Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance” and then measured out portions of hot sauce for students who, they were told, did not like hot sauce. What was the purpose of this study? What characteristic were the researchers trying to assess by having participants measure out servings of hot sauce?
• What did the researchers conclude in the hot sauce experiment? How did they come to this conclusion?
• According to the author, “Some studies done in schools or elsewhere have found that it is aggressive children who are the most likely to be drawn to violent video games in the first place; they are self-selected to be in more schoolyard conflicts.” In your own words, what does this mean? Given this information, do you think there should be tighter regulations on the level of violence permitted in video games played by children? Explain.
• What other questions does this article raise? How might they be addressed?

Activity | Students prepare to take part in a discussion focused on the argument that video games make people act violently or aggressively in other settings.

The discussion can be structured in a variety of formats, like a talk show or debate . No matter which format you choose, our Debatable Issues handout (PDF) can be useful.

Either to get started or after you have finished the activity, you might invite students to post thoughts on our related Student Opinion question also inspired by this article, Do violent video games make people more violent in real life?

Then, lead a brainstorming session, asking students what kinds of questions the public may want to know about video games and violence. Jot all student ideas on the board.

The list below provides additional questions that students may want to consider. You might decide to share some or all of these questions with students.

RELATED RESOURCES

From the learning network.

• Student Opinion: Should Stores Sell Violent Video Games To Minors?
• Student Opinion: Do You Play Violent Video Games?
• Student Opinion: When Should You Feel Guilty For Killing Zombies?

From NYTimes.com

• Makers Of Violent Video Games Marshal Support To Fend Off Regulation
• Video Games

Around the Web

• PBS: The Video Game Revolution
• Sandy Hook Shooting: Video Games Blamed, Again
• Do Violent Video Games Contribute To Youth Violence?
• What evidence is there to suggest that violent video games increase aggression and violence in gamers ?
• What evidence is there to contradict this finding ?
• How should parents, gamers, or others interested in this topic answer the question, “Do violent video games promote violent behavior” when studies appear to give mixed results? What about the notion that playing violent games allows people to act out aggression in a safe space — namely, on a video screen?
• What should the standard be in terms of declaring someone an authority on the topic of violence in video games? For example, a recent study indicates that those who say violent video games are harmful to teenagers have provided much more evidence to support their claims than those who argue the opposite?
• How are the studies that explore the relationship between violence in video games and behavior designed? What do they control for, and what should they control for?
• Are there standard methods for exploring a behavioral trait like aggression or hostility? What are they?
• What evidence did the Supreme Court cite in its ruling overturning a California ban on the sale of violent video games to children? Why did some of the justices disagree with this ruling?
• Does research showing that playing relaxing video games increases measures of kindness strengthen the argument that the content of video games does affect player behaviors?
• How do public perceptions about violence in video games affect politicians’ willingness to take action ? How do industry leaders respond to these actions?

TimesCast | First Amendment Ruling

The Supreme Court rules on First Amendment rights for children making California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors unconstitutional.

Have students research one or more of the research questions they generated, or that were suggested in the list above. Students should do their research in teams, pairs or individually — depending on which grouping works best for the discussion format you selected.

Students might want to start by combing through Times reporting on the link between video games and violence , or by consulting ProCon.org for its collection of arguments supporting both sides of the issue.

The PBS Web site “The Impact of Gaming” hosts a number of essays on the topic, and NPR has a story that offers a good introduction by focusing on the question: Why do we like violent games, anyway?

Allow ample time for students to research questions and prepare answers. Then, hold the talk show, debate or discussion.

NOTE: If students will be performing in their own class talk show, you can make the activity even more realistic by assigning groups a real persona who holds a position on the issue of video games and violence. Students can use their own research to support these positions, and then one person in the group can represent that individual in the talk show. Here are five possible roles:

• Brad Bushman, a communications and psychology professor at Ohio State University, who wrote a study showing that violent video games contributed to long-term aggression
• Christopher J. Ferguson, associate professor of psychology and criminal justice at Texas A&M International University, who has not found a direct relationship between video games and violence in his research
• Justice Antonin Scalia, who ruled in a Supreme Court case that regulating violent video games was unconstitutional
• Justice Stephen G. Breyer, who disagreed with this ruling on the grounds that research sufficiently demonstrated that video games can harm children , and were therefore not protected by the First Amendment
• Justice Clarence Thomas, who also disagreed with this ruling in a separate dissent, asserting that parents have the right to decide what video games their children can play

To wrap up, you may want to ask students to write a reflection. What do they believe now about the link between video games and violence? What is their evidence? Did their research influence their position? What about the class discussion? What further questions do they still have?

Going Further | Students can explore whether violent video games bring on violent behavior by designing surveys or experiments (PDF) of their own. They might survey fellow students or members of their families, recreate one of the studies described in The Times article , or design an experiment meant to address a question that came up while participating in the class activity.

Alternatively, students might write an argumentative essay about the topic of video games and violence. They should take a position, support it with evidence, and address counter-claims.

Common Core ELA Anchor Standards, 6-12

1. Read closely to determine what the text says explicitly and to make logical inferences from it; cite specific textual evidence when writing or speaking to support conclusions drawn from the text.

2. Determine central ideas or themes of a text and analyze their development; summarize the key supporting details and ideas.

Speaking and Listening

1. Prepare for and participate effectively in a range of conversations and collaborations with diverse partners, building on others’ ideas and expressing their own clearly and persuasively.

2. Integrate and evaluate information presented in diverse media and formats, including visually, quantitatively and orally.

3. Evaluate a speaker’s point of view, reasoning and use of evidence and rhetoric.

4. Present information, findings and supporting evidence such that listeners can follow the line of reasoning and the organization, development and style are appropriate to task, purpose and audience.

5. Make strategic use of digital media and visual displays of data to express information and enhance understanding of presentations.

1. Demonstrate command of the conventions of standard English grammar and usage when writing or speaking.

MCREL Health Standards

2. Knows environmental and external factors that affect individual and community health.

Comments are no longer being accepted.

Yes, I play “Violent Video Games”, but I don’t kill people. An instance for proof is that my brother is the best call of duty player I’ve ever seen, and he was afraid to shoot a 9mm handgun. I don’t think that violent games and murderous thoughts have any collaboration.

I think no, this depend more of relationship existing between the parents and their children. i always played violent video games and never had behavior changes.

I have 26 years old and live in Brazil.

To normal people, video games aren’t to bad, but to people who don’t understand death, that death is real and its permanent, they are very bad. There are people who don’t understand that there are no re spawns in life, and they think that since its easy to kill people in video games, they might as well try it in real life.

i think that video games do contribute so some violence but also society as a hole is more violent then it used to be. in my experience video games have not made me be more violent but have dulled me to the violence of the outside world in any case the news can sometimes be more terrifying and violent then the worst video game.

Well some people think that they can do all the stuff that’s in the video game which is really in real for example blowing up cars and murdering people for no reason and get away with the crimes. But as in the real world your not going to just walk up to people and throw grenades or have a killing spree well u can be a serial killer but that is not fake like video games so yes violent video games may cause further threats or murders.

I do not think that video games make you more violent and i have actually read that these games can make you a better decision maker in real life.

Well some people think that they can do all the stuff that’s in the video game which is really unreal for example blowing up cars and murdering people for no reason and get away with the crimes. But as in the real world your not going to just walk up to people and throw grenades or have a killing spree well u can be a serial killer but that is not fake like video games so yes violent video games may cause further threats or murders.

Well some people think that they can do all the stuff that’s in the video game which is really unreal for example blowing up cars and murdering people for no reason and get away with the crimes. But as in the real world your not going to just walk up to people and throw grenades or have a killing spree well you can buy you would be a serial killer or you really wouldn’t have that great of a chance escaping but that is not fake like video games so yes violent video games may cause further threats or murders.

A fascinating way to have students examine the effects of environment and technology on their learning and behavior. I love the metacognitive thread that runs throughout this lesson, as well as the facilitation of discussion about relevant issues.

James Mulhern, //www.synthesizingeducation.net

An excellent way to have students look at this issue.

As one point, however, you should be aware that the research study suggesting that scientists who argue video games are harmful have more experience than those who don’t has since been discredited. See:

Hall, R., Day, T., & Hall, R. (2011) Reply to Murray et al., (2011) and Ferguson, (2011). Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86(6), 821-823.

The original study had been written by two scholars who, essentially, declared themselves the “true experts” and their opponents non-experts. It was not a neutral study. The Hall, Day and Hall discrediting, however, was (those authors had not been previously involved in the debates).

After reviewing a lot of literature in physcology and neuroplasticity type of topics I’ve pretty much concluded that everything affects you in some way or another.

It may sound pretty vague and all encompassing but there is very little things you can experience in this world that could effect your behaviour in one way or another.

Applying this probably correct logic to video games would result in the possibility that playing a violent video game may or may not induce undesirable changes in a subject depending on their particular set of circumstances which no study can directly control due to the ethics issues involved with baby studies being banned after some pretty seriously screwed up tests done in the past.

As a result it will likely be impossible to tell definitely if violent video games can be directly linked to anti-social behaviour (Like all non double blind control studies) but if you want to have definitive proof just take a couple of your own children and expose them to a variety of violent fictional content throughout their birth to young adult phase and provide no counter programming to see what the extreme case would result in. It is highly unethical to perform this test and likely illegal so I doubt anyone would even attempt it but you could imagine the outcome would be less than ideal in many iterations that would be needed.

What probably is a better topic to study and would generate less controversy would be how strong the concept of fiction and non-fiction is to the human mind and how strong do memories of fiction remain in the brain. This may help determine how young is too young as a lot of studies show that determining the impossible, improbable, and norm are developed slowly through experience after birth and young children often have an imperfect view of the world’s possible rules. This process likely continues well into adulthood as new situations and challenges occur. Because everyone will encounter an unique set of life experiences the effect of the impossible fiction may implant a variety of ideals/preferences/memories that could unwittingly play a role in various decision making processes. If you can dream of tetris and any other fictional media do would you classify a dream of a violent fiction as a dream or nightmare? (The answer’s relevance is your own)

I fully agree that some types of video games might become children or even adults violent. As a result, people have bad examples, since some video games shows situation like kidnaps and rapes. I also add that some songs and musicians encourage people to do murders and robberies.

I agree because video games are getting way to violent and kids get there parents to buy rated M games for them because there not old enough to buy games like that for example MW2,GTA IV, and Black Ops 2 these games are all rated M. finally rated M games should be used more caustically

I agree that violent video games could affect violence in anyone who plays video games on a regular day basis. People who play video games constantly get addicted, and it becomes very fun and interesting. They continue to play, they get better and better each time they play. That addiction could lead to violence in real life, if they are asked to turn the game off that could be dangerous because if they can’t play the game they could get frustrated and start acting the game in real life. It’s not safe for anyone any age to get addicted to violent video games.

My take on this whole video game is that it’s up to the parents to decide what is best for their kid. In essence it is solely depended on the kid itself and how susceptible he is or would be to violent images. If there is a child who is already unstable and involved in the “bad” friend group at school, than I would highly advise that he/she does not play mature games until at least 15. But if you have a child who is very smart with allot of common sense, than I would let that child begin playing violent games anywhere from 12 after. I also do not agree that banns should be placed on minors buying mature video games. If a minor buys a violent game, than the parent would diffidently be aware of it sooner or later. And if the parent deems it inappropriate for said child that he/she should confiscate it until said subject has reached an age they deem acceptable. But if the parent does in fact deem it acceptable, no harm done. to add to that, everything that can be purchased in a game stop or best buy store can easily be purchased on the PSN store, Xbox live marketplace etc. there are though age restrictions for that as well. But no one enters there true birthday on video game systems these day anyway.

Perhaps a make love not war video game would be more fun for our youth and would lead to more desireable behaviour if you could ever get them to stop playing.

I feel like they are bad in some since, a five year old boy I baby sit only likes violent games and movies, I don’t think that small children should be raised on violence, but also adults and teenagers can be more aggressive, but as long as they know they cant behave and do those same things then its not a problem.

A reason for violent games increasing angry with in a person could be because the kids that are playing’s brains are still being developed as for adults there is mostly all developed; so angry isn’t increasing with violent games really for adults. Also, kids start playing at a young age is the violent things seen are becoming more natural to them.

I dont think that video games have anything to do with violence. I understand that some of the people with the school shootings liked to play video games but alot of people do and only those select few went out and killed people.

All kidz should know that they cant go out and buy guns unless their 18 and older, and if i was 18, i wiould know that going out killing people and setting things on fire is illegal and that i could go to jail for lfe for killing someone and i could also go to jail for setting thins on fire(commenscence)

I think that video don’t cause violence, I think video games get rid of anger. So instead of shooting a real person, they kill animated people, and taking their anger out on him/her, and not kill any body in real life.

I think Violent video games is not a bad thing. It helps relieve anger out on a game and not in real life. Video games is for to get out of the real world and go into video and actually be yourself and not hide and then relieve things that are not in the real world. I play video games all the time and I don’t have that much anger cause i let it all out on video games. Video games don’t cause bad behavior. All it does is relieve stress.

I dont think viloent video games cause violent. i think that because i play very violent video games since i was very little. What about those bad people who do bad stuff. They propably didnt play video games and they still do it. What i think causes viloence is the enviorment kids are introduced and how paernts teach there kids. If video games were bad then everybody who played them would be in jail or dead. But mostly its common sense.

i think that video games are causing more violence in the wold because it teaches kids how to cause harm.kids get mad when they rare playing the games then cant cotroll their anger. some kids try to act like someone from the game then cause harm wile doing that.

What's Next

Home — Essay Samples — Entertainment — Video Games — The Impact of Video Games on Violence

The Impact of Video Games on Violence

• Categories: Media Influence Video Games Violence in Video Games

About this sample

Words: 788 |

Published: Mar 25, 2024

Words: 788 | Pages: 2 | 4 min read

Table of contents

Introduction, body paragraphs, counterarguments.

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Sociology Entertainment Social Issues

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

2 pages / 808 words

2 pages / 1132 words

1 pages / 464 words

7 pages / 3039 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on Video Games

In recent years, video games have become a significant part of popular culture, with millions of people worldwide playing them daily. While some may view gaming as simply a form of entertainment, it is also essential to [...]

The notion that video games cause violence has been a topic of debate and concern for many years. However, a wealth of research challenges this belief, suggesting that the relationship between video games and violent behavior is [...]

Video games have become an integral part of modern society, with millions of people engaging in gaming activities on a regular basis. The prevalence of video games raises important questions about their impact on individuals, [...]

Video games have become an integral part of modern society, with millions of people across the globe engaging in gaming activities. Despite the widespread popularity of video games, they are often criticized for their negative [...]

An article “Student Opinion: Video Gaming Can Be Harmless and Even Helpful” by Cheney Wu talks about benefits of playing video games. He also says that too much video game is not a good thing, but with right the portion of [...]

One of the ideas that the twenty-first century has brought to us is a new form of play and how often we as individuals associate it with technology. But why do we associate it with technology and what is that reason? Our [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Wiley-Blackwell Online Open

Violent video games exposure and aggression: The role of moral disengagement, anger, hostility, and disinhibition

Mengyun yao.

1 Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing China

2 Key Laboratory of Cognition and Personality, Ministry of Education, Southwest University, Chongqing China

Yuhong Zhou

Associated data.

Based on the General Aggression Model (GAM), the current study investigated the interactive effect of personal factors (e.g., sensation‐seeking) and situational factors (e.g., violent video games exposure [VVGE]) on the trait aggressive behavior, and the mediating role of individual difference trait (e.g., moral disengagement, anger, and hostility). We recruited 547 undergraduates (48.45% male) from five Chinese universities. The results showed that VVGE was positively associated with moral disengagement, disinhibition, and the four aggressive traits (physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility), which were positively associated with each other. Moral disengagement was positively associated with both the disinhibition and the four aggressive traits. Disinhibition was positively associated with the four aggressive traits as well. When controlled for gender, moral disengagement, anger, and hostility wholly mediated the relationship between VVGE and aggression, but the moderation effect of disinhibition was not significant. These findings support the framework of GAM and indicate that moral disengagement, anger, and hostility may be the factors that increase the risk of a higher level of aggression following repeated exposure to violent video games.

1. INTRODUCTION

Player Unknown's Battlegrounds (PUBG), a shooting game that Chinese players call “chicken dinner”, has recently become popular among young people, quickly overtaking Honor of Kings in terms of popularity. According to the China gaming industry report from January to June 2018, the top two games for sales in the mobile video games market were Action Role Playing Game (29.9%) and Multiplayer Online Battle Arena (MOBA; 17.4%), which accounted for nearly 50% of sales, and the proportion of Shooting Games has also increased significantly. Furthermore, the report showed that 35.9% of the game types were Shooting Games and 17.9% were MOBA in the Chinese client e‐sports game market (China Audio‐video & Digital Publishing Association Game Publishing Committee, 2018 ). Many games of such genres (e.g., PUBG) contain violent content (Teng, Li, & Liu, 2014 ), which explains to a certain extent the universality of violent video games.

Violent video games are those that depict intentional attempts by individuals (nonhuman cartoon characters, real persons, or anything in between) to inflict harm on others (Anderson & Bushman, 2001 ). The effects of violent video games have been a societal concern since the birth of the industry and have attracted much attention from researchers. A large body of research has found that violent video game exposure (VVGE) is associated with increased aggression among individuals at various ages (e.g., Gentile, Bender, & Anderson, 2017 ; Greitemeyer, 2018 ; Krahé, 2014 ; Teng et al., 2019 ; Velez, Greitemeyer, Whitaker, Ewoldsen, & Bushman, 2016 ). Also, some research has examined the pathways in the associations between VVGE and aggression; for instance, mediators such as hostile attribution bias, aggressive norms, and dehumanization (e.g., Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2007 ; Gentile, Li, Khoo, Prot, & Anderson, 2014 ; Greitemeyer & McLatchie, 2011 ; Möller & Krahé, 2009 ), and moderators such as psychoticism, aggressive traits, neuroticism, and conscientiousness (e.g., Markey & Markey, 2010 ; Markey & Scherer, 2009 ). To the best of our knowledge, however, there have been few studies that have examined simultaneously the underlying mechanisms of the link between VVGE and aggression from the perspectives of social cognition (i.e., moral disengagement) and personality trait (i.e., sensation seeking, anger, hostility). Such a comprehensive study could help to develop interventions to reduce the relation between VVGE and aggressive behaviors from a theoretical perspective.

1.1. Violent video games exposure and aggression

Although some recent studies have not found a significant relationship between VVGE and aggression (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010 ; McCarthy, Coley, Wagner, Zengel, & Basham, 2016 ; Pan, Gao, Shi, Liu, & Li, 2018 ), a relatively solid association has been established in experimental, cross‐sectional, and longitudinal studies in general. For example, most research in this area has found that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, and aggressive behaviors, and decrease empathic feelings and helping behaviors (e.g., Anderson et al., 2010 ; Gentile et al., 2017 ; Hasan, Bègue, & Bushman, 2012 ; Verheijen, Burk, Stoltz, Van, & Cillessen, 2018 ). In addition, some research in cognitive neuroscience has provided neuroimaging support for these effects (e.g., Gentile, Swing, Anderson, Rinker, & Thomas, 2016 ; Montag et al., 2012 ), and there are also meta‐analyses that have concluded that violent video games increase aggression (e.g., Bushman, 2016 ; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014 ).

How does VVGE affect individual aggression? The General Aggression Model (GAM), a general model to account for aggressive behavior, could answer this question. GAM consists of two major systems: personality development (distal processes) and social encounters (proximate processes). The proximate processes explain individual episodes of aggression using three stages, that is, personal and situational inputs influence internal states (cognition, affect, and arousal), which in turn affect appraisal and decision processes, which in turn influence aggressive and nonaggressive behavioral outcomes. Each cycle of the proximate processes serves as a learning trail that creates aggressive knowledge structures after many repetitions. Distal processes detail how biological and persistent environmental factors influence personality through changes in knowledge structures (aggressive beliefs and attitudes, aggressive perceptual schemata, aggressive expectation schemata, aggressive behavioral scripts, and aggression desensitization) and brain structure and function. The personality, in turn, influences personal and situational factors in a cyclical fashion (Allen, Anderson, & Bushman, 2018 ; Anderson & Bushman, 2002 ; Anderson & Bushman, 2018 ). VVGE has been assumed to be a situational input variable of proximal causal factors and an environmental factor of distal causal factors (Anderson & Bushman, 2018 ), that is, VVGE influences aggression through the two main systems of GAM.

Most violent video games primarily involve physical violence, and many of the multiplayer games also involve verbal violence (Adachi & Willoughby, 2016 ; Lemmens, Valkenburg, & Peter, 2011 ), therefore, we focused on self‐reported forms of physical aggression and verbal aggression in the current study.

1.2. Moral disengagement as a potential mediator

Moral disengagement is a cognitive predisposition that individuals reinterpret their immoral behaviors (Bandura, Barbaranelli, Caprara, & Pastorelli, 1996 ). In general, individuals have their own moral standards that inhibit them from engaging in immoral conduct (Bandura, 1990 ), but these standards can be deactivated selectively through eight moral disengagement mechanisms (Bandura, 1999 ). Thus, an individual's moral disengagement mechanisms may be exerted when they commit aggressive acts.

Previous research has supported the moral disengagement theory that moral disengagement mechanisms can make individuals reconstruct aggression cognitively; thus aggression is more likely to occur (Bandura et al., 1996 ). For instance, numerous cross‐sectional studies have found that moral disengagement is positively associated with various forms of aggressive behavior such as physical aggression, verbal aggression, and bullying (e.g., Bussey, Quinn, & Dobson, 2015 ; Gao, Weng, Zhou, & Yu, 2017 ; Obermann, 2011 ; Rubio‐Garay, Carrasco, & Amor, 2016 ). Also, this correlation was found to be significant in juvenile delinquent samples (Wang, Lei, Yang, Gao, & Zhao, 2016 ; Zapolski, Banks, Lau, & Aalsma, 2018 ). Moreover, longitudinal studies have found that initial moral disengagement can predict later aggression among adolescents (e.g., Barchia & Bussey, 2011 ; Hyde, Shaw, & Moilanen, 2010 ; Paciello, Fida, Tramontano, Lupinetti, & Caprara, 2008 ; Sticca & Perren, 2015 ). In addition, a recent meta‐analysis has reinforced this link (Gini, Pozzoli, & Hymel, 2014 ; Killer, Bussey, Hawes, & Hunt, 2019 ).

Moral disengagement is not only a powerful predictor of aggression but also a product of VVGE. Some longitudinal research has established a stable link between the two, indicating that frequent exposure to violent video games in early sessions can predict higher levels of moral disengagement in later sessions; however, this effect was not found to be significant when the position of these two variables was reversed (Teng, Nie, Pan, Liu, & Guo, 2017 ; Wang, Ryoo, Swearer, Turner, & Goldberg, 2017 ). In addition, some cross‐sectional studies have also found an association between VVGE and higher levels of moral disengagement (Gabbiadini, Andrighetto, & Volpato, 2012 ; Teng, Nie, Guo, & Liu, 2017 ).

As mentioned above, moral disengagement may be a potential mediator in the relationship between VVGE and aggression. Richmond and Wilson ( 2008 ) found that the relationship between violent media exposure frequency and aggression was mediated wholly by moral disengagement. As for violent video games in particular, research has found that dehumanization, one of the moral disengagement mechanisms, mediates the effect of VVGE on aggressive behavior (Greitemeyer & McLatchie, 2011 ). Teng et al. ( 2019 ) further demonstrated through a longitudinal study that moral disengagement mediates the link between VVGE and aggression, especially for early adolescents. However, as the research‐tested adolescents from the ages of 12–19 years, it is unclear whether the results can be generalized to adults.

Our research aimed to further test the role of moral disengagement in the relationship between VVGE and aggression among college students. Based on the literature reviewed above, it is reasonable to expect that moral disengagement would play a mediating role in the relationship. Thus we propose the following hypothesis:

H1 : Moral disengagement will play a mediating role in the relationship between VVGE and aggression.

1.3. Anger and hostility as potential mediators

Anger involves physiological arousal and preparation for aggression, representing the emotional or affective component of behavior, and hostility consists of feelings of ill will and injustice, representing the cognitive component of behavior (Buss & Perry, 1992 ). Research has explored the relationship between VVGE, anger, hostility, aggression, as follows. Anger moderated the relationship between VVGE and aggression (Engelhardt, Bartholow, & Saults, 2011 ; Giumetti & Markey, 2007 ), hostility mediated the relationship between VVGE and aggression (Adachi & Willoughby, 2016 ; Bartholow, Sestir, & Davis, 2005 ; Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004 ). But according to GAM, anger, and hostility may also be potential mediators.

According to the short‐term effects (proximal processes) of GAM, violent video gameplay, when combined with a provocation, may increase anger and hostility, thereby increasing the likelihood of subsequent aggressive behavior. The long‐term effects of GAM (distal processes) suggest that repeated exposure to violent video games changes aggressive knowledge structures, and finally contributing to enhanced aggressive personality (Anderson & Bushman, 2002 ; Anderson & Bushman, 2018 ). Rather trait anger and trait hostility are cognition correlated knowledge structures (Anderson & Bushman, 2001 ; Anderson et al., 2010 ). Therefore, according to GAM, anger, and hostility may be potential mediators. Thus, we propose the following hypothesis:

H2 : Anger and Hostility will play a mediating role in the relationship between VVGE and aggression.

1.4. Disinhibition as a potential moderator

Although VVGE has a significant effect on aggression, not all individuals are affected by VVGE in equal measure. Research has found that users with particular characteristics are more susceptible to VVGE effects than others (Exelmans, Custers, & Van den Bulck ( 2015 ); Markey & Markey, 2010 ; Markey & Scherer, 2009 ). According to the GAM, the interactive dynamics of personal and situational (i.e. VVGE) factors, of biological and environmental (i.e. VVGE) factors will influence an individual's aggressive behaviors. Based on this theory, users’ characteristics such as personality traits could moderate the association between VVGE and aggression.

Previous research has found that callous‐unemotional traits, psychoticism, aggressive traits, and empathy could moderate the relationship between VVGE and aggression (Gao et al., 2017 ; Krahé & Möller, 2010 ; Markey & Scherer, 2009 ; Rydell, 2016 ). As another form of personality trait, sensation‐seeking may also serve as a moderator between VVGE and aggression. Sensation seeking is defined by the seeking of varied, novel, complex and intense sensations and experiences, and the willingness to take physical, social, legal and financial risks for the sake of such experiences (Zuckerman, 1994 ). Sensation seeking has been identified as a moderator of the relationship between violent media content and aggression (Slater, Henry, Swaim, & Cardador, 2004 ). However, Bisch and Lee ( 2009 ) found that the interaction effect between violent video games and sensation seeking was not significant. Sensation seeking contains four subscales: thrills and adventure‐seeking; experience seeking; disinhibition; and boredom susceptibility. It may be that particular dimensions are the main factors in the effect of sensation seeking as a moderator.

The disinhibition dimension may be qualitatively different from the other three dimensions (Krcmar & Greene, 1999 ). Disinhibition represents the desire for social and sexual disinhibition as expressed in social drinking, partying, and variety in sexual partners (Zuckerman, 1994 ). It is the reverse of inhibition and describes how people reduce their public self‐awareness, have less concern about the judgment of others, and thus ignore conventional constraints (Lin & Tsai, 2002 ). Research has found that the disinhibition dimension and the experience‐seeking dimension are related to adolescents’ exposure to violent television positively and negatively, respectively (Krcmar & Greene, 1999 ). Additionally, Aluja‐Fabregat ( 2000 ) found a positive relation between disinhibition and exposure to violent films in 8th‐grade boys and girls. Moreover, a recent study that compared gamers (former and ongoing) with non‐gamers found an association between disinhibition and VVGE (Kimmig, Andringa, & Derntl, 2018 ). Consequently, it seems that disinhibition is the main factor in the moderation of the relationship between VVGE and aggression via sensation seeking.

However, although research has identified sensation seeking as a moderator in the relationship between violent media use and aggression, some studies have not found this effect with regard to VVGE. Given the findings cited above, it is reasonable to deduce that the disinhibition dimension may play a different role in the relationship between VVGE and aggression. Thus we propose the following hypothesis:

H3 : Disinhibition will moderate the relationship between violent video games exposure and aggression.

1.5. The present study

The aims of the present study were twofold: first, we aimed to examine the mediating effect of moral disengagement, anger, and hostility in the relationship between VVGE and aggression among college students. Second, we aimed to examine whether disinhibition dimension of sensation seeking plays a role as a moderator between VVGE and aggression. These two questions can address the mechanisms of both mediation (i.e., how does VVGE increase aggression), and moderation (i.e., when and for whom is the effect most potent) of the relationship between VVGE and aggression.

2. METHOD AND MATERIALS

2.1. participants.

The present study used convenient cluster sampling technology to recruit 855 college students from five universities in China as participants, based on the accessibility. We recovered 757 surveys, and among them were 547 valid responses (excluding incomplete surveys and false answers). The final sample included 265 males and 282 females. The participants’ ages ranged from 16 to 26 years ( M  =   19.34; standard deviation  =   1.01).

2.2. Measures

2.2.1. video game questionnaire.

To measure VVGE, we used the video game questionnaire adapted by Gentile et al. ( 2004 ) from Anderson and Dill ( 2000 ). Participants were asked to list their three favorite video games, including any games played on computers, video game consoles, hand‐held devices, or in video arcades. They were also asked to record the frequency of their play on a 7‐point scale for each game (1   =   “rarely”, 7   =   “often”). They then rated the extent of the violence of each game's content and graphics on a 7‐point scale (1   =   “little or no violence”, 7   =   “extremely violent”). The average rating of the video games was used as the overall index of the VVGE. The index was calculated as: ∑[(the content rating + the graphics rating) × (the weekday frequency × 5 + the weekend frequency × 2)] ÷ the number of games. And participants who never played video games were given a VVGE score of one. The higher the score is, the higher the level of VVGE will be. In the present study, Cronbach's α for the scale is 0.83.

2.2.2. Moral disengagement scale (MDS)

The MDS was used to measure moral disengagement (Bandura et al., 1996 ). The Chinese version has been demonstrated to be a reliable and valid measurement (Yang & Wang, 2012 ). The scale includes 32 items divided into eight mechanisms: moral justification, euphemistic language, advantageous comparison, displacement of responsibility, diffusion of responsibility, distorting consequences, attribution of blame, and dehumanization. All items use a 5‐point scale (1   =   “strongly disagree”, 5   =   “strongly agree”), and higher total scores indicate higher levels of moral disengagement. In the present study, Cronbach's α for the scale is 0.94.

2.2.3. Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire (BPAQ)

The BPAQ consists of 29 items, divided into four dimensions: physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility (Buss & Perry, 1992 ). All items use a 5‐point scale (1 = “strongly disagree”, 5 = “strongly agree”). The Chinese version of BPAQ has high validity and reliability (Wang et al., 2016 ). In the present study, Cronbach's α for the scale is 0.91.

The present study used the physical aggression and verbal aggression subscales to assess the trait aggressive behavior, and anger and hostility subscales to access the trait anger and trait hostility. Higher scores indicate higher aggression trait, respectively. In the present study, Cronbach's α for the physical aggression subscale is 0.81, verbal aggression subscale is 0.74, anger subscale is 0.83; hostility subscale is 0.80.

2.2.4. Sensation‐seeking scale (SSS‐V)

The SSS‐V (Zuckerman, Eysenck, & Eysenck, 1978 ) consists of 40 items based on forced choice. Participants choose one statement from two options that best describes them and receive one point for each choice that corresponds to sensation seeking. The Chinese version of the SSS‐V (Wang et al., 2000 ) shows good validity and reliability and has been widely used. In the present study, Cronbach's α for the sensation‐seeking scale is 0.61. The study used the disinhibition subscale to measure disinhibition; higher disinhibition scores represent higher disinhibition tendencies. Cronbach's α for the disinhibition subscale is 0.52, higher disinhibition scores represent higher disinhibition tendencies.

2.3. Procedure and data analysis

The study was approved by the researchers’ University Ethics Committee. Before the investigation, all participants were told that the study was being conducted anonymously and that their information would remain confidential. We then obtained informed consent and participants completed the questionnaires, guided by trained researchers. All the participants were voluntary and they were free to withdraw from the study at any time.

Descriptive statistics, gender differences, correlation analysis, and regression analysis of main variables were conducted using SPSS 22.0. The mediation and moderation analysis was carried out using PROCESS macro (Hayes, 2013 ). The bootstrapping method (Hayes, 2013 ; Preacher & Hayes, 2004 ), which can attain robust standard errors for parameter estimation, was used to test the significance of the mediating effect and moderating effect. We set 5,000 bootstrapping samples and 95% bias‐corrected confidence intervals (CI). Cl containing zero indicated significant effects.

3.1. Preliminary analyses

The study used a self‐report design to collect data, which meant that common method variance may have existed. We used Harman's single‐factor test to test the common method bias. The test showed that there were 36 factors with eigenvalues greater than one, which together explained 65.24% of the total variance, with the largest single factor explaining 14.23% of the variance, which is less than the judgment standards of 40% (Podsakoff, Mackenzie, Lee, & Podsakoff, 2003 ). Therefore, the common method bias was not problematic in this study.

Table ​ Table1 1 shows the correlations between the main variables with gender dummy coded. VVGE was positively associated with moral disengagement, disinhibition, and the four aggressive traits, which were positively correlated with each other. Moral disengagement was positively associated with both the disinhibition and the four aggressive traits. Disinhibition was positively associated with the four aggressive traits. Gender, as a covariate in subsequent analyses, was positively associated with every variable except trait anger.

Correlations and means of study variables

Abbreviation: VVGE, violent video games exposure.

3.2. The mediating effect of moral disengagement, anger, and hostility

To test Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 that moral disengagement, anger, and hostility would mediate the relationship between VVGE and aggression, we conducted the PROCESS macro Model 4 of SPSS (Hayes, 2013 ) with all data standardized. In the model, VVGE was entered as the predictor, moral disengagement, anger, and hostility as the mediators, aggressive behavior (the composite of physical aggression and verbal aggression) as the outcome variable, and gender was included as a covariate. The mediation effects of moral disengagement (0.03), anger (0.10), and hostility (0.02) were significant (see Table ​ Table2, 2 , Table ​ Table3, 3 , and Figure ​ Figure1). 1 ). Moral disengagement, anger, and hostility accounted for 14.29, 47.62, and 9.52% of the total effect, respectively. When controlling for moral disengagement, anger, and hostility, the direct effect of VVGE on aggression was not significant ( β  = 0.06; standard error  = 0.03; 95% CI = [−0.001, 0.12]). Moral disengagement, anger, and hostility wholly mediated the relationship between VVGE and aggression with 71.43% of the total effect.

Testing the mediation effect of violent video games exposure on aggression (standardized coefficient)

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval; VVGE, violent video games exposure.

The direct effect and the mediation effect of moral disengagement, anger, and hostility

Abbreviation: CI, confidence interval; ab, the mediation effect.

The relationship between VVGE, moral disengagement, anger, hostility, and aggressive behavior. VVGE, violent video games exposure

3.3. The moderating effect of disinhibition

To test Hypothesis 3 that disinhibition would moderate the relationship between VVGE and aggression, we conducted the PROCESS macro Model 1 of SPSS with disinhibition as a moderator, VVGE as the predictor, aggressive behavior as the outcome variable, gender as a covariate (Hayes, 2013 ). The results showed that the moderation effect of disinhibition was not significant ( β  = −0.04, t  = −0.90, 95% CI = [−0.12, 0.04]), see Table ​ Table4 4 .

Testing the moderation effect of violent video games on aggression (standardized coefficient)

4. DISCUSSION

Consistent with H1, our study found that moral disengagement played a mediating role in the relationship between VVGE and aggression, suggesting that college students with high levels of VVGE are more likely to use moral disengagement mechanisms, further resulting in enhanced aggressive behavior trait. This finding is consistent with the research of Teng et al. ( 2019 ), indicating that the mediation effect of moral disengagement can be generalized to adult college students. The result also adds support for the GAM by the indication that VVGE influences an individual's internal state of cognition—specifically, the cognitive predisposition of moral disengagement (Bandura et al., 1996 )—and ultimately an individual's level of aggression (Anderson, & Bushman, 2002 ; Anderson, & Bushman, 2018 ).

Each of the separate links in the mediation model is noteworthy. VVGE was positively associated with moral disengagement, the first stage of the mediation process, and this result is consistent with previous research (e.g., Gabbiadini et al., 2012 ; Greitemeyer & McLatchie, 2011 ). Teng et al. ( 2017 ) explained this result by the use of Bandura's social cognitive theory; that is, VVGE as a contextual variable influences an individual's moral values and cognition, including moral disengagement (Bandura, 2001 ). Moral disengagement was positively associated with aggressive tendencies, the second stage of the mediation process, and this adds support for previous research (e.g., Paciello et al., 2008 ; Wang et al., 2016 ). Bandura's moral disengagement theory proposes that the eight moral disengagement mechanisms can encourage individuals to reconstruct aggression cognitively (e.g., by making the outcome of their behavior appear less harmful; by minimizing their role in the outcome; and by reducing their recognition for the victim), thus aggression is more likely to occur (Bandura et al., 1996 ). Shu, Gino, and Bazerman ( 2011 ) suggest that moral disengagement influences anticipatory guilt reactions, prosocial tendencies, and cognitive and affective reactions; effects that are conducive to immoral or antisocial behavior, such as aggression.

Consistent with H2, our study found that anger and hostility mediated the relationship between VVGE and aggression, suggesting that high level of VVGE is associated with increased anger and hostility in college students, which finally resulted in enhanced aggressive behavior trait. This is in line with the findings from some previous work (Adachi & Willoughby, 2016 ; Bartholow et al., 2005 ; Gentile et al., 2004 ). The result supports the long‐term effects (distal processes) of GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002 ; Anderson, & Bushman, 2018 ), that repeated VVGE over longer periods of time leads to elevations in more stable aggressive traits (trait anger, trait hostility), and such traits are part of aggression‐related knowledge structures. Finally, the reinforced knowledge structures contribute to the enhancement of aggressive personality, which further influence individuals’ decision together with situational variables.

With regard to H3, our study found that the moderation role of disinhibition, a dimension of sensation seeking, between VVGE and aggression was not significant. Disinhibition represents stimulation seeking through experiences with other individuals, using substances to feel disinhibited, and living a “hedonistic lifestyle” (Wilson & Scarpa, 2014 ). The characteristics of violent video games provide users with an opportunity for obtaining such experiences above. First, many violent video games are now large online multirole cooperative games, making them a kind of collective activity. Then, violent video games are full of violent and bloody content with immediate reinforcement (Teng et al., 2014 ) whilst a player can be anonymous; characteristics that make playing such games an unrestricted activity. Players of violent video games can do anything they want and perform acts that they cannot do in real life. And in this process, players are in an excited state with increased physiological arousal (Anderson et al., 2010 ); that is, through violent video gameplay, players can feel disinhibited and live a hedonistic lifestyle. These considerations help to explain the strong association between violent video games and disinhibition, but our results suggest that disinhibition is not the main factor in sensation seeking to moderate the relationship between VVGE and aggression. It may be due to the low reliability of sensation seeking scales and the disinhibition subscales. Actually, a few college students said they could not make a decision between some forced choices, because they never experienced some activities on the scale. Besides, some activities are forbidden (such as drugs) and some activities are not suitable to be discussed in public (such as sex) in China. So some items may not adapt to Chinese society situation and should be localized first. Or other materials to measure sensation seeking and inhibition should be considered.

The present study expands previous research by generalizing the mediation effect of moral disengagement to adult college students and exploring trait anger and trait hostility as the mediators in the relationship between VVGE and aggression. The results also add support for the social cognitive theory and the GAM to a certain extent. Reducing exposure to violent video games and the probability of moral standards being deactivated (Teng et al., 2019 ) may be an effective intervention to reduce aggression.

However, the study has several limitations. First, the datasets were collected through cross‐sectional methods, and this limits the inference of causal relationships. Longitudinal research should be conducted in the future. Second, we used self‐report questionnaires to gather the data. Although the common method bias was not problematic, as shown in the preliminary analysis, social desirability bias may exist. Moreover, players with higher levels of moral disengagement or aggression may evaluate the violence level of games lower than their counterparts. Future research could collect data from multiple informants and explore mediation and moderation effects through experimental research. Third, the research methods and sample (using only five universities in southwest China) may have influenced the size of the effects; selecting a more representative sample or improving the research methods may help to increase the size of the effects.

CONFLICTS OF INTEREST

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Supporting information

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by the National Social Science Foundation of China (grant no. 14XSH013, Grant No. 19BSH112), Chongqing Research Program of Basic Research and Frontier Technology (cstc2018jcyjAX0480), and the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (grant no. SWU1909226).

Yao M, Zhou Y, Li J, Gao X. Violent video games exposure and aggression: The role of moral disengagement, anger, hostility and disinhibition . Aggr Behav . 2019; 45 :662–670. 10.1002/ab.21860 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• Adachi, P. J. C. , & Willoughby, T. (2016). The longitudinal association between competitive video game play and aggression among adolescents and young adults . Child Development , 87 ( 6 ), 1877–1892. 10.1111/cdev.12556 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Allen, J. J. , Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2018). The general aggression model . Current Opinion in Psychology , 19 , 75–80. 10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.034 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Aluja‐Fabregat, A. (2000). Personality and curiosity about TV and films violence in adolescents . Personality and Individual Differences , 29 ( 2 ), 379–392. 10.1016/S0191-8869(99)00200-7 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta‐analytic review of the scientific literature . Psychological Science , 12 , 353–359. 10.1111/1467-9280.00366 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression . Annual Review of Psychology , 53 , 27–51. 10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Bushman, B. J. (2018). Media violence and the general aggression model . Journal of Social Issues , 74 ( 2 ), 386–413. 10.1111/josi.12275 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 772–790. 10.1037//0022-3514.78.4.772 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Gentile, D. A. , & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects on children and adolescents: Theory, research, and public policy . Oxford University Press; 10.1111/j.1475-3588.2008.00486_3.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Anderson, C. A. , Shibuya, A. , Ihori, N. , Swing, E. L. , Bushman, B. J. , Sakamoto, A. , … Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta‐analytic review . Psychological Bulletin , 136 , 151–173. 10.1037/a0018251 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura, A. (1990). Selective activation and disengagement of moral control . Journal of Social Issues , 46 , 27–46. 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1990.tb00270.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura, A. (1999). Moral disengagement in the perpetration of inhumanities . Personality and Social Psychology Review , 3 , 193–209. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0303_3 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective . Annual Review of Psychology , 52 , 1–26. 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bandura, A. , Barbaranelli, C. , Caprara, G. V. , & Pastorelli, C. (1996). Mechanisms of moral disengagement in the exercise of moral agency . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 71 , 364–374. 10.1037//0022-3514.71.2.364 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Barchia, K. , & Bussey, K. (2011). Individual and collective social cognitive influences on peer aggression: Exploring the contribution of aggression efficacy, moral disengagement, and collective efficacy . Aggressive Behavior , 37 ( 2 ), 107–120. 10.1002/ab.20375 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bartholow, B. D. , Sestir, M. A. , & Davis, E. B. (2005). Correlates and consequences of exposure to video game violence: Hostile personality, empathy, and aggressive behavior . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 31 ( 11 ), 1573–1586. 10.1177/0146167205277205 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bisch, S. J. , & Lee, M. J. (2009). Does violent video game play influence players' aggressive thoughts? An investigation based on sensation seeking tendency. Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication . Conference Paper.
• Bushman, B. J. (2016). Violent media and hostile appraisals: A meta‐analytic review . Aggressive Behavior , 42 , 605–613. 10.1002/ab.21655 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Buss, A. H. , & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire . Journal of Personality & Social Psychology , 63 , 452–459. 10.1037//0022-3514.63.3.452 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Bussey, K. , Quinn, C. , & Dobson, J. (2015). The moderating role of empathic concern and perspective taking on the relationship between moral disengagement and aggression . Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly , 61 , 10–29. 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.1.0010 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• China Audio‐video and Digital Publishing Association Game Publishing Committee . (2018). China Gaming Industry Report . In Chinese.
• Engelhardt, C. R. , Bartholow, B. D. , & Saults, J. S. (2011). Violent and nonviolent video games differentially affect physical aggression for individuals high vs. low in dispositional anger . Aggressive Behavior , 37 ( 6 ), 539–546. 10.1002/ab.20411 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Exelmans, L. , Custers, K. , & Van den Bulck, J. (2015). Violent video games and delinquent behavior in adolescents: A risk factor perspective . Aggressive Behavior , 41 ( 3 ), 267–279. 10.1002/ab.21587 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Ferguson, C. J. , & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in Eastern and Western nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010) . Psychological Bulletin , 136 , 174–178. 10.1037/a0018566 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gabbiadini, A. , Andrighetto, L. , & Volpato, C. (2012). Brief report: Does exposure to violent video games increase moral disengagement among adolescents? Journal of Adolescence , 35 , 1403–1406. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2012.06.001 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gao, X. , Weng, L. , Zhou, Y. , & Yu, H. (2017). The influence of empathy and morality of violent video game characters on gamers' aggression . Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 1863 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01863 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentile, D. A. , Bender, P. K. , & Anderson, C. A. (2017). Violent video game effects on salivary cortisol, arousal, and aggressive thoughts in children . Computers in Human Behavior , 70 , 39–43. 10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.045 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentile, D. A. , Li, D. , Khoo, A. , Prot, S. , & Anderson, C. A. (2014). Mediators and moderators of long‐term effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior: Practice, thinking, and action . Jama Pediatrics , 168 , 450–457. 10.1001/jamapediatrics.2014.63 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentile, D. A. , Lynch, P. J. , Linder, J. R. , & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance . Journal of Adolescence , 27 ( 1 ), 5–22. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2003.10.002 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gentile, D. A. , Swing, E. L. , Anderson, C. A. , Rinker, D. , & Thomas, K. M. (2016). Differential neural recruitment during violent video game play in violent‐and nonviolent‐game players . Psychology of Popular Media Culture , 5 , 39–51. 10.1037/ppm0000009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Gini, G. , Pozzoli, T. , & Hymel, S. (2014). Moral disengagement among children and youth: A meta‐analytic review of links to aggressive behavior . Aggressive Behavior , 40 ( 1 ), 56–68. 10.1002/ab.21502 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Giumetti, G. W. , & Markey, P. M. (2007). Violent video games and anger as predictors of aggression . Journal of Research in Personality , 41 ( 6 ), 1234–1243. 10.1016/j.jrp.2007.02.005 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. (2018). The spreading impact of playing violent video games on aggression . Computers in Human Behavior , 80 , 216–219. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.11.022 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. , & McLatchie, N. (2011). Denying humanness to others: A newly discovered mechanism by which violent video games increase aggressive behavior . Psychological Science , 22 , 659–665. 10.1177/0956797611403320 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Greitemeyer, T. , & Mügge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta‐analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play . Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin , 40 , 578–589. 10.1177/0146167213520459 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hasan, Y. , Bègue, L. , & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Viewing the world through “blood‐red tinted glasses”: The hostile expectation bias mediates the link between violent video game exposure and aggression . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 48 , 953–956. 10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.019 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression‐based approach . New York: Guilford Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Hyde, L. W. , Shaw, D. S. , & Moilanen, K. L. (2010). Developmental precursors of moral disengagement and the role of moral disengagement in the development of antisocial behavior . Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology , 38 ( 2 ), 197–209. 10.1007/s10802-009-9358-5 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Killer, B. , Bussey, K. , Hawes, D. , & Hunt, C. (2019). A meta‐analysis of the relationship between moral disengagement and bullying roles in youth . Aggressive Behavior , 45 ( 4 ), 450–462. 10.1002/ab.21833 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Kimmig, A. C. S. , Andringa, G. , & Derntl, B. (2018). Potential adverse effects of violent video gaming: Interpersonal‐affective traits are rather impaired than disinhibition in young adults . Frontiers in Psychology , 9 , 10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00736. [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krahé, B. (2014). Media violence use as a risk factor for aggressive behaviour in adolescence . European Review of Social Psychology , 25 ( 1 ), 71–106. 10.1080/10463283.2014.923177 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krahé, B. , & Möller, I. (2010). Longitudinal effects of media violence on aggression and empathy among German adolescents . Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology , 31 ( 5 ), 401–409. 10.1016/j.appdev.2010.07.003 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Krcmar, M. , & Greene, K. (1999). Predicting exposure to and uses of television violence . Journal of Communication , 49 , 24–45. 10.1111/j.1460-2466.1999.tb02803.x [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lemmens, J. S. , Valkenburg, P. M. , & Peter, J. (2011). The effects of pathological gaming on aggressive behavior . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 40 ( 1 ), 38–47. 10.1007/s10964-010-9558-x [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Lin, S. S. J. , & Tsai, C. C. (2002). Sensation seeking and internet dependence of Taiwanese high school adolescents . Computers in Human Behavior , 18 , 411–426. 10.1016/S0747-5632(01)00056-5 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markey, P. M. , & Markey, C. N. (2010). Vulnerability to violent video games: A review and integration of personality research . Review of General Psychology , 14 ( 2 ), 82–91. 10.1037/a0019000 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Markey, P. M. , & Scherer, K. (2009). An examination of psychoticism and motion capture controls as moderators of the effects of violent video games . Computers in Human Behavior , 25 ( 2 ), 407–411. 10.1016/j.chb.2008.10.001 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• McCarthy, R. J. , Coley, S. L. , Wagner, M. F. , Zengel, B. , & Basham, A. (2016). Does playing video games with violent content temporarily increase aggressive inclinations? A preregistered experimental study . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology , 67 , 13–19. 10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.009 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Möller, I. , & Krahé, B. (2009). Exposure to violent video games and aggression in German adolescents: A longitudinal analysis . Aggressive Behavior , 35 ( 1 ), 75–89. 10.1002/ab.20290 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Montag, C. , Weber, B. , Trautner, P. , Newport, B. , Markett, S. , Walter, N. T. , … Reuter, M. (2012). Does excessive play of violent first‐person‐shooter‐video‐games dampen brain activity in response to emotional stimuli? Biological Psychology , 89 , 107–111. 10.1016/j.biopsycho.2011.09.014 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Obermann, M. L. (2011). Moral disengagement in self‐reported and peer‐nominated school bullying . Aggressive Behavior , 37 ( 2 ), 133–144. 10.1002/ab.20378 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Paciello, M. , Fida, R. , Tramontano, C. , Lupinetti, C. , & Caprara, G. V. (2008). Stability and change of moral disengagement and its impact on aggression and violence in late adolescence . Child Development , 79 , 1288–1309. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01189.x [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Pan, W. , Gao, X. , *Shi, S. , Liu, F. , & Li, C. (2018). Spontaneous brain activity did not show the effect of violent video games on aggression: A resting‐state fMRI study . Frontiers in Psychology , 8 , 2219 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02219 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Podsakoff, P. M. , Mackenzie, S. B. , Lee, J. Y. , & Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies . Journal of Applied Psychology , 88 , 879–903. 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Preacher, K. J. , & Hayes, A. F. (2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models . Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers: A Journal of the Psychonomic Society, Inc , 36 , 717–731. 10.3758/bf03206553 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Richmond, J. , & Wilson, J. C. (2008). Are graphic media violence, aggression and moral disengagement related? Psychiatry Psychology & Law , 15 , 350–357. 10.1080/13218710802199716 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rubio‐Garay, F. , Carrasco, M. A. , & Amor, P. J. (2016). Aggression, anger and hostility: Evaluation of moral disengagement as a mediational process . Scandinavian Journal of Psychology , 57 ( 2 ), 129–135. 10.1111/sjop.12270 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Rydell, A. M. (2016). Violent media exposure, aggression and CU traits in adolescence: Testing the selection and socialization hypotheses . Journal of Adolescence , 52 , 95–102. 10.1016/j.adolescence.2016.07.009 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Shu, L. L. , Gino, F. , & Bazerman, M. H. (2011). Dishonest deed, clear conscience: When cheating leads to moral disengagement and motivated forgetting . Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 37 ( 3 ), 330–349. 10.1177/0146167211398138 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Slater, M. D. , Henry, K. L. , Swaim, R. C. , & Cardador, J. M. (2004). Vulnerable teens, vulnerable times: How sensation seeking, alienation, and victimization moderate the violent media content‐aggressiveness relation . Communication Research , 31 , 642–668. 10.1177/0093650204269265 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Sticca, F. , & Perren, S. (2015). The chicken and the egg: Longitudinal associations between moral deficiencies and bullying: A parallel process latent growth model . Merrill‐Palmer Quarterly , 61 , 85–100. 10.13110/merrpalmquar1982.61.1.0085 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teng, Z. , Li, Y. , & Liu, Y. (2014). Online gaming, internet addiction, and aggression in Chinese male students: The mediating role of low self‐control . International Journal of Psychological Studies , 6 ( 2 ), 89 10.5539/ijps.v6n2p89 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teng, Z. , Nie, Q. , Guo, C. , & Liu, Y. (2017). Violent video game exposure and moral disengagement in early adolescence: The moderating effect of moral identity . Computers in Human Behavior , 77 , 54–62. 10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.031 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teng, Z. , Nie, Q. , Guo, C. , Zhang, Q. , Liu, Y. , & Bushman, B. J. (2019). A longitudinal study of link between exposure to violent video games and aggression in Chinese adolescents: The mediating role of moral disengagement . Developmental Psychology , 55 ( 1 ), 184–195. 10.1037/dev0000624 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Teng, Z. , Nie, Q. , Pan, Y. , Liu, Y. , & Guo, C. (2017). A cross‐lagged model of the relationship between violent video game exposure and moral disengagement in middle school and high school students . Children and Youth Services Review , 81 , 117–123. 10.1016/j.childyouth.2017.07.029 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Velez, J. A. , Greitemeyer, T. , Whitaker, J. L. , Ewoldsen, D. R. , & Bushman, B. J. (2016). Violent video games and reciprocity: The attenuating effects of cooperative game play on subsequent aggression . Communication Research , 43 ( 4 ), 447–467. 10.1177/0093650214552519 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Verheijen, G. P. , Burk, W. J. , Stoltz, S. E. M. J. , van den Berg, Y. H. M. , & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2018). Friendly fire: Longitudinal effects of exposure to violent video games on aggressive behavior in adolescent friendship dyads . Aggressive Behavior , 44 , 257–267. 10.1002/ab.21748 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, C. , Ryoo, J. H. , Swearer, S. M. , Turner, R. , & Goldberg, T. S. (2017). Longitudinal relationships between bullying and moral disengagement among adolescents . Journal of Youth and Adolescence , 46 ( 6 ), 1304–1317. 10.1007/s10964-016-0577-0 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, W. , Wu, Y. X. , Peng, Z. G. , Lu, S. W. , Yu, L. , Wang, G. P. , … Wang, Y. H. (2000). Test of sensation seeking in a Chinese sample . Personality & Individual Differences , 28 , 169–179. 10.1016/s0191-8869(99)00092-6 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wang, X. , Lei, L. , Yang, J. , Gao, L. , & Zhao, F. (2016). Moral disengagement as mediator and moderator of the relation between empathy and aggression among Chinese male juvenile delinquents . Child Psychiatry & Human Development , 48 , 316–326. 10.1007/s10578-016-0643-6 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Wilson, L. C. , & Scarpa, A. (2014). Aggressive behavior: An alternative model of resting heart rate and sensation seeking . Aggressive Behavior , 40 , 91–98. 10.1002/ab.21504 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Yang, J. P. , & Wang, X. C. (2012). Effect of moral disengagement on adolescents’ aggressive behavior: Moderated mediating effect . Acta Psychologica Sinica , 44 , 1075–1085. 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2012.01075 [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zapolski, T. C. , Banks, D. E. , Lau, K. S. , & Aalsma, M. C. (2018). Perceived police injustice, moral disengagement, and aggression among juvenile offenders: Utilizing the general strain theory model . Child Psychiatry & Human Development , 49 ( 2 ), 290–297. 10.1007/s10578-017-0750-z [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuckerman, M. (1994). Behavioral expressions and biosocial bases of sensation seeking . Cambridge University Press. [ Google Scholar ]
• Zuckerman, M. , Eysenck, S. , & Eysenck, H. J. (1978). Sensation seeking in England and America: Cross‐cultural, age, and sex comparisons . Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology , 46 , 139–149. 10.1037//0022-006x.46.1.139 [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]

• International edition
• Australia edition
• Europe edition

Playing video games doesn't lead to violent behaviour, study shows

Analysis of 28 global studies dating back to 2008 found a minuscule positive correlation

Video games do not lead to violence or aggression, according to a reanalysis of data gathered from more than 21,000 young people around the world.

The researchers, led by Aaron Drummond from New Zealand’s Massey University, re-examined 28 studies from previous years that looked at the link between aggressive behaviour and video gaming, a method known as a meta-analysis.

The new report, published in the journal Royal Society Open Science on Wednesday, found that, when bundled together, the studies showed a statistically significant but minuscule positive correlation between gaming and aggression, below the threshold required to count as even a “small effect”.

“Thus, current research is unable to support the hypothesis that violent video games have a meaningful long-term predictive impact on youth aggression,” the report said.

Between them, the various studies included in the research dated back to 2008, and had reported a range of effects, including a small positive correlation between violence and video-game use in around a quarter of them and no overall conclusion in most of the rest, with one 2011 study finding a negative correlation.

One common argument for a negative effect of gaming is that small harms can accumulate over time: if a player ends every game slightly more aggressive then, over the long term, that might add up to a meaningful change in temperament. But the study finds no evidence for such an accumulation, and in fact finds evidence pointing in the opposite direction.

Studies consistently find that the “long-term impacts of violent games on youth aggression are near zero”, they write.

“We call on both individual scholars as well as professional guilds such as the American Psychological Association to be more forthcoming about the extremely small observed relationship in longitudinal studies between violent games and youth aggression,” the authors conclude.

While that link may be slim, other studies have shown interesting effects on wider emotional behaviour. Research from the University of New South Wales in 2018 , for instance, found that people who frequently played violent video games were less distracted by violent images in other contexts, a phenomenon the study author called “emotion-induced blindness”.

• New Zealand

Most viewed

60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

🏆 best violent games essay topics and examples, 📌 most interesting video game argument topics, 🎮 video games cause violence – essay topics, ❓ research questions about video games and violence.

• The Negative Effects of Video Games on Children Essay Development of knuckle pads in children is associated with addiction to playing video games. Most of the young children tend to think that what they see in video games is a reality.
• Do Violent Video Games Contribute to Youth Violence? The violence and aggression that stains the youth of today, as a result of these video games, is unquestionably a cancer that ought to be uprooted or at least contained by parents, school leaders, governments […] We will write a custom essay specifically for you by our professional experts 808 writers online Learn More
• Video Games and Violent Behavior As opposed to watching the violence on TV, in these video games the player is the one who commits the acts of violence. In the survey, a group of 10 young men were allowed to […]
• Examining the Perception of Violence in Video Games To examine the perception of violence in video games and their effects a survey was conducted addressing the current view on video games in general and the visualized violence in particular.
• Violence in Video Games To conclude, it is assumed that the dispute among researchers, the public, and authorities on the question of the relationship between violent video games and aggressive behavior may not have a universal answer.
• Does Violence in Video Games Affect Youth? Our concern in this paper is to concentrate on the violent video games, the effects to the youths through participation in the violent video games, the counter arguments and finally the remarks or conclusion.
• Research of Violence in the Media The left frontal lobe of the participants was analyzed and found to be more active in the control group than in the exposed group. Exposure of children to violence in the mass media leads to […]
• Violent Video Games and How They Affect Youth Violence However, despite the overwhelming outcry against the youth playing violent video games, there are a number of researchers and advocates who oppose the idea of directly linking the exposure of young adults to violent scenes […]
• Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization? The article under consideration entitled “Violence exposure in real-life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization?” investigates the links between the violent content of TV programs, video games and the increase of […]
• Do Violent Video Games Lead to Aggressive Behavior? Everyone is however in agreement that the violent video games are in compromise of morals and expose the young kids to in appropriate content.
• Video Games and Violence in Children There have been arguments that such behavior is as a result of a pre-disposition to violence in the media as well as in video games.
• A Look at the Violence in Video Games, Movies and Music: A Bad Influence on Our Children
• An Analysis of the Negative Effects of Violence in Video Games
• An Analysis of Violence in Video Games and Violence in Teens
• An Argument Against the Claim That Violence in Video Games Promote Violence in Real Life
• An Argument Against the Opinion on Effects of Violence in Video Games
• Blame Games: Does Violence In Video Games Influence Players To Commit Mass Shootings
• Children And Violence in Video Games
• Critical Argumentations on Violence in Video Games
• Dangers in Media: How Violence in Video Games Affects the Youth
• Does Violence In Video Games Affect Children’s Behavior
• Does Violence in Video Games Contribute to Misconduct
• How Does the Portrayal of Violence in Video Games Influence Children
• Increase In Violence In Video Games Targeted At Children
• Legal and Ethical Issues Concerning Violence in Video Games
• Positive Influence of Violence in Video Games
• Presence Of Sex And Violence In Video Games
• The Consequences Of Video Game Violence In Video Games
• The Debate over Whether the Government Should Restrict Violence in Video Games
• The Depiction of Violence in Video Games
• The Impact of Violence in Video Games on the Intellectual Development of Young People: Grand Theft Auto
• The Problem of Violence in Video Games
• The Use Of Violence In Video Games And Its Impact On Young
• The Vehement Vilification Of Violence In Video Games
• Violence In Video Games and Aggression
• Violence in Video Games and the Role of the Government
• Violence in Video Games Can Be Transferred to the Children’s Real-Life Attitudes and Behaviors
• Violence in Video Games Does Not Create Violence
• Violence in Video Games Do Not Affect Agression
• Violence in Video Games Increases Violence in Children
• What Is Your Take on Violence in Video Games, Movies, and Music?
• Can Violence in Video Games Have a Bad Influence on Our Children?
• What Could Be the Analysis of the Negative Consequences of Violence in Video Games?
• What Argument Can Be Made Against the Claim?
• Violence in Video Games Contributes to Violence in Real Life?
• What Are the Arguments Against the Opinion About the Consequences of Violence in Video Games?
• Does Violence in Video Games Affect Children?
• How Does Violence in Video Games Relate to Violence in Reality?
• Can Video Game Violence Affect Players in Mass Shootings?
• Can Violence in Video Games Encourage Misconduct?
• How Do Video Game Depictions of Violence Can Affect Children?
• What Are the Legal and Ethical Aspects of Violence in Video Games?
• What Is the Connection Between Video Game Violence and Future Technology?
• How Is Youth Aggression Related to Video Game Violence?
• How Negatively Does Aggression in Video Games Affect Today’s Youth?
• How Does Violence in Video Games Cause Ethical Issues?
• What Can Be Done To Prevent the Development of Violence in Children?
• How Can Parents Influence the Development of Violence in Children?
• How Does Violence in Video Games Affect the Maladaptive?
• How Does Violence in Video Games Generally Affect Society?
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2023, November 30). 60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/

"60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 30 Nov. 2023, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/.

IvyPanda . (2023) '60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 30 November.

IvyPanda . 2023. "60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/.

1. IvyPanda . "60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "60 Violence in Video Games Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." November 30, 2023. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/violence-in-video-games-essay-examples/.

• Video Game Topics
• Media Violence Titles
• Entertainment Ideas
• Domestic Violence Paper Topics
• Juvenile Delinquency Essay Titles
• Child Development Research Ideas
• Youth Violence Research Topics
• Computers Essay Ideas
• Bullying Research Topics
• Cognitive Development Essay Ideas
• School Violence Ideas
• Censorship Essay Ideas
• Critical Thinking Essay Ideas
• Emotional Development Questions
• Human Behavior Research Topics