Behavioral Attitudinal and Decision-Altering Effects of Aggress PDF

Western Michigan University
ScholarWorks at WMU
Dissertations Graduate College
12-2007
Behavioral, Attitudinal, and Decision-Altering

Effects of Aggressive Video Games on Young
Adults
Kent Smallwood
Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Part of the Psychology Commons
Recommended Citation
Smallwood, Kent, "Behavioral, Attitudinal, and Decision-Altering Effects of Aggressive Video Games on Young Adults" (2007).
Dissertations. 918.
https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/918
This Dissertation-Open Access is brought to you for free and open access
by the Graduate College at ScholarWorks at WMU. It has been accepted for
inclusion in Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ScholarWorks
at WMU. For more information, please contact maira.bundza@wmich.edu.
BEHAVIORAL, ATTITUDINAL, AND DECISION-ALTERING EFFECTS OF
AGGRESSIVE VIDEO GAMES ON YOUNG ADULTS
by
Kent Smallwood
A Dissertation
Submitted to the
Faculty of The Graduate College
in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the
Degree of Doctor of Philosophy
Department o f Psychology
Dr. R. Wayne Fuqua, Advisor

Kalamazoo, Michigan
December 2007
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
UMI N um ber: 3295563
INFORMATION TO USERS
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy
submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality illustrations and
photographs, print bleed-through, substandard margins, and improper
alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript
and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if unauthorized
copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion.
UMI
UMI Microform 3295563
Copyright 2008 by ProQuest Information and Learning Company.
All rights reserved. This microform edition is protected against
unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code.
ProQuest Information and Learning Company

300 North Zeeb Road
P.O. Box 1346
Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346
Copyright by
Kent Smallwood
2007
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank, first and foremost, my wife Hilary, for her continued efforts at
preventing my procrastination-fueled bad habits, generally in the videogame playing
realm (ironic, given the subject of the study). I would also like to thank all three of my
research assistants, listed as co-authors in the study, for the many hours they spent
recruiting and running participants. I would especially like to thank Scott Latour, who
kept things running smoothly organizationally while I was out of the state on internship. I
would obviously like to thank my dissertation committee, for agreeing to take on the
supervision of such an outside the box topic.
An eternal debt of gratitude goes out to Joseph Dagen, who assisted me
immensely in the statistical analysis of this study. My ability to design research far
exceeds my ability to statistically analyze it, and so without him, I would likely have been
left with a compelling research question, a conceptually tight and elegant experimental
design, and then a mess of data that I wasn’t sure what to do with.
Thanks to all my friends and family for their support throughout the years. You
know who you are. Thanks to Monster Energy Drink, for keeping me awake during
painful AM therapy groups on internship, and to Anti-Flag, Thursday, and Boy Sets Fire,
the best bands out there. Thanks to Oberon, for being my best friend in the world.
Kent Smallwood
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS......................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES...................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................... vii
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................... 1
Topic Background.......................................................................................... 1
Industry Scope................................................................................................. 3
Foundational and Correlational Research.................................................... 4
Experimental Research................................................................................... 6
Summary.......................................................................................................... 14
METHODS.................................................................................................................. 16
Overview......................................................................................................... 16
Participants...................................................................................................... 16
Pre-experimental Game Selection................................................................. 16
Setting.............................................................................................................. 21
Equipment....................................................................................................... 22
Participant Selection and Informed Consent................................................ 22
Experimental Procedure................................................................................. 22
RESULTS.................................................................................................................... 32
Game Matching............................................................................................... 32
Main Group Analysis..................................................................................... 34
Table of Contents - Continued
Responder and Non-responder Analysis....................................................... 39
DISCUSSION............................................................................................................. 51
Summary......................................................................................................... 51
Pretest Differences......................................................................................... 52
Posttest Differences....................................................................................... 53
Responder Analysis........................................................................................ 56
Limitations...................................................................................................... 59
Future Research............................................................................................... 61
REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 63
APPENDICES
A. HSIRB Approval Letter................................................................................. 67
B l. Game Matching Tool-MC.............................................................................. 68
B2. Game Matching Tool-GTA............................................................................ 69
C. Declaration of Interest Forms......................................................................... 71
D. Game Playing Habits Questionnaire............................................................. 72
E. Aggression Provocation Questionnaire......................................................... 73
F 1. GTA Controller Handout............................................................................... 80
F2. MC Controller Handout................................................................................. 82
G l. GTA Cheat Codes........................................................................................... 83
G2. MC Cheat Codes............................................................................................. 88
H. Game Content Data Sheet.............................................................................. 89

iv
Table of Contents - Continued
I. Aggression Questionnaire............................................................................... 90
J. Video Game Evaluation.................................................................................. 91
K. HSIRB-Approved Consent Document........................................................... 92
L. Unabridged Statistical Analysis..................................................................... 98
M. Visual Representations of Statistically Nonsignificant D ata....................... 131
N. Gender Analysis.............................................................................................. 136
0 . Recruitment and Session Scripts.................................................................... 139
LIST OF TABLES
1. Game Content Descriptors............................................................................... 19
2. Input Variables and Interobserver Agreement on the

Games in the Study............................................................................................ 21
3. Simulation Decision Matrix............................................................................. 27
4. Experimental Session O rder............................................................................ 31
5. Responder Classification and Outcome Variable Summary.......................... 41
vi
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Video Game Industry Sales Growth, 1996-2005............................................ 4
2. Game Evaluation Means, Questions 1-8......................................................... 33
3. APQ Pretest/Posttest Likert Comparison, GTA-MC and MC-

G TA .................................................................................................................... 37
4. APQ Pretest/Posttest Comparison, Responders vs. Non-responders 43
5. Simulation Aggression Choies Comparison, Responders vs. Non

responders .......................................................................................................... 44
6. AQ T Score Means, Responders vs. Non-responders.................................... 46
7. AQ Subscale T Scores, Responders vs. Non-responders............................... 47
8. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Responders vs. Non

responders .......................................................................................................... 48
9. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Responders............................. 49
10. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Non-responders..................... 49
11. Simulation Key Trials Converted Decisions, Responders vs. Non

responders .......................................................................................................... 50
vii
1
INTRODUCTION
Topic Background
With each passing year, the influence on contemporary culture of all types of media,
both old and new, continues to increase. As of 1998, television sets had penetrated into
99.4% of American households (Andreasen, 2001). As technology became more
ubiquitous, concerns inevitably arose about potentially undesirable side effects that might
accompany media exposure, particularly the effects on youth. For example, research has
estimated that by the time an American child graduates from elementary school, he or she
will have watched 8,000 murders and over 100,000 other assorted illegal acts on network
television alone (Huston, Donnerstein, Fairchild, Feshbach, Katz, Murray. Rubinstein,
Wilcox, & Zuckerman, 1992). This statistic was reported before the widespread adoption
and proliferation of videogames, a medium that has consistently expanded in influence
and revenue during the past decade. With television, dozens of studies suggest some
correlation between time spent watching violent acts on television and subsequent
aggressive behavior (Paik & Comstock, 1994).
In contrast to the extensive body of research on televised violence, research on the
effects from videogame violence is relatively limited, with the first methodologically
controlled experimental studies not being published until the early 2000’s (Anderson &
Dill, 2000, Sheese & Graziano, 2005, Deselms & Altman, 2004, Uhlman & Swanson,
2004). The difference between the amount of research done on the two mediums is
understandable, given the many decades television has been widely adopted as a
consumer media outlet, whereas videogames are a relatively new technology, with
modem, highly graphic games only a decade or so old. Another explanation for the
2
relatively meager research on videogames could be the existence of an extensive data
base on television and the assumption that results can be extrapolated from televised
violence to videogame violence. Unfortunately, this extrapolation has not been subject to
empirical validation. There are undeniable qualitative differences between playing
videogames and watching television that raise questions about the generalizability of
research findings from television to videogames, thus justifying the need for videogames
to have their own research base examining their effects.
For example, television is generally a passive viewing experience, whereas
videogames require active role adoption in which the player engages in a variety of in
game acts, including violent acts that are rewarded on variable ratio schedules with
points, progression to different levels of a game and other types of sensory reinforcement
that is programmed into the game. Additionally, the stream of input the games require
from the player necessitates a consistent attentional focus, as opposed to the passive
experience of watching television. A viewer can “tune out” while watching television,
and attend to other stimuli, temporarily mitigating its effects; this is not possible with
videogames, because doing so will result in some form of losing in the game.
Despite an increasing amount of research on the effects of videogame play over the
last five to seven years, the results are still far from conclusive, due in part to the modest
amount of research, and more importantly because of methodological limitations of the
published research. Despite the lack of conclusive results in the literature, a variety of
bills designed to restrict the sale of violent games have been passed into law in the last
four years. Most notably, in December 2005, Senator Hillary Clinton proposed Federal
legislation, the Family Entertainment Protection Act (FEPA), designed to 1) levy fines
for selling violent games to minors, 2) create an annual review of the Electronic Software
Ratings Board (ESRB), a voluntary industry organization designed to rate games, and 3)
install a system o f undercover audits to test retailer compliance with the act (Thorsen,
2005).
A number of state and local regulations that were predecessors to the aforementioned
FEPA have been overturned in the courts on First Amendment grounds. Most of these
bills proposed fines for retailers who sell M rated games to minors, or force them to stock
violent games in an area separate from the other games (e.g., Varanini, 2003: Gamespot,
2005; Associated Press, 2005). This tug of war between lawmakers and the videogame
industry came to the forefront in August 2006, when the state of Illinois was ordered to
pay various organizations within the videogame industry over $500,000 in attorney fees
they incurred while challenging a law designed to restrict the sales of certain types of
games (Wade, 2006). It would seem logical to conclude that these types of new
legislation and subsequent legal challenges from the industry will continue in the future,
considering the numerous pieces of pending legislation (2old2play.com, 2007).
Industry Scope
The videogame industry has increased exponentially in the last decade, transforming
itself from a niche market catering to a small group of avid gamers, to a legitimate media
powerhouse rivaling the movie industry. For example, computer and video game
software sales in the United States reached $7.1 billion in 2005, which represents a near
tripling of industry software sales since 1996 (Entertainment Software Association,
2006). Clearly, videogames are on the rise in popular culture and seem poised to become
more popular across a wider demographic each year.
Figure 1, published by the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), the main trade
organization for the industry, shows annual industry sales since 1996. Preliminary
estimates of industry revenue for 2006 rose to $12.5 billion, and expectations for 2007
are $15 billion (Sinclair, 2006). $12.5 billion would represent just under 9% of the
overall consumer electronics market in this country, including music players, televisions,
and other technologies.
U.S. COMPUTER AND VIDEO GAME DOLLAR SALES GROWTH

ra iM i m il u ii:
19% 1997 1998 1999 20OQ 2001 2M £ 2003 3XM 2C05

iM T t: Ih s HPI> G C -a p H' f t - t Uk S n f c s n s j l V f t
Figure 1. Videogame Industry Sales Growth, 1996-2005 Courtesy of Electronic

Software Association
Foundational and Correlational Research
Prior to the mid 1990s, research on potential effects of violent videogames was
limited in scope and in the types of questions posed due to the relatively primitive nature
of the games. Games of this era were largely symbolic in their aggression, such as “Pac-
Man” eating pellets and ghosts in a maze. As games became more advanced through the
late 1990s and into the next millennium, the level of realism with which violent actions
were depicted increased dramatically. It wasn’t until the release of “Mortal Kombat” in
5
1993, a game which featured graphically realistic (for the time) fighters killing each other
in gruesome ways, that society began paying attention to this issue. This led to
Congressional hearings, widespread social concern, increased research on the topic, and
the development of the aforementioned ESRB (Paprocki, 2005).
More recent research investigating the effects of violent videogames on behavior can
generally be placed into two main categories, correlational and cognitively interpreted
experimental work. Researchers have shown correlations, some weak and some fairly
compelling, between extended videogame play and a variety of variables. Some of these
correlations are predictable, such as a negative correlation between time spent playing
games and grade point average (Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004), as any activity
done in excess would likely impact school performance.
Other correlations are less predictable and possibly more troubling from a clinical or
societal perspective. For example, playing violent video games has been positively
correlated with a history of ‘delinquent behavior’ (Anderson & Dill, 2000), and
arguments with teachers and trait hostility (Gentile et al., 2004). Videogame playing has
also been negatively correlated with empathy (Funk et al., 2003). Unfortunately, this
body of descriptive research suffers from limitations that pertain to all correlational
research. One cannot draw conclusions about a causal relationship between videogame
play and aggressive behavior based solely on correlational research because it is
impossible to determine the direction of causal relationship, if one exists, on the basis of
correlations (without the manipulation of an independent variable). Furthermore,
correlations do not rule out the possibility that one or more unidentified third variables
(e.g., a history of reinforcement or modeling of aggression) could be causally related to
6
both the video game play and aggressive behavior, thus causing the correlation between
these two variables. Unless conducted in a controlled setting, it is difficult for research of
this type to demonstrate that videogame playing is the key variable at work with regards
to the dependent measures of interest.
Experimental Research
Several researchers have attempted to go beyond correlational research on violent
video games by conducting studies that involved experimental designs and the
manipulation of independent variables in order to determine what causal relationships
exist between violent gameplay and a variety of variables. Anderson and Dill (2000), in
what remains the most comprehensive study on this topic, concluded that participants
who were randomly assigned to a group that played violent video games had more easily
accessible hostile thoughts and chose to deliver more punitive blasts of noise to
confederates than those who played a nonviolent game.
However, as is common with new lines of research, the results of this study must be
interpreted cautiously in light of limitations on the dependent variables being measured in
this study (Anderson & Dill, 2000). Because of ethical considerations, most
experimental research on aggression with any population or setting must rely on analog
measures of aggression rather than measures of naturally occurring aggression. Such
analog measures present a number of interpretation challenges. For example, some
analog measures sample behavioral or cognitive effects (e.g. self reports of attitudes,
intentions, and interpretations) that may not be correlated with actual aggressive actions.
This raises concerns about the validity of these analog measures. In other instances,
analog measures often include an operation designed to provoke aggressive behavior
7
(e.g., exposure to annoying or aversive stimuli). In such cases it may be difficult to
determine if the more distal independent variable of interest (e.g., prior exposure to
violent video games) is in fact causing changes in aggressive behaviors, or the more
proximal provoking conditions built into the dependent variable were the cause of any
causally linked change in measures of aggression. In other situations, the operations
designed to provoke aggression are not frequently encountered in daily living (e.g.,
exposure to loud blasts of noise) or fail to include common provocations or facilitators of
violence (e.g., aggressive driving, social conflicts, alcohol consumption) thus raising
further questions about the validity of conclusions drawn from such measures. These
problems are not unique to this literature, but they require some effort to enhance the
validity of conclusions drawn from analog measures.
Anderson and Dill (2000) also argue that violent game play makes violent thoughts
more cognitively accessible, as evidenced by the use of a reading time reaction test. In
this measure, words with different types of connotations (anxiety words, escape words,
and control words) were flashed on a computer screen, and participants were asked to say
individual words as quickly as possible. Those who played the violent game showed a
larger difference in average reaction time between aggressive and control words than
those who played the nonviolent game. These results were interpreted as support for the
contention that violent game play may have primed certain thematic related words and
cognitions. Unfortunately, tasks such as these are of questionable validity, with several
notable concerns. First, due to how priming was measured, in the form o f average
latency between the two groups, large individual differences may account for much of the
demonstrated effect size. Even though outliers were discarded, a few participants
8
responding with consistently large differences in reaction times would account for much
of the aggregate difference, which was not large to begin with (a difference of slightly
over 11 milliseconds).
Second, it is unknown what the connection might be between “cognitive
accessibility” and aggressive behavior. It could be possible that “cognitive accessibility”
was increased as a function of hearing violent themed language that was part of the
programmed audio for the violent video game. Alternatively, participants may engage in
covert verbal behavior while playing a video game that may differ across violent and
non-violent games. The recency of this covert verbal behavior may have an influence on
reading reaction time. In either case, there is little evidence that increased cognitive
accessibility to violent themed words would be a predictor or precursor of aggression.
Research proposing this is largely hypothetical in nature. Furthermore it is unclear
whether increased cognitive accessibility would be more closely related to verbal
aggression or to physical aggression.
Third, the violent game used in this study required fast-paced active participation in
contrast to the nonviolent game which was a fairly passive “point and click” experience.
Thus, differences in the pace of the two games, which was not systematically controlled,
rather than the violent content, might account for the cognitive priming effect, simply as a
function of increased physiological or cognitive arousal associated with the fast-paced
active game. This admittedly does not fully explain the difference in effect between
aggressive and control words within each experimental group.
Other experimental research has demonstrated a possible connection between violent
videogame play and various analog measures of aggression. For example, Sheese and
9
Graziano (2005) measured aggression with the “Prisoner’s Dilemma,” a classic 2x2 cell
decision matrix whereby the highest level of reward is gained by exploiting the opponent,
causing them to lose points. Mutual cooperation ensures a slightly lower level of reward
for both players, although larger in total, and mutual exploitation results in both players
losing a significant amount of reward. In addition to using the prisoner’s dilemma as a
measure of aggression, these authors also used the same video game (“Doom”) for both
groups, but altered the amount of violent content by modifying the game code. This
methodological refinement (using the same game with different content for each
experimental condition) eliminates a major confound that plagues much of the research in
this area but requires significant programming skill to alter the game code as well as
permission from those who own patent rights for the game. The results of the study
showed that those who played the violent version of “Doom” exhibited more exploitative
behavior in the Prisoner’s Dilemma simulation than did those who played the nonviolent
version of the game. While this study has much to commend, it did use a dated video
game (the PC version of Doom was released in 1993) that did not contain the graphic
realism o f more recent video games. It was also modified to be intentionally easy for the
player, possibly decreasing the motor demands required for play. Thus there is a need to
replicate the effects of more contemporary video game play on aggressive behavior using
comparison games that differ in the amount of violent content but are matched on most
other potentially active game characteristics (e.g., pace of the game, difficulty of the
game). It is also not clear what the relationship is between exploitative and aggressive
behaviors.
10
Deselms and Altman (2004) found a statistically significant difference between two
groups on the length of prison sentences given to criminals in fictional vignettes, a
measure of attitudinal aggression, previously unused in this line of research. Vignettes
were read immediately after playing a violent or nonviolent game, or (in a second
experiment) one hour later, and participants playing the violent game chose longer prison
sentences for the same criminals. These kinds of attitudinal dependent variables have not
received enough attention in the experimental literature. It is possible that violent video
game play does not have immediately obvious or observable short-term effects. Instead,
such gameplay may produce subtle changes on the player’s worldview, (e.g. the ease with
which they would sanction violence or punishment as a solution to problems). The
possible reason for this lack of inquiry using dependent measures of this type is likely
due to the inherent difficulty in measuring an attitude and/or a worldview via a
questionnaire, in favor of strictly observing overt behaviors. However, the study had
several methodological limitations. The games used were from different genres, with one
being a fighting game (Mortal Kombat) and the other a basketball game (NBA Jam), and
are both almost 15 years old, and thus not as graphically violent as some modem games.
Therefore, the games differed on many dimensions beyond violent content. While this
does not render the study obsolete, it does indicate that a replication of the study with
technologically current games is in order. It needs to be determined if effect sizes are on
a continuum based on graphical sophistication
Related to the above issue, potential confounds associated with highly divergent game
content are common to research on video game violence. For example, studies have used
pairs of games that bear little resemblance to each other in terms of pace (Uhlman &
11
Swanson, 2004), difficulty, or genre of game (Deselms & Altman, 2004). Even
Anderson and Dill (2000) acknowledged this methodological flaw, noting “However,
none o f these studies can rule out the possibility that key variables such as excitement,
difficulty, or the enjoyment created the observed increase in aggression” (p. 775).
Because of this consistent oversight in the experimental literature, considerable caution
must be used when examining original research or initially compelling meta-analytic
reviews o f the effects that violent videogames have on aggressive behavior, aggressive
cognition, aggressive affect, helping behavior, and/or physiological arousal (Anderson,
2004). Simply stated, studies must be replicated with games matched on everything other
than violent content in order to draw conclusions about the contribution of violent video
game content to subsequent measures of aggression.
In addition to the above noted methodological concerns, casual observation suggests
that playing violent video games cannot in and o f itself be sufficiently powerful to
provoke aggressive behavior by most game players. After all, millions of people play
violent video games, often on a daily basis and for many hours per week. Only a small
proportion of those game players engage in aggressive behavior that rises to clinical or
criminal significance levels after playing these games. Thus, if violent video games
increase the probability o f aggressive behavior, they do so for only a small proportion of
the game players. Presumably some other factors interact with the violent game playing
to produce significant levels of aggressive behavior.
Researchers have recently attempted to identify risk factors that might be associated
with increases in aggressive behavior and its correlates that might result from playing
violent video games. Brady and Matthews (2006) recruited 100 male college students
12
age 18-21, and had them play either a violent game (Grand Theft Auto III) or a
nonviolent game (The Simpsons: Hit and Run), and examined blood pressure and
attitudinal variables related to violence. Participants were yoked into matched pairs
based on amount of exposure to real life violence. Participants completed various
questionnaire measures after game play assessing negative affect, endorsement of risk
behaviors, and social altruism. Finally, participants completed a cooperate/compete
computer simulation for 30 trials, designed to assess competitive behaviors/motives.
Results showed that participants who played Grand Theft Auto III showed a
significant increase in blood pressure, more negative affect, more hostile social
information processing, and were more competitive than those who played The
Simpsons. More telling was the fact that participants who had been exposed to greater
levels of community violence had a larger change in blood pressure and negative
information processing than those who witnessed less community violence. This is the
first study to postulate a third variable that might make certain individuals more “at risk”
of adverse effects o f playing violent video games.
Despite the significant results, there were several methodological issues worth
mentioning. The games were not matched on difficulty nor presence of realistic violence
(The Simpsons features cartoon characters, while Grand Theft Auto III features realistic
characters and violence). Furthermore, each participant played only one of the two
games, and that game for only 10 minutes. Thus there was no opportunity for within
subject comparisons of changes in aggression measures across the two games.
Although participants who played Grand Theft Auto III demonstrated more
competitive choices on the simulation, it is not known how competitive measures relate
13
to aggressive behavior, and no clearly aggressive choice was available. Finally, the
absence of baseline measures of competitive behavior greatly limits conclusions that can
be drawn regarding predictors of adverse effects of playing violent video games. More
specifically, those participants with a history of observing violence might have had much
higher pre-existing dispositions toward violence than those participants without a history
of observing violence. Thus the higher post-game scores on aggression measures could
reflect a more general predisposition towards aggression rather than a specific reaction to
the video game content itself. Collection of pre and post game measures and calculation
of change scores are needed to reflect the extent to which video game play provoked
aggression. The degree of realism in the violent content is one variable that was not
systematically controlled for, but the between group differences in this study suggest
some differential effect size based on realism of content.
To date, this study remains unique in its focus on the participant’s history of
observing violence in the community or at home. This third variable might have been a
predictor of the more extreme reactions to playing violent video games. It would be
important to identify those factors that predict serious elevations in aggression as a
function of playing violent video games and to understand the mechanisms by which
other factors mediate and potentiate aggressive reactions to playing violent video games.
Finally, previous research conducted by Smallwood, Fuqua, and Dagen (2005),
examined effects of twenty minutes of play on one of two different types of games
matched on as many variables as possible other than the amount o f violent content, one
violent (Grand Theft Auto 3) and one nonviolent (Need for Speed: Hot Pursuit 2), on
physiology, self-report attitudinal, and behavioral measures related to aggression. The
14
main strength o f this study was that it was the first to systematically match the games on
other variables such as the pace and difficulty of the games. The study found no
significant change in physiology (measured by heart rate and blood pressure) from
playing either type of game, contradicting the results reported by Brady & Matthews
(2006). The study examined a comparable participant demographic (18-21 year old male
college students), but a smaller sample size (N=27 versus N=100 in Brady & Matthews).
It also found inconsistent changes in decision making (measured by a custom
simulation/decision matrix allowing participants to cooperate, compete, or aggress
against an imaginary opponent, similar to the Prisoner’s Dilemma). Interestingly, slightly
more aggressive choices were made by participants who played the nonviolent game
compared to the violent game. Regardless of the small, homogenous sample, it was a
methodological step forward from the aforementioned studies in the way it controlled for
unintentional confounds related to the choice of game.
Summary
Recent efforts to regulate video games with violent content have been predicated on
the assumption that playing such games produces detrimental short and long-term effects
on the behaviors and attitudes of the game players. Preliminary research suggests that
some indicators of aggressive behavior may be elevated as a function of playing violent
video games. Unfortunately, much o f this research is compromised by confounds
between violent content and other correlated characteristics of the violent video game
(e.g., level of action, challenge and frustration). More specifically, many studies involve
a comparison between a violent, fast-paced and challenging video game and a non
violent but slow-paced game, as well as games with little in common with regards to
15
content. The multiple differences between game content presents an obvious confound
that needs to be resolved before any increases in aggressive behavior and attitudes can be
attributed specifically to the violent video content. Furthermore, many of the published
studies have relied on single dependent measures of questionable validity as their index
of aggression. Moreover, much of the research is based on dated video games that do not
reflect recent advances in game graphics, game speed, or game content. Finally, few
studies have attempted to identify and understand those participants who display
unusually large increases in aggression measures as a function of playing violent video
games.
The purpose of this research project was to expand this line of research by comparing
the pre to post-test impact of playing violent versus non-violent videogames on measures
of aggressive attitudes and decision-making. Games were matched on dimensions that
might relate to the arousal or frustration level produced by each game (e.g., difficulty,
speed of play) so that the games were similar in all dimensions other than violent content.
This study also identified “responders,” similar to Brady & Matthews (2006)
identification o f variables that differentiate certain participants from others. In this case,
we were interested in those participants who showed significant increases in measures of
aggression as a result of exposure to violent video games. We attempted to identify any
common predictors (e.g., gender, prior game experience, medication use, and others) of
significant reactions to violent video game exposure. In other words, rather than relying
solely on aggregate group data, we were more concerned with which secondary variables
could differentiate responders from non-responders.
16
METHODS
Overview
The experiment described herein was designed to determine what effect playing
different types of video games has on attitudes and behavior commonly associated with
aggression. The independent variable was exposure to two different video games with
different amounts and types of aggressive content, but otherwise similar game
characteristics. All participants played both games, (divided into two groups, based on
the order they played the two games) and completed measures at pretest, after the first
game, and after the second game. The dependent variables were behavioral and
questionnaire based measures. A secondary goal of this study was to identify participants
who might be at risk of displaying aggressive reactions to video game violence and
compare those individuals to other participants who did not display the same risk factors.
Participants
Participants were recruited from undergraduate psychology courses at Western
Michigan University. Males and females between the ages of 18-29 were eligible to
participate. This age range was selected because it captures a sample of the most avid
video game players (Entertainment Software Association, 2006). Females were included
in the sample because there is currently no research indicating a differential gender effect
although females as a group are fewer in number than males (Anderson and Murphy,
2003).
Pre-experimental Game Selection
Prior to participant recruitment, the experimenter, an avid game player, selected two
video games that appeared from casual observation to be matched on as many game play
17
and graphical variables as possible, except for the amount of violent content. The game
that was tentatively identified as the non-violent game was “Midnight Club 3: DUB
Edition” henceforth referred to as ‘MC’, while the violent game was “Grand Theft Auto:
San Andreas”, henceforth referred to as ‘GTA.’ The comparability of these games was
then verified by scoring the games using the Game Matching Tool, Appendix B-l and B-
2. Using this tool, the lead experimenter spent three hours playing each game, to
determine the game’s pace, difficulty, and genre. Doing this demonstrated that MC and
GTA were similar enough in these categories to warrant further, more in-depth
comparison. This was accomplished by videotaping the lead experimenter playing each
game for twenty minutes, with the television and controller visible in the recording. The
data were then reviewed and analyzed by the lead experimenter to determine two
variables. First, the number of cartoonish versus realistic aggressive behaviors were
counted and categorized. For the purposes of this study, “cartoonish” aggressive
behaviors were defined as “intentional or accidental actions the player performs in the
game that cause some form of inconsequential, clearly unrealistic, or without
ramification, damage to the environment or the player.” Realistic aggressive behaviors
were defined as “intentional or accidental actions the player performs in the game that
cause some form of realistic damage to the environment or the player.” Second, the
games were compared with regards to how physically and mentally demanding they are
to play, as measured by the number of instructional inputs on the controller needed to
play each game. Faster paced, more complex games require a higher number of
controller inputs. Slower paced, simple games require fewer inputs.
18
Game matching results
The results of the game matching process (see Appendix B-l and B-2) show that the
games were equivalent on many key dimensions, including difficulty, genre of game, and
pace of the games but differed significantly on the amount of video violence. For
example, the games were similarly demanding with regards to motor skills, as defined by
the number of inputs required on the controller per minute (188.4 inputs/minute for MC
and 184.4 for GTA). The games differed in overall content and goal with MC being a
global street racing game, with players racing against computer drivers to earn money
which can be used to upgrade and customize their cars. Additionally, the aggressive
content in MC is implicitly punished by the game, because running into objects or other
cars slows the player down, resulting in a worse finish in the race. GTA has the player
assume the role of a paroled murderer named “CJ” who returns to his crime-ridden
hometown in order to reassert his authority over the local gang infrastructure. GTA
includes graphic depictions of violence against police, civilians, and women. Many of
the females in the game are prostitutes. In contrast to MC, GTA rewards violent acts
with in-game monetary bonuses, additional weapons, and advancement of the main
plotline of the game. The game is also completely nonlinear, allowing the player to do
whatever he or she wishes.
Most importantly, the games differed in the frequency and nature of violent content,
with MC averaging 7.16 violent acts per minute, and GTA 8.7 per minute. While this
does not appear to be a large difference, examining the types of violence in each is
important; all of MC’s violence is of the cartoonish variety, consisting almost entirely of
cars bouncing off each other and street signs flying away when struck. The violence in
19
MC was also implicitly punished, in the form of the car slowing down when colliding
with things, thereby causing a worse finish in the race. By contrast, all of GTAs violent
actions were realistic, consisting of a variety of graphic acts, including carjackings, drive
by shootings, and the murder of police officers, all of which were reinforced, either in the
form of game progress, or straightforward sensory stimulation via explosions and related
effects. Thus, differentiating between cartoonish and realistic aggression is important to
clarify the significant differences between the games.
With regards to pre-existing ratings, MC is rated “E10+” by the Electronic Software
Ratings Board (ESRB) indicating it is appropriate for individuals age 10 and up. GTA is
rated “M” by the ESRB, indicating it is appropriate for individuals age 17 and up. All
games rated by the ESRB also contain “content descriptors,” which are supplementary
descriptive words or phrases designed to inform the consumer why a game may have
received a particular rating. The content descriptors for each game are listed below:
Game Content Descriptors

Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition Mild Language, Mild Violence
Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong
Language, Strong Sexual Content, Use of
Drugs
Table 1: Game Content Descriptors
The games are similar in that much of the response topography needed to perform
them well is the same. Both contain a considerable amount of time spent operating
vehicles of various kinds. Driving vehicles quickly towards an objective while avoiding
various obstacles involves similar response topographies in both games (i.e. a button to
accelerate, the directional pad or analog joystick to steer, etc). The two games do not
require vastly different repertoires to play, and the controller for each is the standard
Playstation 2 controller. Even though GTA has more opportunities for violence, and
20
there is a wider variety of inputs that the player can perform, the two games are virtually
identical in terms of time spent doing fundamentally similar things. This is important so
as not to introduce a potential confound of different response topographies (inputs on the
controller) required to play the two games, or what could be called a game content
confound such as would occur in comparing a racing game to a game with no car content.
Two other researchers collected IOA on the game matching for both inputs on the
controller (a measure of how arousing the game is to play) and violent content, in order to
ensure the games were in fact as equivalent as possible. This was done by watching the
videotape o f the main experimenter playing the games, described previously, and
counting both controller inputs and violent actions, after being trained to fluency by the
lead experimenter. Although in some of these sessions more than one experimenter at a
time was present, results were collected independently. IOA scores, which were
calculated by separately comparing each assistant’s results from watching the videotaped
game playing session, indicate a very high agreement between experimenters in both
number o f inputs per minute for both games, and the violent content for both games.
Every IOA check between the three researchers exceeded 90%, with many in the high
90% range. IOA was calculated by comparing each experimenter’s total number of
inputs counted during the 20 m recorded play session, and dividing one into the other.
The same was done with aggressive acts. It is possible that high scores and subsequent
agreement may occur even if observers are not recording the same behaviors, but this was
determined to be the most feasible way to calculate IOA given the several thousand
controller inputs. The following tables illustrate the IOA collected on the two games
used in the study.
21
Game Inputs/min: Inputs/min: IOA% Aggressive Aggressive IOA%

Researcher Researcher acts/min: acts/min:
A B Researcher Researcher
A B
MC 188.4 183.8 97.5% 7.40 7.16 96.7%
cartoon cartoon
GTA 184.4 187.8 98.1% 8.07 8.70 92.7%

realistic realistic

A C Researcher Researcher
A C
MC 188.4 186.5 98.9% 7.40 7.22 97.5%
cartoon cartoon
GTA 184.4 183.8 99.6% 8.07 8.20 98.4%
realistic realistic

B C Researcher Researcher
B C
MC 183.8 186.5 98.5% 7.16 7.22 99.1%
cartoon cartoon
GTA 187.8 183.8 97.8% 8.70 8.20 94.2%
realistic realistic
Table 2. Input Variables and Interobserver Agreement on the Games in the Study
Setting
Experimental sessions took place in a room containing a rectangular conference
table and chairs, a dry erase board, a computer, a television with attached Playstation 2,
and several bookshelves. Only one participant performed the study at a time in the room,
thereby ensuring privacy during the experiment.
22
Equipment
The equipment consisted of a desktop computer used for the simulation
(explained in the session protocol below), a 19” television, and a Playstation 2 brand
game console connected to the television.
Participant Selection and Informed Consent
Participants were 18-29 year old males and females from undergraduate college-level
psychology courses at a Midwestern University, split into two groups of 40 each. After
hearing the general premise and age restrictions of the study, participants were recruited
from these classes after expressing an interest in the study by filling out a Declaration of
Interest Form (see Appendix C). The experimenter then contacted those students who
provided their contact information on the Declaration of Interest Form to schedule an
orientation session. At the orientation session potential participants were given a more
detailed overview of the experiment including the risks, benefits and confidentiality
protections. Those who were interested in participating signed an informed consent
document. All 80 participants who came for an orientation session agreed to the
experiment.
Experimental Procedure
The experimental sequence was identical for Group A (henceforth referred to as
GTA-MC, to denote the order they played the games) and Group B (henceforth referred
to as MC-GTA) participants, other than the order MC and GTA were played, and as a
result, when the posttest Aggression Provocation Questionnaire (described later) was
taken. Participants were not assigned to Group GTA-MC or MC-GTA until step five of
the experimental session.
23
Step One (Consent and Orientation)
Eligible participants read the consent form, and had a chance to ask questions, the
specifics of which were described above.
Step Two (Gameplay Habits Questionnaire).
Participants then completed the Game Playing Habits Questionnaire (Appendix D) to
collect demographic information on their game playing habits.
Step Three (APQ # 1)
Participants were then instructed that they were going to read a series of twelve short
stories about real life situations. Within each story, participants were asked to describe
how they felt about the situation, and select a choice from the list that most closely
described how they might act in such a scenario.
The vignettes used in this study were taken from the Aggressive Provocation
Questionnaire (APQ) (O’Connor, Archer & Wu, 2001). The APQ was designed as an
update to the Anger Situation Questionnaire, (ASQ) (Van Goozen, 1994), as a state-based
measure of aggression, (the Likert scales of how the participant feels), along with
attitudinal measures of aggressiveness, (the decision-making portion). The vignettes that
were used at pretest and posttest are listed in Appendix E. Even though the APQ was
normed against a male sample, the creator of the APQ felt that it could be easily applied
to the female population, with no discemable loss in utility. It was slightly altered to an
American-English dialect, as opposed to a British one, with the creator’s permission. The
APQ consists of 12 scenarios, each with a set of three Likert-style ratings (“angry,”
“frustrated,” and “irritated,”) along with a behavioral decision about how to resolve the
situation. The specific scenarios are listed in Appendix E. For the Likert scores, the Y-
24
axis on the visual displays of the data spans from 0-48 to represent the 0-4 score that
could be assigned to each scenario, resulting in a total between 0 and 48.
As participants completed these vignettes, the experimenter explained to the
participant that he needed to go upstairs for a short time in order to check on the status of
the other part of the experiment being conducted upstairs simultaneously, although in
reality there was no simultaneous session being conducted. This was done to enhance the
believability of the decision-making simulation, described in step four.
Step Four (Decision-making Simulation # 1)
Following this, participants were told they were going to engage in a brief computer
simulation in which they could earn points toward a prize drawing to be conducted after
the experiment. It was imperative that the points earned in the simulation translated into
something tangible and reinforcing to the participant, thus providing some motivation for
non-arbitrary responding. This simulation was similar in design and identical in function
to that used by Smallwood, Fuqua, & Dagen (2005), although several modifications were
made, described below. It has similarities to both the Point Subtraction Aggression
Paradigm, a widely accepted and externally valid laboratory measure of simulated
aggression (Cherek, Schnapp, Moeller, & Dougherty, 1996) and the Prisoner’s Dilemma,
a classic decision matrix involving choices of mutual cooperation, mutual exploitation, or
one-way exploitation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2003). The key differences
between the simulation and the Prisoner’s Dilemma were the redeemable nature of the
points as opposed to fictional prison sentences, and the option to emit competitive
responses, as opposed to just cooperative and aggressive (the exploitative choice in the
Prisoner’s Dilemma).
25
In this simulation, participants were told that they were playing against another
student at the same time; this “opponent” was actually a pre-programmed computer
generated opponent. This deception was necessary to convince the participant that his or
her performance during the simulation was significant and to provide some opportunity
for cooperation or aggression with respect to the “opponent.” Numerous small details
were included in the simulation to make the presence of another human participant as
believable as possible. As expected, none of the participants in this study expressed any
doubt as to the legitimacy of the simulation or its purpose. Questions from participants
were straightforward and clarification seeking, such as asking if the opponent could see
them via webcam (answered ‘no), and if they were in the same class as them (answered
‘possibly’). The three choices they could select from for each trial of the simulation were
explained to them at this time, via a standardized script.
Each simulation session consisted o f fifteen brief independent trials. In each trial, 10
points were at stake, and were divided between the participant and the opponent based on
the decision the participant made for each trial. Participants had one of three choices in
each trial:
l)They could choose to “Go for all the points”, in which case they engaged in a brief
competitive game. In this game, the participant was told he or she was competing against
the opponent to clear the screen of falling ‘missiles.’ The participant pressed the mouse
to fire intercepting ‘missiles’ from his turret on the bottom. The person who cleared
more missiles during the trial won the game and earned all the points for that trial. The
performance of the opponent was adjusted so that the participant won the game on 50%
26
of the game play opportunities, so as not to inadvertently reinforce or punish competitive
responses compared to cooperative responses.
2)They could choose to “share the points”, in which case a cooperation-based game
was played. This game was identical to the competitive one, except that the participant
and computer were working together to intercept missiles. To add to the believability of
this game, the computer randomly assisted in destroying 25%-75% of the missiles on
each trial where this sub-simulation was chosen. Regardless of the percentage of missiles
destroyed by the computer on any given trial, the points were evenly split between the
participant and the opponent.
3)They could choose to “take their points”, in which case a game was played that was
similar to the competitive and cooperative ones, except that the participant was placed in
an aggressive role in which he or she fired ‘missiles’ at the opponent who was placed in a
defensive role. It was important for the aggressor to earn no points when this decision
was made so that the end result, a point loss for the opponent, was unique and both
qualitatively and quantitatively different from the other two choices. This would be the
response most like actual aggression, which usually is directed towards harming another
rather than gaining something by the aggressor. If both players chose to aggress, both
were punished.
For the first two trials, the opponent cooperated both times. This was to detect if
there were systematic differences between proactive and reactive aggression (which can
be considered similar to provoked versus unprovoked), since the first two trials were
unprovoked. Other studies examining potential effects of violent videogames have not
differentiated between different types of aggression, and so this is certainly a variable of
27
interest. On trial # 3, the opponent aggressed, so that participants were ensured to have
some provocation in the simulation, to measure reactive aggression. This had the
additional benefit of ensuring that the participant likely would not simply cooperate
through the entire simulation, thus avoiding any other stimuli from the “opponent” while
playing.
For trial #s 4-13, the opponent made the selection that the player chose on the
previous trial. For trial #s 14 and 15, the opponent cooperated both times, again as an
assessment of unprovoked aggression, this time also incorporating the passage of time
that elapsed during the first thirteen trials.
The following table helps illustrate what would happen depending on the decision of
both the participant and the opponent for the trials. The participant received this table
prior to engaging in the simulation
Particinant ODDonent Decision

Decision
Share the points Go fo r all the points Take his points
Share the points Split ten points (5/5) Compete for all ten Player loses five
points (10/0 or 0/10) points
Opponent earns zero
points (-5/0)
Go for all the points Compete for all ten Compete for all ten Player loses five
points (10/0 or 0/10) points (10/0 or 0/10) points
Opponent earns zero
points (-5/0)
Take his points Player earns zero Player earns zero Player loses 5 points
points points Opponent loses five
Opponent loses five Opponent loses five points (-5/-5)
points (0/-5) points (0/-5)
Table 3. Simulation Decision Matrix
The results of each trial were visible via a spreadsheet at the bottom of the screen, so
the participants were consistently aware of the results of their decisions. The simulation
was designed to minimize the likelihood that the points may have interfered in measuring
28
aggression, becoming the more proximal cause of aggressive responding, described in the
introduction. This was at least partially controlled for as a function of the design of the
simulation. The participant earned points during the simulation no matter what, but how
many was entirely up to his or her own decision making. Even aggressive behavior was
purposeful, as its primary purpose was to reduce the number of points the opponent
earned, thereby reducing his or her total number of raffle entries, making the participant’s
chances in the raffle statistically better. However, this was the least directly beneficial
route for participants to take, comparable to the difference between adding one’s own
raffle tickets to a drawing, as opposed to removing a few out of many total.
Step Five (Quasi-random Assignment)
Participants then were assigned to play the video games in a quasi-random manner,
with participants put into the smaller group if the smaller group had a greater than 2
participant differential, but if not, assigned randomly.
Step Six (GTA or MC)
After assignment to experimental groups, each participant was given the instructions
regarding game play, the fact that how they progress in the game is up to them, that the
experimenter will be recording various details of game play, and the availability of
controller handouts and cheat codes. These are listed in their entirety in Appendix F-l
and F-2 (controller handouts for the two different games) and Appendix G-l and G-2
(codes for the two different games). Participants could stop play prior to 25 m if they
wished, although none chose to do so. Potential unfamiliarity with the specific game was
not a concern in making sure participants came into contact with each game’s built in
reinforcers, as proficiency in videogames likely generalizes to other types of games,
29
because most of them require fairly homogenous repertoires. Additionally, in the case of
GTA, violent actions were required to make any sort of progress in the game. The
dependent measure during game play was the number and type of aggressive behaviors
done in the game, recorded in an ongoing fashion by the experimenter. The data sheet for
this is listed in Appendix H.
At the conclusion of game play, participants were asked to estimate how many violent
actions they participated in during the game. This was done to assess if game players
were actually aware of the quantity of violent actions they performed while playing, a
variable that has never been assessed before in literature on this topic.
Step Seven (Vignettes # 2)
Participants who had completed the violent game (GTA) then completed the APQ
(Appendix E), using the same set of vignettes as were used in the pre test of APQ. Note
that the APQ was administered only after playing the violent video in this step for GTA-
MC, and in Step 10 for MC-GTA. This was done in an effort to limit the session length
and because there was little reason to think APQ measures would show any change after
exposure to a nonviolent game, although this was a possibility. Procedures and
instructions for administration of the APQ were the same as in the previous
administration. During completion of the APQ, the experimenter again excused himself
to check on the status of the fictitious competitor for the Decision Making Simulation.
Note that if participants were in Group B, this step came after step 9, when they played
GTA.
30
Step Eight (Decision-Making Simulation # 2)
Participants then participated in the decision-making simulation using the same
procedures and instructions as during the pre test.
Step Nine (MC or GTA)
This was identical to Step Six, using the game not previously played.
Step Ten (Decision-making Simulation # 3)
This was the same as steps number four and eight.
Step Eleven (AQ)
All participants then completed the “Aggression Questionnaire,” (AQ-see
Appendix I) a 34-item self-report measure, which is a full revision of the Buss-Durkee
Hostility Inventory, “a long-time standard for assessing anger and aggression” (Western
Psychological Services, 2006). This was done in order to get a self-report, questionnaire-
based measure of the participant’s hostility. Because the AQ is a trait-based measure of
aggression, it is insensitive to short term changes in aggression, and thus is acceptable to
administer once at posttest. Thus administering this tool after the independent variable
decreased the likelihood of participant reactivity to the purpose of the study. Scores on
the AQ were subsequently used to identify responders based on their history of, and
attitudes towards, aggression, by using it as an outcome variable to correlate with the
classification variables, described later. The AQ is scored into five subscales,
corresponding with five supposed subtypes of aggression, physical, verbal, anger,
indirect, and hostility.
Step 12 (Videogame Evaluation Questionnaire)
31
Finally, participants were asked to complete the Videogame Evaluation Questionnaire
(VEQ), (see Appendix J). This questionnaire was designed to assess important subjective
characteristics of videogames. The VEQ provided a self report measure of how game
play may have affected the participants. It also provided a self report measure of the
game play experience (e.g., difficulty, character identification) used to determine how
well matched the games were. Participants provided ratings on a 10 point scale for
twelve questions for GTA. Because MC lacked a main character, this game was only
scored on the first eight questions. Table 4 summarizes the sequence of events
experienced by each Group
GTA-MC MC-GTA
Step One Consent/Orientation Consent/Orientation
Step Two Gameplay Habits Questionnaire Gameplay Habits Questionnaire
Step Three A PQ # 1 A PQ # 1
Step Four Decision-Making Simulation # 1 Decision-Making Simulation # 1
Step Five Quasi-Random Assignment Quasi-Random Assignment
Step Six GTA Play MC Play
Step Seven APQ # 2 Decision-Making Simulation # 2
Step Eight Decision-Making Simulation # 2 GTA Play
Step Nine MC Play APQ # 2
Step 10 Decision-Making Simulation # 3 Decision-Making Simulation # 3
Step 11 AQ AQ
Step 12 Game Evaluation Game Evaluation
Table 4. Experimental Session Order
Experimental Procedure, Group B
Group B was included in the study to prevent a potential sequence effect that might
have arisen from all participants playing the games in the same order. Having
participants play both games in one combined session was likely not a concern, because
there is little reason to think a carryover effect might exist; no research has found one,
and 25 minutes of exposure to the first game is unlikely to carryover into the second
32
portion of the experiment, because of the age and corresponding previous exposure to
violent media of various types that participants presumably have already had.
RESULTS
Game Matching
As previously reported, observations of a person playing both GTA and MC
yielded highly similar frequencies of inputs, a measure of the level of demand placed on
the player for each game. These observations of game playing also documented higher
levels of realistic violent acts in GTA than in MC. Furthermore, game play observations
also documented vast differences in the nature of the violent content with MC containing
exclusively cartoonish violence. The violence in GTA was uniformly realistic and very
graphic.
With regard to the subjective ratings of the game players, all participants played
both games and rated each game on eight different subjective dimensions using a 10
point Likert scale (see VEQ in the Methods section). Data were combined across all 80
participants in both groups and displayed in Figure 2. Paired sample t-tests were
conducted on the ratings for each game. As can be seen from these data, players rated
both games similarly on four dimensions (action packed, absorbing, frustrating and
arousing). MC was rated more favorably that GTA on three evaluative dimensions: “I
liked the game” (t = -3.11, p=.003), “the game was entertaining” (t = -2.55, p=.013), and
“the game was exciting” (t = -3.36, p=.001). GTA was rated higher than MC on one
dimension, violent content (t=15.022, p=.0009). Comparisons of subjective game ratings
across the two groups (MC-GTA versus GTA-MC) did not yield significant differences
on any of the rating dimensions. These results are summarized in Appendix L.
33
10.00
9.00
8.00
** * **
7.00 — 6t7 4 - ^73----------
6.39.6.25
5.91
6.00 -5J-5
5.49
5.19
4.84__ 4^90 □Avg GTA
H 5.00
□Avg MC
oc 4.39
3.98 *=Sig at .05
4.00 !**=Sig at .01
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
1-Like gm 2-Action pack 3-Arousing 4-Entertaining 5-Exciting 6-Frustrating 7-Absorbing 8-Violent
Question #
Figure 2. Game Evaluation Means, Questions 1-8
The statistically significant differences in favor of MC on three dimensions,
(entertaining, likeability and exciting) were somewhat surprising given the similarity of
the game in terms of the demands placed on the players. Had these differences been in
favor o f GTA, then any aggressive behavior increments that occurred as a function of
playing GTA might be difficult to attribute to the violent content of GTA (because of
confounds with higher levels of excitement, entertainment value, and/or likeability that
might also have had an impact on post game aggressive behavior). Fortunately, GTA
was rated as much more violent than MC and either similar to MC or less favorable on
other dimensions. This pattern o f differences, while not optimal, does not pose a major
threat to attributing higher levels of post-game aggression that might be detected with
GTA to the higher level of violent content
Finally, it is interesting that, despite the high visibility for GTA in the media, that all
34
three of the significant differences between games for all 80 participants had MC rated
higher, despite its lack of violent content.
Main Group Analysis
This study used analysis of variance (ANOVA) to determine if pre-existing
differences existed between the groups at pretest, and if there were changes over time
within each group as a function of playing either game. Statistical analyses were
conducted on each of the major dependent variables in an effort to determine if exposure
to either game had some effect on one or more of the measures of aggression, and if any
observed effects were unique to just one of the two games, or one of the two sequences of
playing the two games. It is important to point out that all participants played both
games, and that the groups were counterbalanced in order to detect and control for the
possibility of a sequence effect, in this case the playing of the games in a particular order.
Therefore, significant between group differences from pretest to posttest might be an
indicator of a sequence effect. Pretest to posttest significant results on any of the
measures for both groups can reasonably be assumed to be because of one or both of the
games played, regardless of order.
Participant Demographics
The two variables from the Gameplay Habits Questionnaire that may be of
interest when determining group equivalence at pretest are age, and hours per week spent
playing games. Descriptive statistics were sufficient to demonstrate equivalence between
groups on these two measures. Mean age for GTA-MC, 20.10 (SD=2.01, range 18-27),
was similar to the mean age for MC-GTA, 20.73 (SD=2.80, range 18-28). Hours per
week spent playing games were also similar, with GTA-MC’s mean 4.60 hrs/wk
35
(SD=6.96, range 0-35), and MC-GTA’s mean 4.40 hrs/wk (SD=6.16, range 0-30).
Neither of these differences were statistically significant
Additionally, the two main groups did not differ at pretest with regards to the
number of violent actions they reported witnessing in the last month, as assessed by the
Gameplay Habits Questionnaire. Analysis of real life violence between groups required
giving a ranking of each range in order to analyze, where zero incidents =1,1-2 incidents
=2, 3-5 incidents=3, 6-8 incidents=4, and greater than or equal to 9 incidents = 5.
The difference between groups for the amount of violent content they report
seeing in videogames was nonsignificant, but significance was found between groups for
the amount of violent content participants they report observing on television, with GTA-
MC reporting higher levels (df(l,63) f=5.4, p=.023). Both of these sets of data were
taken from the Game Playing Habits Questionnaire, Appendix D, which was taken as part
of the pretest portion of the session. It is unlikely the difference in television violence
content would be confound any subsequent analysis due to the focus of the study being
exclusive to videogames, but it bears pointing out nonetheless.
AQ.
T scores on the revealed no statistically significant differences between groups on
the AQ, a standardized measure of trait aggression administered at the posttest for all
participants. N=40 in both groups, standardized T=50, SD=10. Mean for GTA-MC=
52.03 (SD=9.29), mean for MC-GTA=52.10 (SD=7.44). Visual display of this data is
available in Appendix M.
APQ.
36
APQ Pretest. The pretest mean Likert scores for the two groups for the three
attitudinal variables as a result of the 12 scenarios on the APQ revealed no statistical
significance between groups for any of the three measures. Each attitudinal measure is
rated 0-4 for each of the twelve scenarios, resulting in a range of 0-48 for each measure.
The mean scores for GTA-MC were 29.18 for “angry,” (SD=9.62) 31.36 for “frustrated”
(SD=8.70), and 34.21 for “irritated,” (SD=8.94). The mean scores for MC-GTA were
27.36 for “angry,” (SD=7.44) 29.51 for “frustrated” (SD=8.13), and 33.15 for “irritated,”
(SD=7.29). Visual display of this data is available in Appendix M.
The pretest mean for number of aggressive choices selected out of the twelve
scenarios for GTA-MC was 0.76 (SD=1.21). The pretest mean for the number of
aggressive choices selected out of the twelve scenarios for MC-GTA was 0.41(SD=0.79).
This difference was statistically significant at df (1,68) (f=4.495 at p=.038). This
suggests that the GTA-MC may have had greater preexisting aggressive behavioral
tendencies. Despite the statistical significance, however, both groups selected on average
fewer than one aggressive choice total on the twelve scenarios.
APQ Between Groups. The posttest Likert ratings means for GTA-MC were 29.26
(SD-11.39) for “angry,” 32.08 (SD=11.04) for “frustrated,” and 34.18 (SD=10.39) for
“irritated.” The posttest Likert ratings means for MC-GTA were 28.59 (SD=8.38) for
“angry,” 30.51 (SD=9.49) for “frustrated,” and 34.05 (SD=7.87) for “irritated.” These
were not statistically significant differences. These data are available in appendix M.
The posttest mean for number of aggressive choices selected out of the twelve
scenarios for GTA-MC was 1.33 (SD=1.99). The posttest mean for the number of
37
aggressive choices selected out of the twelve scenarios for MC-GTA was 0.79
(SD=1.54). This was not a statistically significant difference.
48
44
40
36 34.21 34 . 1834.05
31.36
32 130^ 1-
29.26 0
27.20
c™28
oi
re 24 □ GTA-MC
O'
3
□ MC-GTA
o
20
16
12
Angry Frustrated irritated Angry Frustrated

Pretest Posttest
Subscale
Figure 3. APQ Pretest/Posttest Likert Comparison, GTA-MC and MC-GTA
APQ Within Groups. T-tests were used to examine any differential effects from
playing either of the two games over time. To prevent a practice effect, the APQ was
only taken at pretest, and after GTA, regardless of group assignment. It is unlikely that
the APQ responses would have been influenced by MC due to its nonviolent nature.
Only Group GTA-MC demonstrated a statistically significant pretest/posttest change for
aggressive choices made on the 12 scenarios (t—l.OS at p=.047). Based on their
statistically significant greater frequency of aggressive choices on the APQ at pretest, this
finding is not surprising. It suggests that participants who are more likely to select
aggressive choices on the APQ at pretest are also more likely to select a greater number
of them at posttest, a difference seemingly exacerbated by violent game play,
38
demonstrating possible sensitivity to these types of measures. No statistically significant
differences were observed within either group on the 3 Likert scales for ‘angry,’
‘frustrated,’ or ‘irritated.’ These data are visually depicted in Appendix M.
Simulation. There were no statistically significant differences between the two
groups at pretest for cooperate, compete, or for aggress on the fifteen trials constituting
the first simulation session. The total number of choices for cooperate, compete, and
aggress at pretest out o f the fifteen total trials is visually summarized in Appendix M.
The particular sequence that individual participants selected among the three
simulation choices is not reported here, in favor of reporting aggregate group changes
from pretest to posttest, between and within groups. Individual participant differences
are analyzed in the responder analysis.
Simulation Between Groups. There were no statistically significant differences
between groups on the fifteen total simulation trials at pretest, after playing the first game
(GTA for GTA-MC, MC for MC-GTA) as well as the second game (MC for GTA-MC,
GTA for MC-GTA). These data are visually summarized and available in Appendix M.
Simulation Within Groups. Within group repeated measures were examined in
order to determine any differential effects from playing either of the two games over time
on the simulation choices. No statistically significant effects were found. Data for both
groups are visually summarized in Appendix M.
Game Play. The two groups did not have significant differences between them
with regards to the number of violent acts committed in GTA, nor the number of violent
acts they reported believing they had committed.
39
VEQ. Finally, the statements on the VEQ “I became the character during game
play,” and “I would like to be the main character” revealed nonsignificant between group
differences. These self-evaluative statements attempt to measure the degree of
immersion the player experienced while playing GTA. Note that MC did not have an
identifiable main character, so these questions were omitted from the MC evaluation.
The lack of preexisting differences between groups on the demographic variables
of interest, as well as AQ, APQ, and simulation results indicates that the groups were
reasonably equivalent, and thus any posttest or repeated measurement differences can be
assumed to be the result of exposure to one or both independent variables. The between
group difference on the APQ aggressive decision making at pretest, a difference that
became larger at posttest, is statistically noteworthy, but likely not significant enough on
its own to suggest a unique differential game play effect.
Responder and Non-responder Analysis
Introduction
Additionally, as described earlier, one goal of this study was to identify
participants who might be more at risk of responding to violent video game content with
elevated levels of aggression (henceforth referred to as ‘responders’). Therefore, an
analysis was conducted to identify responders and to determine how responders differed
on a range o f variables from non-responders. For this study, a range of outcome
variables were used to categorize participants into two groups: a responder group that
showed some evidence of increased aggression as a function of playing the video games
and a non-responder group that showed no evidence of increases in measures of
aggression. Dependent measures that were not used for classification purposes were
40
then analyzed between the two groups in order to discover possible predictive measures
between responders and non-responders. For the sake of this analysis responders were
defined as any participants who displayed any of the following three changes from pretest
to posttest:
• An increase of four or more aggressive responses on the computer simulation
from pretest to posttest after playing GTA.
• An increase of one standard deviation on any of the three 48-point APQ Likert
scales, ‘angry,’ ‘frustrated,’ and ‘irritated’. Based on the normative data from
the APQ’s development, one standard deviation above the normed sample for
the three Likert scales would be 35 (angry), 33 (frustrated), and 39 (irritated)
out of 48.
o In the event that a participant’s baseline APQ Likert ratings were
already within one standard deviation of the maximum for that scale
(48 points), then any increase, even if less than one standard
deviation), on all three APQ subscales from pre to post measures
resulted in classification of that participant as a “responder”
• An increase o f one standard deviation on the number of aggressive decisions
selected from the list of five possible decisions for each scenario on the APQ
at posttest. Based on the normative data from the APQ’s development, this
would translate into an increase of 2 or more aggressive choices out of twelve
after GTA play.
Note that meeting criteria for any of the three responder dimensions classifies a
participant as a responder.
41
Using these criteria, 22 out of the 80 total participants, were classified as
“responders.” O f the 22 “responders,” one meet all three criteria, six met two of the three
criteria, and 15 met one o f the three criteria.
The table below illustrates summary data for the 22 responders, with classification
criteria, if met, noted with an ‘X’, and outcome data listed in the appropriate cells.
APQ Aggr Sim Aggr

Participant APQ Likert Decision Choices
# increase increase increase
101 X X
104 X
106 X
111 X X
136 X
153 X
154 X X X
199 X
202 X
203 X X
204 X
219 X
255 X
307 X X
373 X
403 X
405 X X
419 X
420 X
444 X
491 X X
499 X
Total 13 8 9
Table 5. Responder Classification and Outcome Variable Summary
42
Responder and Non-responder Classification Variables
Concerning the aforementioned criteria used to determine responders versus non
responders, analysis revealed the following. In order to keep statistical power as high as
possible, all responders were examined together as one group when compared to non
responders, as opposed to separating them by number of responder dimensions met. The
graph below displays the mean differences in APQ Likert scores between responders and
non-responders at pretest and posttest. Statistical significant was reached for each pretest
and posttest Likert score, as well as the change in the number of aggressive decisions
made on the 12 APQ scenarios (df for all (1,68), with APQ Likert scales as follows:
Angry, pretest f=l 1.74, p=.001, Frustrated, pretest f=8.53, p=.005, Irriatated, pretest
f=12.75, p=.001, Angry, posttest f=23.99, p=.0009, Frustrated, posttest f=13.60, p=.0009,
Irritated, posttest f==13.23, p=.0009). APQ aggressive choices were significant as follows
(Aggressive, pretest f=20.78, p=.0009, Aggressive, posttest f=31.38, p=.0009).
Responders endorsed 1.32 aggressive choices on the APQ at pretest (SD=1.55)
and 2.64 aggressive choices at posttest (SD=2.59). Non-responders endorsed 0.30
aggressive choices at pretest (SD=0.53) and 0.44 at posttest (SD=0.73). All of these are
expected significant differences, given the APQ’s status as a classification variable.
43
48
44
40.64
40 39.18
38.45
37.45
35.64
36 34.41
31.7
28.53 28.54
25.86 25.47
□ Responders
□ Nonresponders
20
16
12
0
Angry | Frustrated Irritated Angry Frustrated Irritated
Pretest Posttest
Figure 4. APQ Pretest/Posttest Comparison, Responders vs Non-responders
Simulation Between Groups. The figure below represents the mean number of
aggressive choices the participants in each group chose on the fifteen total trials at
pretest, after playing the first game as well as the second game. Aggressive responses,
and the change in aggression over repeated administrations of the simulation, were not
included in the statistical analysis of outcome variables due to its status as a preexisting
classification variable. Visual inspection of the graph below illustrates the large
difference between the two groups, especially post-GTA.
44
12.00
□ Responders
o 6.00
□ Nonresponders
# Aggress # Aggress # Aggress

Pretest Post MC Post GTA
Figure 5. Simulation Aggression Choices Comparison, Responders vs Non-responders
Responder and Non-responder Outcome Variables
Demographic. The mean age of responders was 20.90 years (SD=2.84). The
mean age o f non-responders was 20.25 years (SD=2.29). This was not a statistically
significant difference. The mean number of hours per week that responders reported
playing videogames was 4.04 (SD=4.09). The mean number of hours per week that non
responders reported playing videogames was 4.18 (SD=6.51). This was not a statistically
significant difference.
Five of the twenty-two (22.73%) responders reported currently receiving
psychological care of some sort, with four of them reporting currently taking
psychotropic medication of some sort (two listed Wellibutrin, one Zoloft, one Seroquel).
Six of the fifty-seven (10.52%) of the non-responders reported currently receiving
psychological care of some sort, with two of them reporting currently taking some form
45
of psychotropic medication (one Lunesta, one Wellibutrin). This was a non-significant
difference.
Six of the twenty-two (27.27%) responders reported preferring to play
videogames alone as opposed to with friends, while eighteen of the fifty-seven (31.58%)
non-responders reported preferring solo game playing. This was a non-significant
difference.
Ten of the twenty-two (45.45%) responders endorsed the statement “Have you
ever felt unable to stop playing a videogame, or neglected other obligations such as
school or peer interactions, in order to play it more?” while fifteen of the fifty-seven
(26.32%) of the non-responders endorsed the same statement. This was a non-significant
difference.
The difference between responders and non-responders for the amount of violent
content they report seeing in videogames and television was nonsignificant. The two
groups showed no significant differences between them with regards to the number of
violent acts committed in GTA, nor were differences noted in the number of violent acts
they reported believing they had committed. Responders did not report a significantly
higher number of real life violent/aggressive instances in the last month. Due to the
range of incidents that could be endorsed on the questionnaire, conversion was as
follows: 0 instances=0,1-2=1, 3-5=2, 6-8=3, and 9 or more=4. Responders reported a
mean of 1.94 (SD=1.15) in the last month, while non-responders reported a mean of 1.23
(SD=0.80) in the last month.
VEQ. Responders endorsed the statement “I became the main character during
game play” for GTA higher than non-responders (mean=3.77, SD=3.64 for responders,
46
mean=2.00, SD=2.65 for non-responders. Significant at df(l,68), f=3.598, p=.062). This
was a statistically significant difference, although at p=.06, slightly higher than the usual
.05 p value accepted as statistically meaningful in most research. Responders endorsed
the statement “I would like to be the main character” for GTA higher than non
responders (mean=2.52, SD-2.35 for responders, mean=1.60, SD=1.51 for non
responders). This was not a statistically significant difference.
AQ. The figure below displays the mean T scores at posttest for all responders
versus non-responders. Statistical analysis comparing the overall AQ T-score between
the groups revealed statistically significant differences between the two groups (df(l,68),
M 7.437, p=.0009).
58 57.68
56
54
50.07 □ Responders
' ■ "1 □ Nonresponders
46
42
40
AQ T Mean
Figure 6. AQ T Score Means, Responders vs Non-responders
AQ Subscales. Three of the five AQ subscales (physical aggression, verbal
aggression, and hostility) were also examined in order to examine if the significance
47
found between groups on the AQ overall score was largely couched within one of the AQ
subscales. The graph below displays these data, and all three subscales are statistically
significant between groups. These results indicate that differences between responders
and non-responders on the AQ were not a result of one subscale.
58.00
57.05
56.18
56.00
52.00 '5TT26
49.81 □ Responders
□ Non Responders
48.00 47.62
46.00
42.00
40.00
Physical Anger Hostility
Subscale
Figure 7. AQ Subscale T Scores, Responders vs Non-responders
Simulation Between Groups. Statistical analyses revealed significant differences
for levels of cooperation and competition on the first set of simulation trials (df (1,68)
f=4.96, p=..036 for cooperation), (df(l,68), f=5.62, p=.021 for competition). Statistically
significant differences between responders and non-responders were also noted on post-
GTA measures of cooperation (df(l,68) f= 12.25, p=.001). No other significant
differences were noted. These data are visually summarized below.
48
10.00
3.00
8.00
7.48
□ Responders
2 5.00
□ Nonresponders
0.00
# Coop | # Compete | # Aggr # Coop | # Compete | # Aggr # Coop | # Compete | # Aggr
Pretest Post MC Post GTA
Figure 8. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Responders vs Non-responders
Simulation Within Groups. Within group repeated measures were examined in
order to determine any differential effects from playing either of the two games over time
on the simulation choices. No statistically significant effects were found. The graphs
below summarize the changes over time for both responders and non-responders. Note
the aggressive measure is a classification variable, and thus not tied to this statistical
analysis, but included in the graph for clarity.
49
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
□ Pretest
5.00 □ Post NV
P o stv
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Compete
Responders
Figure 9. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Responders
10.00
8.00
6.00
□ Pretest
□ Post NV
PostV
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
0.00
Cooperate Compete Aggress
Nonresponders
Figure 10. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Non-responders
50
Response to Provocation. Differences were also found in how responders react to
provocation in the simulation. As described in the Step Four of the Experimental
Procedure (Decision-making Simulation #1), the computer was programmed to aggress
against the participant on trials three and fourteen each time the simulation was played.
This provided a probe to measure response to provocation (in this case the provocation
was a programmed aggression from the simulated competitor). These data were
quantified by assigning a cooperate choice on the post provocation trial a value of zero, a
compete choice a value o f one and an aggress choice a value of two. Figure 20
summarizes the choices responders and non-responders made for trials one and two,
labeled” unprovoked” (where the computer cooperates on the previous trials) and on
trials four, and fifteen (the trials immediately after the computer aggresses to assess
response to provocation), for pretest, post MC, and post GTA.
1.80
1.60
"T32-
O
1.18 * !
c 1-20 —fr+4 -
0
a
□ Responders
1 100 & 7 0S -
□ Nonresponders
55 0 . 8&86
0.77 ‘^Statistically
2 0.80 rrn " o .7 2 | significant
«
>
c 0.62 0.62).61 between groups
o 0.59
° 0.60
0.47 0.47 °-5Q)48
0 .4 ^
0.40
0.20
0.00
Post MC Post GTA
Figure 11. Simulation Key Trials Converted Decisions, Responders vs Non-responders
51
Statistical significance was noted for the pretest simulation, trial 4, in which the
opponent aggresses, (df(l,68), f=5.07, p=..028). Post-GTA, responders showed
statistically significant differences on trials 1 (unprovoked) and 4 (post-provocation) (df
(1,68) f=5.48 at p=.022, and f=4.55 at p=.037). With regards to visual inspection, it
would appear that responders are more likely to respond aggressively to both unprovoked
and provoked aggression than non-responders at pretest, but that game playing did not
make these differences between the two groups more apparent.
DISCUSSION
Summary
The purpose of this study was to select two video games matched on as many
variables as possible other than violent content, and expose participants to both games in
a counterbalanced order, in order to ascertain if exposure to the violent game was
causally related to any changes in aggressive attitudes or decision making. A secondary
goal of the study was to identify a subset of individuals who responded to games with
violent content in a qualitatively different way than other participants, and then to analyze
how this subset of responders differed from the non responders. Two groups of 40
participants each played each game for 20m in a counterbalanced order (GTA-MC and
MC-GTA), and completed a variety of dependent measures, some in a repeated measure
format. In general, few significant differences between the two experimental groups
were observed at posttest, within or between groups. Secondary analyses revealed a
moderate number of differences between responders and non-responders on various types
of outcome variables used in the study.
52
Gender Differences
No systematic differences between males and females were observed. There were
a few noticeable preexisting differences between genders worth further exploration in
subsequent research. In general, males found both GTA and MC more enjoyable to play
than females, while females found them more frustrating. These differences were likely
not a confound, as the groups were equally mixed in gender, thereby controlling for
between gender variability.
Pretest Differences
The two main groups (GTA-MC and MC-GTA) showed no consistent pretest
differences on most of the dependent variables or the demographic variables. This
demonstrates reasonable equivalence at pretest, minimizing the occurrence and effect of
any potential preexisting between group differences on subsequent responding.
Nonsignificance was found for all the demographic variables of interest (age, time spent
playing games, exposure to real life violence). Similarly, AQ-assessed trait hostility
(though technically a posttest-measure because it was taken after the IV exposure, but
assumed to be insensitive to change), APQ Likert measures of state hostility, simulation-
assessed tendencies toward cooperation, competition, or aggression, violent acts engaged
in and estimated in GTA, and evaluative statements about the engrossing nature of the
gameplay experience in GTA showed no significant group differences. The only findings
of significance at pretest between groups were the APQ measures of aggressive decision
making (higher for the GTA-MC group), and the between group estimation of the amount
of violent television content. While both of these are interesting in their own right,
neither is likely not a confounding variable to the experimental design of the study nor to
53
the accompanying group equivalence. The between-group difference in aggressive
decision making, while statistically significant, was small with regards to the total
number of possible aggressive decisions. Responders averaged 0.76 aggressive decisions
on the 12 scenarios, while non-responders selected an average of 0.41 aggressive
decisions. The other significant preexisting difference, between group estimation o f the
percentage of television content considered violent, while possibly interesting as a line of
future research, has little relevance to the focus of this study.
Posttest Differences
No significant between group differences were observed on the APQ Likert scales or
the simulation decisions to cooperate, compete, or aggress. This indicates that there were
no strong sequence effects as a result of playing the games in a particular order. The data
strongly suggest that it did not matter in which order participants played the games. The
sole exception was the one finding of significance, that GTA-MC participants, (who
played GTA first), were more likely to endorse aggressive decision making choices on
the APQ scenarios. Because both groups played GTA, albeit in a different order, and
both groups took the APQ for the second time after playing GTA, it is difficult to
interpret this finding. It could be pure statistical chance. Possibly GTA-MC participants
were reporting greater aggressive decision making as a function o f when in the course of
the experiment the APQ was administered the second time. Because MC-GTA
participants played GTA second, they took the second APQ approximately 40 minutes
than GTA-MC participants. Why this might have had an effect on subsequent responding
is not clear. Most likely, this difference is a function of the preexisting difference
between groups, discussed on page 41, manifesting as a posttest difference. This may be
54
due to greater sensitivity to violent content by the GTA-MC group related to their greater
state-aggressiveness at pretest.
Posttest results and analysis revealed no systematically significant within group
differences, indicating that there was not a significant effect from playing either of the
two games, regardless of order.
Overall, the main group analysis was highly consistent in demonstrating a lack of
findings between or within groups. This absence of evidence for the effects of violent
video game play on measures of aggression is inconsistent with a number of recently
conducted, published studies that report increases in various measures of aggression as a
function of playing violent video games (e.g., Anderson and Dill, 2000, Sheese and
Graziano, 2005, Deselms and Altman, 2003, Brady and Matthews, 2006). Why then, do
other studies seem to indicate more consistently significant, though still generally mixed,
interactions between violent game play and aggressive behavior, thoughts, or attitudes?
First, it is possible that some studies found significant results due to the very different
nature of the games in terms of how arousing they are to play. As mentioned in the
introduction, failing to match the games in terms of graphics, difficulty, and other
significant game play variables introduces a confound to the results that cannot be
overlooked. Studies with this methodological limitation that found results may be
measuring some kind of change from game play related to differences in content.
Additionally, other studies also tend to interpret findings in the cognitive (Anderson
& Dill, 2000) or attitudinal (Deselms & Altman, 2004) domain, appealing to theoretical
constructs as the backbone from which to interpret data. As discussed in the methods
section on pages 7-9, the relationship between inferred cognitive constructs such as
55
knowledge structures, cognitive priming of aggressive words, and aggressive behavior or
attitudes is largely theoretical at this point. That is not to say there is not a potential
relationship, but because this study focused primarily on observable behavioral indices of
aggressive acts or choices, it is possible that the disparity in results between research in
the cognitive domain and this study is a function o f examining different mechanisms of
causal action. Research utilizing dependent measures of this type, and combining them
with behavioral measures, could differentiate the mechanisms of change triggered by
violent videogame play.
By contrast, one strength of this study lies in the simplicity of its analysis. A
pragmatic conceptual explanation of potential significant effects lies in interpreting the
results via changes in motivative operations. In this behavioral analysis, aggressive game
play might make subsequent aggression a more reinforcing behavior, and evoke behavior
that in the past had been consequated by opportunities for aggression (Laraway,
Snycerski, Michael, & Poling, 2003). With regards to the results found in this study,
motivative operation changes might lead participants to choose more aggressively on the
APQ scenarios, as a result of aggression temporarily becoming a more valued option for
conflict resolution. Data for GTA-MC validates this as a possible interpretation for the
observed significant effect size, although the lack o f differences at posttest for the MC-
GTA group somewhat mitigates this result.
Behaviorally, several alternative explanations are available to interpret other
studies demonstrated effects, as well as any possible effects in future research. This is
assuming, of course, that said studies were methodologically controlled for, with matched
games, along with valid and reliable analog measures of aggression. Other than the
56
aforementioned MO changes that might make aggression more reinforcing in the short
term, and evoke behaviors previously consequated by opportunities for aggression,
several other parallel interpretations exist, including a straightforward modeling effect,
whereby players of violent games might directly imitate the content observed in games,
although because of the negative correlation between age and effect size of viewing
violence (Paik and Comstock, 1994), this effect would likely be the most apparent with
younger individuals.
Verbal aggression may be reinforced by violent game play that has aggressive
verbal content via combinatorial entailment effects within relational frames related to
aggression (Hayes, Bames-Holmes, and Roche, 2001). Within this line of thought, an
individual’s repertoire o f aggressive verbal content might be widened in number and
strengthened in response likelihood across multiple combinations of external
discriminative stimuli, via various derived relationships with other aggressive game
words.
Responder Analysis
One of the unique aspects of the current study is the focus on responders versus non
responders. It is apparent that millions of teens and adults play violent video games,
often times on a daily basis, without seriously elevating the level of aggressive behavior
in their daily life, as evidenced by the greater number of game players compared to the
number of violent crimes committed, and then blamed on video games. If violent video
games are a serious risk factor for aggressive behavior, the effects are surely limited to a
small portion of game players. Thus it is of interest to identify the subgroup of
participants in this study who showed the largest increase in measures of aggressive
57
behavior to determine if there are any predictors of high levels of increase in aggression.
Responder analysis suggests a fairly consistent response pattern on many of the
dependent variables that is different from that of the non-responder, summarized in detail
below. Significance found for classification variables needs to be interpreted with
caution, because they were used as benchmarks to categorize participants into one of the
two categories, as discussed prior. However, the pattern of differences across such a
wide array of outcome variables is noteworthy.
With regards to classification variables, responders scored almost one standard
deviation higher on the APQ Likert scales at pretest, and more than one standard
deviation on each of the three APQ Likert scales at posttest (although not quite enough to
demonstrate a within-group, game influenced effect). Responders were significantly
more likely to endorse aggressive decision making on the APQ at pretest and posttest,
with the posttest difference between groups greater, but not large enough to show a
within group effect for responders. Responders chose more aggressive choices at pretest
on the simulation, and the difference between the groups increased after playing. The
consistent significance achieved on these measures indicates that all three measures, the
APQ Likert scales, the APQ behavioral decision making selections, and the simulation,
were effective in classifying certain participants as responders. In other words, if the
simulation was not a sensitive measure in this capacity, few participants would have been
classified as responders as a result of their simulation choices. Thus, statistical
significance between responders and non-responders would likely not have been reached
on this measure.
58
Statistically significant outcome variables, not associated with classifying participants
as responders or non-responders illustrate possible causal mechanisms for differential
responding that future research will have to address. On the simulation, responders
emitted significantly fewer cooperative responses, a difference that increased as a
function of playing GTA. They also emitted more competitive responses, although this
difference between groups remained relatively consistent across conditions.
With regard to provocation-influenced responses, responders demonstrated a much
greater likelihood of aggressive responding to provocation on the simulation. Again, this
difference did not seem to be exacerbated as a function of gameplay, but rather was a
significant pretest difference that reached nonsignifiance across repeated measurements,
with responders staying roughly the same with regard to their choices. However, non
responders increased in competitive levels to a statistical level similar to the responders
after playing GTA. Two ways to interpret this finding are that either the simulation was
insensitive to measuring changes in aggressive decision making, or playing arousing
videogames, regardless o f content, appears to provoke non-responders more than
responders, at least competitively. Whether this is a flaw in the simulation design, or
because non-responders committed fewer violent acts in the game is difficult to say with
authority.
Surprisingly, responders did not commit significantly more violent actions in GTA,
nor did they have better awareness of how many violent actions they committed.
Responders did not report witnessing more real life violence than non-responders.
Responders were not more likely to report being unable to stop playing a game,
neglecting real life obligations in the process. Research on this form of gaming addiction
59
is in its infancy. Studies specifically targeted to this topic are needed, something beyond
the scope of this study.
Finally, and most importantly, responders were more likely to endorse statements like
"I became the main character during gameplay" referring to GTA. This suggests that one
of the qualitative differences distinguishing these two groups may be the degree to which
responders identify with, and ultimately adopt the role of, the protagonist in violent
videogames. The extent to which this may generalize to other media is not yet known.
Clearly, it is premature to draw firm conclusions on whether violent games have a
short or long term effect on players, or the cognitive, behavioral, or physiological
mechanisms that might mediate these effects. Even the most logical sounding effects,
such as the negative correlational relationship between play time and grades, needs to be
examined further. After all, time spent playing games is only wasted time if it cuts into
more functional behavior, such as studying or socializing (Gentile et al., 2004). If a child
is playing games instead of getting into trouble on the streets, then this relationship is not
as straightforward.
However, this study is far from the conclusive piece of research on this topic. In
particular, more needs to be done to examine variables that differentially correlate
responders with non-responders, in the interest of better predicting individuals who might
respond adversely to violent game content.
Limitations
The most obvious limitation of the study is the choice of dependent measures.
Although great care was taken to select measures that would be most likely to yield
results, it is difficult to conclude that these measures were the best currently available.
60
Related to this issue is the difficulty in studying sensitive topics such as aggression, and
how to measure them. Short of provoking a participant and seeing if they somehow
aggress toward you (admittedly ignoring the ethical issues that would make that
impossible), measures of aggression are at best educated guesswork, building upon other
methodologically controlled studies of aggression to lend support to the choice of analog
measures of aggression that have varying degrees of ecological validity.
The second limitation is the relatively small N. While a study of this size is
acceptable for psychological research, it still pales in comparison to the millions of
people worldwide who regularly play videogames. Related, and even more troubling, is
the demographically homogenous participant sample used in this study with regard to
educational status. Because all the participants were college students, generalizability of
the findings is limited. To the credit of the researchers, it was a fairly representative
group in terms of who actually spends the most time playing videogames.
Third, the age range o f participants is clearly a concern, but due to ethical
constraints, it will be difficult for future researchers to study a younger participant
population. In order to do so, some compromise would have to be made with regards to
the game content, which might mitigate any potential effects.
Despite best efforts to match the games, they are still different games. Sheese and
Graziano (2005) took a significant methodological step forward by exposing both groups
to the same game, but with the violent content systematically removed from the game for
half the participants. The compromise that decision seemed to force them to make was to
use a graphically primitive game (at the time of their study, it was twelve years old).
This was likely required due to the inherent difficulty in modifying game content; a game
61
that old would be feasible for a computer savvy individual to make the needed
modifications. By contrast, games as advanced as the ones in this study would simply be
impossible to modify in that way.
Future Research
Regarding the issue o f game content, the only way to completely settle the issue
of game equivalency would be to have a game company take one of their violent
products, and remove all violent content from it. Then, participants would play either the
violent or nonviolent version (or both, in a study such as this one), and differences would
be measured. Given how profitable the game industry is, however, it seems unlikely that
any company would want to risk joining in such a venture, for fear that data might
demonstrate a causal relationship.
Another promising area of research would be the utilization of brain imaging
scans, to see if violent content in games selectively activates certain regions of the brain
that are unaffected by simply arousing, demanding, or frustrating games. Results in this
realm could indicate that overt behavioral measures might not be the most sensitive to the
types of effects these games might cause. Perhaps more subtle, neurological changes that
the user is not cognizant of are actually taking place.
An unexpected boon to this line of research came with the November 2006
release of the Nintendo Wii game system, competitor with the Playstation 3 and Xbox
360 consoles that were released at roughly the same time by Sony and Microsoft,
respectively. The Wii, while the most technologically inferior of the three systems in
terms of graphics, has one major variable differentiating it from the other two that may be
of interest to future researchers. This variable is the control scheme. Games for the Wii
62
use a novel controller that players can swing to simulate a tennis stroke or sword slash,
etc. This difference in how behaviors are translated from the controller to the on-screen
action is potentially important because it makes the behaviors similar in topography to
their real life counterparts. The implications of this are significant with regard to
removing the potential confound that pressing buttons does not translate into real life
behavior. In this case, using the Wii controller like a weapon is about as close as one can
get to real life violence, at least at the current level of gaming technology.
Finally, in order to build upon the line of research differentiating responders from
non responders, future studies could specifically study responders in a pretest/posttest
repeated measures design. For example, participants could complete the AQ and APQ
assessments, and, if considered a responder based on those, could participate in several
follow-up studies designed to differentiate types of risk. In this hypothetical study,
responders would be invited back to play different types of games with different types
and levels of violent content, engage in different driving simulations designed to assess
more real-world types of aggressive behavior, and be interviewed in a structured setting
about their exposure to violence growing up, current attitudes towards aggression, and so
on. This would provide a deeper level of understanding of more variables that might be
of interest to researchers, in the hopes of further differentiating responders from non
responders. The goal would not be to stigmatize those individuals that were determined
to be responders from the AQ and APQ, but rather to develop over time a composite
picture of what types of individuals might need to have their exposure to aggressive
content monitored, especially as children.
63
REFERENCES
2old2play (2007). Video game legislation 2007. Retrieved from http://www.2old2
play.com/News/Video_Game_Legislation_2007.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000) Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings,
and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal o f Personality and Social
Psychology, 78(4), 772-790).
Anderson, C. A., & Murphy, C. R. (2003). Violent video games and aggressive behavior
in young women. Aggressive Behavior, 29(5), 423-429.
Andreasen, M. (2001). Evolution in the family’s use of television: An overview. In J.
Bryant & J. Bryant (Eds.), Television and the American Family (pp. 3-30). New
Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
Associated Press (2005). Judge: Game over for Illinois ban. Retrieved from http://www.
cnn.com/2005/TECH/fun.games/12/02/game.ban.ap/index.html
Blackwell Publishing Ltd. (2005). Kids at risk of TV/videogame seizures-Experts
release new recommendations on reducing risk. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedaily.eom/releases/2005/l 1/051108085539.htm
Brady, S. S., & Matthews, K. A. (2006). Effects of media violence on health-related
outcomes among young men. Archives o f Pediatric & Adolescent Medicine, 160,
341-347.
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. I. (2003). Aggression Questionnaire. Los Angeles: Western
Psychological Services. Retrieved from http://www.wpspublish.com/
wpsf06s01.htm.
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. I. (2000). Aggression Questionnaire: Manual. Los Angeles:
64
Western Psychological Services.
Cherek, D. R., Schnapp, W., Moeller, F. G., & Dougherty, D. M. (1996). Laboratory
measures of aggressive responding in male parolees with violent and nonviolent
histories. Aggressive Behavior, 22, 27-36.
Deselms, A. & Altman, J. (2003). Immediate and Prolonged Effects of Videogame
Violence. Journal o f Applied Social Psychology, 33(8), 1553-1563.
Entertainment Software Association (2006). Industry Facts. Retrieved from
<http://www.theesa.com/facts/index.php>
Funk, J. B., Buchman, D. D., Jenks, J., & Bechtoldt, H. (2003). Playing violent video
games, desensitization, and moral evaluation in children. Journal o f Applied
Developmental Psychology, 24(4), 413-436.
Gamespot (2005). Illinois game bill moves on, California bill halted. Retrieved from
<http://www.gamespot.eom/news/2005/05/04/news_6123598.html>
Gamespot (2005). No violence or sex for young Tar Heel gamers. Retrieved from
<http://www.gamespot.com/news/2005/04/22/news_6122803.html>
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 o f Adolescence, 27(1), 5-22.
Hayes, S. C., Bames-Holmes, D., & Roche, B. (Eds) (2001). Relational Frame Theory.
New York: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Huston, A. C., Donnerstein, E., Fairchild, H. H., Feshbach, N. D., Katz, P. A., Murray, J.
P., Rubinstein, E. A., Wilcox, B. L., Zuckerman, D. (1992). Big world, small
screen: The role of television in American society. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press.
Laraway, S., Snycerski, S., Michael, J., & Poling, A. (2003). Motivating operations and
terms to describe them: Some further refinements. Journal o f Applied Behavior
Analysis, 36, 407-414.
O’Connor, D. B., Archer, J., & Wu, F. W. C. (2001). Measuring aggression: Self-reports,
partner reports, and responses to provoking scenarios. Aggressive Behavior, 27,
79-101.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial
behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21(4), 516-546.
Paprocki, M. (2005). Video game violence: A history. Retrieved from http://www
googobits.com/articles/1854-video-game-violence-a-history.html
Sheese, B. E., & Graziano, W. G. (2005) Deciding to Defect: The Effects of Video-
Game Violence on Cooperative Behavior. Psychological Science, 16(5), 354-357.
Sinclair, B. (2006). CEA: Games to pull in $12.5 billion this year. Retrieved from http://
www.gamespot.com/news/6155802.html
Smallwood, K. D., Fuqua, R. W., & Dagen, J. C. (2005). Potential effects o f aggressive
videogames on young adult’s behavior and physiology. Unpublished masters
thesis, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (2003). Prinsoner’s Dilemma. Retrieved from http:
//plato.stanford.edu/entries/prisoner-dilemma/
The Electronic Software Association. (2004). Digital Pressroom. Retrieved from
66
http://www.theesa.com/pressroom.html
Thorsen, T. (2005). Clinton introducing federal game regulation. Retrieved from
http://www.gamespot.com/news/6140535.html
Uhlman, E., & Swanson, J. (2004) Exposure to violent video games increases automatic
aggressiveness. Journal o f Adolescence, 27,41-52.
van Goozen, S. H. M., Frijda, N. H., Kindt, M., & van del Poll, N. E. (1994). Anger
proneness in women: Development and validation of the Anger Situation
Questionnaire. Aggressive Behavior, 20(2), 79-100.
Varanini, G. (2003). Video games constitutionally protected. Retrieved from
<http://www.gamespot.eom/news/2003/06/03/news_6029440.html.>
Varanini, G. (2003). Michigan votes for fine on violent video games. Retrieved from
<http://www.gamespot.com/news/2003/01/02/news_2907789.html>
Wade, S. (2006). Video game industry wins over half a million dollars in attorney’s fees
from state of Illinois. Retrieved from http://www.theesa.om/archives/2006/08/
video_game_indu_7.php.
Western Psychological Services (2004). Aggression Questionnaire. Retrieved from
http://www-secure.earthlink.net/www.wpspublish.com/Inetpub4/catalog/W-
371.htm
67
Appendix A. HSIRB Approval Letter
W es te r n M ic h ig a n U n iv e r s ity
Human Subjects Institutional Review Board
Date: April 11,2006
To: Wayne Fuqua, Principal Investigator

Kent Smallwood, Student Investigator for dissertation •
A
From: Mary Lagerwey, Ph.D., Chair
Re: HSIRB Project Number: 06-03-04
This letter will serve as confirmation that your research project entitled “Behavioral,
Attitudinal and Decisions-Altering Effects of Aggressive Videogames on Young Adults”
has been approved under the full category of review by the Human Subjects Institutional
Review Board. The conditions and duration of this approval are specified in the Policies
of Western Michigan University. You may now begin to implement the research as
described in the application.
Please note that you may only conduct this research exactly in the form it was approved.
You must seek specific board approval for any changes in this project. You must also
seek reapproval if the project extends beyond the termination date noted below. In
addition if there are any unanticipated adverse reactions or unanticipated events
associated with the conduct of this research, you should immediately suspend the project
and contact the Chair of the HSIRB for consultation.
The Board wishes you success in the pursuit of your research goals.
Approval Termination: March 15, 2007
Walwood Hall, Kalamazoo, Ml 49008-5456

phone.- (269)
387-8293 fax: (269) 387-8276
68
Appendix B-l-Game Matching Tool-MC
1. Name of game: Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition
2. Platform: PS 2
3. ESRB Rating: E 10+
4. ESRB Content Descriptors: Mild language, mild violence
5. Game type: Racing
6. Release Date: 04/05
7. Publisher: Rockstar Games
8. Length of time examined: 20 m
9. # of instruction inputs: 3768
10. Instruction inputs/minute: 188.4
11.# of “cartoon” aggressive behaviors: 134 in 18 m
12. # of “cartoon” aggressive behaviors/minute: 7.44
a. Signs/lampposts hit, with no actual damage to either: 134
13. # o f realistic aggressive behaviors: 3 in 18 m
14. # of realistic aggressive behavior/minute: 0.16
a. Realistic car crashes/flips-3
15. Pace-how demanding with reflexes
(slow/medium/fast): fast
16. Game difficulty/complexity (easy/medium/hard): medium
69
Appendix B-2-Game Matching Tool-GTA
1. Name of game: Grand Theft Auto 3: San Andreas
2. Platform: PS 2
3. ESRB Rating: “M” (Mature)
4. ESRB Content Descriptors: Blood and Gore, Intense Violence, Strong Language,
Strong Sexual Content, Use of Drugs
5. Game type: Driving/adventure
6. Release Date: 10/04
7. Publisher: Rockstar Games
8. Length of time examined: 20 m
9. # of instruction inputs: 3688
10. Instruction inputs/minute: 184.4
11.# of “cartoon” aggressive behaviors: 0
12. # of “cartoon” aggressive behaviors/minute: 0
13. # of realistic aggressive behaviors: 174
14. # of realistic aggressive behavior/minute: 8.07
a. Carjackings-10
b. Murder-Hand to Hand-0
c. Murder-Gun-12
d. Murder-V ehicular-12
e. Cars totaled-17
f. Accidents/property damage-76
g. Encounters with prostitutes-0
70
h. Police murdered- (Not previously counted above)-22
i. Police cajjackings- (Not previously counted above)-2
j . Assault on police (Not previously counted below)-4
k. Assault without murder-16
1. Timed “died”-3
15. Pace-how demanding with reflexes (slow/medium/fast)-fast
16. Game difficulty/complexity (easy/medium/hard)-medium
71
Appendix C-Declaration of Interest Forms
Declaration of interest: Videogame research project

By providing contact information below, I am indicating my interest in attending a brief
orientation session about the videogame research project announced in my psychology
course. I understand that I’ll have the opportunity to decide if I want to volunteer for this
project after I complete the orientation session.
Name (print NEATLY):___________
Name (sign):____________
Provide information for the preferred way to contact you.
Phone (write NEATLY)______________
Email (write NEATLY)_______________
Best time to contact me (circle one): morning, afternoon, evening
Research conducted by Kent Smallwood, MA, and R. Wayne Fuqua, PhD

WMU Psychology Department _______________________
Declaration of interest: Videogame research project

By providing contact information below, I am indicating my interest in attending a brief
orientation session about the videogame research project announced in my psychology
course. I understand that I’ll have the opportunity to decide if I want to volunteer for this
project after I complete the orientation session.
Name (print NEATLY):___________
Name (sign):____________
Provide information for the preferred way to contact you.
Phone (write NEATLY)______________
Email (write NEATLY)_______________
Best time to contact me (circle one): morning, afternoon, evening

Research conducted by Kent Smallwood, MA, and R. Wayne Fuqua, PhD
________________________ WMU Psychology Department________________________
72
Appendix D-Game Playing Habits Questionnaire

Please answer the following questions honestly and to the best of your ability.
Remember that there are no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ answers. Use the back if you need to.
Age______
1. In a typical WEEK during the school year (7 day period), how much time do you
typically spend playing videogames?_______________________ hours/week
2. Have you ever played “Midnight Club 3: DUB Edition”? Y/N

3. Have you ever played “Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas”? Y/N
4. Please list all games that you remember playing during the past week
5. How many games did you purchase in the last 12 months? (circle one)
0 1-2 3-5 5-8 8-10 More than 10
6. In a given WEEK of playing videogames, what percentage of the content in the

games you play would you consider violent? _ _ _ _ _ _ %
7. In a given WEEK of watching television, what percentage of the content in the

shows you watch would you consider violent?_______ %
8a. In a given MONTH, how many instances of violence and/or aggression would
you guess that you see in real life? (circle one)
0 instances 1-2 instances 3-5 instances 6-8 instances 9 or more instances
8b. What do these instances generally consist o f?_____________________________
9. Have you ever been under the regular, ongoing care of a psychologist or therapist
of some kind? (circle one) Yes/No
9b. If so, what did you see this person to help you with?________________ ______
10. Are you currently taking any medication? Yes/No
10b. If so, what kind(s)?______ ______________________
11. Do you spend more time playing games alone or with friends? (circle one)
Alone With Friends
12. What w ould you say is the m ain reason you play videogam es (i.e. what do you get
out of playing, when do you typically play, etc)________________________ _______
13. Have you ever felt unable to stop playing a videogame, or neglected other
obligations such as school or peer interactions, in order to play it more? (circle one)
Yes No
14. If so, what was the game(s)?____________________________________________
73
Appendix E-Aggression Provocation Questionnaire
1. Imagine yourself in the following situation:

It is Saturday evening and you are waiting in line to buy a lottery ticket. It’s very
busy and the store is about to close. You have already been waiting 10 minutes. Just
when it’s your turn, someone else pushes in front o f you.
How would you feel in this situation? (circle one number fo r each)
Not at all A little bit Moderately Quite a bit Extremely
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Frustrated 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4
What do you think you would do in this situation? (check one)

Feel angry but do nothing
Push him and shout “wait your turn.”
Wait patiently until he had been served
Say “I’m sorry it was my turn”
Walk out of the shop

You have gone out to have a couple o f drinks with your significant other. While you
are at the bar, a stranger approaches your partner and grabs his/her behind. When you
get back, your partner tells you.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Leave and go somewhere else
Do nothing
Threaten the stranger and swear at him
Tell him/her that such behavior is unacceptable and out o f line
Feel angry but do nothing at the time
74

You are in your car and in a big hurry, when right in front of you a car stops. A man
gets out but he continues talking to the driver, blatantly ignoring your horn for him to
move. You cannot get past the car.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Get out of your car, walk over to the man and threaten him
Reverse the car and take another route
Sit in the car and fume with anger, but do nothing
Calmly wait until he moved
Go over to him, tell him he is being unreasonable and ask him to move

Your boss believes you have made a minor mistake at work. In the presence of all
your coworkers, he embarrasses you by calling you an incompetent idiot.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Shout back to him that it wasn’t your fault
_ _ Tell him that this is not the right way to talk to his employees
Feel angry, but not do anything
Shrug it off, and go back to work
Walk away from him
75

You are in the movie theatre watching a movie. Behind you two teenagers are
talking, laughing loudly, and kicking the back of your seat almost constantly.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Turn around and ask them to be quiet or leave
Feel angry, and do nothing
Move to another seat
Try to ignore them
Turn around and threaten to hit them if they do not be quiet.

You are driving down the highway. As you in the process of changing to a slower
lane, a reckless driver speeds out from the inside lane, cutting you off, causing you to
slam on your brakes, swerve, and nearly lose control of your car.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Blast your horn several times at them
Try to move away from that driver
Chase after the other car and try to do the same to them
Just continue driving
76

You are out with a group of friends and there is one person who is continually trying
to provoke you and generally insulting you and your family.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Tell them to shut their mouth and threaten them if they don’t
Leave and go home
Tell them that they are not funny and should stop
Laugh it off and try not to let it get to you

You find out from a friend that your significant other has been unfaithful to you on
one occasion, after a recent work-sponsored office party.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Confront your partner about it next time you see her/him
Get angry, creating a big scene when you next see her/him
Not believe what you just heard
Just not care or do anything about it
Feel very angry but not do anything
77

You are walking down the street on your way to interview for a new job. As you turn
the comer, a person cleaning windows above you accidentally spills soapy, hot water
on your newly dry-cleaned suit.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Move away from the situation as quickly as possible
Feel angry but don’t do anything
Attract his attention, shout and swear at him
Attract his attention and point out what he just did
Just continue walking and think you were unlucky today

You’re on a train quietly reading the newspaper. A group of rowdy sport fans are
sitting a few seats in front of you shouting, swearing, and being obnoxious. Suddenly
one of them throws an empty beer can in the air and it accidentally hits you.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

o Sit there feeling angry,
o Try to ignore them,
o Find somewhere else to sit.
o Attract their attention and ask them to be more careful,
o Go over to them and threaten them.
78

It is Saturday afternoon and you are looking for a parking space downtown. You
drive into a parking lot and just as you are about to reverse into one of the few
remaining spaces another care speeds into your space.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Drive away and look for another space
Get out of the car, go over to the other driver, and shout and sweat at him
Do nothing
Go over to the other driver and tell him that this was your space

You arrive home from work after a long day. Your older sibling is over with his/her
kids. They are screaming and running around the living room while you are trying to
relax and watch TV.
Angry 0 1 2 3 4
Irritated 0 1 2 3 4

Say “Kids please sit down and be quiet”
Yell at the kids to be quiet
Sit patiently and ignore the kids
Get up and go into another room
79
From: Daryl O’Connor <D.B. 0 ’Connor@leeds.ac.uk>

Sent: Monday, December 5, 2005 3:57 pm
To: Kent D Smallwood <kent.smallwood@wmich.edu>
Subject: RE: Question re: your APQ
Dear Kent,
Thanks for your email. As far as I'm aware, thus far, the APQ has only been used in three
published studies, using a repeated measures design. The reference for first one is below
and the other two are attached.
Title: Impaired recognition of anger following damage to the ventral striatum

Authors): Calder AJ, Keane J, Lawrence AD, Manes F
Source: BRAIN 127: 1958-1969 Part 9, SEP 2004.
The APQ is a public domain measure, as long as the source paper is cited (see webpage
for further details, measure and scoring key).
www.psyc.leeds.ac.uk/staff/daryloc/Scales/index.htm
and
www.psyc.leeds.ac.uk/cgi-bin/staff/index.pl7daryloc
Finally, I'd suggest that you contact Stephanie vanGoozen directly re: her ASQ measure
(V anGoozenS@cardiff.ac.uk)
Good luck with your research.
Daryl O'Connor
Dr Daryl O'Connor
Institute of Psychological Sciences
University of Leeds
Leeds, UK
80
Appendix Fl-GTA Controller Handout
L2 button R2button
LI button R1 button
directional
buttons
/ V button
left analog stick O button
(L3 button when pushed down)
X button
SELECT button
ANALOG mode button CD button
START button
right analog stick
3 button when pushed dow n)
CONTROLS: ON M O T
b u t to n ENTER VEHICLE 13
A ACTIVATE MINI GAME
SECONDARY ATTACK
b u t to n CROUCH
PICK UP OBJECT b u t to n CAMERA MODES
b u t to n ATTACK/FIRE WEAPON b u t to n PAUSE MENU
X b u t to n aLfi RUN R3 b u t to n LOOK BEHIND
X b u t to n TO? SPRINT GANG ACTIVE MODE
| [ b u t to n JUMP/CLIMB/BLOCK b u t to n GANG PASSIVE MODE
L2 b u tto n CYCLE/WEAPON LEFT ^ b u t to n TALK POSITIVE RESPONSE
CENTER THE CAMERA/

L1 b u tto n VIEW STATS/FIRE WEAPON ^ b u tto n TALK NEGATIVE RESPONSE
R2 b u tto n CYCLE/WEAPON RIGHT RIGHT ANALOG CAMERA MOVEMENT
R1 b u tto n TARGET LEFT ANALOG CHARACTER MOVEMENT
C8NTRDLS: BICYCLE
X b u t to n h o ls PEDAL LI b u t to n BUNNYHOP
X b u t to n YAP PEDAL FASTER c s p r i m t ) LI b u t to n ilOl.u BUNNYHOP HIGHER
81
/ \ b u t to n EXIT VEHICLE b u t to n CYCLE RADIO STATIONS
O b u t to n CAR WEAPON/NITROUS b u t to n CYCLE RADIO STATIONS
X b u t to n ACCELERATE ^ button TRIP SKIP
| | b u t to n BRAKE/REVERSE L3 b u t to n
L2 b u t t o n + R2 LOOK LEFT/10OK BEHIND b u t to n CAMERA MODES
LI b u t to n CAR WEAPOH/HITROUS b u t to n PAUSE MENU
R2 b u t to n + 1 2 LOOK RIGHT/LOOK BEHU'313 I R3 button SUB-MISSION
Rl b u t to n HAND BRAKE RIGHT ANALOG TURRET CONTROL

MANUAL CAMERA
CHANGE CINEMATIC CAMERA
LEFT ANALOG CAR STEERING/CAMERA
WHEN EQUIPPED WITH A SNIPER RIFLE OR ROCKET LAUNCHED PRESS AND HOLD THE TARGET BUTTON 1 0 GO FIRST PERSON.
o b u t to n SHOOT RIGHT ANALOG MOVE SCOPE/AIM
(111 GO TO RETURN TO
L 2 / R2 b u t to n s ZOOM IN/ZOOM OUT Rl b u t to n NORMAL CONTROL)
LI b u t to n L3 b u t to n
LEFT ANALOG MOVE SCOPE/AIM
O b u t to n DIVE UNDERWATER
X b u t to n HOLD SPRINT X bu tto n HOLD SWIM FORWARD
X b u t to n TAP SUPER SPRINT X button TAP SPRINT (SWIM FASTER)
□ b u t to n JUMP
SWIM DIRECTION
(ROTATION ONLY)
A b u t to n ENTER VEHICLE
R2 b u t to n RUDDER RIGHT
L2 b u t to n RUDDER LEFT
X button
LEFT ANALOG PITCH/ROLL
S: PLANE
R2 b u t to n RUDDER RIGHT
L2 b u tto n RUDDER LEFT
X b u t to n THRUST
Appendix F2-MC Controller Handout
starting up
i DUALSHOCK*2 A N A LO G ’ CONTROLLER
L2 b u t t o n R2 b u t t o n
LI b u t t o n Rl button
directi onal-
i_ AriAlOC. ‘ I /C A ' \
buttons , |Cj (A.1 ' '
Z i button
l ef t a na lo g s t i c k --------------------- 1 O button
(LB b u t t o n when p u s h e d down)
SELECT b u t t o n -------------------------- X button
ANALOG m o d e b u t t o n ---------------- CD button
START b u t t o n ---------------------- -----
right a na l og s t i c k --------------------
(R3 b u t t o n when p u s h e d down)
{* D E F A U L T C O N i E- D L L
X b u tto n - A c c e l e r a t e up d ir e c tio n a l b u tto n - Map
@ b u tto n - Fl a s h H e a d l i g h t s / A c c e p t Ra c e d ow n d ir e c tio n a l b u tto n - T o g g l e R a c e M o d e /
A b u tto n - C h a n g e C a m e r a Hy d r a u l i c s
l e f t d ir e c tio n a l b u tto n - C h a n g e Mu s i c
© b u tto n - B r a k e / R e v e r s e
r ig h t d ir e c tio n a l b u tto n - C h a n g e Mus i c
le f t a n a lo g s t ic k L e f t /R ig h t - S t e e r i n g
SELECT b u tto n - NAV 5 yhtpm
le f t a n a lo g s tic k Up - Ra i s e C a m e r a
START b u tto n - P a u s e Me n u
rig h t a n a lo g s t ic k - A c c e l e r a t e / B r a k e / R e v e r s e /
R o t a t e C a m e r a Du r i n g P a u s e HYDRAULICS MODE
LI b u tto n + l e f t a n a lo g s tic k - Two Wh e e l Driving,,/ R l b u tto n - Hol d t o e x t e n d t h e r i ght f r o n t w h e e l /

Ta p t o b o u n c e
We i ght Tr a n s f e r
R2 b u tto n - Hol d t o e x t e n d t hp- r i g ht r e a r w h e e l /
LI b u tto n ♦ l e f t a n a lo g s tic k (w h ila a ir b o r n e ) - In-Air Co n t r o l
Ta p t o b o u n c e
L2 b u tto n - Look Bac k
L I b u tto n - Hol d t o e x t e n d t h e l e f t f r o n t w h e e l /
L2 b u tto n + d ir e c tio n a l b u tt o n s - R o t a t e C a m e r a
Top to b o u n c e
A r o u n d Ve h i c l e
L2 b u tto n - Hol d t o e x t e n d t h e l e f t r e a r w h e e l /
L2 b u t t o n * d ir e c tio n a l b u t t o n (while a irb o rn e ) - I ap t o bounce
51a Mo J u mp C a m e r a l e f t d ir e c tio n a l b u tto n - R o t a t e c a m e r a a r o u n d
R l b u tto n - H a n c b r a k e vehi c l e
R2 b u tto n - N i t r c / S l l p S t r e a m T u r b o r ig h t d ir e c tio n a l b u tto n - R o t a t e c a m e r a
L3 b u tto n - Ve hi c l e S o e c i a l M a n e u v e r / A c t i v a t e P o w e r Up a r o u n d vehi cl e
MIDNIGHT CLUB 3 03 D UB EDITION
83
Appendix Gl-GTA Cheat Codes

GTA:SA
Cheat Codes
Enter these during gameplay without pausing:
Code Effect
R l, R2, LI , X, L eft, Down, Right, Up, Left, $250,000, full health and armor (also
Down, Right, Up repairs cars if you are in one)
RIGHT, R2, UP, UP, R2, CIRCLE, SQUARE,
Aggressive Drivers
R2, LI, RIGHT, DOWN, LI
R2, Circle, R l, L2, Left R l, LI, R2, L2 Aggressive Traffic
LEFT, TRIANGLE, R l, LI, UP, SQUARE,
All Cars Nos
TRIANGLE, DOWN, CIRCLE, L2, L I, LI
LI, Circle, Triangle, LI, LI, Square, L2, Up,
All Pedestrians Are Elvis
Down, Left
all taxis get nitro + jump up when you
up,x,triangle,x,triangle,x,square,R2,right
press L3
L2, RIGHT, LI, UP, X, LI, L2, R2, R l, LI, LI,
All Traffic is Junk Cars
LI
Right, R l, Up, L2, L2, Left, R l, LI, R l, Rl All Traffic Lights Stay Green
All Vehicles Invisible (Except
Triangle, LI, Triangle, R2, Square, LI, LI
Motorcycles)
SQUARE, LI, R l, RIGHT, X, UP, LI, LEFT,
always midnight (time stuck at 00:00)
LEFT
x,x,square,rl ,11 ,x,down,left,x andrenaline mode
Any vehicle you punch this in, can
LI, L2, L2, Up, Down, Down, Up, R l, R2, R2
blow up anything like a tank.
SQUARE, RIGHT, SQUARE, SQUARE, L2, X, Attracts Prostitutes with Sex
TRIANGLE, X, TRIANGLE Toys/Gimp Suit
Circle, L2, Up, R l, Left, X, R l, LI, Left, Circle Black Traffic
Square, R2, Down, Down, Left, Down, Left, Left,
Cars Float Away When Hit
L2, X
square, down, L2, up, LI, circle, up, x, left Cars Fly
Right, R2, Circle, R l , L2, Square, R l , R2 Cars on Water
L2, RIGHT, LI, TRIANGLE, RIGHT, RIGHT,
Chaos mode
R l, LI, RIGHT, LI, LI, LI
Civilians are fast food workers &
Triangle, Triangle, LI, Square, Square, Circle, clowns, CJ is a clown, cars are pizza
Square, Down, Circle scooter, BF Injection, HotKnife, Tug,
Quad, etc.
84
Right, L2, Down, R l, Left, Left, R l, LI, L2, LI Commit Suicide

R2, L2, R l, L 1, L2, R2, Square, Triangle, Circle, n r
Triangle, L2, LI Destroy Cars
Up, Up, Down, Down, Square, Circle, LI, R l, Everyone bikini babes, all cars beach
Triangle, Down. cars, Cj in shorts and flipflops.
Right, R l, Up, L2, L2, Left, R l, LI, R l, R l Faster Cars
Circle, Circle, LI, Square, LI, Square, Square, i- * i
c
Square, tLI,
i t Triangle,
* 1
O, tTriangle
r\ • 1 Faster Clock
Triangle, Up, Right, Down, L2, LI, Square Faster Gameplay

R2, Circle, Up, L I, Right, R l, Right, Up, Square, p . . Boatg
Triangle
R2, X, LI, LI, L2, L2, L2, X Fog
up, up, square, L2, right, x, R l, down, R2, circle Full Weapon Aiming Whilst Driving
Left, Right, Right, Right, Left, X, Down, Up, „ , , » .
„ 0 r Gang members spawn much faster
Square, Right 0
, j „„ Gives you an automatic six star

Circle, Right, Circle, Right, Left, Square, X Down wante(j_^eyej
DOWN, SQUARE, X, LEFT, R1,R2, LEFT, TT. T „

DOWN, DOWN, LI, LI, LI Httmai, In all weapon
square,square,R2,left,up, square,R2,X,X,X Improve Suspension
up, LI, R l, up, right, up, x, L2, x, LI Increase car speed
LI, R l, SQUARE, R l, LEFT, R2, R l, LEFT,
SQUARE, DOWN, L I, L 1
Down, X, Right, Left, Right, R l, Right, Down, Infinite health, still hurt from
Up, Triangle explosions, drowning, and falling.
Down, Left, LI, Down, Down, R2, Down, L2, T r ^
Down Infinite Lung Capacity
Left, Right, LI, L2, R l, R2, Up, Down, Left, t u

Right P
Up, Up, TAmgle, Triangle, Up, Up, Left, Right, Jump w ^ hjgher
oqU H T C , iv Z , K Z
Triangle, Square, Circle, Circle, Square, Circle, T . AAC. . .

Circle L1, L 2,L 2,R 1,R 2. Jump 100 feet m an-on b i e
Locks wanted level at however many
CIRCLE, RIGHT, CIRCLE, RIGHT, LEFT, StarS y0U ha,Ve‘ They NEVE^
cATTAnr T n j i x U r u n increase or decrease, not even with
SQUARE, TRIANGLE, UP bribes/cheats. Still get attacked in
impound.
R l, R l, Circle, R2, Up, Down, Up, Down, Up, Lower Wanted Level
85
Down
SQUARE, L2, X, R l, L2, L2, LEFT, R l, RIGHT, Max All Vehicle stats (Driving,
LI, LI, LI Flying Bike, Cycling)
Triangle, Up ,Up, Left, Right, Square, Circle, Max p
Down
triangle,up,up,left,right,square,circle,left Max Muscle
L2! LI1; ™ ANGLE’ D 0W N’ ^ X’ L1’ UP’ L2’ Max Respect

CIRCLE, TRIANGLE, TRIANGLE, UP, 1
CIRCLE, R l, L2, UP, TRIANGLE, LI, LI, LI apP
R2, X, LI, LI, L2, L2, L2, Square Morning
SQUARE, L2,R1, TRIANGLE, UP, SQUARE, , ,
v
t o t td Never become hungry
L2, Ur , A
R2, X, LI, LI, L2, L2, L2, Triangle Night
L2, Up,
■ R l, R l, Left,5 R l,5R l,5R2,5Right,
0 ? Down No f 26"having
members 8 0r C0PS’ i f ”*
gun fights
X, Down, Up, R2, Down, Triangle, LI, Triangle, No Peds, Hardly any traffic, Parked
Left cars still spawn
R2, X, LI, LI, L2, L2, L2, Down Noon
Left, Left, L2, R l, Right, Square, Square, LI, L2,
Orange Sky
X
R2, X, LI, LI, L2, L2, L2, Square Overcast
„ TT TT TT , r _ T_ Pedestrian Attack (cannot be turned
Down, Up, Up, Up, X, R2, R l, L2, L2
Down, Left, Up, Left, X, R2, R l, L2, LI Pedestrian Riot (cannot be turned off)
R2, R l, X, Triangle, X, Triangle, Up, Down Pedestrians have weapons
X, LI, UP, SQUARE, DOWN, X, L2,
Peds Attack (Guns)
TRIANGLE, DOWN, R l, LI, LI
Peds become asian dudes with
X X Down R2 L2 O R l O Square Katana's. Mostly black cars and
motorcycles patrol the streets.
Triangle, R l, R l, Left, R l, L 1, R2, L 1 Perfect Handling
Circle, L I, D ow n, L2, Left, X, R l , L I, Right, pink Traffic
Circle
Prostitutes pay you instead of you
Right, L2, L2, Down, L2, Up, Up, L2, R2
paying them
Rl R l, Circle, R2, Right, Left, Right, Left, Right, Raise Wmted
Left
DOWN, SQUARE, UP, R2, R2, UP, RIGHT, Recruit Anyone (9mm)
RIGHT, UP
R2, R2, R2, X, L2, LI, R2, LI, DOWN, X Recruits Anyone (w/Rockets)
Up, Down, LI, LI, L2, L2, LI, L2, R l, R2 Sand Storm
Triangle, Up ,Up, Left, Right, Square, Circle, skinny
Right
Triangle, Up, Right, Down, Square, R2, R l Slower Gameplay
Right, Up, R l, R l, R l, Down, Triangle, Triangle, a Monster
X, Circle, LI, LI
Left, Right, LI, L2, R l, R2, R2, Up, Down, Right, spawn aparachute
Circle, Circle, LI, Circle, Circle, Circle, LI, L2,

Spawn A Rhino
R l, Triangle, Circle, Triangle
R2, Up, L2, Left, Left, R l, L I, Circle, Right Spawn a Stretch
Down, R l, Circle, L2, L2, X, R l, LI, Left, Left Spawn Bloodring Banger
Circle, L I, Up, R l, L2, X, R l, L I, Circle, X Spawn Caddy
R2, LI, LI, RIGHT, RIGHT, UP, UP, X, LI,
spawn dozer
LEFT
R l, circle, R2, Right, LI, L2, X (2), Square, Rl Spawn Hotring Racer #1
R2, LI, Circle, Right, LI, R l, Right, Up, circle, S paM Hotring ^ #2
K2
CIRCLE, X, LI, CIRCLE, CIRCLE, LI,
Spawn Hunter
CIRCLE, R l, R2, L2, LI, LI
Up, Right, Right, LI, Right, Up, Square, L2 Spawn Rancher
R l, UP, LEFT, RIGHT, R2, UP, RIGHT,
Spawn Tanker
SQUARE, RIGHT, L2, LI, LI
Triangle, Triangle, Square, Circle, X, L I, LI, Snawns Hvdra
Down, Up p y
Left, Left, Down, Down, Up, Up, Square, Circle, Sn„wns 0 n _HWk.
Triangle, R l, R2 Spawns Quadbike
Triangle, Triangle, Square, Circle, X, L 1, L2, Spawns Vortex

Down, Down
R2,X, LI, LI, L 2,L2,L2, Circle Storm
Circle, Up, L I, L2, D ow n, R l, L I, L I, Left, Left, o+lin+r.1(,n -
X, Triangle. Stuntplane
Up, Left, X, Triangle, R l, Circle, Circle, Circle, § r punch

L2
TRIANGLE, LEFT, SQUARE, R2, UP, L2, „ _ . „ . ,
T 1 V
n A 1 1 n ,T T 1 T 1 T 1 Traffic is Country Vehicles
DOWN, LI, X, LI, LI, LI
87
Turns All Vehicles Into Country

LI LI R l Rl L2 LI R2 Down Left Up
Vehicles
Down, R2, Down, R l, L2, Left, R l, LI, Left,
Unlock Romero
Right
Circle, R l, Circle, R l, Left, Left, R l, LI, Circle,
Unlock Trashmaster
Right
R l, R2, LI, R2, Left, Down, Right, Up, Left,
Weapons 1
Down, Right, Up
R l, R2, LI, R2, Left, Down, Right, Up, Left,
Weapons 2
Down, Down, Left
R l, R2, LI, R2, Left, Down, Right, Up, L eft,
Weapons 3
Down, Down, Down
L2, DOWN, DOWN, LEFT, SQUARE, LEFT,
Weather Cloudy
R2, SQUARE, X, R1,L1,L1
88
Appendix G2-MC Cheat Codes

Cheat Codes
From Main Menu, Select Options, Then Select Cheats
Password Effect
crosscountry All cities unlocked in arcademode
getheadl Bunny ears
haveyouseenthisboy chrome body
urbansprawl Faster pedestrians/Allcities in arcade mode
trythisathome flaming head
hyperagro Increase car mass in arcade mode
ontheroad No damage
getheadk Pumpkin Heads
getheadn skull head
getheadm snowman head
dfens Special move Agro
R04r Special move Roar
allin Special move Zone
roadtrip Unlock all cities
getheadj Yellow Smile
89
Appendix H-Game Content Data Sheet
MC
• Property damage-
• Cars collided-
• Player estimate o f aggressive actions-
GTA
• Caijackings-
• Murder-Hand to Hand-
• Murder-Gun-
• Murder-Vehicular-
• Cars totaled-
• Accidents/property damage-
• Encounters with prostitutes-
• Police murdered- (Not previously counted above)
• Police carjackings- (Not previously above)
• Police assaulted, no murder- (Not previously counted above)
• Assault without murder-
• Assault with gun, without murder-
• Times ‘died’-
• Player estimate o f aggressive actions-
90
Appendix I-Aggression Questionnaire
N o t a t a ll A llttlB Som ew hat V e ry m u c li C o m p le te ly

lik e m e lik e m e lik e m e lik e m e tik e m e
2 3 4 5 1.
2 3 4 5 2.
2 3 4 5 3.
2 3 4 5 4.
2 3 4 5 5.
2 3 4 5 6 . I can't help getting into arguments when people disagree with me.
2 3 4 5 7 . At times I get very angry for no good reason.
2 3 4 5 8 . I may hit someone if he or she provokes me.
2 3 4 5 9.
2 3 4 5 10.
2 3 4 5 11.
2 3 4 5 12.
2 3 4 5 13.
2 3 4 5 14.
someone behind in the room.
2 3 4 5 1 5 . When people are bossy, I take my time doing wha
just to show them.
2 3 4 5 1 6 . I wonder what people want when they are nice to
2 3 4 5 1 7 . I have become so mad that I have broken things.
2 3 4 5 18.
2 3 4 5 19.
2 3 4 5 20.
2 3 4 5 21.
2 3 4 5 22.
2 3 4 5 23.
2 3 4 5 24.
2 3 4 5 25.
2 3 4 5 26.
2 3 4 5 27.
2 3 4 5 28. do not trust strangers who are too friendly.

2 3 4 5 29.
2 9 . At times I feel like a bomb ready to explode.
2 3 4 5 3 0 . When someone really irritates me, I might gi'
the silent treatment.
2 3 4 5 31.
2 3 4 5 32.
2 3 4 5 33.
2 3 4 5 34.
91
Appendix J-Video Game Evaluation

Please rate the video game you played on the following dimensions.
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
1) I liked the game. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
2) The game was action-packed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3) The game was arousing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
4) The game was entertaining. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5) The game was exciting. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
6) The game was frustrating. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7) The game was absorbing. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
8) The game was violent. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Please answer the following questions about the main character in the video game (leave
blank if the video game you played had no main character).
Strongly Strongly
Disagree Agree
9) I sympathized with
the main character. 1 2 8 10
10) I am similar to the

main character. 8 9 10
11)1 would like to be the

main character. 8 9 10
12) I “became” the main

character during the game. 1 8 9 10
How often have you played this video game?

0 Never played or saw before today 0 Have played a little
0 Have seen, but never played before 0 Have played a lot
92
Appendix K-HSIRB-Approved Consent Document
. W e s t e r n M ic h ig an U n iv f b r it v
. H. S. I. R. B.
Approved lor use for one year from this date:
MAR 1 0 2007
Western Michigan University H&RB c la ir ’

Department of Psychology
Principal Investigator: R. Wayne Fuqua, Ph.D.
Student Investigator: Kent D. Smallwood, M.A.
“The Effects of Different Types of Videogames on Decision-making.”
You have been invited to participate in a research project entitled “The Effects of
Different Types of Videogames on Decision-making.” The purpose of the study is to see
if playing video games causes any change in your reflexes and decision making. This
study is being conducted to fulfill the requirements for Kent Smallwood’s doctoral
dissertation.
You are being invited to participate in this study because you indicated you were
interested in doing so by completing a declaration of interest form in class and
participating in a brief orientation to the study. This is a volunteer activity; if you do not
wish to participate in this portion of the study, you can tell the experimenter and you will
be allowed to leave without any questions. Even if you agree to participate by signing
this form, you can change my mind at any time when testing begins or at any time during
testing.
If you agree to participate, your first set of tasks will be to answer a series of
questionnaires honestly and as completely as you are comfortable with, dealing with
things like your attitudes, and game playing habits. After this, you will play a simulation-
based game in which you will have the opportunity to earn points that can be redeemed
after the study is complete for entries in a raffle for one of two $50 gift certificates to
Target.
After this part of the experiment, you will be asked to play two different types of
video games for a short time. Some of these games may contain graphic violence, and/or
mildly sexually suggestive themes. If playing the video game makes you uncomfortable,
afraid, or. upset, or you think my heart rate may have elevated to an uncomfortable level,
you may stop playing without penalty. If this happens, if you need to drive immediately
after study participation, you will take as long as you need to relax in order to ensure your
own safety. While you are playing the games, the experimenter will remain in the room
to answer any questions that you might have about how to play them. In addition to
playing these games, you will also complete some other questionnaires before and after
game play. Finally, there will be another simulation dealing with your driving behavior.
Additional risks may include seizures. In accordance with the warnings printed in
the instruction manual of every video game currently produced, risks of playing video
games may include seizures and/or repetitive motion injuries. Seizures caused by playing
videogames are incredibly rare (Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2005). While the risks of
participating in this study are likely minimal, there is a possibility that playing
videogames with violent content may result in an increase in aggressive behavior.
93
W e s t e r n M ic h ig a n U n iv e r s it y
H. S. I. R. B.
Approved for use for one year from this date:
MAR l,o 2007
v _ i. .- „ * _ ________
Western Michigan University HSJtRB d&aix
“The Effects of Different Types of Videogames on Decision-making,”
However, researchers anticipate that, even if a possible link between playing aggressive
video games and aggression is discovered, this will most likely be a short-term effect.
You may also experience some discomfort or frustration in playing a game that is
possibly unfamiliar to you. Finally, some of the questions on the different questionnaires
may make you uncomfortable in some way. These include questions about your past
behaviors and attitudes towards other people in fictitious situations. It is important you
try and answer every question, but not required. As in all research, there may be
unforeseen risks to the participant If an accidental injury occurs, appropriate emergency
measures will be taken; however, no compensation or additional treatment will be made
available to the subject except as otherwise stated in this consent form. Your agreement
to participate in the study means that you acknowledge the possibility of these risks.
After you have completed the simulation games, the videogames, and die driving
simulator, you will complete several more questionnaires after which the experiment will
be completed. It is expected that the entire experiment will take 150 minutes, at which
time you will receive course extra credit, and raffle entries for each point in the
simulation. These entries are good for a raffle to be held at the conclusion of die study
for two $50 Target gift certificates. These raffle entries, along with possible course extra
credit at the discretion of your instructor and the chance to play videogames, are your
benefits for participation. This study may also help raise awareness of any various types
of changes in decision-making that playing videogames might contribute to.
Your name will not appear on any of the questionnaires, instead using a
confidential code number to represent my data. The master list of names and code
numbers will be destroyed once the experiment is complete, making it impossible for
anyone to identify your responses. Before the study is complete, the details of your
participation will remain confidential, including if your course instructor or anyone else
asks about the specifics of your participation in the study.
If you have any questions or concerns about this study, you may contact Dr. R
Wayne Fuqua at 387-4474, or Kent Smallwood at 267-5777. You may also contact the
Chair, Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (387-8293) or the Vice President for
Research (387-8298) if questions or problems arise during the course of the study.
94
W E S T E R N M ic h ig a n U n iv e r s ity
H. S. I. R. B.
A pproved for u se for one year from this- date;
MAR 1 & 2007
Western Michigan University HsjlRB cU a ii ~

This consent document has been approved for use for one year by fie Human
Subjects Institutional Review Board (HSIRB) as indicated by the stamped date and
signature of the board chair in the upper right comer. Do not participate in this study if
the stamped date is older than one year.
Your signature below indicates that you agree to voluntarily participate in the
tasks described in this form, but can stop at any time Without penalty.
Print naffie here
Sign name here Today’s Date
Consent obtained by:

Signature of researcher
Todays D^t!e~
95
S jfc g rp w M ic h ig a n H M n /p p ^ j j y
H. S. I. R. B.
"P P ro red for u se for on e y ea r from this d ate;
MAR 1 5 2006
Western Michigan University HSI&B Chair

You have been invited to participate in a research project entitled “The Effects of
Different Types of Videogames on Decision-makingThe purpose of the study is to see
if playing video games causes any change in your reflexes and decision making. This
study is being conducted to fulfill the requirements for Kent Smallwood’s doctoral
dissertation.
You are being invited to participate in this study because you indicated you were
interested in doing so by completing a declaration of interest form in class and
participating in a brieforientation to the study. This is a volunteer activity; if you do not
wish to participate in this portion o f the study, you can tell the experimenter and you will
be allowed to leave without any questions. Even if you agree to participate by signing
this form, you can change my mind at any time when testing begins or at any time during
testing.
If you agree to participate, your first set of tasks will be to answer a series of
questionnaires honestly and as completely as you are comfortable with, dealing with
things like your attitudes, and game playing habits. Afterthis, you will play a simulation-
based game in which you will have the opportunity to earn points that can be redeemed
after the study is complete for entries in a raffle for one of two $50 gift certificates to
Taiget.
After this part of the experiment, you will be asked to play two different types of
video games fora short time. Some o f these games may contain graphic violence, and/or
mildly sexually suggestive themes. If playing the video game makes you uncomfortable,
afraid, or upset, or you think my heart rate may have elevated to an uncomfortable level,
you may stop playing without penalty. If this happens, if you need to drive immediately
after study participation, you will take as long as you need to relax in order to ensure my
own safety. While you are playing the games, the experimenter will remain in the room
to answer any questions that you might have about how to play them. In addition to
playing these games, you will also complete some other questionnaires before and after
game play. Finally, there will be another simulation dealing with my driving behavior.
Additional risks may include seizures. In accordance with the warnings printed in
th e instruction manual o f ev ery video gam e currently produced, risks o f playing video
games may include seizures and/or repetitive motion injuries. Seizures caused by playing
videogames are incredibly rare (Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2005). While the risks of
participating in this study are likely minimal, there is a possibility that playing
videogames with violent content may result in an increase in aggressive behavior.
96
1IC H IG A N U N IV E R S IT Y
H. S. I. R. B.
Approved for u s e for o n e year from this dale:
MAR 1 5 2006
X HSltfB Chair/ ~
“The Effects o f Different Types of Videogames on Decision-making.”
However, researchers anticipate that, even if a possible link between playing aggressive
video games and aggression is discovered, this will most likely be a short-term effect.
You may also experience some discomfort or frustration in playing a game that is
possibly unfamiliar to you. Finally, some of the questions on the different questionnaires
may make you uncomfortable in some way. These indude questions about your past
behaviors and attitudes towards other people in fictitious situations. It is important you
try and answer enray question, blit not required. As in all research, there may be
unforeseen risks to the participant. If an accidental injury occurs, appropriate emergency
measures will be taken; however, no compensation or additional treatment will be made
available to the subject except as otherwise stated in this consent form. Your agreement
to participate in the study means that you acknowledge the possibility o f these risks.
simulator, you will complete several more questionnaires after which the experiment will
be completed. It is expected that the entire experiment will take ISO minutes, at which
time you will receive course extra credit, and thame entries for eadi point in the
simulation. These entries are good for a raffle to be held at the conclusion o f the study
for two $50 Target gift certificates. These raffle entries, along with possible course extra
credit at the discretion o f your instructor aid the diance to play videogames, are your
benefits for participation. This study may also help raise awareness of any various types
o f changes in decision-making that playing videogames might contribute to.
Your name will not appear on any o fthe questionnaires, instead using a
confidential code number to represent my data. The master list o f names and code
numbers will be destroyed once the experiment is complete, making it impossible for
anyone to identify your responses. Before the study is complete, the details o f your
participation will remain confidential, including if your course instructor or anyone else
asks about the specifics o f your participation in the study.
If you have any questions or concents about this study, you may contact Dr. R
Wayne Fuqua at 387-4474, or Kent Smallwood at 267-5777. You may also contact the
Chair, Human Subjects Institutional Review Board (387-8293) or the Vice President for
R esearch (387-8298) if questions o r problem s arise during the course o f the study.
97
■W ESTERN M ic h ig a n U n iv e r s it y
4 H. S. I. R. B.
A pproved (or u se (or o n e y ear (rant this d ate:
MAR 1 5 2006
Western Michigan University HS^&B

“The Effects of Different Types o f Videogames on Decision-making.”
This consent document has been approved for use for one year by the Human
Subjects Institutional Review Board (HSIRB) as indicated by the stamped date and
signature of the board chair in the upper right comer. Do not participate in this study if
the stamped date is older than one year.
Your signature below indicates that you agree to voluntarily participate in the
tasks described in this form, but can stop at any time without penalty.
Print name here
Sign name here Today’s Date
Consent obtained by: __________________

Signature of researcher
Today’s Date
98
Appendix L-Unabridged Statistical Analysis
Tests of Between-Subjects Effects
Dependent Type III Sum Mean

Source Variable of Squares df Square F Sig.
Gender AQPRE 31.121 1 31.121 .528 .470
AQPYS 7.920 1 7.920 .147 .702
AQHOS 59.976 1 59.976 1.185 .280
AQANG 499.347 1 499.347 7.280 .009
APQANGPre 26.786 1 26.786 .457 .501
APQpreFrust 2.327 1 2.327 .035 .852
APQprelrrit 39.253 1 39.253 .672 .415
APQpreAggress 4.844 1 4.844 6.558 .013
APQpostAggress 1.438 1 1.438 .803 .373
APQPostAnger 2.495 1 2.495 .035 .853
APQpostFrust 17.623 1 17.623 .193 .662
APQpostlrrit 2.921 1 2.921 .039 .844
GTAviolentacts 4428.288 1 4428.288 2.864 .095
GTAvioactsreport 7665.804 1 7665.804 1.758 .189
percviolencetv 252.657 1 252.657 .330 .568
percviolencvg 4854.490 1 4854.490 4.940 .030
reallifeviolence .871 1 .871 .749 .390
hoursweek 320.853 1 320.853 10.514 .002
mclikegame 29.045 1 29.045 5.291 .025
mcactionpack 23.155 1 23.155 3.510 .065
mcarousing 13.541 1 13.541 1.783 .186
mcentertain 16.477 1 16.477 2.935 .091
mcexciting 18.985 1 18.985 2.760 .101
mcfrustrating .266 1 .266 .050 .823
mcabsorbing 18.526 1 18.526 2.624 .110
mcviolent 5.903 1 5.903 1.469 .230
gtalikegame 56.882 1 56.882 8.670 .004
gtaactionpack 9.100 1 9.100 1.299 .258
gtaarousing 13.829 1 13.829 1.980 .164
gtaentertain 51.375 1 51.375 6.984 .010
gtaexciting 33.041 1 33.041 4.620 .035
gtafrustrat 50.246 1 50.246 6.941 .010
gtaabsorbing 2.394 1 2.394 .345 .559
gtaviolent 2.141 1 2.141 .523 .472
gtalikecharac 14.388 1 14.388 3.340 .072
gtasimilar .014 1 .014 .008 .930
gtaliketobe 14.474 1 14.474 3.886 .053
gtabecame 1.068 1 1.068 .156 .695
age 4.254 1 4.254 .730 .396
sim 1coop 15.823 1 15.823 1.242 .269
99
sim 1comp .025 1 .025 .004 .953

sim1 aggress 16.463 1 16.463 2.603 .111
sim 1trial 1 1.069 1 1.069 2.725 .103
sim1trial2 .622 1 .622 1.221 .273
sim1trial4 .021 1 .021 .035 .853
sim 1trial 15 .251 1 .251 .391 .534
postgtasimcoop .484 1 .484 .031 .860
postgtasimcomp 5.293 1 5.293 .498 .483
postgtasimaggres
8.980 1 8.980 1.245 .268
s
postgtasimtrl .004 1 .004 .013 .911
postgtasimtr2 .560 1 .560 1.244 .269
postgtasimtr4 .260 1 .260 .469 .496
postgtasimtrl 5 1.498 1 1.498 2.323 .132
postmcsimcoop 49.043 1 49.043 2.367 .129
postmcsimcomp 29.782 1 29.782 2.445 .123
postmcsimaggres
2.390 1 2.390 .281 .598
s
postmcsimtrl 2.484 1 2.484 6.163 .016
postmcsimtr2 .029 1 .029 .047 .828
postmcsimtr4 .071 1 .071 .121 .729
postmcsimtrl 5 1.672 1 1.672 2.973 .089
therapy .034 1 .034 .247 .620
meds .900 1 .900 6.506 .013
playsalone .874 1 .874 4.619 .035
unabletostop .320 1 .320 1.439 .235
Group AQPRE 51.308 1 51.308 .870 .354
AQPYS 110.801 1 110.801 2.059 .156
AQHOS 114.829 1 114.829 2.268 .137
AQANG 12.053 1 12.053 .176 .676
APQANGPre 145.087 1 145.087 2.475 .120
APQpreFrust 84.616 1 84.616 1.272 .263
APQprelrrit 37.738 1 37.738 .646 .424
APQpreAggress 3.320 1 3.320 4.495 .038
APQpostAggress 5.354 1 5.354 2.988 .088
APQPostAnger 100.298 1 100.298 1.394 .242
APQpostFrust 68.085 1 68.085 .745 .391
APQpostlrrit 26.044 1 26.044 .350 .556
GTAviolentacts 307.674 1 307.674 .199 .657
GTAvioactsreport 820.404 1 820.404 .188 .666
percviolencetv 3949.229 1 3949.229 5.158 .026
percviolencvg 413.931 1 413.931 .421 .519
reallifeviolence .096 1 .096 .083 .775
hoursweek 8.548 1 8.548 .280 .598
mclikegame 3.723 1 3.723 .678 .413
mcactionpack 9.393 1 9.393 1.424 .237
100
mcarousing 7.875 1 7.875 1.037 .312

mcentertain 5.506 1 5.506 .981 .325
mcexciting 5.034 1 5.034 .732 .395
mcfrustrating 1.330 1 1.330 .251 .618
mcabsorbing 3.328 1 3.328 .471 .495
mcviolent 18.752 1 18.752 4.666 .034
gtalikegame 27.170 1 27.170 4.141 .046
gtaactionpack 14.484 1 14.484 2.068 .155
gtaarousing 19.455 1 19.455 2.786 .100
gtaentertain 4.377 1 4.377 .595 .443
gtaexciting 10.929 1 10.929 1.528 .221
gtafrustrat 3.819 1 3.819 .528 .470
gtaabsorbing 7.595 1 7.595 1.095 .299
gtaviolent .908 1 .908 .222 .639
gtalikecharac 2.802 1 2.802 .650 .423
gtasimilar 1.335 1 1.335 .735 .394
gtaliketobe .483 1 .483 .130 .720
gtabecame 20.982 1 20.982 3.055 .085
age 2.587 1 2.587 .444 .508
sim 1coop 3.617 1 3.617 .284 .596
simlcomp 8.981 1 8.981 1.260 .266
sim 1aggress 1.380 1 1.380 .218 .642
simltriah .016 1 .016 .042 .839
sim1trial2 .002 1 .002 .004 .948
sim1trial4 .401 1 .401 .663 .418
sim1trial15 1.623 1 1.623 2.530 .116
postgtasimcoop .064 1 .064 .004 .949
postgtasimcomp 13.586 1 13.586 1.278 .262
postgtasimaggres
15.513 1 15.513 2.151 .147
s
postgtasimtrl .223 1 .223 .656 .421
postgtasimtr2 .004 1 .004 .008 .930
postgtasimtr4 .123 1 .123 .221 .639
postgtasimtrl 5 2.048 1 2.048 3.176 .079
postmcsimcoop 10.510 1 10.510 .507 .479
postmcsimcomp .039 1 .039 .003 .955
postmcsimaggres
11.826 1 11.826 1.389 .243
s
postmcsimtrl .005 1 .005 .011 .915
postmcsimtr2 1.121 1 1.121 1.806 .183
postmcsimtr4 .198 1 .198 .337 .564
postmcsimtrl 5 .007 1 .007 .012 .914
therapy .371 1 .371 2.736 .103
meds .024 1 .024 .177 .675
playsalone .567 1 .567 2.994 .088
unabletostop .018 1 .018 .079 .779
101
Respon AQPRE
1028.478 1 1028.478 17.437 .000
der
AQPYS 1199.346 1 1199.346 22.286 .000
AQHOS 604.402 1 604.402 11.937 .001
AQANG 634.072 1 634.072 9.244 .003
APQANGPre 688.077 1 688.077 11.739 .001
APQpreFrust 567.340 1 567.340 8.528 .005
APQprelrrit 744.437 1 744.437 12.751 .001
APQpreAggress 15.349 1 15.349 20.781 .000
APQpostAggress 56.862 1 56.862 31.738 .000
APQPostAnger 1725.831 1 1725.831 23.989 .000
APQpostFrust 1242.848 1 1242.848 13.601 .000
APQpostlrrit 984.157 1 984.157 13.223 .001
GTAviolentacts 4240.709 1 4240.709 2.743 .102
GTAvioactsreport 7539.673 1 7539.673 1.729 .193
percviolencetv 180.583 1 180.583 .236 .629
percviolencvg 292.603 1 292.603 .298 .587
reallifeviolence 2.162 1 2.162 1.860 .177
hoursweek 1.095 1 1.095 .036 .850
mclikegame 2.037 1 2.037 .371 .545
mcactionpack 7.682 1 7.682 1.164 .284
mcarousing .445 1 .445 .059 .809
mcentertain 4.048 1 4.048 .721 .399
mcexciting 3.142 1 3.142 .457 .501
mcfrustrating .063 1 .063 .012 .913
mcabsorbing 3.801 1 3.801 .538 .466
mcviolent 4.379 1 4.379 1.090 .300
gtalikegame 19.236 1 19.236 2.932 .091
gtaactionpack 53.474 1 53.474 7.635 .007
gtaarousing 38.929 1 38.929 5.574 .021
gtaentertain 13.348 1 13.348 1.815 .182
gtaexciting 15.265 1 15.265 2.134 .149
gtafrustrat 4.359 1 4.359 .602 .440
gtaabsorbing 19.588 1 19.588 2.824 .097
gtaviolent 27.156 1 27.156 6.638 .012
gtalikecharac 9.363 1 9.363 2.174 .145
gtasimilar .703 1 .703 .387 .536
gtaliketobe 1.431 1 1.431 .384 .537
gtabecame 11.868 1 11.868 1.728 .193
age 20.964 1 20.964 3.597 .062
sim 1coop 58.340 1 58.340 4.579 .036
simlcomp 40.047 1 40.047 5.617 .021
sim1 aggress 1.513 1 1.513 .239 .626
simltriah .427 1 .427 1.089 .300
sim1trial2 .317 1 .317 .623 .433
sim1trial4 3.070 1 3.070 5.073 .028
102
sim1trial15 .053 1 .053 .083 .775

postgtasimcoop 189.511 1 189.511 12.253 .001
postgtasimcomp 19.543 1 19.543 1.839 .180
postgtasimaggres
87.340 1 87.340 12.109 .001
s
postgtasimtrl 1.866 1 1.866 5.476 .022
postgtasimtr2 .020 1 .020 .045 .832
postgtasimtr4 2.518 1 2.518 4.548 .037
postgtasimtrl 5 .763 1 .763 1.182 .281
postmcsimcoop 14.352 1 14.352 .693 .408
postmcsimcomp 31.726 1 31.726 2.605 .111
postmcsimaggres
3.401 1 3.401 .399 .530
s
postmcsimtrl .028 1 .028 .068 .795
postmcsimtr2 .063 1 .063 .102 .750
postmcsimtr4 .131 1 .131 .222 .639
postmcsimtrl 5 .094 1 .094 .168 .684
therapy .167 1 .167 1.232 .271
meds .082 1 .082 .591 .445
playsalone .003 1 .003 .014 .906
unabletostop .800 1 .800 3.598 .062
Gender AQPRE
143.987 1 143.987 2.441 .123
* Group
AQPYS 339.594 1 339.594 6.310 .014
AQHOS 157.389 1 157.389 3.108 .082
AQANG 36.312 1 36.312 .529 .469
APQANGPre 6.365 1 6.365 .109 .743
APQpreFrust 7.064 1 7.064 .106 .746
APQprelrrit 68.793 1 68.793 1.178 .282
APQpreAggress .001 1 .001 .001 .972
APQpostAggress .002 1 .002 .001 .972
APQPostAnger 28.484 1 28.484 .396 .531
APQpostFrust 47.132 1 47.132 .516 .475
APQpostlrrit 65.556 1 65.556 .881 .351
GTAviolentacts 7168.008 1 7168.008 4.637 .035
GTAvioactsreport 3148.317 1 3148.317 .722 .398
percviolencetv 1775.338 1 1775.338 2.319 .132
percviolencvg 237.980 1 237.980 .242 .624
reallifeviolence 1.768 1 1.768 1.520 .222
hoursweek 39.447 1 39.447 1.293 .260
mclikegame .000 1 .000 .000 .996
mcactionpack .006 1 .006 .001 .976
mcarousing .030 1 .030 .004 .950
mcentertain 8.927 1 8.927 1.590 .212
mcexciting 7.326 1 7.326 1.065 .306
mcfrustrating 2.603 1 2.603 .492 .485
103
mcabsorbing 11.351 1 11.351 1.608 .209

mcviolent .392 1 .392 .098 .756
gtalikegame 44.649 1 44.649 6.805 .011
gtaactionpack 23.315 1 23.315 3.329 .072
gtaarousing 18.879 1 18.879 2.703 .105
gtaentertain 8.033 1 8.033 1.092 .300
gtaexciting 12.323 1 12.323 1.723 .194
gtafrustrat .342 1 .342 .047 .829
gtaabsorbing 34.289 1 34.289 4.944 .030
gtaviolent 1.616 1 1.616 .395 .532
gtalikecharac 1.220 1 1.220 .283 .596
gtasimilar 4.705 1 4.705 2.590 .112
gtaliketobe .158 1 .158 .042 .837
gtabecame 13.388 1 13.388 1.949 .167
age 17.013 1 17.013 2.919 .092
sim 1coop 25.132 1 25.132 1.973 .165
simlcomp 13.676 1 13.676 1.918 .171
sim1 aggress 1.526 1 1.526 .241 .625
simltriah .043 1 .043 .110 .742
sim1trial2 .065 1 .065 .128 .722
sim1trial4 .532 1 .532 .879 .352
simltriah 5 .527 1 .527 .822 .368
postgtasimcoop 40.731 1 40.731 2.634 .109
postgtasimcomp 28.063 1 28.063 2.640 .109
postgtasimaggres
1.176 1 1.176 .163 .688
s
postgtasimtrl .713 1 .713 2.091 .153
postgtasimtr2 .005 1 .005 .011 .918
postgtasimtr4 .051 1 .051 .091 .763
postgtasimtrl 5 .042 1 .042 .065 .799
postmcsimcoop 1.342 1 1.342 .065 .800
postmcsimcomp 15.374 1 15.374 1.262 .265
postmcsimaggres
7.632 1 7.632 .896 .347
s
postmcsimtrl .000 1 .000 .001 .982
postmcsimtr2 1.170 1 1.170 1.885 .174
postmcsimtr4 .219 1 .219 .372 .544
postmcsimtrl 5 .166 1 .166 .296 .588
therapy .123 1 .123 .910 .344
meds .035 1 .035 .252 .617
playsalone .023 1 .023 .120 .730
unabletostop .232 1 .232 1.045 .310
Gender AQPRE
*
31.847 1 31.847 .540 .465

Respon
der
104
AQPYS 24.264 24.264 .451 .504

AQHOS .867 .867 .017 .896
AQANG 100.677 100.677 1.468 .230
APQANGPre .826 .826 .014 .906
APQpreFrust 1.314 1.314 .020 .889
APQprelrrit .461 .461 .008 .929
APQpreAggress 1.316 1.316 1.782 .186
APQpostAggress .114 .114 .063 .802
APQPostAnger 10.237 10.237 .142 .707
APQpostFrust 31.130 31.130 .341 .561
APQpostlrrit .488 .488 .007 .936
GTAviolentacts 2628.401 2628.401 1.700 .197
GTAvioactsreport 9970.606 9970.606 2.286 .135
percviolencetv 26.223 26.223 .034 .854
percviolencvg 954.634 954.634 .971 .328
reallifeviolence .007 .007 .006 .940
hoursweek 2.605 2.605 .085 .771
mclikegame 14.722 14.722 2.682 .106
mcactionpack .721 .721 .109 .742
mcarousing 1.431 1.431 .188 .666
mcentertain 3.878 3.878 .691 .409
mcexciting 1.236 1.236 .180 .673
mcfrustrating 12.371 12.371 2.339 .131
mcabsorbing 3.119 3.119 .442 .509
mcviolent 11.892 11.892 2.959 .090
gtalikegame 4.383 4.383 .668 .417
gtaactionpack .023 .023 .003 .954
gtaarousing 5.030 5.030 .720 .399
gtaentertain 11.019 11.019 1.498 .225
gtaexciting 5.927 5.927 .829 .366
gtafrustrat .907 .907 .125 .725
gtaabsorbing .262 .262 .038 .846
gtaviolent .729 .729 .178 .674
gtalikecharac .266 .266 .062 .805
gtasimilar .000 .000 .000 .989
gtaliketobe 6.802 6.802 1.826 .181
gtabecame .002 .002 .000 .985
age 22.097 22.097 3.791 .056
sim 1coop 26.506 26.506 2.081 .154
simlcomp 4.495 4.495 .630 .430
sim 1aggress 53.995 53.995 8.538 .005
sim1trial1 1.040 1.040 2.652 .108
sim1trial2 .596 .596 1.170 .283
sim1trial4 .524 .524 .865 .356
sim 1trial 15 .101 .101 .157 .693
postgtasimcoop 4.173 4.173 .270 .605
105
postgtasimcomp 4.235 4.235 .398 .530

postgtasimaggres
16.814 16.814 2.331 .131
s
postgtasimtrl .018 .018 .052 .821
postgtasimtr2 1.748 1.748 3.881 .053
postgtasimtr4 .085 .085 .154 .696
postgtasimtrl 5 .583 .583 .903 .345
postmcsimcoop 78.818 78.818 3.804 .055
postmcsimcomp 4.407 4.407 .362 .550
postmcsimaggres
45.952 45.952 5.396 .023
s
postmcsimtrl 1.927 1.927 4.781 .032
postmcsimtr2 .273 .273 .439 .510
postmcsimtr4 .381 .381 .648 .424
postmcsimtrl 5 2.114 2.114 3.759 .057
therapy .148 .148 1.091 .300
meds .026 .026 .189 .665
playsalone .101 .101 .531 .469
unabletostop .016 .016 .073 .788
Group * AQPRE
Respon 278.343 278.343 4.719 .033
der
AQPYS 308.130 308.130 5.726 .019
AQHOS 132.885 132.885 2.624 .110
AQANG 191.233 191.233 2.788 .100
APQANGPre 124.511 124.511 2.124 .150
APQpreFrust 15.290 15.290 .230 .633
APQprelrrit 2.393 2.393 .041 .840
APQpreAggress 1.382 1.382 1.871 .176
APQpostAggress 1.760 1.760 .982 .325
APQPostAnger 157.816 157.816 2.194 .143
APQpostFrust 11.310 11.310 .124 .726
APQpostlrrit 18.692 18.692 .251 .618
GTAviolentacts 2551.146 2551.146 1.650 .203
GTAvioactsreport 274.813 274.813 .063 .803
percviolencetv 1177.985 1177.985 1.538 .219
percviolencvg 152.362 152.362 .155 .695
reallifeviolence 1.672 1.672 1.438 .235
hoursweek 9.178 9.178 .301 .585
mclikegame 4.148 4.148 .756 .388
mcactionpack 2.385 2.385 .361 .550
mcarousing 5.859 5.859 .772 .383
mcentertain 1.506 1.506 .268 .606
mcexciting 2.167 2.167 .315 .576
mcfrustrating .393 .393 .074 .786
mcabsorbing 2.944 2.944 .417 .521
106
mcviolent 76.186 1 76.186 18.959 .000

gtalikegame 1.605 1 1.605 .245 .622
gtaactionpack 3.975 1 3.975 .568 .454
gtaarousing .022 1 .022 .003 .955
gtaentertain 6.132 1 6.132 .834 .364
gtaexciting 4.566 1 4.566 .639 .427
gtafrustrat 2.489 1 2.489 .344 .560
gtaabsorbing 1.876 1 1.876 .271 .605
gtaviolent .128 1 .128 .031 .860
gtalikecharac 9.832 1 9.832 2.283 .135
gtasimilar .307 1 .307 .169 .682
gtaliketobe .354 1 .354 .095 .759
gtabecame 6.250 1 6.250 .910 .344
age 2.716 1 2.716 .466 .497
sim 1coop 7.104 1 7.104 .558 .458
simlcomp 7.782 1 7.782 1.091 .300
sim 1aggress .002 1 .002 .000 .986
simltriah .006 1 .006 .015 .902
sim1trial2 .535 1 .535 1.050 .309
sim1trial4 .343 1 .343 .567 .454
simltriah 5 .060 1 .060 .094 .760
postgtasimcoop 11.029 1 11.029 .713 .401
postgtasimcomp 2.028 1 2.028 .191 .664
postgtasimaggres
22.514 1 22.514 3.121 .082
s
postgtasimtrl .087 1 .087 .256 .614
postgtasimtr2 .456 1 .456 1.013 .318
postgtasimtr4 .010 1 .010 .018 .893
postgtasimtrl 5 1.301 1 1.301 2.017 .160
postmcsimcoop 19.123 1 19.123 .923 .340
postmcsimcomp 9.993 1 9.993 .820 .368
postmcsimaggres
1.469 1 1.469 .172 .679
s
postmcsimtrl .226 1 .226 .560 .457
postmcsimtr2 .118 1 .118 .190 .664
postmcsimtr4 .009 1 .009 .015 .902
postmcsimtrl 5 .107 1 .107 .191 .664
therapy .016 1 .016 .115 .736
meds .010 1 .010 .070 .793
playsalone .001 1 .001 .005 .941
unabletostop .051 1 .051 .230 .633
Gender AQPRE
* Group
*
94.926 1 94.926 1.609 .209
Respon
der
107
AQPYS 220.877 220.877 4.104 .047

AQHOS 53.192 53.192 1.051 .309
AQANG 79.862 79.862 1.164 .284
APQANGPre 52.387 52.387 .894 .348
APQpreFrust 16.624 16.624 .250 .619
APQprelrrit .041 .041 .001 .979
APQpreAggress 1.132 1.132 1.532 .220
APQpostAggress .977 .977 .545 .463
APQPostAnger 4.829 4.829 .067 .796
APQpostFrust .130 .130 .001 .970
APQpostlrrit .329 .329 .004 .947
GTAviolentacts 908.622 908.622 .588 .446
GTAvioactsreport 342.056 342.056 .078 .780
percviolencetv 94.897 94.897 .124 .726
percviolencvg 5643.789 5643.789 5.743 .019
reallifeviolence .330 .330 .283 .596
hoursweek 2.952 2.952 .097 .757
mclikegame 1.063 1.063 .194 .661
mcactionpack 1.392 1.392 .211 .647
mcarousing .198 .198 .026 .872
mcentertain 3.079 3.079 .549 .461
mcexciting 2.539 2.539 .369 .546
mcfrustrating .149 .149 .028 .867
mcabsorbing .690 .690 .098 .756
mcviolent .552 .552 .137 .712
gtalikegame 10.265 10.265 1.565 .215
gtaactionpack .045 .045 .006 .937
gtaarousing 2.614 2.614 .374 .543
gtaentertain .013 .013 .002 .967
gtaexciting 1.358 1.358 .190 .664
gtafrustrat 1.308 1.308 .181 .672
gtaabsorbing 19.783 19.783 2.852 .096
gtaviolent .116 .116 .028 .867
gtalikecharac .039 .039 .009 .924
gtasimilar .543 .543 .299 .586
gtaliketobe .248 .248 .067 .797
gtabecame 4.490 4.490 .654 .422
age 6.962 6.962 1.194 .278
sim 1coop 14.919 14.919 1.171 .283
simlcomp 7.782 7.782 1.091 .300
sim 1aggress 1.329 1.329 .210 .648
simltriah .025 .025 .063 .803
sim1trial2 .052 .052 .103 .749
sim1trial4 .152 .152 .251 .618
simltriah 5 .008 .008 .013 .909
postgtasimcoop 28.882 28.882 1.867 .176
108
postgtasimcomp 13.104 1 13.104 1.233 .271

postgtasimaggres
3.077 1 3.077 .427 .516
s
postgtasimtrl .526 1 .526 1.544 .218
postgtasimtr2 .133 1 .133 .295 .589
postgtasimtr4 .051 1 .051 .092 .762
postgtasimtrl 5 .001 1 .001 .001 .972
postmcsimcoop .310 1 .310 .015 .903
postmcsimcomp .139 1 .139 .011 .915
postmcsimaggres
.034 1 .034 .004 .950
s
postmcsimtrl .003 1 .003 .008 .929
postmcsimtr2 .103 1 .103 .166 .685
postmcsimtr4 .014 1 .014 .023 .879
postmcsimtrl 5 .343 1 .343 .610 .438
therapy .111 1 .111 .820 .368
meds .208 1 .208 1.503 .224
playsalone .055 1 .055 .288 .593
unabletostop .213 1 .213 .959 .331
Error AQPRE 4010.812 68 58.983
AQPYS 3659.538 68 53.817
AQHOS 3443.023 68 50.633
AQANG 4664.133 68 68.590
APQANGPre 3985.958 68 58.617
APQpreFrust 4523.657 68 66.524
APQprelrrit 3970.089 68 58.384
APQpreAggress 50.226 68 .739
APQpostAggress 121.829 68 1.792
APQPostAnger 4892.043 68 71.942
APQpostFrust 6213.951 68 91.382
APQpostlrrit 5061.157 68 74.429
GTAviolentacts 105124.585 68 1545.950
GTAvioactsreport 296532.217 68 4360.768
percviolencetv 52067.396 68 765.697
percviolencvg 66825.107 68 982.722
reallifeviolence 79.073 68 1.163
hoursweek 2075.078 68 30.516
mclikegame 373.303 68 5.490
mcactionpack 448.638 68 6.598
mcarousing 516.393 68 7.594
mcentertain 381.712 68 5.613
mcexciting 467.741 68 6.879
mcfrustrating 359.640 68 5.289
mcabsorbing 480.138 68 7.061
mcviolent 273.259 68 4.019
gtalikegame 446.137 68 6.561
109
gtaactionpack 476.276 68 7.004

gtaarousing 474.897 68 6.984
gtaentertain 500.214 68 7.356
gtaexciting 486.326 68 7.152
gtafrustrat 492.285 68 7.239
gtaabsorbing 471.643 68 6.936
gtaviolent 278.207 68 4.091
gtalikecharac 292.891 68 4.307
gtasimilar 123.521 68 1.816
gtaliketobe 253.261 68 3.724
gtabecame 467.012 68 6.868
age 396.369 68 5.829
sim 1coop 866.283 68 12.739
simlcomp 484.836 68 7.130
sim 1aggress 430.029 68 6.324
simltriah 26.679 68 .392
sim1trial2 34.618 68 .509
sim1trial4 41.146 68 .605
simltriah 5 43.627 68 .642
postgtasimcoop 1051.723 68 15.467
postgtasimcomp 722.828 68 10.630
postgtasimaggres
490.483 68 7.213
s
postgtasimtrl 23.177 68 .341
postgtasimtr2 30.630 68 .450
postgtasimtr4 37.657 68 .554
postgtasimtrl 5 43.860 68 .645
postmcsimcoop 1408.932 68 20.720
postmcsimcomp 828.260 68 12.180
postmcsimaggres
579.058 68 8.516
s
postmcsimtrl 27.407 68 .403
postmcsimtr2 42.210 68 .621
postmcsimtr4 40.010 68 .588
postmcsimtrl 5 38.242 68 .562
therapy 9.218 68 .136
meds 9.407 68 .138
playsalone 12.869 68 .189
unabletostop 15.112 68 .222
110
Group A:
Tests of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: M ASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
Source Squares df Square F Sig.
trial 1 Sphericity
.479 2 .239 1.172 .315
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.479 1.972 .243 1.172 .315
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .479 2.000 .239 1.172 .315
Lower-bound .479 1.000 .479 1.172 .286
Error(trial Sphericity
15.521 76 .204
1) Assumed
Greenhouse-
15.521 74.950 .207
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 15.521 76.000 .204
Lower-bound 15.521 38.000 .408
Measure: M ASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial2 Sphericity
.667 2 .333 .667 .516
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.667 1.816 .367 .667 .503
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .667 1.902 .351 .667 .509
Lower-bound .667 1.000 .667 .667 .419
38.000 76 .500
2) Assumed
Greenhouse-
38.000 68.995 .551
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 38.000 72.264 .526
Lower-bound 38.000 38.000 1.000
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
Ill
trial4 Sphericity
.154 2 .077 .169 .844
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.154 1.880 .082 .169 .832
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .154 1.975 .078 .169 .842
Lower-bound .154 1.000 .154 .169 .683
34.513 76 .454
4) Assumed
Greenhouse-
34.513 71.456 .483
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 34.513 75.050 .460
Lower-bound 34.513 38.000 .908
Tests o f Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial 15 Sphericity
.051 2 .026 .050 .951
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.051 1.781 .029 .050 .936
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .051 1.863 .028 .050 .942
Lower-bound .051 1.000 .051 .050 .823
Error(triall Sphericity
38.615 76 .508
5) Assumed
Greenhouse-
38.615 67.689 .570
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 38.615 70.789 .546
Lower-bound 38.615 38.000 1.016
Measure: M lASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
Coop Sphericity
.479 2 .239 .043 .958
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.479 1.861 .257 .043 .949
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .479 1.953 .245 .043 .955
Lower-bound .479 1.000 .479 .043 .836
112
Error(coo Sphericity
418.855 76 5.511
P) Assumed
Greenhouse-
418.855 70.723 5.922
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 418.855 74.219 5.643
Lower-bound 418.855 38.000 11.022
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
Comp Sphericity
.205 2 .103 .028 .972
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.205 1.975 .104 .028 .971
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .205 2.000 .103 .028 .972
Lower-bound .205 1.000 .205 .028 .867
Error(com Sphericity
275.128 76 3.620
P) Assumed
Greenhouse-
275.128 75.057 3.666
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 275.128 76.000 3.620
Lower-bound 275.128 38.000 7.240
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
Aggress Sphericity
1.094 2 .547 .261 .771
Assumed
Greenhouse-
1.094 1.801 .608 .261 .748
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 1.094 1.885 .581 .261 .758
Lower-bound 1.094 1.000 1.094 .261 .613
Error(aggres Sphericity
159.573 76 2.100
s) Assumed
Greenhouse-
159.573 68.420 2.332
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 159.573 71.614 2.228
Lower-bound 159.573 38.000 4.199
113
Paired Samples Test
Sig.
(2-
tailed
Paired Differences t df )
Std. Std. 95% Confidence
Deviatio Error Interval of the
Mean n Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair 1 apqpreang
1.7142
.10000 5.04747 .79807 -1.51426 .125 39 .901
apqpostan 6
g
Pair 2 apqprefrus
t- 1.2117
5.66501 .89572 -2.41176 -.670 39 .507
apqpostfra .60000 6
st
Pair 3 apqpreirrit
1.4212
.10000 4.13118 .65320 -1.22122 .153 39 .879
apqpostirri 2
t
Pair 4 apqpreagg
ress -
1.69388 .26783 -1.09173 2.05 39 .047
apqpostag .55000 .00827
4
gress
Group B:
Measure: M' ASURE 1

Type III
Sum of Mean
trial 1 Sphericity
.211 2 .105 .337 .715
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.211 1.782 .118 .337 .690
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .211 1.866 .113 .337 .700
Lower-bound .211 1.000 .211 .337 .565
23.123 74 .312
1) Assumed
114
Greenhouse-
23.123 65.919 .351
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 23.123 69.025 .335
Lower-bound 23.123 37.000 .625
Measure: M 'ASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial2 Sphericity
2.526 2 1.263 3.322 .042
Assumed
Greenhouse-
2.526 1.950 1.295 3.322 .043
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 2.526 2.000 1.263 3.322 .042
Lower-bound 2.526 1.000 2.526 3.322 .076
28.140 74 .380
2) Assumed
Greenhouse-
28.140 72.157 .390
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 28.140 74.000 .380
Lower-bound 28.140 37.000 .761
Measure: M ASURE 1
Type III
Sum o f Mean
trial4 Sphericity
2.123 2 1.061 2.038 .138
Assumed
Greenhouse-
2.123 1.963 1.081 2.038 .139
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 2.123 2.000 1.061 2.038 .138
Lower-bound 2.123 1.000 2.123 2.038 .162
38.544 74 .521
4) Assumed
Greenhouse-
38.544 72.640 .531
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 38.544 74.000 .521
Lower-bound 38.544 37.000 1.042
115
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial 15 Sphericity
4.333 2 2.167 5.286 .007
Assumed
Greenhouse-
4.333 1.951 2.221 5.286 .008
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 4.333 2.000 2.167 5.286 .007
Lower-bound 4.333 1.000 4.333 5.286 .027
Error(triall Sphericity
30.333 74 .410
5) Assumed
Greenhouse-
30.333 72.180 .420
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 30.333 74.000 .410
Lower-bound 30.333 37.000 .820
Measure: M' 'ASURE 1

Type III
Sum of Mean
coop Sphericity
.123 2 .061 .011 .989
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.123 1.793 .068 .011 .983
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .123 1.879 .065 .011 .986
Lower-bound .123 1.000 .123 .011 .915
395.877 74 5.350
P) Assumed
Greenhouse-
395.877 66.345 5.967
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 395.877 69.507 5.696
Lower-bound 395.877 37.000 10.699
116
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
comp Sphericity
4.228 2 2.114 .431 .652
Assumed
Greenhouse-
4.228 1.993 2.121 .431 .651
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 4.228 2.000 2.114 .431 .652
Lower-bound 4.228 1.000 4.228 .431 .516
363.105 74 4.907
P) Assumed
Greenhouse-
363.105 73.748 4.924
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 363.105 74.000 4.907
Lower-bound 363.105 37.000 9.814
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
aggress Sphericity
5.123 2 2.561 .501 .608
Assumed
Greenhouse-
5.123 1.969 2.602 .501 .605
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 5.123 2.000 2.561 .501 .608
Lower-bound 5.123 1.000 5.123 .501 .483
Error(aggres Sphericity
378.211 74 5.111
s) Assumed
Greenhouse-
378.211 72.855 5.191
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 378.211 74.000 5.111
Lower-bound 378.211 37.000 10.222
117
Paired Samples Test
Sig.
(2-
tailed
Mea Deviatio Error Interval of the
n n Mean Difference
Lowe
r Upper
Pai apqpreang
r1 .3771
1.23 4.96017 .79426 -2.83867 -1.550 38 .130
apqpostan 3
077
g
Pai apqprefrus
r2 t- .1687
1.00 3.60555 .57735 -2.16878 -1.732 38 .091
apqpostfru 8
000
st
Pai apqpreirrit
r3 .2299
.897 3.47771 .55688 -2.02478 -1.612 38 .115
apqpostirri 1
44
t
Pai apqpreagg
r4 ress - .0401
.384 1.31019 .20980 -.80933 -1.833 38 .075
apqpostag 0
62
gress
Responder Analysis:
Measure: IVEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial 1 Sphericity
.833 2 .417 2.021 .146
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.833 1.460 .571 2.021 .161
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .833 1.551 .537 2.021 .159
Lower-bound .833 1.000 .833 2.021 .171
7.833 38 .206
1) Assumed
Greenhouse-
7.833 27.740 .282
Geisser
118
Huynh-Feldt 7.833 29.464 .266

Lower-bound 7.833 19.000 .412
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial2 Sphericity
.700 2 .350 .624 .541
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.700 1.927 .363 .624 .535
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .700 2.000 .350 .624 .541
Lower-bound .700 1.000 .700 .624 .439
21.300 38 .561
2) Assumed
Greenhouse-
21.300 36.605 .582
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 21.300 38.000 .561
Lower-bound 21.300 19.000 1.121
T€ists of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: IV EASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial4 Sphericity
.933 2 .467 1.039 .364
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.933 1.840 .507 1.039 .359
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .933 2.000 .467 1.039 .364
Lower-bound .933 1.000 .933 1.039 .321
17.067 38 .449
4) Assumed
Greenhouse-
17.067 34.952 .488
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 17.067 38.000 .449
Lower-bound 17.067 19.000 .898
119
T<3sts of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: M EASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial 15 Sphericity
2.233 2 1.117 2.388 .105
Assumed
Greenhouse-
2.233 1.795 1.244 2.388 .112
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 2.233 1.970 1.133 2.388 .106
Lower-bound 2.233 1.000 2.233 2.388 .139
17.767 38 .468
15) Assumed
Greenhouse-
17.767 34.105 .521
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 17.767 37.436 .475
Lower-bound 17.767 19.000 .935
Te sts of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: M EASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
cooperate Sphericity
25.900 2 12.950 1.601 .215
Assumed
Green house-
25.900 1.814 14.281 1.601 .218
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 25.900 1.994 12.989 1.601 .215
Lower-bound 25.900 1.000 25.900 1.601 .221
307.433 38 8.090
perate) Assumed
Green house-
307.433 34.457 8.922
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 307.433 37.887 8.114
Lower-bound 307.433 19.000 16.181
120
Te sts of Within-Subjects Effects
Type III
Sum of Mean
compete Sphericity
7.600 2 3.800 .456 .637
Assumed
Greenhouse-
7.600 1.855 4.096 .456 .623
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 7.600 2.000 3.800 .456 .637
Lower-bound 7.600 1.000 7.600 .456 .507
316.400 38 8.326
pete) Assumed
Greenhouse-
316.400 35.252 8.975
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 316.400 38.000 8.326
Lower-bound 316.400 19.000 16.653
Non-respond er Analysis:
Tes ts of Within-Subjects Effects
Measure: M EASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial 1 Sphericity 1.89
1.115 2 .557 .155
Assumed 4
Greenhouse- 1.89
1.115 1.889 .590 .158
Geisser 4
Huynh-Feldt 1.89
1.115 1.952 .571 .156
4
Lower-bound 1.89
1.115 1.000 1.115 .174
4
33.552 114 .294
1) Assumed
Greenhouse-
33.552 107.666 .312
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 33.552 111.241 .302
Lower-bound 33.552 57.000 .589
121
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial2 Sphericity
.770 2 .385 .943 .393
Assumed
Greenhouse-
.770 1.988 .387 .943 .392
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt .770 2.000 .385 .943 .393
Lower-bound .770 1.000 .770 .943 .336
46.563 114 .408
2) Assumed
Greenhouse-
46.563 113.294 .411
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 46.563 114.000 .408
Lower-bound 46.563 57.000 .817
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial4 Sphericity
3.115 2 1.557 2.736 .069
Assumed
Greenhouse-
3.115 1.994 1.562 2.736 .069
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 3.115 2.000 1.557 2.736 .069
Lower-bound 3.115 1.000 3.115 2.736 .104
64.885 114 .569
4) Assumed
Greenhouse-
64.885 113.683 .571
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 64.885 114.000 .569
Lower-bound 64.885 57.000 1.138
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
trial 15 Sphericity
1.184 2 .592 1.262 .287
Assumed
122
Greenhouse
1.184 1.938 .611 1.262 .287
-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 1.184 2.000 .592 1.262 .287
Lower-
1.184 1.000 1.184 1.262 .266
bound
53.483 114 .469
15) Assumed
Greenhouse
53.483 110.455 .484
-Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 53.483 114.000 .469
Lower-
53.483 57.000 .938
bound
T ests of Within-Subjects Effects
Type III
Sum of Mean
coop Sphericity
6.011 2 3.006 .503 .606
Assumed
Greenhouse-
6.011 1.857 3.238 .503 .592
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 6.011 1.917 3.137 .503 .598
Lower-bound 6.011 1.000 6.011 .503 .481
680.655 114 5.971
p) Assumed
Greenhouse-
680.655 105.826 6.432
Geisser
Huynh-Feldt 680.655 109.241 6.231
Lower-bound 680.655 57.000 11.941
Measure: MEASURE 1
Type III
Sum of Mean
compete Sphericity
.356 2 .178 .052 .949
Assumed
Greenhou
.356 1.863 .191 .052 .940
se-Geisser
Huynh-
.356 1.924 .185 .052 .944
Feldt
Lower-
.356 1.000 .356 .052 .820
bound
123
Error(comp Sphericity
386.977 114 3.395
ete) Assumed
Greenhou
386.977 106.201 3.644
se-Geisser
Huynh-
386.977 109.648 3.529
Feldt
Lower-
386.977 57.000 6.789
bound
Game Matching Results:
Paired Samples Test
Sig.
(2-
tailed
Deviatio Error Interval of the
Mean n Mean Difference
Lower Upper
Pair GTA.lik.ga -
1 me - 2.83957 .31747 1.6194 -3.110 79 .003

.98750 .35559
MC.lik.ga 1
Pair GTA.action
2 .pack -
.13750 3.06364 .34253 .81928 .401 79 .689
MC. action, .54428
pack
Pair GTA.Arous
3 ing-
2.74942 .30740 .29935 -1.017 79 .312
MC.Arousi .31250 .92435
ng
Pair GTA.Entert
4 aining -
2.98138 .33333 1.5134 -2.550 79 .013
MC.Enterta .85000 .18653
7
ining
Pair GTA.Exciti
5 ng-
1.0625 2.86553 .32038 1.7001 -3.316 79 .001
MC.Excitin .42481
0 9
g
Pair GTA.Frustr
1.1305
6 ating - .46250 3.00187 .33562 1.378 79 .172
.20553 3
MC.Frustrat
124
ing
Pair GTA.Absor
7 bing-
2.86044 .31981 .34906 -.899 79 .371
MC.Absorb .28750 .92406
ing
Pair GTA.Viole
4.4875 3.8929 5.0821
8 nt - 2.67191 .29873 15.022 79 .000
0 0 0
MC. Violent
Gender Analysis:

Init.group.m Age
17.581 1 17.581 2.505 .121
en
AQT 17.458 1 17.458 .302 .586
ApqAngerPre 113.772 1 113.772 1.439 .237
ApqFrustPre 61.031 1 61.031 .784 .381
ApqlrritPre .031 1 .031 .000 .983
ApqAggressPre 3.602 1 3.602 2.267 .140
ApqAngerPost 8.063 1 8.063 .077 .782
ApqFrustPost 29.953 1 29.953 .266 .609
ApqlrritPost .146 1 .146 .002 .968
ApqAggPost 12.887 1 12.887 3.413 .072
Sim. 1.Coop 1.564 1 1.564 .097 .757
Sim. 1.Comp .146 1 .146 .019 .891
Sim. 1.Aggress 2.667 1 2.667 .376 .543
Sim.l.Tri.l .105 1 .105 .257 .615
Sim.l.Tri.2 .031 1 .031 .056 .814
Sim.l.Tri.4 .001 1 .001 .001 .970
Sim.l.Tri.l 5 .679 1 .679 1.000 .323
Sim.2.Coop 4.063 1 4.063 .193 .663
Sim.2.Comp 11.055 1 11.055 .963 .332
Sim.2.Aggress 1.715 1 1.715 .206 .652
Sim.2.Tril .364 1 .364 .907 .347
Sim.2.Tri2 .631 1 .631 1.430 .239
Sim.2.Tri4 .887 1 .887 1.865 .180
Sim.2.Tril5 .022 1 .022 .032 .859
Sim.3.Coop .499 1 .499 .022 .882
Sim.3.Comp .078 1 .078 .007 .936
Sim.3. Aggress .972 1 .972 .100 .754
Sim.3.Tril .195 1 .195 .431 .515
Sim.3.Tri2 1.420 1 1.420 2.166 .149
125
Sim.3.Tri4 .018 1 .018 .034 .855

Sim.3.Tri 15 .105 1 .105 .151 .700
GTA.lik.game .014 1 .014 .002 .966
GTA.action.pac
.236 1 .236 .032 .859
k
GTA.Arousing 3.328 1 3.328 .371 .546
GTA.Entertaini
3.169 1 3.169 .376 .543
ng
GTA.Exciting 7.328 1 7.328 .893 .350
GTA.Frustrating 4.365 1 4.365 .684 .413
GT A. Absorbing .703 1 .703 .089 .767
GTA.Violent .125 1 .125 .050 .824
GTA.Like.Char .296 1 .296 .054 .817
GTA.Similar .158 1 .158 .077 .783
GTA.Like.to.b .022 1 .022 .005 .946
GTA.Become 8.063 1 8.063 1.150 .290
MC.lik.ga .329 1 .329 .079 .780
MC.action.pack 2.963 1 2.963 .611 .439
MC. Arousing 1.872 1 1.872 .287 .595
MC.Entertainin
12.992 1 12.992 2.981 .092
2
©
MC.Exciting 9.096 1 9.096 1.696 .200
MC.Frustrating .943 1 .943 .154 .697
MC.Absorbing 30.115 1 30.115 4.669 .037
MC.Violent .026 1 .026 .005 .943
GTA.Violent.Ac
1768.001 1 1768.001 .847 .363
ts
GTA.Viol.Act.R
5.751 1 5.751 .001 .974
eported
GTA.Diff.viol.r
14239.896 1 14239.896 .860 .359
eal.reported
Violent, telev 91.732 1 91.732 .136 .714
Violent, games 44.614 1 44.614 .045 .833
Real.life.violenc
.346 1 .346 .367 .548
e
Hoursperweek.g 1.072
52.555 1 52.555 .307
ames
Error Age 280.705 40 7.018
AQT 2313.518 40 57.838
ApqAngerPre 3162.705 40 79.068
ApqFrustPre 3115.541 40 77.889
ApqlrritPre 2652.755 40 66.319
ApqAggressPre 63.541 40 1.589
ApqAngerPost 4168.414 40 104.210
ApqFrustPost 4506.618 40 112.665
ApqlrritPost 3643.973 40 91.099
126
ApqAggPost 151.018 40 3.775

Sim. 1. Coop 642.841 40 16.071
Sim. 1.Comp 305.973 40 7.649
Sim. 1.Aggress 283.905 40 7.098
Sim.l.Tri.l 16.300 40 .408
Sim.l.Tri.2 22.255 40 .556
Sim.l.Tri.4 23.618 40 .590
Sim.l.Tri.l 5 27.155 40 .679
Sim.2.Coop 842.414 40 21.060
Sim.2.Comp 459.064 40 11.477
Sim.2.Aggress 332.405 40 8.310
Sim.2.Tril 16.041 40 .401
Sim.2.Tri2 17.655 40 .441
Sim.2.Tri4 19.018 40 .475
Sim.2.Tril5 26.955 40 .674
Sim.3.Coop 888.073 40 22.202
Sim.3.Comp 479.541 40 11.989
Sim.3. Aggress 389.505 40 9.738
Sim.3.Tril 18.091 40 .452
Sim.3.Tri2 26.223 40 .656
Sim.3.Tri4 20.768 40 .519
Sim.3.Tril5 27.800 40 .695
GTA.lik.game 309.891 40 7.747
GTA.action.pac
294.550 40 7.364
k
GTA.Arousing 358.791 40 8.970
GTA.Entertaini
336.950 40 8.424
ng
GTA.Exciting 328.291 40 8.207
GTA.Frustrating 255.255 40 6.381
GTA. Absorbing 315.868 40 7.897
GTA.Violent 99.018 40 2.475
GTA.Like.Char 217.823 40 5.446
GTA.Similar 82.414 40 2.060
GTA.Like.to.b 186.955 40 4.674
GTA.Become 280.414 40 7.010
MC.lik.ga 166.814 40 4.170
MC.action.pack 193.823 40 4.846
MC.Arousing 260.914 40 6.523
MC .Entertainin
174.341 40 4.359
g
MC.Exciting 214.523 40 5.363
MC.Frustrating 244.700 40 6.118
MC.Absorbing 258.005 40 6.450
MC .Violent 202.950 40 5.074
127
GTA.Violent.Ac
83447.618 40 2086.190
ts
GTA.Viol.Act.R
221475.868 40 5536.897
eported
GTA.Diff.viol.r
662460.223 40 16561.506
eal.reported
Violent.telev 26914.768 40 672.869
Violent.games 39549.791 40 988.745
Real.life.violenc
37.773 40 .944
e
Hoursperweek.g
1961.423 40 49.036
ames

Init.group. Age
.539 1 .539 .100 .754
women
AQT 1.434 1 1.434 .014 .908
ApqAngerPre 11.642 1 11.642 .179 .676
ApqFrustPre .836 1 .836 .011 .916
ApqlrritPre 2.759 1 2.759 .040 .843
ApqAggressPre .013 1 .013 .054 .818
ApqAngerPost 9.078 1 9.078 .097 .757
ApqFrustPost 6.899 1 6.899 .061 .807
ApqlrritPost 9.155 1 9.155 .102 .751
ApqAggPost .414 1 .414 .417 .524
Sim. 1. Coop 1.088 1 1.088 .092 .764
Sim. 1.Comp .013 1 .013 .002 .966
Sim. 1.Aggress 1.198 1 1.198 .162 .690
Sim.l.Tri.l .001 1 .001 .002 .968
Sim.l.Tri.2 .617 1 .617 1.481 .234
Sim.l.Tri.4 .336 1 .336 .439 .513
Sim.l.Tri.l 5 1.284 1 1.284 2.323 .139
Sim.2.Coop .000 1 .000 .000 .998
Sim.2.Comp 13.371 1 13.371 .806 .377
Sim.2.Aggress 13.466 1 13.466 1.358 .254
Sim.2.Tril .054 1 .054 .112 .741
Sim.2.Tri2 .130 1 .130 .249 .622
Sim.2.Tri4 .215 1 .215 .364 .551
Sim.2.Tril5 .008 1 .008 .016 .902
Sim.3.Coop .767 1 .767 .057 .814
Sim.3.Comp 4.735 1 4.735 .580 .453
Sim.3. Aggress 1.691 1 1.691 .239 .629
128
Sim.3.Tril .366 1 .366 1.141 .295

Sim.3.Tri2 .722 1 .722 1.343 .257
Sim.3.Tri4 .239 1 .239 .391 .537
Sim.3.Tril5 .203 1 .203 .318 .577
GTA.lik.game 39.967 1 39.967 6.546 .016
GTA.action.pack 41.446 1 41.446 5.414 .028
GTA.Arousing 46.043 1 46.043 8.685 .007
GT A.Entertaining 31.370 1 31.370 5.699 .024
GTA.Exciting 35.846 1 35.846 7.098 .013
GTA.Frustrating 5.019 1 5.019 .757 .392
GTA.Absorbing 18.828 1 18.828 3.965 .057
GTA. Violent 1.142 1 1.142 .169 .684
GTA.Like.Char 6.304 1 6.304 1.756 .196
GTA. Similar .239 1 .239 .991 .328
GTA.Like.to.b 3.582 1 3.582 1.285 .267
GTA.Become 5.985 1 5.985 .619 .438
MC.lik.ga 1.759 1 1.759 .254 .619
MC.action.pack 6.239 1 6.239 .785 .383
MC, Arousing 6.175 1 6.175 .705 .408
MC.Entertaining .192 1 .192 .029 .866
MC.Exciting .170 1 .170 .023 .881
MC .Frustrating 5.135 1 5.135 1.007 .325
MC .Absorbing .080 1 .080 .013 .909
MC.Violent .279 1 .279 .050 .825
GTA. Violent. Acts 2878.629 1 2878.629 2.082 .161
GTA.Viol.Act.Re
5029.520 1 5029.520 1.269 .270
ported
GTA.Diff.viol.rea .834
741.582 1 741.582 .045
l.reported
Violent.telev 3079.592 1 3079.592 4.168 .051
Violent.games 146.485 1 146.485 .118 .734
Real.life.violence .307 1 .307 .228 .637
Hoursperweek. ga .161
6.984 1 6.984 2.079
mes
Error Age 145.668 27 5.395
AQT 2822.014 27 104.519
ApqAngerPre 1759.668 27 65.173
ApqFrustPre 1976.130 27 73.190
ApqlrritPre 1872.207 27 69.341
ApqAggressPre 6.745 27 .250
ApqAngerPost 2517.750 27 93.250
ApqFrustPost 3061.308 27 113.382
ApqlrritPost 2412.707 27 89.360
ApqAggPost 26.827 27 .994
Sim. 1.Coop 320.361 27 11.865
Sim. 1. Comp 196.745 27 7.287
129
Sim. 1.Aggress 199.630 27 7.394

Sim.l.Tri.l 10.827 27 .401
Sim.l.Tri.2 11.245 27 .416
Sim.l.Tri.4 20.630 27 .764
Sim.l.Tri.l 5 14.923 27 .553
Sim.2.Coop 566.207 27 20.971
Sim.2.Comp 448.077 27 16.595
Sim.2.Aggress 267.707 27 9.915
Sim.2.Tril 12.981 27 .481
Sim.2.Tri2 14.077 27 .521
Sim.2.Tri4 15.923 27 .590
Sim.2.Tril5 14.130 27 .523
Sim.3.Coop 365.923 27 13.553
Sim.3.Comp 220.438 27 8.164
Sim. 3. Aggress 190.861 27 7.069
Sim.3.Tril 8.668 27 .321
Sim.3.Tri2 14.519 27 .538
Sim.3.Tri4 16.519 27 .612
Sim.3.Tril5 17.245 27 .639
GTA.lik.game 164.861 27 6.106
GTA.action.pack 206.692 27 7.655
GTA.Arousing 143.130 27 5.301
GTA.Entertaining 148.630 27 5.505
GTA.Exciting 136.361 27 5.050
GTA.Frustrating 178.981 27 6.629
GTA.Absorbing 128.207 27 4.748
GTA.Violent 182.168 27 6.747
GTA.Like.Char 96.938 27 3.590
GTA. Similar 6.519 27 .241
GTA.Like.to.b 75.245 27 2.787
GTA.Become 260.981 27 9.666
MC.lik.ga 187.207 27 6.934
MC.action.pack 214.519 27 7.945
MC .Arousing 236.514 27 8.760
MC.Entertaining 176.981 27 6.555
MC.Exciting 199.692 27 7.396
MC.Frustrating 137.692 27 5.100
MC.Absorbing 162.058 27 6.002
MC.Violent 151.514 27 5.612
GT A. V iolent. Acts 37324.130 27 1382.375
GTA.Viol.Act.Re
106993.308 27 3962.715
ported
GTA.Diff.viol.rea
445313.245 27 16493.083
l.reported
Violent.telev 19951.442 27 738.942
Violent.games 33579.308 27 1243.678
130
Real.life.violence 36.245 27 1.342

Hoursperweek. ga 27 3.359
90.688
mes
131
Appendix M-Visual Representations of Statistically Nonsignificant Data
60.00
58.00
56.00
52.03 52.10
£
8 50.00 -j [pAQ T m eanj
48.00
44.00
42.00
GTA-MC MC-GTA
Figure 1. AQ Pretest Scores
132
48.00
44.00
40.00
'
36.00 34.21
69
31.36 "V1. *T*
32.00
29.18 29.18
28.00 27.20
i
Ijjjij i
□ GTA-MC
24.00
20.00
j§S! ' ’ :i i
□ MC-GTA
/'
16.00
12.00
I
i
'
0.00
Angry Frustrated Irritated
Subscales
Figure 2. APQ Pretest Likert Scores
48.00
•.00
40.00
i.0 0
34.18 34.05
32.08
32.00 30 51
29.26
28.59
28.00
O
c)
□ GTA-MC
* 24.00
□ MC-GTA
20.00
16.00
12.00-------
8.00
4.00
0.00
Subscale
Figure 3. APQ Posttest Likert Means, GTA-MC and MC-GTA
133
48
44
40
36 34.21 34.18
32.08
32 31.36
29.18 29.26
□ Pretest
0£ 24
□ Posttest
20
12

GTA-MC
Figure 4. APQ Likert Means Pretest/Posttest Comparison, GTA-MC
48
44
36
34.05
32.69
32 -30:51-
28.59 29.18
28 ,_27.2_
O)
.E
n □ Pretest
OC24
□ Posttest
S
h" 20
16
12
Angry
MC-GTA
Figure 5. APQ Likert Means Pretest/Posttest Comparison, MC-GTA
134
1U
6.78---------- 6.8
§ 6
o
£
0 5.05
- 4.88 □ GTA-MC
*5 5
□ MC-GTA
1E
3.35
# Coop # Compete # Aggr
Figure 6. Simulation Pretest Choices, GTA-MC and MC-GTA
10.00
9.00
8.00
7.0CL
7.00 6.786.8 .85
8 6.00
o
.eo 5.05. 5.10
o □ GTA-MC
o 5.00 4.83_
k. □ MC-GTA
E
Z 4.00
3.5
3.35 3.23
3.1
2.9C
3.00
1.00
0.00
Coop Comp Aggr Coop Comp Aggr Coop Comp Aggr
Pretest Posttest 1 Posttest 2
Figure 7. Simulation Pretest/Posttests Comparison, GTA-MC and MC-GTA
135
10.00
□ GTA-MC Coop
□ GTA-MC Comp
■ GTA-MC Aggr
0.00
Pretest Post NV Post V
Figure 8. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, GTA-MC
10.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
G MC-GTA Coop
5.00 □ MC-GTA Comp
■ MC-GTA Aggr
4.00
3.00
1.00
0.00
Pretest Post NV Post V
Figure 9. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, MC-GTA
136
Appendix N-Gender Analysis
Game Evaluation.
GTA. Across genders, a multivariate ANOVA produced a statistically significant
evaluation difference between the games on the statements ‘1 liked the game,’ (df=(l,68),
f=8.67, p=.004) the game was ‘entertaining,’ (df=(l,68), f=6.984, p=.01) ‘exciting,’
(df(l,68), f=4.62, p=.035) and ‘frustrating,’ (df(l,68), f=6.914, p=01). Males endorsed
higher scores for all of the above significant adjectives above, other than frustrating,
which females endorsed more highly. Nonsignificant results between genders were
found for the other game evaluation descriptors, specific values can be found in
Appendix L. It appears that males, on the whole, enjoyed the experience of playing GTA
more than females. Whether this is due to the violent content, the fact the protagonist in
the game is a male, or some other variable is beyond the scope of this experiment.
MC. Across genders, a statistically significant difference was found on the
statement that ‘I liked the game’ (df(l,68), f=5.219, p=.025), with no significant results
for the other evaluative statements. Specific nonsignificant values are available in
Appendix L. Males rated GTA higher for all the evaluations on the assessment, with the
exception of ‘frustrating,’ which were roughly equivalent. As with GTA, males appeared
to find playing MC a more enjoyable experience, although it is unclear why.
Clearly, game matching the way done in this study is an inexact endeavor.
However, despite the fact that no other line of research has attempted to do this to ensure
a comparable gameplay experience from the player’s perspective, the results from this
matching task were fairly equivalent between genders. Check the following statement, I
no longer know how many statistically significant differences there are: O f the fourteen
137
statistically significant differences, with fifty four nonsignificant ones, five of them were
between genders, indicating potential gender differences at pretest, but differences that
were minimized as potential confounds in the experiment itself by having both groups
comprised of an almost equal number of each gender. Of the nine remaining significant
differences, three (likeability, entertaining, exciting) were between games, incorporating
all 80 participant’s responses, five (likeability, action-packed, arousing, entertaining,
exciting) were within the female participants with regards to GTA, and one (absorbing)
was within male participants for MC. It is interesting that, despite the high visibility for
GTA in the media, that all three of the significant differences between games for all 80
participants had MC rated higher, despite its lack of violent content. You may choose to
expand this previous statement.
AQ Preexisting Gender Differences
The mean overall T-score for males in both groups was 53.11 (SD=7.34). The
mean overall T-score for females in both groups was 50.71(SD=9.46). This was not a
statistically significant difference (data available in Appendix L).
APQ Preexisting Gender Differences
The pretest Likert ratings means for males in both groups were 29.28 (SD=9.00)
for “angry,” 30.28 (SD=8.78) for “frustrated,” and 34.60 (SD=8.07) for “irritated.” The
pretest Likert ratings means for females in both groups were 27.03 (SD=8.02) for
“angry,” 30.63 (SD=8.07) for “frustrated,” and 32.54 (SD=8.16) for “irritated.” These
differences were not statistically significant (data available in Appendix L).
The pretest means for number of aggressive choices selected out of the twelve
scenarios for males in both groups was 0.87 (SD=1.24). The pretest means for number of
138
aggressive choices selected out of the twelve scenarios for females in both groups was
0.22 (SD=0.49). This difference was statistically significant (df(l,68), f=6.558, p=.013).
In summary, the only significant difference at pretest for the APQ was the between
gender number o f aggressive choices selected out of the twelve scenarios, a variable
controlled for by evenly distributing the genders within the two main groups.
Simulation Preexisting Gender Differences
The pretest mean number o f aggressive choices selected out of the fifteen trials
for males in both groups was 3.33 (SD=2.66). The pretest mean number of aggressive
choices selected out of the fifteen trials for females in both groups was 3.17 (SD=2.62).
This difference was not statistically significant, indicating that at pretest, there were not
preexisting gender-based differences with regard to aggressive decision making.
139
Appendix O-Recruitment and Session Scripts

Recruitment
“Researchers from the Psychology Department of Western Michigan University are
conducting a study assessing various effects of different types of video games. We are
soliciting male and female participants who are between the ages of 18 and 29, with or
without extensive videogame playing experience. We are circulating a brief summary of
the study to your class. If, after reading the summary of the study, you decide that you
would like to schedule an orientation session after which you could decide if you wanted
to volunteer for the experiment, please complete the contact information section on this
form. Completing and returning this form allows us to schedule an orientation session but
does not obligate you to participate. Participation is completely voluntary and
confidential, other than potential extra credit you might earn for participating. Regardless
o f your interest in participating, please return this form, including those you decided to
leave blank. For those who indicate an interest in learning more about the study, a
researcher will contact you to schedule an orientation session. Your course instructor has
(select one based on course instructor: a) “declined to offer extra credit for those electing
to participate in this experiment or b) agreed to offer (fill in with the extra credit
offered by each instructor) extra credit for those who participate in this experiment).”
If you have any questions, feel free to contact the faculty supervisor and principal
investigator of this study, Dr. Wayne Fuqua, at 387-4474. You may also contact the
Chair o f the Human Subjects Institutional R eview Board (387-8293) or the V ice
President for Research (387-8298) if questions or problems arise during the course of the
study.”
140
Scheduling
“Hello there, my name i s ______ and I am involved in the study dealing with
videogames that you indicated during your class that you might be interested in. I was
wondering if you were still interested, and if so, if you had any questions about the study,
and if you wanted to set up a time to come and learn more about the study before
deciding if you want to participate.”
Orientation
“The purpose of the study is to see if playing video games causes any change in your
reflexes and decision making. Let me give you a brief overview of the study. Your first
set of tasks will be to answer a series of questionnaires dealing with things like your
attitudes and video game playing habits. After this, you will play a simulation-based
game in which you will have the opportunity to earn points that can be redeemed after the
study is complete for entries in a raffle for one o f two $50 gift certificates to Target.
After this part of the experiment, you will be asked to play two different types of video
games for a short time. Some of these games may contain graphic violence, and/or
mildly sexually suggestive themes. After playing these video games, you will once again
complete the questionnaires and the two simulation tasks. We estimate that the total
experiment will take approximately 140 minutes all of which can be completed in one
session with a short break if needed. Do you have any questions? (Answer questions—)
If no questions then say, “does this sound like an experiment for which you would like to
volunteer?”
If the student answered “no,” they were thanked for their time, and excused from the
orientation session. If student said “yes,” the experimenter then said “the final step
before enrolling you in the experiment is called the Informed Consent Process. This is
141
designed to make sure that you fully understand the nature of the experiment,
confidentiality issues and any risks or benefits associated with the experiment. It is
important so that you’ll be fully aware of your rights as a research volunteer.”
Informed Consent
Do you have any questions about the nature of the experiment? Do you have any
questions about the risks and benefits of participating in the experiment? Do you have
any questions about how we’ll protect your privacy and the confidentiality of any data?”
Gameplay Habits Questoinnaire
“Now you will be asked to answer some questions about your videogame playing
habits and other experiences. These questions are just for classification purposes, and
will not affect your participation in the study.”
APQ
“Now I am going to ask you to read some hypothetical situations. Even if you have
never been in any of these situations before, I would like you to try and place yourself in
these situations, and respond how you think you would think or act for each one. Once
again, there are no right or wrong answers to these scenarios, and your answers will
remain completely anonymous once your participation in the study is over.”
Simulation
“Now you will perform a brief computer simulation against another person from a
psychology class who is also participating in this study at the same time. You can see a
still picture of him via an attached webcam on his computer. There are fifteen
opportunities to decide what to do, with points at stake with each chance. What happens
with each trial depends on your choice, and your opponent’s choice. The chart in front of
you summarizes what happens based on both of your decisions. Keep in mind that there
142
is no skill involved in this game on your end, what happens is entirely based on your
choice each time. There is skill involved on your opponent’s side, because that is one of
the variables being examined. Finally, points earned in this simulation can be redeemed
for raffle entries for two $50 gift certificates to Target.”
GTA or MC
“You will now play a game on the Playstation 2 for 25 minutes. During this time,
your task is to make as much progress in the game as possible, although how you
accomplish this is entirely up to you. I will be recording things going on in the game, but
this has no bearing on your participation in the study. If you have any questions about
how to do something in the game, I can answer them for you, but I can’t give you any
advice on what to do in the game. In front of you is a handout that indicates what the
buttons on the controller do, as well as a list of codes to unlock various things in the
game. You can use any codes you wish, but are not required to use any.”
AQ
“Now you will answer some questions about some of your thoughts and
experiences in life. Please try to be honest in your answers, do not leave any blank, and
try not to spend too long scrutinizing a particular question. There are no right or wrong
answers to these questions. Your answers will remain completely anonymous once your
participation in the study is over.”
Game Evaluation
“Finally, this questionnaire is to get your thoughts about playing the two Playstation
games. Simply answer the questions completely and honestly.”
Debriefing
143
“Thank you for participating in this study. The purpose of this study was to see if
different types o f videogames would have short term effects on your decision making and
attitudes about other people. Some of the game content you were exposed to was very
violent and realistic. It is important to make sure you understand the content of the
games was fantasy violence, without real-world consequences. Therefore, it is
imperative you not attempt any of it in real life. Additionally, if you plan on driving in
the near future, please do so carefully and defensively, not like the driving displayed in
the games.
It is important not to discuss the study with anyone, because we need to capture
natural responding, and if someone knew about the study in advance, their behavior
would be altered and potentially unrealistic.”

Behavioral Attitudinal and Decision-Altering Effects of Aggress PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Behavioral Attitudinal and Decision-Altering Effects of Aggress PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Western Michigan University

Behavioral, Attitudinal, and Decision-Altering

Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations

Western Michigan University

ProQuest Information and Learning Company

preventing my procrastination-fueled bad habits, generally in the videogame playing

supervision of such an outside the box topic.

An eternal debt of gratitude goes out to Joseph Dagen, who assisted me

LIST OF FIGURES..................................................................................................... vii

Foundational and Correlational Research.................................................... 4

Pre-experimental Game Selection................................................................. 16

Participant Selection and Informed Consent................................................ 22

Main Group Analysis..................................................................................... 34

Responder and Non-responder Analysis....................................................... 39

A. HSIRB Approval Letter................................................................................. 67

B l. Game Matching Tool-MC.............................................................................. 68

B2. Game Matching Tool-GTA............................................................................ 69

C. Declaration of Interest Forms......................................................................... 71

D. Game Playing Habits Questionnaire............................................................. 72

E. Aggression Provocation Questionnaire......................................................... 73

F 1. GTA Controller Handout............................................................................... 80

F2. MC Controller Handout................................................................................. 82

G l. GTA Cheat Codes........................................................................................... 83

G2. MC Cheat Codes............................................................................................. 88

H. Game Content Data Sheet.............................................................................. 89

J. Video Game Evaluation.................................................................................. 91

K. HSIRB-Approved Consent Document........................................................... 92

L. Unabridged Statistical Analysis..................................................................... 98

M. Visual Representations of Statistically Nonsignificant D ata....................... 131

N. Gender Analysis.............................................................................................. 136

0 . Recruitment and Session Scripts.................................................................... 139

1. Game Content Descriptors............................................................................... 19

2. Input Variables and Interobserver Agreement on the

3. Simulation Decision Matrix............................................................................. 27

4. Experimental Session O rder............................................................................ 31

5. Responder Classification and Outcome Variable Summary.......................... 41

1. Video Game Industry Sales Growth, 1996-2005............................................ 4

2. Game Evaluation Means, Questions 1-8......................................................... 33

3. APQ Pretest/Posttest Likert Comparison, GTA-MC and MC-

4. APQ Pretest/Posttest Comparison, Responders vs. Non-responders 43

5. Simulation Aggression Choies Comparison, Responders vs. Non­

6. AQ T Score Means, Responders vs. Non-responders.................................... 46

7. AQ Subscale T Scores, Responders vs. Non-responders............................... 47

8. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Responders vs. Non­

9. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Responders............................. 49

10. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Non-responders..................... 49

11. Simulation Key Trials Converted Decisions, Responders vs. Non­

99.4% of American households (Andreasen, 2001). As technology became more

television alone (Huston, Donnerstein, Fairchild, Feshbach, Katz, Murray. Rubinstein,

and proliferation of videogames, a medium that has consistently expanded in influence

aggressive behavior (Paik & Comstock, 1994).

In contrast to the extensive body of research on televised violence, research on the

relatively meager research on videogames could be the existence of an extensive data

empirical validation. There are undeniable qualitative differences between playing

to have their own research base examining their effects.

For example, television is generally a passive viewing experience, whereas

amount of research, and more importantly because of methodological limitations of the

considering the numerous pieces of pending legislation (2old2play.com, 2007).

tripling of industry software sales since 1996 (Entertainment Software Association,

more popular across a wider demographic each year.

and other technologies.

U.S. COMPUTER AND VIDEO GAME DOLLAR SALES GROWTH

19% 1997 1998 1999 20OQ 2001 2M £ 2003 3XM 2C05

5. Simulation Aggression Choies Comparison, Responders vs. Non

8. Simulation Repeated Measures Comparison, Responders vs. Non

11. Simulation Key Trials Converted Decisions, Responders vs. Non