The effect of graphical quality on aggression in violent video games

The effect of graphical quality on aggression in violent video games Kyle Kollstedt & Michael Sterling

Video Game Statistics • 98.7% of adolescents play video games to some extent (Ferguson, John, 2007) • Violent video games seem to be the most popular (Buchman & Funk, 1996) • Graphic and realistic-depictions of physical conflict that may involve blood, gore, weapons, and depictions of human injury and death (ESRB).

Violent Video Games In The Media • After the Columbine shootings in 1999, people have become increasingly concerned with the potential damage that violent video games may cause (Giumetti & Markey, 2007) • Many other perpetrators of high school shootings have been found to play violent video games (Anderson & Bushman, 2001)

Psychology Of Violent Video Game Use • Psychological research on the effects that violent video games have on aggression has been mixed • Two other meta analyses showed that a positive correlation did exist between violent video game play and aggressive behaviors. (Anderson and Bushman, 2001; Anderson, et al. 2004). • The most recent meta analysis in 2007, showed that there wasn’t a correlation between violent video game play and aggressive behaviors. (Ferguson, 2007).

Violent Video Games And Psychology • Most research on violent video game effects on aggression has been so flawed that a conclusive result cannot be obtained yet. (Zook, 2008) • Frustration of controls and game • Different games in different settings

Technological advancement • Video games have been advancing for thirty years • It has been found that as video game technology evolved there is an increase in the aggression of the user • (Ivory & Kalyananaraman, 2007 • A positive correlation between publication year and effect size on aggression exists (r=.39) • Anderson and Bushman (2001)

Hypothesis • As the graphical settings of a game are improved, the effect on aggression in the user will be increased.

Participants • 25 participants taken from a convenience sample • 15 male • 10 female • Average age 19.7 • Were offered extra credit in some psychology classes • Randomly assigned to low or high graphical settings

Equipment • A DNXPixelworks XD-4800 Projector • Computer-Toshiba Satellite A200 • (add stats on video card and ram) • Xbox 360 • Game-Call of Duty 4

Game Information • First person shooter • Rated M for mature by the entertainment software ratings board (MSRB) • Contains blood, gore, intense violence, and strong language (www.esrb.org)

Graphical settings • High Setting • Low Setting

Aggression Questionnaire(Buss & Perry, 1992) • Divides aggression into 4 subcategories • Physical aggression • Hostility • Verbal Aggression • Anger • Each question was rated 1-5, with 5 being the highest. • Example Questions • If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will. • I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person. • Has an overall internal consistency of .93

Likert scale for frustration • Were rated from 1-5, five being the most frustrating. • How frustrated did you feel before playing the game? • How difficult did you find the controls? • Developed to rule out a potential confounding variable

Competitive Reaction Time Task (Bushman & Saults, 2007) • Participants were given a chance to set the intensity and duration of a sound blast for a fictional student from Centre College. • If they did not react faster than the other student they were given a sound blast that the challenger set. • The challenger’s levels were randomly generated by the computer.

Experimental room • Can have all lights blocked out in order to minimize distractions. • Blocking of windows prevented anyone else knowing about the study. • Also controlled for levels of light which helped improve image quality

Procedure • The Aggression questionnaire was given. • Game was played until both a training level and an intense level were completed. • Half of participants will experience maximum graphical settings, the others will be set at minimum. • Frustration Likert scale was administered. • Second Aggression Questionnaire was given. • At this time one of the researchers left the room to call the fictional other participant • Competitive Reaction time task was given. • Demographic information was obtained and subjects were debriefed and thanked.

Difference Between Groups Aggression Average Sex Differences In Groups Men had a significantly higher level of aggression (M=2.71) then women (M=2.09), t (25) =2.801, p=.01

Frustration Participants were not significantly more frustrated in the high graphical settings (M=2.10) than in the low (M=2.149), t (15) =0.098, p=0.923

Anger Time X Anger F(1,15)=3.833, p=.069

Hostility Time X Hostility F(1,15)=7.492, p=.015

Aggression Average Time X Aggression Average F(1,15)=4.212, p=.058

Discussion • The low graphics setting didn’t involve the participant at all. • Only hostility and anger were significantly affected by the game play. • Thoughts were changed but the participants actions stayed the same. • Games with sufficient graphics to involve the player may just be activating aggressive thoughts.

Discussion • This research looks at effects that an ever evolving industry may have on the user. • May help researchers understand what types of aggression are affected by violent video game play.

Future research • Future researchers should look for a more reliable, objective, measure of aggression, or implement the competitive reaction time task successfully. Such as a situation where they can aggress towards a person differently. • This research may help future researchers better understand which types of aggression are activated by what types of cues. • Ex. Verbal Aggression not affected by game play. • It may also be interesting to look at how long the effects on the participants thoughts last. • This research suggests that a more nuanced look at aggression may be necessary.

Questions?

The effect of graphical quality on aggression in violent video games