Video Games (NV): Influence on aggressive cognition? (Part 5)

The last part of the series of posts.
Pictures can be found on google.com
Part 1: https://steemit.com/aggression/@psychnmore/video-games-nv-influence-on-aggressive-cognition-part-1
Part 2: https://steemit.com/life/@psychnmore/video-games-nv-influence-on-aggressive-cognition-part-2
Part 3: https://steemit.com/psychology/@psychnmore/video-games-nv-influence-on-aggressive-cognition-part-3
Part 4: https://steemit.com/psychology/@psychnmore/video-games-nv-influence-on-aggressive-cognition-part-4

Discussion

1. Results, existing literature and limitation
The hypothesis of the study was that non-violent video games have an influence on the players aggressive cognition. With hypotheses that if there is a change towards aggression the heart beat and breath rate should rise, the reaction time to aggressive associated words will drop more than the reaction time for words associated as peaceful. Or that with a rise in aggressive cognition the reaction time to respond to peaceful stimuli could become slower. And that a change in aggressive cognition will lead to a change in perceiving aggression or peace in others and the self.
With the data collected and the produced results the hypothesis cannot be fully supported and the part of the data that indicated that playing non-violent video games could have produce a change in the players aggressive cognition is strongly connected to learning theory. Because of these factors the study declines the hypothesis.
The results from the physiological data suggest that the change in the games difficulty and the possible frustration from being blocked from a goal is not a strong enough input to provoke physiological arousal, an increase in heart rate and breath rate. This could mean that the frustration of not achieving first place is not strong enough to create a physiological response that could influence the aggressive cognition in the player, but it could also mean that the higher difficulty and stronger competition was still too weak as a provoking factor. The physiological data and results did not support the hypothesis that non-violent video games have an influence on aggressive cognition. Not positive or negative.
The data collected from the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (Meade, 2009) is giving more information. The result for reaction times to the stimuli it showed that the reaction time for aggressive stimuli became faster with each condition. Following the General Aggression Model (Anderson and Bushman, 2002) and Berkowitz (1989) idea of how frustration can influence aggression, it could mean that the player perceived an negative input with the higher difficulty of the game and felt frustration, which than lead to an increase of aggressive cognition.
But when looking at figure 7, the graph shows a connection to Bandura (1977) as it reminds of a learning curve, as with each repetition of the IAT the reaction time needed to respond to a stimuli or control group was reduced.
It is different for the result considering the word type. The result was significant for the conditions, but the difference between condition easy and hard were too small. Still the graph shows that the prediction for the word types is partially as expected. The reaction time for the word stimuli associated with peace became slower with a higher game difficulty. This could indicate a increase of aggressive cognition through a negative experience. But the result for the interaction between word types and condition was not significant. Which means the hypothesis must be declined at this point.

Figure 7: Mean times for Word types

Another possible explanation for the result could be the small sample size, which means that the sample population is not broad enough or for the size of the sample at hand too broad. The gamer personality (Bartle, 1996) could also have influence on the processing of the games difficulty and how to respond to the outcome of the game. The idea of the gamer personalities (Bartle, 1996) is also applicable on players of video games and could influence the preferred genre. Something that could also have influence on the performance and reaction to a game. This study did not consider the possibility that the racing game used in the experiment could be without interest for some players, which could influence the perception of the outcome.
The second analysis of the data gathered from the IAT looked at the IAT trails 3 and 5, which grouped a control word type (self, other) with one of the stimuli word types (aggression, peace) to see how fast the participant would react to aggression and the self, or aggression and others. And at the same time having a control by looking at the change for the same pairings with the peace stimuli. The results for this part of the data were mixed. Again there was a significant difference between the conditions, but not for the stimuli word types or the control word types. The result for the condition could again be linked to learning theory (Bandura, 1977). But against the learning theory could speak the fact that the words in the IAT program (Meade, 2009) are displayed randomly for a word type, chosen from the list of words associated and saved in the programs configuration, to counteract the possibility of memorising the position of words in the trails carried out by the IAT program.
The interaction effect between condition, stimuli and control was not significant, but the interaction between the stimuli and the control word types was significant. That indicates that it is important whether the participant processed aggressive or peaceful words, when at the same time having to process words that are associated with the self or with others. This means that human aggressive cognition is influenced by when considering the self as the aggressive actor or others as aggressive actors.
This significant result could support studies on the perception of aggression in others and the self. It is not necessarily only connected to video game players as studies of McQuade et al. (2014) or Killeya-Jones et al. (2007) showed. The studies looked at differences of the between genders. So this study could support their by stating that there is a difference in perception of aggression concerning the self and others. But considering the sample size of this study and the population of the sample, it is not possible to generalise the results.
A study by Breuer, Scharkow, and Quandt (2015) was successful in producing a result that supports the idea of an increase of aggression in players of sports video games because of undesirable outcomes (Frustration-Aggression Hypothesis), which could lead to frustration in a player. But at the same time their results suggest that characteristics of the game cannot explain the effects on aggression. This connects to a part of the present study that non-violent video games and the stimuli they present alone are not enough to create and explain a change in aggressive cognition and creating physiological arousal.
In study of Barlett and Rodeheffer (2009) the idea was presented to compare the effects of playing violent and non-violent video games on aggressive thoughts, feelings and physiological arousal. The results showed that the realistic violent game has stronger influence on aggressive thoughts and feelings, than the unrealistic violent game or the non-violent game. Also it showed that the unrealistic violent game and the non-violent game had little effect on physiological arousal. Something also found in the present study.
So considering the studies of Breuer, Sharkow and Quandt (2015) and Barlett and Rodeheffer (2009) it indicates that non-violent video games might influence aggressive cognition, but the influence is to week to have a resulting physiological arousal in the participants.
In 2010 a study by Schmierbach looked at the difference in the influence of playing a video game by its characteristics in game play. In this it means the difference between games that are played alone, in cooperation with others or in competition with others. The key finding of the study was that competitive games promote aggression more than solo play or cooperation between players. Especially if it is face to face competition. Also it was found that this is mainly found in male players as they feel more rewarded playing aggressive in competitive situation. Considering that the racing game used in the present study is competitive it could explain the significant results that indicate an influence on aggressive cognition. If these results are not related to learning theory.
Another study on aggression and competition related to video games and computer games was present by Williams and Clippinger (2002). The research focused on the competitor, if the competition was human or a computer. The frustration and aggression was measured after playing a game of monopoly against a computer or a human. The results of the study showed that after playing against a computer as opponent the aggressive feelings are much higher than when playing against a human face to face. In relation to the present study this should mean that losing a race game to a computer controlled competitor should create stronger frustration that leads to stronger aggressive cognition. The study was not able to create a result to fully support the finding of William and Clippinger (2002) that computer controlled opponents create stronger aggressive feelings and cognition. As the results were unable to support the hypothesis that playing a non-violent video game, a game that is competitive in nature, has an significant effect on aggressive cognition.
Another study (Zhang, Liu, Wang and Piao, 2010) concerned with the effect of video games on aggression, consider the violent, non-violent video games and the way they are played. Meaning if the games are played alone, in cooperation or in competition. Like most of the presented studies the design was experimental. But in Zhang et al. (2010) the physiological arousal was not considered as a measurement. It used a reaction time task giving data that resembles the information gained from the IAT, and SHS scale to test aggressive cognition and affect. The results suggest that competition in non-violent video games increase aggressive behaviour and aggressive cognition in the player, but not open hostility.
Looking at the studies presented in this paper the present study has either a sample size and population that is insufficient to produce a significant result or the methods used are not refined enough.
Another way to look at the results of this study is to consider ideas presented by Prot et al. (2014) chapter in Children and Media. The chapter not only considers the negative effects of playing video games, but also looks at possible positive effects. Mentioning learning effects in games, other cognitive effects and also motor related effects (e.g. coordination of movement). So result that shows no significant result for non-violent video games on aggressive cognition could pose as a positive effect, because a often negative associated cognition effect is not there.
Where does this leave the study and its results in a area of research with the main focus still on violent video games? Considering the research that looks not only at violent video games this study is only a first step for more research and considerations what could influence aggression in video game players (Schmierbach, 2010; Zhang et al., 2010). It cannot be denied that violent content in video games has an influence on the aggressive cognition of the players through several inputs (Huesmann, 2010; Barlett and Rodeheffer, 2009). But it is not the only factor able to increase the aggressive cognition and feelings in the players. Because humans showed aggressive behaviour long before video games came into existence. So to blame video games as the sole problem for aggressive behaviour in children, adolescences or young adults is like stating that a pebble that dropped to the ground was responsible for the dinosaurs to go extinct instead of the theory of an asteroid.
Like all research this study has limitations. Not all limitations are negative, considering that for some research questions the code of ethics can be a limitation. But the study present is not a study on ethics or moral to discuss the borders the code of ethics poses to the researcher and his research. The limitations in this study were partially mentioned. At first the problem with the sample size and population as it was small and consisted only of students. Also mentioned was the problem with the results and the possible connection to the learning effect.
Other limitations could result from the procedure as the participant is repeatedly given time to calm down. This could lead to the effect that the participant thinks it is important to stay calm and tries to influence his thoughts and feelings with memories that help to stay calm and peaceful.
Also because of the limited time, personnel and material available for the study, the game sessions could have been too short to create a noticeable effect on aggressive cognition. When compared to the studies of Barlett and Rodeheffer (2010) or Zhang et al. (2010) with up to 45 minutes of play time, the time in this study with 10 to 15 minutes per gaming session was too short.
Another limitation that could be vital for the research were the conditions in the laboratory. As the researcher and participant were not alone, and being in a group even if not as active part can influence the behaviour of an individual. Also the participant was watched over the hole process of the experiment. Nipedal, Nesdale and Killen (2010) found that children for example used group norms to guide their behaviour considering aggressive intentions instead of the norms they use when alone. The participants might be older, but the use of group norms is something people learn and do to be accepted by the group and to not draw negative attention to themselves.
The module of personality processes in General Aggression Model (Anderson et al. 2002) also indicates a limitation of this study. The personality of the individual and the gamer personality (Bartle, 1996) have an influence on the aggression and the related routes and outcomes. If the player fits the gamer personality of an achiever a racing game could be interesting for player and the player then puts more effort in playing the game. While a explorer might find the limitations of the race track as something that makes the game less attractive and reduces the effort put into playing.
The last limitation mentioned here is a problem in the procedure as the researcher could not use a specific time for each session without the risk of stopping the player in the middle of a race. Considering the risk that one of the players could react to that, if there is any form of compulsive condition. It could have created a change in aggressive cognition and behaviour that is not connected to the original research question. Moritz et al. (2011) looked into aggression in patients with obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

2. Changes and future research
Considering the limitations and the research on violent and non-violent video games the study needs some changes if repeated. First a further review of previous research and the methods (Zhang et al., 2010; Bartlett and Rodeheffer, 2010) used could help to modify the present research method and procedure. Or could be added to cover more influencing factors that cannot be eliminated in the experiment (e.g. competitive versus cooperation games, and the gamer personality).
The location could be changed to assure as little interference from the presence of other individuals. It could minimise the possible influence of group norms. Also the game time for each session should be increased to offer more time for the input factors to build up and create a reaction in the participant.
It could also be in the interest of the question posed in the study to add an observational data collection, as the researcher at time has noticed a pattern in the behaviour of the participants. All but one participant started to curse when playing in the last condition.
The study is still a starting point for future research that will consider more than the violent content as a influence that changes aggressive cognition in players. Future research building up on this study could look into different competitive game genres without violent content and compare the findings to violent competitive games. Or could attempt to find a scale to differentiate how strong the influence of games can be on aggressive cognition.
Finally it has to be said that the study failed to produce significant results, that are without doubt of being connected to other psychological theories, to offer support for the findings of other researchers in the same area of interest. But based on the contemporary theories in psychology the predictions were valid.

!As always. Errors in spelling etc. are possible as English is not my native language.!

Due to the limited sample of participants the power of this little experiment is very small, but it offers a starting point for more in depth research into the matter. And maybe it could change the attacks the media and politics start against video games after events like school shootings or other violent acts commited by teenagers.

Picture References
www.markwk.com/teaching/lessons/violence/images/frankenstein-video-gams.jpg
www.jamaicaplainnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/discussion.png