RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

Competitive and Aggressive Video Games; Do they Increased Aggressive Behaviour in

Children?
Lindsay A. Birchall
University of Calgary

Psychological Measurement and Statistics EDPS 612.02

Dr. Harriet Johnston
April 17th, 2014

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

Abstract
Experimental research has shown that playing violent video games produces higher levels
of aggressive behavior (in the short-term) than nonviolent video games (Adachi & Willoughby,
2010). But, does competition also increase aggressive behaviours? Sixty students, aged 9-10
years, were assigned to four experimental conditions of video game play (i.e. Neutral,
Cooperative, Competitive and Aggressive). Their free play was observed and aggressive
behaviours were rated using the Aggressive Behaviours Rating Scale Third Edition (ABRS-III).
We predicted that participants in the Aggressive and Competitive conditions would demonstrate
significantly higher levels of aggressive behaviours then Neutral and Cooperative conditions. We
also hypothesized there would be an insignificant difference in aggressive behaviours between
the Competitive and Aggressive conditions. Results supported hypotheses, reinforcing past
research and highlighting the effects of competition on aggressive behaviours. Future research
may investigate the influences of gender and personality characteristics on video game play and
aggressive behaviours.

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

Competitive and Aggressive Video Games; Do they Increase Aggressive Behaviour in Children?

Do you wonder if the video games you allow your children to play are increasing their
aggressive behaviours? Is it the competitive nature of the games, or is it the violent content
contributing to aggression? Could it be both? Increasing widespread media coverage of violent
school shootings (Sparks Middle School, 2013; Sandy Hook Elementary School, 2012) has led to
public scrutiny of the effects of violent video games on todays children. Disappointingly, screen
time is on the rise, with only 19% of students meeting the Canadian Sedentary Behaviour
Requirements of less than 2 hours of recreational screen time a day (Active Healthy Kids Canada
Report Card, 2012). So, is there a connection between increased video game play and violent
behaviour? And, if so, can it be explained?
Theory The General Aggression Model
In 2002 Anderson and Bushman explained the link between violent video games and
aggressive behaviour with the General Aggression Model (GAM), shown in Figure 1.1
(Anderson & Buschman, 2002). The cyclical model depicts how a persons experience impacts
their cognition (e.g. aggressive scripts), affect (anger and frustration) and arousal (elevated heart
rate or blood pressure), which then guide their interpersonal interactions. According to the GAM,
when violent video games cause elevated levels of aggressive cognition, affect and arousal result,
which influence the likelihood children will interpret others actions as hostile and react in an
aggressive manner, in the short term (Anderson & Buschman, 2002). In the long term these
behaviours can promote aggressive beliefs and attitudes, which may permanently bias an
individuals personality towards aggression (Anderson & Buschman, 2002). So, in theory, each

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

time a child is exposed to a violent video game it contributes to the development of an aggressive
personality.
Figure 1.1 General Aggression Model (Anderson & Buschman, 2002)

Empirical Evidence
Violent vs. Non-Violent Video Game play. In support of the GAM theory, experimental
studies routinely show that participants who play violent video games are more aggressive
immediately after than participants who play nonviolent games. Indeed, Bartlett, Branch &
Rodeheffer (2009) found that playing a violent video game for only 15 minutes can produce
elevated levels of aggressive behavior. Anderson, Gentile & Buckley (2007) found that male and
females participants showed more aggression in the violent video game condition then the nonviolent condition. Similarly, Barlett, Harris, and Baldassaro (2007) took measures of
physiological arousal, state hostility and aggression, which exposure to violent video games
increased for both genders. A field study by Gentile, Lynch, Linder, and Walsh (2004) found that
adolescents who played more violent video games reported being more hostile, getting into
arguments with teachers more frequently, and were involved in more physical fights than those
who played less violent video games. Indeed, in a Canadian report released by Active Healthy

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

Kids Canada (2012) video game use was associated with increases physical altercations with
peers and the perpetration of at least 2-3 monthly episodes of bullying (Janssen Boyce & Pickett,
2012). In 2000, Anderson & Dill showed support of the GAM when participants demonstrated
quicker reaction time to aggressive words then control words, supporting those violent video
games primed aggressive thoughts. And, over ten years ago it was found that video game play
was correlated with both teachers' rating of aggression and self-reported aggression among a
sample of sixth through twelfth grade students (Fling, Smith, Rodriguez, Thornton, Atkins &
Nixon, 1992). This research suggests that there are both short and long term effects of violent
video game play and some real world generalization of these behaviours. When one considers the
average Canadian child plays almost two hours of video games a day, there is cause for concern.
Violent vs. Competitive Video Game play. However, there is a considerable limitation
in the designs of the above noted studies. Violent video games included elements of competition.
So, it is unclear which variable, and in what proportion, contributed to increased levels of
aggressive behaviours. Previous findings may be solely due to the fact that the violent video
game was more competitive then the non-violent video game (Adachi & Willoughby, 2010). In
reference to the GAM theory, competitiveness may activate aggressive cognitions, developing a
strong link between aggression and competition, causing increased in aggressive responding
(Anderson & Carnagey, 2009; Anderson & Morrow, 1995).
Anderson and Carnagey (2009) were the first to attempt to equate a violent and nonviolent video game on a variable of competitiveness. Participants played baseball and football
video games, with one game in each pair being unnecessarily violent (e.g. make a base-runner
punch a baseman so that he drops the ball) and one not. Results showed that participants
physiological arousal (a precursor to aggressive behaviours) was not significantly different

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

between experimental conditions, supporting the notion that competition may contribute to
aggressive behaviours.
Cooperative Video Game Play. In 1993, Deutsch summarized research on the
role of competitive circumstances as precursors to the destructive pattern of argument, anger and
aggression and cooperative circumstances as precursors to the constructive pattern of agreement,
affection and affiliation. He argued that one way of creating a more peaceful society is to build
more cooperation and less competition, (Deutsch, 1993 p. 517). So, what are the effects of
cooperative video game play on aggressive behaviours?
Ewoldsen, Eno, Okdie, Velez, Guadagno & DeCoster, (2012) found that
Cooperative video game playing using Halo-II actually mitigated participants
initiation of violent acts, and decreased arousal and negative cognition after
game play, supporting Deutschs 1993 research. However, the cooperative
condition within this research included an element of competition within
cooperation (i.e. measurable outcome of total opponents shot between two
participants), which makes results unclear. The authors addressed this
limitation by suggesting future research needs to consider not only the
content of the game but also how video game players are playing the game
(Ewoldsen, et al., 2012).
Goals of this research. The present study attempted to create four
pure experimental conditions of Neutral, Cooperative, Competitive and
Aggressive video game play in order to clarify findings in previous research.
Supporting previous research, it is predicted that Competitive and Aggressive
video game play will result in elevated levels of aggressive play behaviours

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

within both Competitive and Aggressive conditions compared to the Neutral

and Cooperative conditions. It is also hypothesized that the difference in
aggressive play behaviours between Aggressive and Competitive conditions
would be insignificant.
Method
Participants
Sixty children (30 males and 30 females) aged 9-10 years were selected from Westward
Elementary school to participate in a Video Game study. Students from a nearby University,
registered in a Masters of School Psychology program, were recruited to observe and rate the
childrens behaviours during free play. These students were compensated for their time by
receiving additional grade points on assignments in their psychological statistics course.
Materials
National Hockey League (NHL) 2014 was selected as the video game for all four
experimental conditions. Students aggressive play behaviours were rated using The Aggressive
Behaviour Rating Scale Third Edition (ABRS-III). This Likert-type Scale questionnaire is
anchored at 1 (Never) and 5 (Often) and includes 25 items of observable aggressive behaviours
such as initiating physically aggressive play (e.g. wrestling) and making verbally aggressive
statements (e.g. said Im gonna kill your guy). The developers of the ABRS-III ensure the
psychometric properties of this test are sufficient.
Procedures
University students were provided with a three hour ABRS-III training workshop. Video was
used to ensure the students could reliably identify aggressive behaviours in children (e.g.
grabbing something from a classmate, initiating play that involves a character getting hurt, etc.).

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

A registered psychologist supervised the students and provided them with feedback during each
play observation. Daily behaviour observations were recorded for each participant (e.g. Sam
seemed tired today and fell asleep part way through play time) to ensure valid behaviour
ratings. A double blind procedure was implemented to prevent scoring bias and students
observed children through a two way mirrors with audio available through headphones to ensure
social desirability bias was reduced. Lastly, the students were randomly assigned to participants,
which changed for each observation, to ensure reliability of behaviour ratings.
Because participants were 9-10 years of age, active informed consent was obtained from their
parents and/or guardians. Parents were provided with written correspondence outlining the
administration of the study and parents had the opportunity decline their childs participation.
This procedure was approved by the participating school board and the University Research
Ethics board.
Potential participants were interviewed to determine their level of video game experience.
Only children that played video games a minimum of twice a week were selected, although their
individual abilities may have varied. A between subjects design was used to avoid carry over
effects a within subject design could have created. Fifteen participants were assigned to each of
four experimental conditions outlined in Table 1.1: Neutral, Cooperative, Competitive and
Aggressive. The dependent variable was aggressive play behaviours observed within 20 minutes
of interactive play after 30 min of video game play. Video game play occurred during the
participants typical library time; there was a total of five video game play sessions over 10 days.
Because there were 15 students in each group, some team conditions had an extra
participant on occasion (i.e. 3 players per team). Researchers assigned participants to
experimental conditions by choosing their names from a hat, resulting in mixed gender pairs and

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

single gender pairs and team play participants were rotated to prevent practice effects. Before
commencing play, participants were brought to a gaming room (one room per experimental
conditions) and were given precise video game play instructions, as outlined in Table 1.1.
Participants were monitored by a supervising psychologist to ensure they remained on task and
did not violate experimental conditions. Discussing game play was encouraged within their team
but discouraged between teams.

Table 1.1 Experimental Conditions

Experimental
Condition
Neutral

Cooperative

Competitive

Definition/Rationale

Game settings/type
chosen

Solitary/Team
play and Gender
Distribution
Solitary Play 1
student

A game that did not

include cooperative,
competitive or
aggressive/violent
content

Students created their

own NHL team (e.g.
making team jerseys,
choosing what their
players looked like,
naming their team, etc.)

Working together
towards achieving a
common goal game
that did not include
competitive or
aggressive/violent
content
Working as an
individual to gain more
points and win the
game game that did
not include cooperative
or aggressive/violent
content

Students created their

own NHL team (e.g.
making team jerseys,
choosing what their
players looked like,
naming their team, etc.)

Team play 2
students

Students played a
hockey shootout took
turns trying to score on
the computer goalie

Team play 2
students each
student was a
hockey player
Computer was
the goalie

8 males
7 females

7 males
8 females

8males
7 females

Instructions Given
to Students
Student was
instructed to make
a hockey team of
their choice

Students were
instructed to work
together to make a
hockey team of
their choice

Students were
instructed to try
and score more
goals then their
opponent scored,
and try to win by
getting the most
points

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

Aggressive

Working as an
individual to
intentionally hurt
another player- game
that did not include
cooperative or
competitive content
e.g. (no points
awarded, no win/lose)

Students played the

practice fighting,
practice hitting and
practice line brawl
settings on NHL 2014
(i.e. could fight or body
check players)

10
Solitary play 1
student
7 males
8 females

Student was
instructed to
practice fighting
and body checking
other players

NHL 2014 was chosen because of its popularity with Canadian youth. NHL 2014 includes
multiple game options making it possible to use only one game for all four experimental
conditions. Games for each experimental condition were chosen to ensure the independent
variables purely represented each intended construct and prevented effects of multiple variables
on the measure of aggressive play behaviours, which was a limitation identified in previous
research (Adachi & Willoughby, 2010).
Procedures-Statistical Analysis. Means and standard deviations were calculated for
each groups ABRS-III scores. One-Way Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) was carried out to
identify if the variability of scores on the aggression measure were due to the experimental
conditions (i.e. Neutral, Cooperative, competitive and aggressive) or if the null hypothesis was
supported. Planned Orthogonal Contrasts and Post Hoc tests of Multiple Comparisons were
conducted to further investigate the relationship between aggression and type of video gaming.
Results
Descriptive Statistics
Group means, standard deviations and confidence intervals for each group are reported in
Table 1.2. Figure 1.1 depicts mean trends for aggressive behaviours in each experimental group.
Table 1.2 Descriptive Statistics

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

Condition

Mean

Neutral
Cooperative
Competitiv
e
Aggression
Total

15
15
15

17.65
14.62
27.65

Standard
Deviatio
n
8.98
8.14
8.98

15
60

32.65
23.14

8.98
11.28

11

Standar
d Error

95% Confidence
Interval for Mean
Lower
Upper
Bound
Bound

2.32
2.10
2.32

12.68
10.12
22.68

22.62
19.13
32.62

5.0
5.0
15.0

38.0
33.0
48.0

2.32
1.46

27.68
20.23

37.62
26.06

20.0
5.0

53.0
53.0

Minimum

Maximum

Figure 1.2 Mean Levels of Aggressive Play Behaviours in Experimental groups

Inferential Statistics
Assumptions were met for ANOVA analysis using the Levene Test of Homogeneity of
Variances (p= .998). The Neutral video game play group represented the control group within
One-Way ANOVAs. A significant effect of type of video game play (i.e. Neutral, Cooperative,
Competitive, Aggressive) on the mean level of aggressive play behaviours was found, F (3, 56) =
13.86, p = .000. There was also a significant linear trend, F (1, 56) = 32.80, p = .000, indicating
that the mean level of aggressive play behaviours increased proportionately across the four

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

12

experimental groups. Further, a significant cubic trend was found, F (1, 56) = 5.65, p= .021),
indicating a change in slope direction (i.e. decrease/increase) within the mean trends across the
four groups.
ANOVA planned comparisons revealed that Cooperative, Competitive and Aggressive
conditions did significantly increase mean aggressive play behaviours compared to the Neutral
control group, t(56) = 2.80, p= .007. There was also a significant increase in mean levels of
aggressive play behaviours in the Competitive and Aggressive groups compared to the
Cooperative group, t(56) = 5.60, p= .000. However, participants in the Aggressive video game
play condition did not demonstrate significantly more aggressive play then the Competitive
group t(56) = 1.56, p= .124. Contrast tests that did not assume equal variances produced
supporting profile results.
Within Post Hoc tests of Multiple Comparisons using Tukeys HSD, the level of
aggression represented the dependent variable in order to compare each experimental group
mean to the remaining group means. Figure 1.4 outlines results of Multiple Comparisons, which
confirm results of the above noted planned comparisons. Multiple comparisons provided
additional information on the relationship between Neutral and Cooperative play that planned
comparisons did not. There was no significant difference found for mean levels of aggressive
behaviours between the Neutral and the Cooperative experimental groups, indicating that
Cooperative game play did not significantly reduce or increase levels of aggressive play. Results
from tests using unequal variances (i.e. Games-Howell) support the profile results obtained using
Tukeys HSD.
Lastly, results of comparing groups using Dunnets t are presented in Table 1.3. Similar
results to Planned and Multiple Comparisons were found. Further, the Eyan-Einot-Gabriel-

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

13

Welsch Range (REGWQ) test results showed the Neutral and Cooperative groups had similar
means (p= .576) and the Competitive and Aggressive groups had similar means (p= .233),
supporting hypothesized levels of aggression within the experimental groups.
Table 1.3 ANOVA-Multiple Comparisons Dependent Variable: Aggressive Play Ratings
Type of Video
Game
Neutral

Type of Video
Mean
Standar Significanc
Game
Difference
d Error
e
Tukey HSD
Cooperative
3.02
3.20
.781
Competitive
-10.00*
3.20
.015*
Aggressive
-15.00*
3.20
.000*
Cooperative
Competitive
-13.02*
3.20
.001*
Aggressive
-18.02*
3.20
.000*
Competitive
Aggressive
-5.00
3.20
.409
Dunnet t
Cooperative
Neutral
-3.02
3.20
.960
Competitive
Neutral
10.00*
3.20
.004*
(>control)
Aggressive
Neutral
15.00*
3.20
.000*
*The mean difference is significant at the 0.05 level
Dunnett t-tests treat one group as a control, and compare all other groups against it
As predicted, Competitive and Aggressive video game content increased aggressive play
behaviours in our participants compared to Neutral and Cooperative video game play. Also
supporting our hypothesis, the difference between mean levels of aggressive behaviours was
insignificant for Competitive and Aggressive experimental conditions.
Discussion
As predicted, both hypotheses were supported by statistical evidence. These results
support previous research findings that aggressive video game content causes increases in
aggressive behaviour (in the short term) and lend support to the GAM theory. This study was
unique in its attempt to separate the variables of competition and aggression, which was achieved
by making the aggression condition solitary play and by removing the variable of competition.
Our results confirm the assumption that both the aggression and competition in video games
cause elevated levels of aggression in children. This provides imperative information for parents

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

14

who buy violent and competitive video games. One would also question the effects that
competition (e.g. sports) has on our childrens behaviour, outside of video game play.
Another important element to this study is the inclusion of a Cooperative video game
element. Although there was not a significant difference found between Neutral video game play
and Cooperative game play for levels of aggressive behaviours, the mean for Cooperative video
game play was lower (M=14.62) then for Neutral video game play (M=17.65) indicating some
level of reduced levels of aggression. This result lends support to Ewoldsen et al., (2012) results
that Cooperative video game play may mitigate aggressive behaviours, although we do not have
specific evidence to support this.
Limitations of this study include the lack of baseline measures for aggressive and
competitive personality characteristics. It is possible that certain individuals may have had higher
levels of aggressive or competitive personalities going into the study. Or, individuals that were
already highly Competitive may have created a way to make any experimental conditions a
competition, even within solitary play. Thus, in reference to the GAM theory, future research
should examine the effects of violent video games on highly aggressive and competitive samples
and compare these findings to the average population (Adachi & Willoughby, 2010. A second
limitation was the lack of statistical analysis conducted between gender groups. One may
question the experience of females vs. males with a sports video game like NHL 2014? And,
does gender have an effect on the development of aggressive personalities? Lastly, further
research may investigate if video games that include both elements of competition and
aggression would create more aggressive play behaviours then games that only possess one of
the two variables. Would the levels of aggressive behaviours be two fold in comparison?

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

15

In conclusion, parents should be aware of the potential for effects of competitive and
aggressive video games on their childs behaviours. The current rate of screen time exposure
only contributes to the potential for children to develop an aggressive personality. All gaming
consoles provide the user with specific age and type of game rating (i.e. rated E for Everyone)
giving parents the opportunity to make informed choices. It is recommended that children not be
exposed to unnecessarily violent and even competitive video games if games can be chosen to
promote more cooperative behaviours.

References
Active Healthy Kids Canada (2012). Is Active Play Extinct? The Active Healthy Kids
Canada 2012 Report Card on Physical Activity for Children and Youth. Toronto: Active Healthy
Kids Canada.
Retrieved from: http://dvqdas9jty7g6.cloudfront.net/reportcards2012/AHKC%202012%20%20Report%20Card%20Long%20Form%20-%20FINAL.pdf
Adachi J. C. & Willoughby, T (2010), The effect of violent video Games on aggression: is
it more than just the violence?, Aggression and Violent Behaviour, 16, 55-62.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 2751.
Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2009). Causal effects of violent sports video games
on aggression: Is it competitiveness or violent content? Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 45, 731739.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and
behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78,
772790.
Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects.
New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson, C. A., & Morrow, M. (1995). Competitive aggression without interaction:
Effects of competitive versus cooperative instructions on aggressive behavior in video games.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 10201030.
Barlett, C. P., Branch, O., Rodeheffer, C., & Harris, R. (2009). How long do the shortterm violent video game effects last? Aggressive Behavior, 35, 112.

RUNNINGHEAD: Aggressive Behaviour & Video Games

16

Barlett, C. P., Harris, R. J., & Baldassaro, R. (2007). Longer you play, the more hostile
you feel: Examination of first person shooter video games and aggression during video game
play. Aggressive Behavior, 33, 486497.
Deutsch, M. (1993). Educating for a Peaceful World. American Psychologist, 48, 510517.
Ewoldsen, D,. R., Eno, C., A, Okdie, B., M., Valez, J. A., Guadagno, R., E., Velez &
DeCoster, J. (2012). Effect of Playing Violent Video Games Cooperatively or Competitively on
Subsequent Cooperative Behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 15(5):
277-280.
DOI: 10.1089/cyber.2011.0308
Fling, S., Smith, L., Rodriguez, T., Thornton, D., Atkins, E., & Nixon, K. (1992).
Videogames, aggression, and self-esteem: A survey. Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 3946.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. L., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent
video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school performance.
Journal of Adolescence, 27, 522.
Janssen I, Boyce WF, Pickett W (2012). Screen time and physical violence in 10 to 16year-old Canadian youth. International Journal of Public Health, 57(2):325-31.