1. 6. References
1. Buss, A. & Perry, M (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology. Vol. 63(3), pp 452-459
3. Newzoo games market research (2015). Newzoo Summer Series #1: UK Available
at:<http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/newzoo-summer-series-1-uk/> [accessed on 4th
December 2015]
5. Conclusions
Research shows that video games contain within them choice, which
can significantly modify the perceptions of violence from the per-
spective of the individual player.
There seems to be a flaw that scientific scrutiny may have left unac-
counted, video games allow players to choose how they engage with
them, whether this is caused by their skill or knowledge of the game,
they create their own lens which potentially gives researchers an
inconsistent measurement.
Future research should explore this further with factors such as
moral reasoning in games.
2. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects
literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. Vol. 12, pp. 470–482.
4. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning, McGraw-Hill, New York.
5. Williams, R. B. & Clippinger, C. A(2002). Aggression, competition and computer games:
computer and human opponents. Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 18, pp. 495–506
Aggerssion
Levels
Percieved
Challenge
Game
Violence Level
Percieved Import-
ance of Violence
Percieved
Playability
Percieved
Player Ability
Watched Violent
Game Play
Watched Non-Violent
Game Play
0
1
2
3
4
1.99 1.93
2.79
3.76
2.51
3.17
2.99
2.80
3.10 3.11
2.28 2.33
(.60)(.53)
(.75)
(.59)
(.99)
(.89)
(1.38)
(1.20)
(.47)(.47)
(.57)(.61)
4. Results
H1: There is a significant correlation between average game hours
and perceived challenge participants reported (p < .005).
H2: There is a significant and strong difference between groups
reported level of game violence, when playthrough involves player
exercising choice to attack enemies than when the player exercises
the choice to not attack enemies (p < .001, cohen’s d = 1.4).
H3: Average game hours did not predict game player perception of
player skill (p > .05).
H4: Controlling for A/B grouping, aggression levels did
not predict perceived levels of violence, importance
of violence or desire to play violent content (p
>.05).
H5: Focus group analysis pointed to the
possibility that avid game players worry
about moral choice in games, in a way that
non-gamers do not.
2. Aims
To better understand the inconsistency of the definition “violent
video game” as a factor of scientific measurement.
To explore the influence of individual differences surrounding player
choice in violent video games and explore explanatory factors.
Hypotheses:
H1: Experience of gaming will be negatively correlated with
perception of difficulty in a side-scrolling action stealth(SSAS) game.
H2: Participants who witness character death will perceive a SSAS
game more violent than participants who witness character deceit.
H3: Experienced game players will have stronger views on knowl-
edge and experience of an SSAS game than non-experienced game
players.
H4: Participants aggression levels will affect reported level of vio-
lence and importance of violence within the SSAS game play video
(Two-Tailed)
H5: Research will further explore how participants feel about vio-
lence in games, there should be seen an array of emotions when
confronted with violent content.
3. Methodology
Participants:
152 participants completed the survey section of this study,
recruited through online forums and social media websites. Six of
these participants formed the focus group conducted thereafter.
Procedure:
The online survey gained background and game experience
information, as well as a four factor aggression scale (Buss & Perry,
1992).
Participants were assigned to either a violent game viewer or
non-violent game viewer groups and were asked to watch a three
minute video of gameplay from “Mark of the Ninja”.
Finally a selection of questions regarding the video playthrough and
their option of the game and player were asked.
The focus group conducted two weeks after the survey involved a
semi-structured discussion of literature surrounding this research.
1. Introduction ÿ
Video games as an entertainment medium have been steadily grow-
ing in popularity for many years (Newzoo games market research,
2015). With the rapid growth of a new industry surrounding this
medium there has been an increased interest in their effects in the
wider academic community (Williams & Clippinger, 2002; Prensky,
2001).
Broadly, the vast body of research more than critiquing studies and
developing a unified direction of theory, tends to make polar claims,
entirely rejecting previous analysis (Ferguson, 2007). A clear issue is
a consistent model of language when defining criteria such as “A Vio-
lent Video Game”. Furthermore, research rarely take consideration to
the human factor of autonomy, when playing time can used in differ-
ent ways based on factors such as game experience.
An investigation into the reliability of measurement of violent con-
tent and perceptions of side-scrolling action stealth games.
Paul McGranaghan & Karen Thomson,
Glasgow Caledonian University