Video Games Do Affect Social Outcomes

Abstract

Whether video game play affects social behavior is a topic of debate. Many argue that aggression and helping are affected by video game play, whereas this stance is disputed by others. The present research provides a meta-analytical test of the idea that depending on their content, video games do affect social outcomes. Data from 98 independent studies with 36,965 participants revealed that for both violent video games and prosocial video games, there was a significant association with social outcomes. Whereas violent video games increase aggression and aggression-related variables and decrease prosocial outcomes, prosocial video games have the opposite effects. These effects were reliable across experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies, indicating that video game exposure causally affects social outcomes and that there are both short- and long-term effects.

Keywords

video games helping aggression meta-analysis

Video game play has become an integral part of the lives of many people. A representative national survey indicated that about 97% of American teens play video games (Lenhart, Kahne, et al., 2008), with the average amount of playing time being around 13 hr per week (Gentile, 2009). Other surveys show that over half of American adults play video games (e.g., Lenhart, Jones, & Macgill, 2008). Content analyses showed that most top-selling video games contain violence (Dill, Gentile, Richter, & Dill, 2005) and most children prefer to play violent video games (Buchman & Funk, 1996). However, many video games contain prosocial parts, with more than half of the players being helpful while playing (Lenhart, Kahne, et al., 2008). The present meta-analytic review synthesizes recent research into the effects of violent (in which the predominant goal is to harm another game character) and prosocial (in which the predominant goal is to benefit another game character) video game play on social behavior (helping and aggression) and related prosocial and aggressive cognition (e.g., accessibility of prosocial thoughts and hostile expectations), affect (e.g., empathy and anger), and arousal. It was examined whether violent video game play would increase aggressive responses and decrease prosocial outcomes, whereas prosocial video game play was assumed to have the opposite effect. That is, depending on the content, video game play may negatively but also positively influence social behavior.

Whether violent and prosocial video game play affects the player’s social behavior and related cognitive, affective, and arousal variables is still debated. On one hand, it has been argued that the content of video games determines what will be learned. For instance, according to the General Learning Model (GLM; Buckley & Anderson, 2006; for a current overview, see Gentile, Groves, & Gentile, 2013), the effects of video game play on social outcomes are assumed to depend to a large extent on the content of the game being played. Whereas violent video game exposure should increase aggression-related variables and decrease prosocial responses, prosocial video games are assumed to decrease aggression-related variables and to increase prosocial responses. It is important to note that the GLM accounts for both short-term effects of playing video games but also for long-term changes as a result of repeated exposure to video games.

The short-term model starts from the assumption that both person and situation variables can influence the learning encounter. These person factors, such as sex and trait aggression, and situation factors, such as video game exposure, interact to influence the player’s present internal state. The present internal state component of the model consists of cognition, arousal, and affect related to what have been played. For instance, helping other game characters during prosocial video game play may prime cognitions related to prosociality. Performing violence during violent video game play is often arousing, which in turn may affect learning. Video game play may also affect mood and emotion, which can influence learning and behavior. Finally, cognition, arousal, and affect are connected to one another. For example, violent video game play may evoke aggressive cognitions, which may increase aggressive affect, which increases arousal. The player’s present internal state in turn affects how social encounters are perceived and interpreted, and this decision process determines how the video game player will behave.

Repeated exposure to video game play may lead to long-lasting effects. According to the GLM, perceptual and cognitive constructs, cognitive-emotional constructs, and emotional constructs are likely to be influenced by repeated video game play (see Gentile et al., 2013). Perceptual and cognitive constructs include beliefs, such as normative beliefs about aggression, and behavioral scripts, such as aggressive fantasizing. Cognitive-emotional constructs include attitudes (e.g., how acceptable it is to behave aggressively) and stereotypes (e.g., video games that portray Arabs as terrorists lead to negative perceptions of Arabs in general, Saleem & Anderson, 2013). Emotional constructs include affective habituation (e.g., desensitization to aggression) and affective traits (e.g., trait anger). These three constructs may then contribute to the long-term development of certain personality characteristics.

Many empirical findings are consistent with different aspects of the GLM. In fact, it has been shown that playing a prosocial (relative to a neutral) video game increases helping (Gentile et al., 2009) and decreases aggression (Greitemeyer, Agthe, Turner, & Gschwendtner, 2012). Moreover, prosocial video game play has been found to increase positive affect (Saleem, Anderson, & Gentile, 2012a) and the accessibility of prosocial thoughts (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2011) and to decrease the accessibility of aggressive thoughts (Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2009). Finally, measures of cognition and affect appear to underlie the relation between prosocial video game play and helping and aggression, respectively (Greitemeyer, Agthe, et al., 2012; Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010). It should also be noted that the link between prosocial video game play and helping behavior has been documented in correlational, longitudinal, and experimental investigations.

Abundant research has been carried out on the effects of playing violent video games. Several studies document a causal link between playing violent video games and increased aggression (e.g., Anderson & Carnagey, 2009) and decreased helping behavior (e.g., Bushman & Anderson, 2009). As with the effects of prosocial video game play, playing violent video games appears to evoke cognitive and affective variables that are associated with the violent content of the video game played. For instance, violent video game play has been shown to produce a hostile expectation bias (Bushman & Anderson, 2002) and to increase state hostility (Anderson & Ford, 1986). These cognitive and affective variables in turn partly account for the effects of violent video game play on aggressive behavior (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004). The most comprehensive meta-analysis so far (Anderson et al., 2010), including 381 effect sizes with over 130,000 participants, revealed that violent video games increase aggressive thoughts, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and aggressive behavior and decrease empathy and helping behavior. There was no evidence that publication bias was responsible for the violent video game effect, and the effect was reliable across experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies.

However, there are also studies that fail to find that prosocial video games increase helping (e.g., Rosenberg, Baughman, & Bailenson, 2013) or that violent video games increase aggression (e.g., Jerabeck & Ferguson, 2013). Some studies even suggest that violent video game play decreases aggression (e.g., Unsworth, Devilly, & Ward, 2007). Critics of the idea that video game play significantly affects social behavior (e.g., Ferguson, 2010; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010) argue that video game experiments often suffer from poorly matched video games, in that games that are employed in a neutral condition differ from the games in the violent or prosocial condition on a variety of variables (such as difficulty or frustration) other than violent or prosocial content. This compromises the ability to isolate the violence or prosocial variable, introduces confounds, and thus, threatens the construct validity of experimental video game research. However, many experiments did control for a variety of video game dimensions. For instance, Greitemeyer and Osswald (2010) found that prosocial video game play causally increases helping behavior. Extensive pretesting ensured that the prosocial and neutral video games that were employed were matched on affective and arousal dimensions. Moreover, video game liking and perceived difficulty did not account for increased helping after prosocial video game play. Likewise, for the effects of violent video game play, research (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson & Dill, 2000) matched the video games employed in the experimental conditions on several dimensions that could be correlates of aggression (e.g., perceived difficulty, arousal, frustration). Thus, it is unlikely that these dimensions could cause the observed difference in aggression across experimental conditions. In their meta-analysis, Anderson et al. (2010) addressed this issue in that they coded whether the violent and nonviolent video game conditions differed significantly in game characteristics other than violent content. If anything, the methodologically strong studies revealed bigger average effect sizes than studies with methodological weaknesses (see also Anderson, 2004).

Critics also suggest that research into the effects of violent video game play often claims to have found significant effects, but that the relation between video game play and aggression disappears when controlling for third variables, such as participant sex (e.g., Ferguson, 2010). However, several longitudinal and correlation studies have found significant associations between video game violence and aggression even when controlling for a host of third variables. For instance, Willoughby, Adachi, and Good (2012) found that sustained violent video game play across the high school years predicted increases in aggression over time. This finding remained significant when controlling for the following third variables: participant sex, parental education, number of computers in the home, number of at-risk background factors, academic marks, depressive symptoms, delay of gratification, involvement in sports activities, peer deviance, friendship quality, parental relationship quality, parental control, and school culture. Likewise, Anderson et al. (2004) found that the relation between video game habits and violent behavior remained significant when controlling for sex, Big 5, narcissism, and emotional susceptibility. DeLisi, Vaughn, Gentile, Anderson, and Shook (2013) showed that violent video game playing was associated with delinquency and this relation held when controlling for the effects of screen time, years playing video games, age, sex, race, delinquency history, and psychopathic personality traits. It should be noted that even if some variables weaken the link between violent video game exposure and aggression, such a finding does not necessarily speak against the proposed hypothesis that violent video game play increases aggression. For instance, trait aggressiveness may mediate the relation between repeated exposure to violent video games and aggressive behavior, but this finding would support, rather than contradict, the predicted theoretical model (Prot & Anderson, 2013). Note also that the third variable concern does not apply to experiments where participants are randomly assigned to experimental conditions, and thus, all other factors are controlled.

It has also been criticized that some aggression measures (in particular, the modified Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Test) are used in an unstandardized way and that authors tend to report those outcomes that support their hypotheses and ignore those that do not (Ferguson, 2007b). However, Anderson et al. (2010) found that experimental studies of aggressive behavior that employed the Taylor Competitive Reaction Time Test yielded slightly smaller effects than did those studies that employed other measures of aggressive behavior.

It has also been argued that authors of meta-analyses that found significant effects for video game violence on aggression ignored some research that find no evidence for harmful effects of violent video game play (Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010). However, Anderson et al.’s (2010) meta-analysis is considerably larger than any prior violent video game meta-analysis and provides by far the most comprehensive meta-analytical summary of the existing research. Moreover, Ferguson and Kilburn (2010) failed to list a single valid example of a study that was indeed missed (Bushman, Rothstein, & Anderson, 2010).

Finally, some meta-analyses (Ferguson, 2007a, 2007b; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Sherry, 2001) suggest that there is little evidence for the notion that violent video game play is associated with higher aggression. However, these meta-analyses included a much smaller set of available studies compared with the Anderson et al. (2010) meta-analysis so the nonsignificant findings may be due to the failure to use all relevant studies.

The Present Research

In this research, we present a new meta-analytical test of the idea that violent video games increase aggression and aggression-related variables and decrease prosocial outcomes. Moreover, we provide the first meta-analysis of prosocial video game effects. Overall, the present research enabled us to determine whether depending on the content of the game played, video games do affect social behavior and related cognition and affect. We were less sure whether there were significant effects of video game exposure on arousal. First, violent, prosocial, and neutral video games can all affect arousal. Moreover, in many experimental studies, the video games that are employed in the experimental and the neutral conditions are matched on arousal dimensions. Nevertheless, we thought it important to address the effects of video game exposure on all three routes of the GLM.

Method

Literature Search

In our search for relevant studies, we used PsycINFO, Scopus, and Google Scholar as databases. The following key words were used: video games, violent video games, antisocial video games, prosocial video games, computer games, mass media, behavior, violent behavior, aggressive behavior, prosocial behavior, aggression, helping, cognition, affect, empathy, anger, and arousal.

Inclusion Criteria

There were six criteria for including a study in this meta-analysis. (1) The study had to include either a violent video game or a prosocial video game variable. One study (Jerabeck & Ferguson, 2013) examined the effects of violent video game play in which the player fights other game characters for a greater good (along with an antisocial violent video game condition and a nonviolent video game condition). Because it was not clear whether the goal of this game was predominantly violent or prosocial, this condition was not included in the present meta-analysis (the two other conditions were included). In all other studies included in the meta-analysis, the prosocial video games appeared to have no (or very minimal) violence, whereas the content of the violent video games was largely antisocial. (2) The study had to have at least one social outcome variable, such as behavior, cognition, affect, or arousal, with some help- or aggression-related variable as possible behavior; accessibility of prosocial or aggressive thoughts as possible cognitions; anger, empathy, or emotional valence as possible affective variables; and heart rate or perceived arousal as possible arousal variables. (3) Zero-order correlations between (1) and (2) were available or sufficient statistical data were provided to compute an effect size. For longitudinal studies, both a longitudinal and a cross-sectional effect size were included. The first was a partial correlation with Time 1 outcome partialed out. The latter was the cross-sectional effect measured at Time 1. (4) The study had to appear in a computerized database (i.e., PsycInfo, Scopus, or Google Scholar). (5) Only studies that were written in English or German were included. (6) Only studies that became available since 2009 were included. The main goal of the present meta-analysis was to test the hypothesis that video game content (violent vs. prosocial) influences social behavior and related cognition, affect, and arousal. A secondary goal was to compare the effect sizes of violent versus prosocial video game play on these outcome measures. The first studies of the effects of playing prosocial video games did not appear until 2009. Because of the dramatic changes in video game technology over the years, a fair test of this research goal required that all studies were conducted in roughly the same video game era. This led to a final sample of 98 independent studies, with 364 coded effect sizes. The overall number of participants was 36,965.

Meta-Analytic Procedures

The effect size Pearson r was used in our analyses. All effect sizes were computed using Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2.2.048; Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2005). Because the existing studies differ in many ways (such as video game exposure time or how social outcome is measured), we did not expect to estimate a single true effect but the mean of an unknown underlying distribution of effects, with the assumption that the differences between the studies were random. Heterogeneity tests indicated that there was indeed considerable heterogeneity across studies.¹ In this case, the application of a fixed-effects model is not appropriate (e.g., Hunter & Schmidt, 2000). Instead, a random-effects model should be used, in that the within-study error and the between-studies variance had to be accounted (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins, & Rothstein, 2009). In addition to the effect sizes, we coded the effect-specific study design (experimental, correlational, longitudinal) and type of outcome (behavior, cognition, affect, arousal). As noted above, previous meta-analyses by Anderson, Bushman, and colleagues (e.g., Anderson et al., 2010) found support for the proposed link between violent video game play and aggression, whereas Ferguson and colleagues (e.g., Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009) concluded that video game violence did not lead to aggression. To compare the findings that were reported by Anderson/Bushman or Ferguson to those by researchers who are neither associated with Anderson/Bushman or Ferguson, we coded whether the study was (co)authored by Anderson/Bushman or Ferguson or other researchers. For studies that reported multiple effects on the same type of outcome, we used the average effect size. Studies using more than one study design and/or reporting more than one class of social outcome (e.g., both behavior and cognition were assessed) were coded separately for each study design and/or type of outcome.

Results

Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Games

For both violent and prosocial video game exposure, separate meta-analyses were performed. These analyses suggest that video game play can both negatively and positively affect the player. As can be seen in Table 1, playing violent video games increases aggressive behavior, cognition, and affect, and decreases prosocial behavior and affect. No significant effect was observed for the relationship between violent video game play and prosocial cognition (although the effect was in the expected direction). In contrast, playing prosocial video games decreases aggressive behavior, cognition, and affect, and increases prosocial behavior, cognition, and affect. The effects of violent and prosocial video game exposure on arousal were not significant. However, there were only few studies that tested this relationship, and, as noted above, in many experimental studies the video games that were employed were matched on arousal dimensions across conditions.

Table 1.

Average Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Exposure on Aggressive Behavior, Prosocial Behavior, Aggressive Cognition, Prosocial Cognition, Aggressive Affect, Prosocial Affect, and Arousal.

			Effect size and 95% CI			Test of null (two tailed)
Outcome	n	K	Point estimate	LL	UL	z	p
Aggressive behavior
Violent	21,215	43	.19	.16	.22	11.38	.000
Prosocial	693	6	−.16	−.30	−.02	2.19	.029
Prosocial behavior
Violent	10,904	15	−.11	−.15	−.06	4.10	.000
Prosocial	8,307	12	.20	.13	.27	5.45	.000
Aggressive cognition
Violent	7,938	28	.25	.19	.31	7.89	.000
Prosocial	1,132	7	−.30	−.44	−.13	3.49	.000
Prosocial cognition
Violent	842	3	−.14	−.37	.11	1.12	.265
Prosocial	997	4	.42	.19	.60	3.57	.000
Aggressive affect
Violent	4,528	23	.17	.13	.21	8.15	.000
Prosocial	373	4	−.35	−.56	−.11	2.80	.005
Prosocial affect
Violent	11,350	12	−.16	−.23	−.09	4.62	.000
Prosocial	5,885	5	.25	.09	.40	2.98	.003
Arousal
Violent	472	7	.22	−.03	.44	1.75	.080
Prosocial	42	1	.01	−.28	.30	0.07	.948

Comparison of Violent Versus Prosocial Video Game Effects

For the following analyses, we coded our effect sizes in that positive effects reflect either that (a) violent video game exposure increased aggression-related measures and decreased prosocial measures or (b) prosocial video game exposure increased prosocial measures and decreased aggression-related measures. Both exposure to violent video games (K = 85, N = 34,454, r = .18, 95% confidence intervals [CIs] = [0.15, 0.21], z = 12.70, p < .001) and prosocial video games (K = 25, N = 9,216, r = .22, 95% CIs = [0.16, 0.27], z = 7.72, p < .001) were significantly associated with overall social outcome (combined behavior, cognition, affect, and arousal). The violent video game and prosocial video game effects appear to be of about the same magnitude: The CIs considerably overlap and the correlation coefficients do not significantly differ, Fisher’s z = 0.17, p = .862.

Both violent video game and prosocial video game effects were reliable across experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies (Table 2). It thus appears that video game exposure causally affects aggressive and prosocial behavior and related variables (experimental studies), is associated with types of social outcomes in real life (correlational studies), and affects the player over time (longitudinal studies).

Table 2.

Average Effects of Violent and Prosocial Video Game Exposure on Social Outcomes (Combined Behavior, Cognition, Affect, and Arousal) by Study Design.

			Effect size and 95% CI			Test of null (two tailed)
Design	n	K	Point estimate	LL	UL	z	p
Experimental
Violent	7,761	57	.20	.15	.25	7.94	.000
Prosocial	1,121	19	.26	.18	.34	6.04	.000
Correlational
Violent	25,774	26	.17	.14	.21	9.69	.000
Prosocial	2,929	6	.16	.09	.23	4.35	.000
Longitudinal
Violent	6,283	9	.10	.04	.16	3.09	.002
Prosocial	1,830	2	.07	.03	.11	3.40	.000

Comparisons of Different Research Groups

As noted above, there is a debate about the extent to which violent video games increase aggressive outcomes. Whereas Anderson, Bushman and colleagues (Anderson et al., 2010; Bushman et al., 2010) argue that violent video games do increase aggression, this claim has been disputed by Ferguson and his research group (e.g., Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010). We were, therefore, interested in the mean effect size of all violent video game studies that has been reported by both research groups. As can be seen in Table 3, across all studies (co)authored by Anderson/Bushman, there was a significant average effect, whereas the average effect size of all studies (co)authored by Ferguson was small in magnitude and not significantly different from zero. Interestingly, the average effect size of all studies that were neither (co)authored by Anderson/Bushman nor Ferguson was significant and almost identical to the one reported by Anderson and Bushman. That is, Anderson and Bushman, but not Ferguson, have reported effect sizes that are very similar to the effect sizes reported by other researchers.

Table 3.

Average Effects of Violent Video Game Exposure on Overall Social Outcome (Combined Behavior, Cognition, Affect, and Arousal) as a Function of Research Group.

			Effect size and 95% CI			Test of null (two tailed)
Author group	n	K	Point estimate	LL	UL	Z	p
Anderson/Bushman	8,595	20	.19	0.14	0.24	7.39	.000
Ferguson	2,444	7	.02	−0.05	0.10	0.61	.540
Others	23,415	58	.20	0.16	0.23	11.50	.000

Publication Bias

To examine whether publication bias may have an influence on our main findings, the trim-and-fill method was applied. Given that different types of studies (experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal) are routinely designed with different sample sizes and expected effect sizes in mind (longitudinal effects are often small and include large sample sizes, whereas the opposite is true for experimental studies), and that the publication bias statistics rely on a comparison of sample size to effect size, we thought it not to be useful to do publication bias analyses on sets of effects sizes that include all three design types. Hence, the following publication bias analyses were done separately for experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies, and only when there was a sufficient number of relevant studies (N > 9; Higgins & Green, 2011). Note that the trim-and-fill method does not provide an estimate of the true effect size. It produces nonexistent data that are not based on real findings. Nevertheless, it can be used to obtain an idea about possible biasing effects of publication or selection bias. Moreover, for each design, we computed Rosenthal’s and Orwin’s fail-safe N. Rosenthal’s fail-safe N provides an estimate of the number of studies in which the effect of video game exposure on social outcomes was zero that would be needed to yield a nonsignificant p value (i.e., indicating that there is no relation between video game exposure and social outcomes). Orwin’s fail-safe N allows the researchers to choose the criterion based on the size of effect that would be considered of little importance. We decided to use Cohen’s guidelines of what constitutes a small effect size, and thus, we tested how many unpublished studies with a null effect would be needed to reduce the overall effect size to a small effect (r = .10).

For experimental studies (K = 57) of the effects of violent video game exposure, the adjusted effect (r = .25, with 12 trimmed/imputed effects) was larger than the observed effect (r = .20); Rosenthal’s fail-safe N = 4,082; Orwin’s fail-safe N = 63. For correlational studies (K = 26) of the effects of violent video game exposure, no effects were imputed so that the adjusted effect was the same as the observed effect: Rosenthal’s fail-safe N = 3,878; Orwin’s fail-safe N = 21. For experimental studies (K = 19) of the effects of prosocial video game exposure, the adjusted effect (r = .21, with 4 trimmed/imputed effects) was smaller than the observed effect (r = .26): Rosenthal’s fail-safe N = 391; Orwin’s fail-safe N = 27. For longitudinal studies of the effects of violent video game exposure, correlational studies of the effects of prosocial video game exposure, and longitudinal studies of the effects of prosocial video game exposure, there were too few studies (Ns < 10) that these analyses could provide meaningful results. Taken together, the trim-and-fill adjusted averages were relatively similar to the observed effect sizes and they did not change the main pattern of findings. Moreover, the fail-safe analyses suggest that many studies would be needed to reduce the meta-analytical effects to nonsignificance (Rosenthal) or to an effect of little importance (Orwin). Hence, publication bias is unlikely to distort the main findings in any substantial way.

Discussion

Summary of Main Findings

The question of whether there is an association between playing video games and social behavior has received considerable attention. Despite hundreds of studies, the claim that video games affect social outcomes is still advocated by some and questioned by others (cf. Huesmann, Dubow, & Yang, 2013). According to the present meta-analytical summary, it appears that video game exposure does have an effect on social behavior and related cognitive and affective variables. Whereas exposure to violent video games increases aggression and aggression-related variables and decreases prosocial outcomes, exposure to prosocial video games decreases aggression and aggression-related variables and increases prosocial outcomes.

It is further of note that the overall effect sizes of violent video game exposure (r = .18) and prosocial video game exposure (r = .22) were relatively similar in terms of their magnitude. In fact, the correlation coefficients did not significantly differ. For both kinds of video games, the effect of video game play on social outcomes was small to medium in its effect size. Interestingly, major research teams that reported harmful effects of violent video game play also are among the first to demonstrate positive effects of prosocial video game play (e.g., Gentile et al., 2009; Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010; for an overview, see Anderson, Gentile, & Dill, 2012). Hence, mainstream video game violence researchers should not be characterized as anti-entertainment media. Rather, the very same scholars report—depending on the content—both negative and positive effects of video game play. Taken together, there were consistent effects of violent and prosocial video game play on behavioral outcomes but also on its likely antecedents, cognition and affect. These findings provide strong evidence for GLM’s notion that video game effects depend to a great extent on the content of the video game being played.

Comparisons With Other Meta-Analyses

Eight meta-analyses have been published about the effects of violent video games so far (Anderson, 2004; Anderson & Bushman, 2001, Anderson et al., 2004; Anderson et al., 2010; Ferguson, 2007a, 2007b; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009; Sherry, 2001). Whereas the group around Anderson and Bushman reported evidence of a positive link between violent video games and aggression, Ferguson’s meta-analyses questioned the existence of this link. It is noteworthy that our violent video game meta-analysis revealed effect sizes that are very similar to Anderson et al.’s (2010) meta-analytic findings. For instance, as can be seen in Figure 1, the effects of violent video game exposure on aggressive and helping behavior were almost identical in magnitude. The CIs are narrower for Anderson et al.’s meta-analysis, which probably is due to the greater number of studies that were included. Note that both meta-analyses are largely independent from each other, in that just a few studies were included in both meta-analyses. Such converging findings enhance the confidence that violent video game play is indeed associated with social outcomes.

Figure 1.

Average effect sizes and 95% confidence intervals of violent video game exposure on aggressive behavior and helping behavior for the present meta-analysis as well as the meta-analysis by Anderson et al. (2010).

Ferguson and colleagues (2007a, 2007b; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009) argued that once corrected for publication bias, there was little support that violent video games would increase aggression. However, Anderson et al. (2010) found that there was no evidence that publication bias had an influence on the main findings. Likewise, in this analysis, the trim-and-fill method and Rosenthal’s and Orwin’s fail-safe N analyses do not suggest that the effects have been overestimated because of publication bias. Interestingly, for experimental studies of the effects of violent video game exposure, the adjusted effect was larger than the observed effect, suggesting that the existing experimental studies even underestimated the harmful effects of violent video game play. For correlational and longitudinal studies, either no effects were imputed or there were too few studies so these analyses were not performed.

In sum, the present meta-analysis provided estimates that were very similar to the ones reported by Anderson, Bushman and colleagues. In contrast to the meta-analytic findings reported by Ferguson and colleagues (Ferguson, 2007a, 2007b; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009), there is strong evidence that violent video games do affect aggressive outcomes. Publication bias did not account for the effects, which also strongly contradicts Ferguson’s claims. Further analyses showed that across all studies (co)authored by Anderson and/or Bushman, there was a significant average effect of violent video games effect on aggressive outcomes. In contrast, the studies (co)authored by Ferguson provided an average effect size that was not significantly different from zero. Importantly, the average effect size that has been reported in studies that were neither (co)authored by Anderson/Bushman or Ferguson was significant and very similar to the one reported by Anderson and Bushman. Obviously, Ferguson’s, but not Anderson’s/Bushman’s, reported findings are quite discrepant from most of the rest of the field.

Taken together, the previous meta-analysis by Anderson and colleagues (2010) as well as the present findings clearly demonstrate that violent video games increase aggression. It should be noted that this finding is in line with almost all theories of human aggression, such as the General Aggression Model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002), social learning theory and related social-cognitive research (Bandura, 1986), social information-processing model (Dodge & Crick, 1990), script theory (Huesmann, 1986), and excitation transfer model (Zillmann, 1983). One may wonder why some individuals continue to dispute that there is a link between violent video game play and aggression (cf. Huesmann et al., 2013). One reason could be that deniers of violent video game effects have a vested interest in violent video games because playing these games is an important part of their identity (cf. Huesmann, 2010). In fact, it has been shown that individuals who highly (compared with lowly) identify with the social group of video game players are more motivated to disconfirm the notion that violent video games increase aggression (Bender, Rothmund, & Gollwitzer, 2013), which provides some support for the idea that highly identified players of violent video games tend to misjudge the effects of violent video game play and may even report biased findings.

Other Methodological Issues

As noted above, it has been suggested that correlational and longitudinal investigations tend to ignore the influence of third variables, and thus overestimate the real relation between video game play and outcomes (e.g., Ferguson, 2010). However, as also noted, several studies have found that violent video game play is associated with measures of aggression even when controlling for the effects of a battery of correlates of aggression (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; DeLisi et al., 2013; Willoughby et al., 2012). Experimental investigations control for these third variables by random assignment. Critics argue that experimental video game research often poorly matches the games that are employed, which threatens the construct validity and ultimately the internal validity of experimental work (for instance, that indeed the violent content of video games accounts for the effects on aggression). However, many experimental studies did address this issue by either selecting violent, prosocial, and neutral video games that are similar in terms of a variety of game properties other than violent or prosocial content, respectively, or by including measures of these properties and using them as statistical controls (e.g., Anderson & Dill, 2000; Anderson et al., 2004; Greitemeyer, 2014a; Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2009, 2010).

Nevertheless, it is certainly true that no methodological approach can provide a definite answer to the question of whether video games affect social outcomes. However, converging evidence from different methodologies (called triangulation) enhances the confidence in the conclusions that are drawn. In fact, the present meta-analysis reveals a positive link between video game play and social outcomes for experimental, correlational, and longitudinal studies. This converging evidence from correlational and longitudinal studies with high ecological validity and experimental studies with high internal validity suggests that there is indeed a causal relationship between video game play and social outcomes. Perhaps most notably, our meta-analytic summary of the longitudinal studies reveal that media exposure affects social outcomes at Time 2 even when social outcome at Time 1 was controlled. That is, video game exposure does not only affect social outcomes in the short-term, but also in the long-term. It is also noteworthy that for both violent and prosocial video games there was consistent evidence across different methodologies, although the effects of violent video games have been more thoroughly addressed than the effects of prosocial video games.

Conclusion

Many are concerned about possible harmful effects of violent video game play. As the present meta-analysis suggests, violent video game play does affect the player’s social behavior. Of course, one can dispute whether an effect of r = .19 between violent video game exposure and aggressive behavior is of societal concern. On one hand, aggressive behavior is multidetermined, with violent video game exposure being one source among many others (and some of them having a stronger influence than do violent video games). On the other hand, even small effects (and the effect of violent video games is small to medium in its effect size) can have a negative impact on societal level when many people are exposed to it (which certainly applies to violent video games). Thus, in our view, violent video game play should be regarded as a risk factor for aggressive behavior.

Given that playing violent video games negatively affects the player’s social behavior, the question arises as to how one can potentially counteract these effects. It is noteworthy that many violent video games involve some prosocial parts in addition to their violent content (e.g., killing enemies to save the world). As our meta-analysis has documented positive effects of prosocial video game play, a combination of violence and helping in a game may be less harmful than a violent game without any prosocial content. In a similar vein, violent video games are often played cooperatively in a team. In those video games, the players assist each other in harming other game characters. Recent findings suggest that cooperatively playing a violent video game in a team (relative to playing the same video game alone) counteracts the negative effects of violent video game play on cooperative behavior (Greitemeyer, Traut-Mattausch, & Osswald, 2012) and empathy (Greitemeyer, 2013). Because cooperative behavior and empathy are antagonists of aggressive responses (Eron & Huesmann, 1984), the effects of violent video game play on aggression might be attenuated by playing the game cooperatively in a team.

Playing video games is often vilified. We would like to stress that in terms of the player’s social behavior not all video games have negative effects (Bavelier & Davidson, 2013; Greitemeyer, 2011). In fact, depending on the content, video game play may also benefit social behavior, cognitive development, or health (cf. Strasburger, Wilson, & Jordan, 2013). The present meta-analysis provides clear evidence that prosocial video game exposure increases helping and decreases aggression. Moreover, the effects of playing prosocial video games are not less pronounced than the effects of playing violent video games (if anything, they are stronger). Thus, in terms of the player’s social behavior it is not only a question of how much is played (the amount of game play), but also a question of what is played (the content of game play). It is our hope that this meta-analysis contributes to a more nuanced view of the effects of playing video games, in that not only potential risks of violent video game play but also opportunities of prosocial video game play are discussed.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

References

*Adachi

P. J. C.

Willoughby

(2011). The effect of video game competition and violence on aggressive behavior: Which characteristic has the greatest influence? Psychology of Violence, 1, 259-274.

Anderson

C. A.

(2004). An update on the effects of violent video games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113-122.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353-359.

Anderson

C. A.

Bushman

B. J.

(2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

*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, 731-739.

Anderson

C. A.

Carnagey

N. L.

Flanagan

Benjamin

A. J.

Eubanks

Valentine

(2004). Violent video games: Specific effects of violent content on aggressive thoughts and behavior. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 199-249.

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, 772-790.

Anderson

C. A.

Ford

C. M.

(1986). Affect of the game player: Short term effects of highly and mildly aggressive video games. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 390-402.

Anderson

C. A.

Gentile

D. A.

Dill

K. E.

(2012). Prosocial, antisocial, and other effects of recreational video games. In Singer

D. G.

Singer

J. L.

(Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (2nd ed., pp. 249-272). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

10.

Anderson

C. A.

Shibuya

Ihori

Swing

E. L.

Bushman

B. J.

Sakamoto

. . .Saleem

(2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173.

11.

*Arriaga

Monteiro

M. B.

Esteves

(2011). Effects of playing violent computer games on emotional desensitization and aggressive behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41, 1900-1925.

12.

*Ballard

Visser

Jocoy

(2012). Social context and video game play: Impact on cardiovascular and affective responses. Mass Communication and Society, 15, 875-898.

13.

Bandura

(1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

14.

*Barlett

C. P.

Rodeheffer

(2009). Effects of realism on extended violent and nonviolent video game play on aggressive thoughts, feelings, and physiological arousal. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 213-224.

15.

Bavelier

Davidson

R. J.

(2013). Brain training: Games to do you good. Nature, 494, 425-426.

16.

Bender

Rothmund

Gollwitzer

(2013). Biased estimation of violent video game effects on aggression: Contributing factors and boundary conditions. Societies, 3, 383-398.

17.

*Bluemke

Friedrich

Zumbach

(2010). The influence of violent and nonviolent computer games on implicit measures of aggressiveness. Aggressive Behavior, 36, 1-13.

18.

*Bluemke

Zumbach

(2012). Assessing aggressiveness via reaction times online. Cyberpsychology: Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace, 6, Article 5.

19.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2005). Comprehensive Meta-Analysis (Version 2.2.048) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat.

20.

Borenstein

Hedges

L. V.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Rothstein

H. R.

(2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons.

21.

*Bösche

(2010). Violent video games prime both aggressive and positive cognitions. Journal of Media Psychology, 22, 139-146.

22.

*Bowen

H. J.

Spaniol

(2011). Chronic exposure to violent video games is not associated with alterations of emotional memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 25, 906-916.

23.

Buchman

D. D.

Funk

J. B.

(1996). Video and computer games in the ’90s: Children’s time commitment and game preference. Children Today, 24, 12-16.

24.

Buckley

K. E.

Anderson

C. A.

(2006). A theoretical model of the effects and consequences of playing video games. In Vorderer

Bryant

(Eds.), Playing video games: Motives, responses, and consequences (pp. 363-378). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

25.

Bushman

B. J.

Anderson

C. A.

(2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686.

26.

*Bushman

B. J.

Anderson

C. A.

(2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helping others. Psychological Science, 20, 273-277.

27.

*Bushman

B. J.

Gibson

(2011). Violent video games cause an increase in aggression long after the game has been turned off. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 2, 29-32.

28.

Bushman

B. J.

Rothstein

H. R.

Anderson

C. A.

(2010). Much ado about something: Violent video game effects and a school of red herring: Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 182-187.

29.

*Charles

E. P.

Baker

C. M.

Hartman

Easton

B. P.

Kreuzberger

(2013). Motion capture controls negate the violent video-game effect. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2519-2523.

30.

*Chittaro

Sioni

(2012). Killing non-human animals in video games: A study on user experience and desensitization to violence aspects. Psychology Journal, 10, 215-243.

31.

*DeLisi

Vaughn

M. G.

Gentile

D. A.

Anderson

C. A.

Shook

J. J.

(2013). Violent video games, delinquency, and youth violence: New evidence. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 132-142.

32.

Dill

K. E.

Gentile

D. A.

Richter

W. A.

Dill

J. C.

(2005). Violence, sex, age and race in popular video games: A content analysis. In Cole

Henderson-Daniel

(Eds.), Featuring females: Feminist analyses of media (pp. 115-130). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

33.

Dodge

K. A.

Crick

N. R.

(1990). Social information-processing bases of aggressive behavior in children. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 16, 8-22.

34.

*Engelhardt

C. R.

Bartholow

B. D.

Kerr

G. T.

Bushman

B. J.

(2011). This is your brain on violent video games: Neural desensitization to violence predicts increased aggression following violent video game exposure. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 1033-1036.

35.

*Engelhardt

C. R.

Bartholow

B. D.

Saults

(2011). Violent and nonviolent video games differentially affect physical aggression for individuals high vs. low in dispositional anger. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 539-546.

36.

*Eron

L. D.

Huesmann

L. R.

(1984). The relation of prosocial behavior to the development of aggression and psychopathology. Aggressive Behavior, 10, 201-211.

37.

*Espinosa

Clemente

(2013). Self-transcendence and self-oriented perspective as mediators between video game playing and aggressive behaviour in teenagers. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 23, 68-80.

38.

*Ewoldsen

D. R.

Eno

C. A.

Okdie

B. M.

Velez

J. A.

Guadagno

R. E.

DeCoster

(2012). Effect of playing violent video games cooperatively or competitively on subsequent cooperative behavior. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 15, 277-280.

39.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2007a). Evidence of publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 470-483.

40.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2007b). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytical review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly, 78, 309-316.

41.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2010). Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video games be a force for good? Review of General Psychology, 14, 68-81.

42.

*Ferguson

C. J.

(2011). Video games and youth violence: A prospective analysis in adolescents. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 377-391.

43.

*Ferguson

C. J.

Garza

(2011). Call of (civic) duty: Action games and civic behavior in a large sample of youth. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 770-775.

44.

*Ferguson

C. J.

Garza

Jerabeck

Ramos

Galindo

(2013). Not worth the fuss after all? Cross-sectional and prospective data on violent video game influences on aggression, visuospatial cognition and mathematics ability in a sample of youth. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 109-122.

45.

Ferguson

C. J.

Kilburn

(2009). The public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Pediatrics, 154, 759-763.

46.

Ferguson

C. J.

Kilburn

(2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation of violent video game effects in eastern and western nations: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 174-178.

47.

*Ferguson

C. J.

Olson

C. K.

(2014). Video game violence use among “vulnerable” populations: The impact of violent games on delinquency and bullying among children. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43, 127-136.

48.

*Ferguson

C. J.

Rueda

S. M.

(2010). The Hitman study: Violent video game exposure effects on aggressive behavior, hostile feelings, and depression. European Psychologist, 15, 99-108.

49.

*Ferguson

C. J.

San Miguel

Garza

Jerabeck

J. M.

(2012). A longitudinal test of video game violence influences on dating and aggression: A 3-year longitudinal study of adolescents. Journal of Psychiatric Research, 46, 141-146.

50.

*Fischer

Aydin

Kastenmüller

Frey

Fischer

(2012). The delinquent media effect: Delinquency-reinforcing video games increase player’s attitudinal and behavioral inclination toward delinquent behavior. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1, 201-205.

51.

*Fischer

Kastenmüller

Greitemeyer

(2010). Media violence and the self: The impact of personalized gaming characters in aggressive video games on aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 192-195.

52.

*Fraser

A. M.

Padilla-Walker

L. M.

Coyne

S. M.

Nelson

L. J.

Stockdale

L. A.

(2012). Associations between violent video gaming, empathic concern, and prosocial behavior toward strangers, friends, and family members. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 636-649.

53.

*Gabbiadini

Andrighetto

Volpato

(2012). Brief report: Does exposure to violent video games increase moral disengagement among adolescents? Journal of Adolescence, 35, 1403-1406.

54.

Gentile

D. A.

(2009). Pathological video-game use among youth ages 8 to 18: A national study. Psychological Science, 20, 594-602.

55.

*Gentile

D. A.

Anderson

C. A.

Yukawa

Ihori

Saleem

Ming

. . .Sakamoto

(2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International evidence from correlational, longitudinal, and experimental studies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 752-763.

56.

*Gentile

D. A.

Coyne

Walsh

D. A.

(2011). Media violence, physical aggression, and relational aggression in school age children: A short-term longitudinal study. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 193-206.

57.

Gentile

D. A.

Groves

Gentile

J. R.

(2013). The general learning model: Unveiling the learning potential from video games. In Blumberg

F. C.

(Ed.), Learning by playing: Frontiers of video gaming in education (pp. 121-142). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

58.

*Gitter

S. A.

Ewell

P. J.

Guadagno

R. E.

Stillman

T. F.

Baumeister

(2013). Virtually justifiable homicide: The effects of prosocial contexts on the link between violent video games, aggression, and prosocial and hostile cognition. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 346-354.

59.

Greitemeyer

(2011). Effects of prosocial media on social behavior: When and why does media exposure affect helping and aggression. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20, 251-255.

60.

*Greitemeyer

(2013). Playing video games cooperatively increases empathic concern. Social Psychology, 44, 408-413.

61.

*Greitemeyer

(2014a). Intense acts of violence during video game play make daily life aggression appear innocuous: A new mechanism why violent video games increase aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 50, 52-56.

62.

*Greitemeyer

(2014b). Playing violent video games increases intergroup bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 70-78.

63.

*Greitemeyer

Agthe

Turner

Gschwendtner

(2012). Acting prosocially reduces retaliation: Effects of prosocial video games on aggressive behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 235-242.

64.

*Greitemeyer

Cox

(2013). There’s no “I” in team: Effects of cooperative video games on cooperative behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 224-228.

65.

*Greitemeyer

McLatchie

(2011). Denying humanness to others: A newly discovered mechanism by which violent video games increase aggressive behavior. Psychological Science, 22, 659-665.

66.

*Greitemeyer

Osswald

(2009). Prosocial video games reduce aggressive cognitions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 896-900.

67.

*Greitemeyer

Osswald

(2010). Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 211-221.

68.

*Greitemeyer

Osswald

(2011). Playing prosocial video games increases the accessibility of prosocial thoughts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 121-128.

69.

*Greitemeyer

Osswald

Brauer

(2010). Playing prosocial video games increases empathy and decreases schadenfreude. Emotion, 10, 796-802.

70.

*Greitemeyer

Traut-Mattausch

Osswald

(2012). How to ameliorate negative effects of violent video games on cooperation: Play it cooperatively in a team. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1465-1470.

71.

*Gunter

W. D.

Daly

(2012). Causal or spurious: Using propensity score matching to detangle the relationship between violent video games and violent behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 1348-1355.

72.

*Hartmann

Vorderer

(2010). It’s okay to shoot a character: Moral disengagement in violent video games. Journal of Communication, 60, 94-119.

73.

*Hasan

Bègue

Bushman

B. J.

(2012). Viewing the world through “blood-red tinted glasses”: The hostile expectation bias mediates the link between violent video game exposure and aggression. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 953-956.

74.

*Hasan

Bègue

Bushman

B. J.

(2013). Violent video games stress people out and make them more aggressive. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 64-70.

75.

Higgins

J. P. T.

Green

(2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org

76.

*Hollingdale

Greitemeyer

(2013). The changing face of aggression: The effect of personalized avatars in a violent video game on levels of aggressive behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 43, 1862-1868.

77.

*Holtz

Appel

(2011). Internet use and video gaming predict problem behavior in early adolescence. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 49-58.

78.

Huesmann

L. R.

(1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125-139.

79.

Huesmann

L. R.

(2010). Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games stimulate aggression—Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 179-181.

80.

Huesmann

L. R.

Dubow

E. F.

Yang

(2013). Why it is hard to believe that media violence causes aggression. In Dill

K. E.

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 159-171). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

81.

Hunter

J. E.

Schmidt

F. L.

(2000). Fixed effects vs. random effects meta-analysis models: Implications for cumulative knowledge in psychology. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 8, 275-293.

82.

*Ivarsson

Anderson

Åkerstedt

Lindblad

(2011). Playing a violent television game affects heart rate variability: Corrigendum. Acta Paediatrica, 100, 1283.

83.

Jerabeck

J. M.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2013). The influence of solitary and cooperative violent video game play on aggressive and prosocial behavior. Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 2573-2578.

84.

*Jin

(2011). “My avatar behaves well and this feels right”: Ideal and ought selves in video gaming. Social Behavior and Personality, 39, 1175-1182.

85.

*Koglin

Witthöft

Petermann

(2009). Gewalthaltige Computerspiele und aggressives Verhalten im Jugendalter [Violent video games and aggressive behavior in adolescence]. Psychologische Rundschau, 60, 163-172.

86.

*Krahé

Busching

Möller

(2012). Media violence use and aggression among German adolescents: Associations and trajectories of change in a three-wave longitudinal study. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 1, 152-166.

87.

*Krahé

Möller

(2010). Longitudinal effects of media violence on aggression and empathy among German adolescents. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 31, 401-409.

88.

*Krahé

Möller

(2011). Links between self-reported media violence exposure and teacher ratings of aggression and prosocial behavior among German adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 34, 279-287.

89.

*Krcmar

Farrar

(2009). Retaliatory aggression and the effects of point of view and blood in violent video games. Mass Communication & Society, 12, 115-138.

90.

*Krcmar

Farrar

McGloin

(2011). The effects of video game realism on attention, retention and aggressive outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 432-439.

91.

*Krcmar

Lachlan

(2009). Aggressive outcomes and video game play: The role of length of play and the mechanism at work. Media Psychology, 12, 249-267.

92.

*Lee

Peng

Klein

(2010). Will the experience of playing a violent role in a video game influence people’s judgments of violent crimes? Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1019-1023.

93.

*Lemmens

J. S.

Valkenburg

P. M.

Peter

(2011). The effects of pathological gaming on aggressive behavior. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 38-47.

94.

Lenhart

Jones

Rankin Macgill

(2008). PEW Internet project data memo: Adults and video games. Retrieved from http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2008/Adults-and-Video-Games/1-Data-Memo/01-Overview.aspx

95.

Lenhart

Kahne

Middaugh

Macgill

A. R.

Evans

Vitak

(2008). Teens, video games, and civics (Report No. 202-415-4500). Washington, DC: Pew Internet and American Life Project.

96.

*Li

Choo

Khoo

Liau

(2012). Effects of digital game play among young Singaporean gamers: A two-wave longitudinal study. Journal of Virtual Worlds Research, 5, 1-15.

97.

*Lin

J. H.

(2013). Identification matters: A moderated mediation model of media interactivity, character identification, and video game violence on aggression. Journal of Communication, 63, 682-702.

98.

*Markey

P. M.

Scherer

(2009). An examination of psychoticism and motion capture controls as moderators of the effects of violent video games. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 407-411.

99.

*Möller

Krahé

(2009). Exposure to violent video games and aggression in German adolescents: A longitudinal analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 75-89.

100.

*Möller

Krahé

Busching

(2013). Mediengewaltkonsum und aggressives Verhalten: Ein längsschnittlicher Vergleich von Jugendlichen mit und ohne Migrationshintergrund [Consumption of media violence and aggressive behavior: A longitudinal study of German adolescents with and without migration background]. Zeitschrift für Entwicklungspsychologie und Pädagogische Psychologie, 45, 121-130.

101.

*Möller

Krahé

Busching

Krause

(2012). Efficacy of an intervention to reduce the use of media violence and aggression: An experimental evaluation with adolescents in Germany. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41, 105-120.

102.

*Prokarym

(2012). The effect of video games on aggressive behavior (Unpublished master’s thesis). University of Texas at Arlington.

103.

Prot

Anderson

C. A.

(2013). Research methods, design, and statistics in media psychology. In Dill

(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of media psychology (pp. 109-136). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

104.

*Prot

Gentile

D. A.

Anderson

C. A.

Suzuki

Swing

Lim

K. M.

. . .Lam

B. C. P.

(in press). Long-term relations between prosocial media use, empathy, and prosocial behavior. Psychological Science. Advance online publication.

105.

*Rosenberg

R. S.

Baughman

S. L.

Bailenson

J. N.

(2013). Virtual superheroes: Using superpowers in virtual reality to encourage prosocial behavior. PLoS ONE, 8, 1-9.

106.

*Saleem

Anderson

C. A.

(2013). Arabs as terrorists: Effects of stereotypes within violent contexts on attitudes, perceptions, and affect. Psychology of Violence, 3, 84-99.

107.

*Saleem

Anderson

C. A.

Gentile

D. A.

(2012a). Effects of prosocial, neutral, and violent video games on college students’ affect. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 263-271.

108.

*Saleem

Anderson

C. A.

Gentile

D. A.

(2012b). Effects of prosocial, neutral, and violent video games on children’s helpful and hurtful behaviors. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 281-287.

109.

*Sestir

M. A.

Bartholow

B. D.

(2010). Violent and nonviolent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 934-942.

110.

*Shafer

D. M.

(2012). Causes of state hostility and enjoyment in player versus player and player versus environment video games. Journal of Communication, 62, 719-737.

111.

Sherry

J. L.

(2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 27, 409-431.

112.

Strasburger

V. C.

Wilson

B. J.

Jordan

A. B.

(2013). Children, adolescents, and the media (3rd ed.). London, England: SAGE.

113.

*Teng

Chong

Siew

Skoric

M. M.

(2011). Grand Theft Auto IV comes to Singapore: Effects of repeated exposure to violent video games on aggression. Cyberpsychology, Behavior, and Social Networking, 14, 597-602.

114.

*Thomas

K. D.

Levant

R. F.

(2012). Does the endorsement of traditional masculinity ideology moderate the relationship between exposure to violent video games and aggression? The Journal of Men’s Studies, 20, 47-56.

115.

Unsworth

Devilly

Ward

(2007). The effect of playing violent videogames on adolescents: Should parents be quaking in their boots? Psychology, Crime & Law, 13, 383-394.

116.

*Valadez

J. J.

Ferguson

C. J.

(2012). Just a game after all: Violent video game exposure and time spent playing effects on hostile feelings, depression, and visuospatial cognition. Computers in Human Behavior, 28, 608-616.

117.

*Vieira

E. T.

Jr. (in press). The relationship among girls’ prosocial video gaming, perspective-taking, sympathy, and thoughts about violence. Communication Research. Advance online publication.

118.

*von Salisch

Vogelgesang

Kristen

Oppl

(2011). Preference for violent electronic games and aggressive behavior among children: The beginning of the downward spiral? Media Psychology, 14, 233-258.

119.

*Whitaker

J. L.

Bushman

B. J.

(2012). “Remain calm. Be kind.” Effects of relaxing video games on aggressive and prosocial behavior. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 3, 88-92.

120.

*Willoughby

Adachi

P. C.

Good

(2012). A longitudinal study of the association between violent video game play and aggression among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 48, 1044-1057.

121.

*Zhen

Xie

Zhang

Wang

(2011). Exposure to violent computer games and Chinese adolescents’ physical aggression: The role of beliefs about aggression, hostile expectations, and empathy. Computers in Human Behavior, 27, 1675-1687.

122.

Zillmann

(1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In Cacioppo

J. T.

Petty

R. E.

(Eds.), Social psychophysiology: A sourcebook (pp. 215-240). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.24 MB