Why Most Video Game ‘Aggression’ Studies Are Nonsense

Why Most Video Game ‘Aggression’ Studies Are Nonsense

Do violent video games make people more aggressive? Politicians and pundits have been asking that question for years now, and although everyone thinks they know the answer, scientific studies have yet to come up with results that satisfy even the most basic probing.

Last night, the gaming website Polygon reported on a study from the American Psychological Association that concluded there was a link between violent games and aggression. “The research demonstrates a consistent relation between violent video game use and increases in aggressive behaviour, aggressive cognitions and aggressive affect, and decreases in prosocial behaviour, empathy and sensitivity to aggression,” read the report.

But a closer look at the APA’s study (pdf) leads to a number of questions — many of the same questions Kotaku asked in January of 2013, when we ran an extensive look at the current state of research on video game violence.

Some context: the APA study, which was published yesterday, is not based on new research but instead is a review of studies conducted between 2005 and 2013. In addition to looking through several individual journals, researchers with the APA scrutinised four meta-analyses — reports that look at wide swaths of research and try to spot patterns — and ultimately concluded that there is indeed a pattern of test subjects growing more aggressive after they play violent video games.

There are serious problems with the study, though — problems we’ve pointed out in the past. Let’s go over a few.

1) How do you even measure aggression?

An outside observer might wonder — how can you tell whether someone is “more aggressive”? Is there really a way to measure an emotional state like aggression? Well, some of the tests used in violent video game studies include:

A) The “short story” test, where a subject is given the beginning of a writing prompt (“A driver crashes into Bob’s car. Bob gets out of his car and approaches the driver.”) and told to fill in what happens next.

B) The “noise” test, where a subject is asked to press a button that delivers a terrible sound to another subject, then evaluated based on how much noise they deliver and how intense it is.

C) The “hot sauce” test, where a subject is asked to dole out hot sauce to another subject and is evaluated based on how much sauce they give and how spicy it is.

Other tests ask subjects to fill out questionnaires asking how aggressive they feel, and if all this has you raising an eyebrow, you’re not alone. “Aggression” is an ambiguous psychological concept — if I get mad at a game and scream at my TV for a few seconds, am I being aggressive? — that can only be measured in subjective and often arbitrary ways.

2) Nobody’s looking at short-term vs. long-term effects.

One major problem with the tests used by these studies is that they all measure their subjects’ aggression directly after they have played violent video games. Even if you assume the tests are good ways to measure aggression, this is not particularly useful information for practical purposes. If you’re a parent who wants to know how violent video games might affect your children, the bigger concern is how their behaviour will be impacted in the long run.

But there aren’t enough studies on the long-term effects of violent video games. Admits the APA in their report: “However, the meta‐analyses we reviewed included very few longitudinal studies, and none of those that were included considered enough time points to examine the developmental trajectory of violent video game use and associated outcomes.”

So the APA’s conclusion — that there’s a consistent relation between violent games and aggression — is misleading at best. What they have actually concluded is that there’s a consistent relation between violent games and short-term aggression.

3) Few people are thinking about one of the most important factors: competition

Many of the studies examined by the APA’s report look through a wide variety of violent video games ranging from Mortal Kombat to Grand Theft Auto to Call of Duty. Often, researchers split up students or test subjects and ask some to play violent games while others play non-violent games. But there’s one factor they often don’t consider: competition.

Back in 2013, researchers at Brock University published a longitudinal study (monitoring 1,492 adolescents over four years) that tested out the effects of violent competitive games, violent non-competitive games, non-violent competitive games, and non-violent non-competitive games. Ultimately, they found that competition was a more relevant factor than violence.

“We found that playing more hours a day of the two types of competitive games did predict aggression over time,” Adachi told me then. “Whereas playing non-violent, non competitive games did not. So that really gets at the idea that, well, it may not be the violence, it may be the competition in games that is responsible for a link between video games and aggression.”

The APA’s review, like most violent video game studies to date, did not consider competition as a factor before drawing its conclusions. They even admit as much in the study: “Competition, then, may provide an additional independent influence on aggressive outcomes after playing aggressive video games. The literature on competition as the underlying causal component of the apparent link between violent game use and aggression is still nascent and is not currently substantial enough to influence, on its own, an objective assessment of the broader violent video game research.”

Makes sense, right? What makes you angrier: dying to a horde of violent aliens in Gears of War, or losing a close match to your taunting brother in the very non-violent Mario Kart?

It’s all of these questions — and the subjectivity of scientific studies, most of which can be used to draw any number of conclusions — that have convinced me to avoid reporting on these violent video game journals every time we get a new press release or meta-analysis. There just isn’t enough research or proper methodology to draw much from most of this science. The next time you read anything about the links between video games and aggression, keep all that in mind.


  • Always with the video games. I’m still waiting for someone to produce a study to say whether “aggressive behaviour [… and] decreases in prosocial behaviour” is on the rise because people, as a whole, tend to just be a little bit shit.

  • Do a little home experiment – Do you notice yourself getting more frustrated, annoyed or slightly more angry when you get to a point in a game that you just can’t seem to beat, or some other player keeps whipping your arse? Or being terse and snappy with someone when they interrupt your gameplay asking you to do a chore or anything else but playing the game? I’d say your aggression does go up whilst playing a game and for a short time after, but long term I’m not too sure about.

    • Does your aggression go up when you’re interrupted in the middle of a movie? Or when you’re busy cooking dinner? Or fixing the stairs?

      I’d argue we don’t like being interrupted first.

      Competition either with other people or versus a challenge being the other factor.

  • The other factor they never seem to look at is use of video game aggression as a substitute for real life aggression. Essentially, how many people have avoided getting beaten up because their potential assailant was sitting at home vapourising aliens?

    Yes, there’s a lot of violent and misogynistic language in online multiplayer shooters, but to what extent is that substituting for real life aggression? I’d rather somebody insult my mother than stick a knife in my kidneys; my mother is pretty robust, and she’d probably prefer being insulted to attending my funeral.

    I’ve been playing computer and video games for something like thirty years. So far I have failed to turn into an axe-murderer.

    On the other hand, soccer hooliganism. Computer games are not noted for causing riots.

  • It is less that the studies themselves are nonsense, it is that we can’t really formulate an opinion on the results. I will believe that games increase aggressive thoughts but there is no statistically significant data that suggest that those thoughts would then result in prolonged actual physical aggression.
    Reading a sad book isn’t going to give you depression, watching a scary movie isn’t going to give you anxiety and watching question time in the Australian parliament isn’t going to give you downs syndrome. So many of the heightened emotional states rarely last more than 15 minutes to a half hour and those examples where there “is” a noticeable change in mental state are likely a result of an existing predisposition to them.

    edit* for paragraphs and to say that I’d +1 this article if I could

  • i don’t think people should fear these studies. psychology is a field that is continuing to grow, and this meta analysis is a step in the right direction. every study has limitations, but GOOD studies acknowledge those limitations and don’t pronounce facts, only statistical interpretations. maybe we don’t have an accurate measurement of aggression, but studies like these call for us to make the measurements we do have even better. maybe aggression confounds competitive natures, maybe certain personality types are more vulnerable to longer play sessions and aggressive or competitive behaviours. more research is needed. DONT be scared of these studies, they are only shedding light using the information we currently have. what bothers me is your title for this article is a bit facetious because people arent out to kill violent video games. we are trying to understand the relationship between video games and people better. just because you get results you don’t like doesn’t mean that most studies are ‘ridiculous’.

Show more comments

Comments are closed.

Log in to comment on this story!