APPROVAL SHEET In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements ... · These studies, all of which were...

3 AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION DE TORRES & GONZALVO

The Interrelationship Between Aggression and Frustration Brought

About by Computer Games with Incentives

A Research Paper Presented to the Faculty of College of Education, Arts and Sciences

Lyceum of the Philippines University –Batangas

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in Experimental Psychology

by Prof. Jovelyn Mañibo, M.A

Dior Grita F. De Torres Edielyn D. Gonzalvo

September 2012

APPROVAL SHEET In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in Experimental Psychology, this thesis entitled: “The Interrelationship between Aggression and Frustration Brought About by Computer Games with Incentives” is submitted by Dior Grita F. De Torres and Edielyn D. Gonzalvo and is hereby recommended for final examination.

___________________________ Prof. Jovelyn Mañibo, M.A Thesis Adviser


The Interrelationship between Aggression and Frustration brought about by Computer Games

with Incentives among LPU Male students Prof. Jovelyn Mañibo, M.A

Dior Grita F. De Torres Edielyn D. Gonzalvo

The experimental study aims to measure the level of aggression and frustration brought about by computer games with incentives and the interrelationship of the said variables. With 50 participants for each four groups, a total of 200 males who are avid of playing computer games participated in the study. The results and analyses presented in the study concluded that incentives differentially affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players with tobt = 7.18 and 6.521 > tcrit = 2.021 using t-test for dependent groups and Fobt = 4.527 and 8.340 > Fcrit = 3.89 using ANOVA with alpha level of 0.05, two tailed. At the same time, computer game’s level of difficulty also affects the level of aggression and frustration of the players with tobt = 7.53 and 4.783 > tcrit = 2.021 respectively and Fobt = 6.524 and 10.167 > Fcrit = 3.89. Moreover, there is also an interaction between incentive and the level of difficulty of computer game with tobt = 9.68 for aggression and tobt = 7.356 > 2.021 for frustration. Computer games and /with incentives has a large effect on the level of aggression and frustration among male students of LPU. Keywords: aggression, frustration, computer game, incentive

Debates about aggression and frustration brought about by computer games have taken place for centuries. Scientific interest in the effects of computer gaming however, only really began in the late 1920s. A body of sociological work known as the ‘Payne Fund Studies’ argued that a link existed between games (particularly the violent

games of the 1930s) and delinquent behavior among young people. These studies were highly influential and fuelled demands for tighter regulation of computer games.

There have been a number of experimental studies looking at the relationship between aggression and frustration and computer game playing although a number of these studies use computer games as an experimental paradigm to investigate other theoretical concerns (e.g., the relationship between aggression and temperature, the influences of social roles on sex differences using a computer game). Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears came out with a hypothesis called the frustration aggression hypothesis which was later called the Frustration aggression theory and then became the most well-known drive theory of aggression. In this theory, frustration and aggression are linked in a cause and effect relationship. Frustration is the cause of aggression and aggression is the result of frustration (Smith, 1999). Frustration, as defined by Doug Kaufman, Ph.D. (2012), is a feeling of tension that occurs when our efforts to reach some goal are blocked. When this occurs, it can produce feelings of anger, which in turn can generate feelings of aggression and aggressive behavior. And aggression is defined as an action with the intent to harm, and can be physical and non-physical (Baron, & Richardson, 1994).

Violence in computer games has been a major social issue, not limited to violence in sports video games. Over 85% of the games on the market contain some violence. Approximately half of computer games include serious violent actions toward other game characters (Children Now, 2001; Dietz, 1998; Dill, Gentile, Richter, & Dill, 2005).

Since 1999, the amount of daily video game usage by youth has nearly doubled (Roberts, Foehr, & Rideout, 2005). Video game usage is high in youth regardless of sex, race, parental education, or household income (Roberts et al., 2005).

Recent meta-analyses (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004, submitted for publication) have shown that violent video game exposure


increases physiological arousal, aggressive affect, aggressive cognition, and aggressive behavior. Other studies link violent video game play to physiological desensitization to violence (e.g., Bartholow, Bushman, & Sestir, 2006; Carnagey, Anderson, & Bushman, 2007). Particularly interesting is the recent finding that violent video game play can increase aggression in both short and long term contexts.

People of all ages in most modern countries get a heavy dose of violent media, especially in TV programs, films, and video games (e.g., Comstock & Scharrer, 2007; Gentile, 2003; Gentile, Saleem, & Anderson, 2007; Kirsh, 2006; Singer & Singer, 2001).

Potential harmful effects of media violence have been scrutinized for over six decades, and considerable consensus has been reached on several of the most important issues. As stated by a recent panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Surgeon General, “Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts” (Anderson et al., 2003, p. 81).

One of the main concerns that has constantly been raised against video and computer games is that most of the games are claimed to feature aggressive elements. This has led some people to state that children become more aggressive after playing such games (e.g.,Koop, 1982; Zimbardo, 1982).

Many authors claim that most computer games are violent in nature and feature death and destruction (e.g., Dominick, 1984; Loftus & Loftus, 1983). In a survey reported by Bowman and Rotter (1983), 85% of games that were examined (n 5 28) involved participants in acts of simulated destruction, killing or violence.

The General Aggression Model (GAM) would predict that short- and long-term exposure when combined with increased arousal and negative affect could result in aggressive behavior (Anderson & Dill, 2000). It has been found that trait aggression as well as self-reported, peer reported, and teacher-reported aggressive behavior has

correlated well with exposure to violent television shows and video games (Ulhmann & Swanson, 2004; Fling et al., 1992; Lin & Lepper, 1987).

The General Aggression Model (GAM) suggests that each time someone plays a violent video game, they in effect rehearse an aggressive script which teaches and reinforces aggressive behavior towards another, positive attitudes towards using violence, and the belief that violence is an effective, appropriate way to resolve conflict (Anderson & Dill, 2000). Thus, a positive correlation should exist linking exposure to violent video games to aggressive characteristics.

Anderson and Dill (2000) explored this relationship between long-term exposure to video game violence and aggressive behavior and delinquency. The duo found that aggressive delinquent behavior (such as assault) and nonaggressive delinquent behavior (such as grand theft auto) was positively related to both trait aggression and exposure to video game violence but the strength of the relation to aggressive delinquent behavior was better. Gentile, Lynch, Linder, and Walsh (2004) found that exposure to video game violence and amount of video game play were both positively associated with adolescents’ trait hostility, the frequency in which they got into arguments with their teachers, the likelihood of being involved in a physical fight, and were negatively linked to school grades. Many authors claim that most computer games are violent in nature and feature death and destruction (e.g., Dominick, 1984; Loftus & Loftus, 1983). In a survey reported by Bowman and Rotter (1983), 85% of games that were examined (n 5 28) involved participants in acts of simulated destruction, killing or violence.Amore recent study of computer game content by Provenzo (1991) reported that of the 47 leading Nintendo games that he analyzed, only seven of them did not involve violence. He reported that video games were populated by terrorists, prizefighters, SWAT teams, robotic cops, and the like, and that women were cast as “victims,” and foreigners as “baddies.” Findings, such as this, led Provenzo to conclude that video games


encourage sexism, violence and racism by conditioning children to view the world in a way that they see on the computer screen. Wei Peng, Ph.D., Ming Liu, M.A., and Yi Mou, M.A. conducted a study in 2008 entitled “Do Aggressive People Play Violent Computer Games in a More Aggressive Way? Individual Difference and Idiosyncratic Game-Playing Experience” which investigates whether individual difference influences idiosyncratic experience of game playing. In particular, they examine the relationship between the game player’s physical-aggressive personality and the aggressiveness of the player’s game playing in violence oriented video games. Screen video stream of 40 individual participants’ game playing was captured and content analyzed. Participants’ physical aggression was measured before the game play. The results suggest that people with more physical-aggressive personality engage in a more aggressive style of playing, after controlling the differences of gender and previous gaming experience. Craig A. Anderson and Nicholas L. Carnagey (2009) performed three experiments that examined the impact of excessive violence in sport video games on aggression-related variables. Participants played either a nonviolent simulation-based sports video game (baseball or football) or a matched excessively violent sports video game. Participants then completed measures assessing aggressive cognitions (Experiment 1), aggressive affect and attitudes towards violence in sports (Experiment 2), or aggressive behavior (Experiment 3). Playing an excessively violent sports video game increased aggressive affect, aggressive cognition, aggressive behavior, and attitudes towards violence in sports. Because all games were competitive, these findings indicate that violent content uniquely leads to increases in several aggression-related variables, as predicted by the General Aggression Model and related social–cognitive models.

Finally, Irwin and Gross (1995) measured interpersonal aggression and aggression toward inanimate objects in 60 second grade boys (aged 7 to 8 years). After playing computer games with

aggressive or nonaggressive themes, they found that those who played the aggressive games exhibited significantly more object aggression during a free play situation and more interpersonal aggression during a frustrating situation.

These studies, all of which were carried out on young children, do seem to suggest that the playing of violent computer games has the effect of increasing a child’s aggressive behavior—at least in the short term. It is possible that this particular methodology (i.e., observational analysis of free play) may itself be contributing to the effect.

Aggression is defined as an action with the intent to harm, and can be physical and non-physical (Baron, & Richardson, 1994). There are many areas where aggression manifests in our society today, such as domestic violence, abuse, school bullying, road-rage, and war. Many social scientists look to theories to explain this phenomenon. Amongst the many different explanations, some say frustration, which is defined as the blocking of on-going goal-directed behaviour, often leads to aggression (1994).

Frustration on the other hand, is an emotional state that arises as a response to a perceived opposition towards the achievement of a goal, and it can either resolve in anger or disappointment according to whether the level of perceived opposition is too high or too low and according to each individual’s personality. Frustration is also a factor that has been recognized as pivotal in shaping or spoiling optimal experiences: if the cause of frustration is mild and internal (laziness, lack of confidence, etc.) it can easily be a positive force to inspire and motivate, but if it is caused by external forces that are perceived to be outside an individual’s control (i.e. a task too hard compared to the skills available) it can lead to feeling of powerlessness and eventually anger. Frustration would normally be characterized as an unwanted component of user experience; however, frustration is also a recognized component of the experience of play. Several psychological theories are relevant to the possible role of computer game violence in youth aggression. J. L. Sherry identified six theories


used to predict either increased or decreased aggression after violent computer game play. First, social learning theory suggests that at least some aggression is learned by observing, and then by imitating, a model who acts aggressively. Aggressive computer game characters might serve as models for aggressive behaviour. Further, rewards such as higher points and longer playing times within the game and increased status provide a motivation for increased aggression by reinforcing the behaviour.

Second, an arousal theory predicts that, if the computer game player has an aggressive disposition or is angered; playing an arousing computer game might cause increased aggression owing to a generalized increase in energy and intensity. According to this theory, violent computer games would be expected to increase aggression only in the presence of anger from some other cause.

Third, a cognitive “priming” theory and a social information-processing model suggest that violent computer games will activate related cognitive structures, making it more likely that other incoming information would be processed in an “aggression” framework, possibly increasing aggressive behaviour. For example, someone for whom thoughts of aggression have been evoked might be more likely to interpret an ambiguous behaviour as aggressive and respond accordingly.

Fourth, catharsis theory suggests that violent computer games can provide a safe outlet for aggressive thoughts and feelings. Fifth, drive-reduction theory suggests, similar to catharsis theory, that violent computer games may be useful in managing aggression. According to this theory, highly stressed or frustrated individuals may play violent computer games to re-establish emotional equilibrium through arousal or relaxation.

A sixth theory, the general affective aggression Model, integrates social learning, arousal, and cognitive processing theories and includes individual variables (such as aggressive personality) as well as situational variables (such as computer game play).

According to this model, whenever exposure to violent media primes aggressive thoughts, increases hostile feelings, or increases arousal, short-term increases in aggression would be expected. Long-term increases in aggression might also result if computer game-playing led to changes in aggression-related knowledge structures or “scripts.”

In the case of Skinner’s learning theory, all behavior, including human aggression, operates either through classical or operant conditioning. In this instance, aggression is a learned behavior because it has in the past been rewarded. For example, a bully beats up schoolyard children because it eventually leads to them giving him their milk money. On the other hand punishment can lead to aversion from using aggression. In another example, perhaps the child who got beat up gets his older brother to beat up the bully in retaliation. In this sense the bully has been punished for his original behavior and is less likely to enact that behavior against the same target in the future.

When viewing television or movies, a viewer may only receive indirect rewards for violent actions of the characters (e.g., witnessing when a violent character is rewarded for his or her actions). When individuals play violent computer games, there is direct (and typically instant) reinforcement for their choice of action. This reinforcement can come in numerous forms: visual effects, sound effects (e.g., groans of pain from an injured target), verbal praise (e.g., when a target is hit the computer says “well done” or “impressive”), points for various violent actions, and advancing to the next game level after obtaining certain goals. Bandura 50, 51 has demonstrated that aggression is likely to increase when it is rewarded.

Frustration theory has been reformulated more recently by Berkowitz (1989). The original work of Dollard et al. (1939) stated the following: 1) “the occurrence of aggressive behavior always assumes the existence of frustration” (p. 1), and 2) “the existence of frustration always leads to some form of aggression” (p. 1). These two statements caused much debate during their time among scholars studying


aggression and inspired research designed to prove the hypothesis wrong. Again, the original proposition of this theory was that all aggression stems from frustration and that frustration must always lead to aggression. Objectives of the Study The study aims to measure the level of aggression and frustration brought about by computer games with incentives and the interrelationship of the variables. Specifically, it attempts (1) to investigate if presence of incentives can affect the level of (1a) aggression; and (1b) frustration of the players. This is also (2) to determine if level of difficulty can affect the level of (2a) aggression; and (2b) frustration of the players. Lastly, it also wishes (3) to know if there is an interaction between the presence of incentives and the computer game’s level of difficulty.

The general hypotheses specifies that incentive do not differentially affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players, computer game’s level of difficulty are equal in their effects on the level of aggression and frustration of the players and there is no interaction effect between incentive and the level of difficulty of computer game.

METHOD This chapter presents the brief description of the research

design, participants, instruments, data gathering procedures and data analysis used by the researchers in conducting the study. Research Design The study made use of the experimental approach of research. This research method involves manipulating one variable to determine if a change in one variable causes changes in another variable. This method relies on controlled method, random assignment and the manipulation of variables to test hypothesis.

The measures of aggression and frustration included: (a) behavioural observations, (b) self-ratings. Behavioural observations included observer ratings of participants during free-play on behaviours

such as physical aggression (e.g., pinching lips), verbal aggression (e.g., teasing), and aggression against objects (e.g., hitting the mouse, punching the table).

Self-ratings included paper-and-pencil questionnaires and measures of frustration and aggression (verbal aggression, physical aggression, physical aggression, and hostility); questions about aggressive behaviour in real or hypothetical situations; and mood checklists in which participants checked off which of a list of adjectives described their current mood. Participants

Participants were assigned using the stratified random sampling; members of the population who are males, avid of playing computer games.

The college male is an appropriate target for a study on the impact of computer game on aggression and frustration. In past psychological studies, men have been identified as behaving more aggressively than women (Calvert & Tan, 1994). Also, it has been suggested that men maybe more affected by computer game than women (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002). This could be a consequence of more exposure to computer game. Research notes that men spend more time playing computer games in general than women (Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004), and that men prefer and do play computer games more so than women (Anderson & Murphy, 2003; Funk, Buchman, Jenks, & Bechtoldt, 2003; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). For these reasons, the experimenter thought it sufficient to only study males and leave the study of gender effects for a later time.

The age representing the typical college male is also an appropriate target for this study. Panee and Ballard (2002) note that this age sample has practical implications since most of the media’s attention on the negative effects of computer games has focused on this age group. The authors also comment that “the empirical evidence regarding television has generalized well across age groups and


cohorts, so it is likely that these findings will hold up similarly” (p. 2470).

Sherry (2001) found a correlation of .2 between effect size and subject age suggesting that older subjects were affected more by violent computer games than younger subjects. These results and comments support the use of college-aged subjects in this experiment.

Study designs Include: (a) control group (participants will be assigned using the stratified random sampling; members of the population who are males avid of playing computer games) to just play the simple type of computer game (b) the first experimental group to play the simple type of computer game and beat “our highest scorer” in order to receive a Php500.00 incentive (c) the second experimental group to just play the complex type of computer (d) third experimental group to play the complex type of computer game and beat “our highest scorer” in order to receive a Php500.00 incentive .The total of 200 participants (50 for each group) ranges from first year to fourth year college with age ranges from 16 to 21. The control group served as the basis for comparison with the other three experimental groups. Apparatus

Aside from the subjects, the experimenters also needed instrument for the better completion of the experiment. The apparatus consisted of a laptop (mouse, mouse pad, headset), Php500.00 bill that served as the incentive stimulus, two sets of questionnaires that the participants answered before and after playing the computer game, pen and paper was also used to record the verbal and non-verbal activity of the players while playing.

Computer Game. Laptop (mouse, mouse pad, headset). Critical to this study was the selection of games that would vary in simplicity and could also be manipulated to aid in increasing or decreasing aggression frustration. Many computer games now have an option which allows the player to change the difficulty level of the game. In an experimental setting, one often wishes for the treatments to be identical except for the variable that is to be manipulated. In a perfect

setting, one would create two versions of a game that was identical except that one is more difficult than the other. However, the researchers wanted to maintain natural validity by using computer game that is simple. Therefore, the researchers looked for computer game that could be matched on several differing variables. The games needed to be visually similar as well as having game play characteristics that were similar; a very basic maze game called The Frustration Game was used for the experiment.

Incentive. Php500.00 bill that served as the incentive stimulus, Demographic sheet. On a single page, participants indicated

their age, self-described gaming level (whether they are beginner, intermediate or advance) and education level. Included also in the demographic sheet is the hours they use computer per week and what percentage of this time is spent playing computer games. And if they had already played The Frustration Game before and how much time did they spend playing the game. This allowed for a general measure of computer game playing habits in participants.

Aggression Questionnaires. To measure trait aggressiveness, participants completed the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry, 1992). The Aggression Questionnaire consists of the summed score of the 29-item statements and was designed to measure the degree to which respondents endorse statements about their levels of aggression. Item responses were based on a 5-point, likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely characteristic of me), with higher scores indicating more aggressiveness. After playing the game, the participants were asked to answer another questionnaire about aggression towards playing more and winning the incentive. The second aggression questionnaire merely asks whether the participants after playing the game will be more able to commit an aggressive act etc.

Frustration Questionnaire. To measure frustration, participants completed the Frustration Questionnaire The Frustration Questionnaire consists of the summed score of the 7-item statements and was


designed to measure the degree to which respondents endorse statements about their levels of frustration before playing the game. Item responses were based on a 5-point, likert-type scale, ranging from 1 (not frustrated at all/ very easy/ very well) to 5 (very frustrated/ very difficult/ terrible), with higher scores indicating more frustration. After playing the game, the participants were asked to answer another questionnaire about frustration towards the game.

Pen and paper. The researchers record the computer game habits by adapting the pen and paper method. While playing the game, the participants’ behavior-verbal and non-verbal were also recorded. Procedures First and foremost, the experiments consulted for the approval of their topic, the instruments to be utilized and the most appropriate procedures to be followed. Upon approval of the research topic and other factors concerning the experiment, the researchers conducted a pilot study in order to test the validity and maintenance of the experiment. The pilot study was conducted among 20 college male students of LPU who were chosen through stratified random sampling. The proposed research title, instruments and statistical treatments gone through several revisions for the strength of the actual experiment.

All procedures were approved and were designed to be consistent with APA ethical standards. Participants who volunteered for this study signed up for a 10-minute appointment time to assure that all procedures could be completed.

The researchers made use of the stratified random sampling to obtain participants who possesses a certain characteristic-avid of playing computer games. Indicated in the demographic profile is the level of competency of the players (whether a beginner, intermediate or advance in playing computer games). After being asked to read and sign an informed consent form and invited to ask any questions about their rights, participants were given the Aggression and Frustration questionnaires. After these were completed, participants who were

randomly assigned to either the control group/incentive group/game level group/ incentive and game level were then seated at a PC to play depending on the condition of the group were they belonged.

Participants who were randomized into the control condition were provided with brief, three-sentence descriptions of the game. Both descriptions were designed to have three main components. The first sentence described the game’s story. The second sentence described the gameplay. The last sentence of each description noted the condition of the group. The description for the control group and game level group, “This is a maze game, you are the mouse cursor and all you have to do is to avoid touching the walls and the obstacles at the maze. In each stages, you must first click the START button then after doing so, the screen will automatically move (shake, stock, go back or speed up) and it is up to you how will you manipulate the movement of the mouse cursor. Just play the game and enjoy it, so, if you have no more questions shall we start?”

By contrast, the description of Incentive group and incentive and game level group, “This is a maze game, you are the mouse cursor and all you have to do is to avoid touching the walls and the obstacles at the maze. In each stages, you must first click the START button then after doing so, the screen will automatically move (shake, stock, go back or speed up) and it is up to you how will you manipulate the movement of the mouse cursor. Beat our highest scorer and you’ll get Php500.00 bill and will be recognized as our new highest scorer, so, if you have no more questions shall we start?”

All participants were allowed to play the game for a 5-minute interval. After playing the computer game, participants were asked to fill out the follow-up questionnaire. This is to compare the results of the first and second questionnaires and to know whether an increase in aggression and/or frustration occurred. Finally, participants were thoroughly debriefed, informed of the deception in the incentive (for the Incentive and Incentive and Computer game group). Participants were given a cover story for the study: that the study was designed to


examine whether playing computer games with incentive affects the level of aggression and frustration among players. After all the procedures, the data were gathered, computed, tabulated, analyzed and interpreted.

RESULTS Descriptive Information

Although not the key focus of this study, it is interesting to note some key descriptive trends about computer game use that have also been mentioned in past studies. An estimate of time spent playing computer games revealed that subjects typically play computer games on average of 9.5 hours per week. This number is higher than the 5.72 hours per week reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (2005); however, their research study only focused at 8 to 18 year olds. Perhaps game play increases once one enters college.

All subjects reported having played a computer game in their lifetime. When asked to rate themselves according to their competency in playing computer games (see figure 2), Intermediate, meaning they are average players was most frequently cited. Using the paper and pen method, the experimenters noted the most common behaviors of the players when playing the game. Most of the players shouts with tendencies of punching the table, tightly grasping their hands, the mouse etc. Most of the players, after 1 to 2 minutes of playing with an average of 15 mistakes tends to get a closer look to the monitor, re arrange their sitting position and the like. Combining Variables for Analysis

Of particular interest to this study was the effect of incentive and computer game’s level of difficulty on measures of aggression and measures of frustration. The key measures composing the dependent variable of aggression and frustration were behavioural observations and self-ratings. Key measures of affect were scores on the MANOVA and T-test for Dependent Groups, the aggression scale of the Aggression Questionnaire, and the frustration scale of the Frustration

Scale. The experimenters used the alpha level of 0.05 for both MANOVA and T-test for dependent groups, two-tailed.

In the analysis of the experiment, t-test for dependent groups was used by the experimenters. This allows the utilization of both the magnitude and direction of the difference scores. Essentially, it treats the difference scores as though they were raw scores and test the assumption that the difference scores are a random sample from a population of difference scores having a mean of zero.

Table 1a. Summary T-test table for Aggression

Control group

Incentive group

Level of computer

game group

Incentive and level of

Computer Game

Ḋobt 6.62 18.34 19.24 21.18 tobt 3.08 7.18 7.53 9.68 tcrit 2.021 2.021 2.021 2.021

Decision Reject Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho

Size of the Effect

0.434 1.02 1.07 1.37

Table 1a and 1b shows the summary t-test results for

aggression and frustration wherein the null hypothesis specifies that for the Incentive group, incentives do not affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players, for the Level of Computer Game group, computer game’s level of difficulty do not affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players while the Incentive and level of compute game group assumed that both independent variables do not affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players. As with the t test for dependent groups, the researchers reject the null hypotheses except for the Control group under the frustration variable since /tobt/ > tcrit =

2.021.


Table 1b. Summary T-test table for Frustration Control

group Incentive

group Level of

computer game group


Computer Game

Ḋobt 1.58 20.84 13.78 19.06 tobt 0.618 6.521 4.783 7.356 tcrit 2.021 2.021 2.021 2.021

Decision Retain Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho

Size of the Effect

0.922 0.674 1.04

The results obtained in Table 1b, T-test table for Frustration, is

quite similar to the first table except the control group wherein the null hypothesis was retained.

To evaluate the size of the effect (see Table 2 at the appendix section), the experimenters use Cohen’s method involving the statistic d. To interpret the value of d, the researchers used the criterion of Cohen that was presented in Table 3. In the control group (Aggression) the value of d is 0.434 while the rest is greater than 0.80 indicating a large effect.

Table 3a. Summary ANOVA table for Aggression Source of Variance SS df s2 F obt F crit

Rows (Incentive) 877.805 1 877.805 4.527* 3.89 Columns (Computer

Game Level of Difficulty) 1,265.045 1 1,265.045 6.524* 3.89

Rows x columns 244.205 1 244.205 1.254 3.89

Within cells 38,004.82 196 193.902 Total 40,391.875 199

*Since Fobt >Fcrit, Ho is rejected. Table 3a and 3b shows the data and analysis from aggression

and frustration questionnaires. Two-way analysis of variance allows the researchers of this experiment to evaluate the effect of two

independent variables (incentive and computer game’s level of difficulty) and the interaction between them. The experiment used fixed effects, 2x2 factorial design with independent groups. There are 50 participants per cell, 50 participants who played easy level of computer game with no incentive, 50 participants who played the easy level of computer game with incentive, 50 participants who played the difficult level of computer game without incentive and another 50 participants who played the difficult computer game with incentive, a total of 200 participants. Scores are the level of aggression and frustration measured in percentage.

Table 3b. Summary ANOVA table for Frustration Source of Variance SS df s2 F obt F crit

Rows (Incentive) 2,211.125 1 2,211.125 8.340* 3.89 Columns (Computer

Game Level of Difficulty)

2,695.415 1 2,695.415 10.167* 3.89

Rows x columns 1,317.995 1 1,317.995 4.971* 3.89

Within cells 51,962.42 196 265.114 Total 58,186.955

*Since Fobt >Fcrit, Ho is rejected Table 3b shows the summary of ANOVA results for aggression

and frustration wherein the null hypothesis specifying that for the Incentive variable (main effect), incentives do not affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players, for the Level of Computer Game variable(main effect), computer game’s level of difficulty do not affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players while for the interaction between incentive and computer game’s level of difficulty assumed that there is no interaction between incentive and computer game’s level of difficulty. With any main effects removed, the population cells means are equal.

As shown in the table, since Fobt of row and column > Fcrit =3.89, the researchers rejected the null hypotheses for the row and column


effect for both aggression and frustration. The researchers retain the hypothesis that there is no interaction between incentive and computer game’s level of difficulty for the aggression variable while rejecting the hypothesis for the frustration variable.

DISCUSSION Results from this study provide several important answers

related to the hypotheses discussed earlier. The analyses presented here fail to support the hypothesis that the presence of an incentive as a stimulus does not differentially affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players after playing a computer game. Thus, it appear that aggressive behavior and frustration is displayed after an exposure to computer games, as had been predicted by the AQ manual (Buss & Warren, 2000) which explains that high scores on this scale are often associated with the presence of irritability, frustration, emotional liability, and temperamental gesturing” (p. 14). Subjects with elevated scores on this scale experience “a high proportion of angry thoughts and generate internalized reactions to perceived assaults on their well-being by others” (p. 15).

Similarly, the hypothesis that computer games’ level of difficulty is equal in their effects on the level of aggression and frustration of the player after playing will also be rejected.

Upon reviewing the results obtained, the researchers concluded that computer games and /with incentives has a large effect on the level of aggression and frustration among male students of LPU. The hypothesis that there is no interaction effect between the presence of an incentive as stimulus and the level of computer games to be played when it comes to the level of frustration was retained while rejecting the same hypothesis for the aggression variable.

Interestingly, although males appeared to prefer to play difficult or more frustrating computer games relative to females, there was no evidence from this study to suggest that people who prefer these computer games are more innately aggressive and frustrated than

those who do not prefer such computer games, aside from gender effects.

The advancement of computer game research in the past decade has greatly helped our understanding of its effects on development. Unfortunately though, more research is still needed. The computer game industry has grown to the proportions of the movie industry, and shows no sign of stopping. With each generation of games come more realistic graphics, more violence, bigger world, more aggressive scenes and frustrating gameplay and more possibilities. In order to fully control the effect that it has on people specifically on youth today, everyone first better understand the effect it has on the personality and behaviours, and not just in the areas of aggression and frustration. As the experimenters reach this understanding hopefully developers can create games which will help the youth, expand their minds, and cautious away from the current trend of aggression and frustration in computer games.The researchers recommend the future researchers to attempt the use of other group of participants e.g. females, elementary or high school students and to use other kind of computer game to validate the results of the experiment.

Considering the popularity of computer games much more research needs to be done on this issue. Chambers and Ascione (1987) report that 100% of elementary and high school students surveyed had played computer games at least once. That was more than 20 years ago. This is an obvious indicator that computer games have entered the mainstream media, and that more research needs to be done on the effects of computer games on adolescence. The majority of research thus far has been on the negative effects of computer games, mostly due to the violence contained within. But the exact relationship is still undetermined, so research must continue. However, there are also many who hypothesize that computer games can have a positive effect on youth, and believe that it is worth time and effort to explore these possibilities.


REFERENCES Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. 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. Psychol Sci 2001;12:353-9.

Anderson CA, Dill KE. Computer games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J Pers Soc Psychol 2000;78:772-90.

Anderson, C. A., & Murphy, C. (2003). Violent video games and aggressive behavior in young women. Aggressive Behavior, 29, 423-429.

Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Heusmann, L. R., Johnson, J., Linz, D., et al. (2003). The influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 4, 81-110.

Baron, R. A. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace aggression: evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and the Type A behavior pattern. Aggressive behavior, 25, 281-296.

Bartholow, B., Bushman, B., & Sestir, M. (in press). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization to violence: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Bushman, B., & Anderson, C. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686.

Berkowitz, L. (1989). The frustration-aggression hypothesis revisited. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Roots of aggression (pp. 1-28). New York: Atherton.

Buchman, D. D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer games in the ‘90s: Childrens’ time commitment and game preference. Children Today, 24, 12-16.

Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.

Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. L. (2000). Aggression Questionnaire: Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.

Calvert, S. L., & Tan, S. (1994). Impact of virtual reality on young adults’ physiological arousal and aggressive thoughts: Interaction versus observation. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 15, 125-139.

Carnagey, N., & Anderson, C. (2005). The effects of reward and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition and behavior. Psychological Science, 16, 882-889.

Children Now (2001). Children and the Media. Retrieved July 1, 2001, from http://www.childrennow.org

Frustration-Aggression Theory - PsychWiki - A Collaborative Psychology Wiki (1).htm. Retrieved from http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Frustration-Aggression_Theory27 June 2010,

Funk, J. B., Baldacci, H. B., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence exposure in reallife, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there desensitization? Journal of Adolescence, 27, 23-39.

Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of computer game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27,5-22.

Griffiths, M. D. (1993). Are computer games bad for children? The Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 6, 401–407.

Irwin, A. R., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Cognitive tempo, violent video games, and aggressive behavior in young boys. Journal of Family Violence, 10 (3), 337-350.

Koop, E. (1982, November 10). Surgeon general sees danger in video games. New York Times, p. A-16.

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Frustration-Aggression_Theory

http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/Frustration-Aggression_Theory


Lynch, P. (1994). Type A behaviour, hostility, and cardiovascular function at rest after playing video games in teenagers. Psychosomatic Medicine, 56, 152.

Murphy JK, Alpert BS, Walker SS. Whether to measure change from baseline or absolute level in studies of children’s cardiovascular reactivity: A two-year followup. J Behav Med 1991;14:409-19.

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

Singer, J. & Antrobus, J. (1970). Imaginal Process Inventory. Center for Research in Cognition and Affect. C.U.N.Y. copyright 1966, revised 1970.

Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioural manifestations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews, 24, 417-463.

Walsh DA. Interactive violence and children: Testimony submitted to the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology, United States Senate. Minneapolis, MN: National Institute on Media and the Family, 2000, March 21 Available at: http://www.mediafamily.org/-press/senateviolence-full.shtml.

APPENDICES Appendix A. Consent Form

I agree to take part in a research study titled the interrelationship between Aggression and Frustration brought about by Computer Games with Incentives which is being conducted by Dior Grita De Torres and Edielyn Gonzalvo of the Lyceum of the Philippines University-Batangas. Dior can be reached by calling 09064250487 while Edielyn can be reached by calling 09996601254. This study is under the direction of Ms. Jovielyn Manibo of College of Education Arts and Sciences.

In order to make this study a valid one, some information about my participation will be withheld until after the study. If I am uncomfortable with what I see during the course of this experiment, I understand that I can stop taking part at any time without giving any reason, and without penalty. I understand that any information which could personally be connected to me will be kept confidential and not shared with anyone outside the research group. This personal information can only be released with my permission. If information about me is published, it will be written in a way that I cannot be recognized. However, research records may be obtained by court order. The researcher will answer any further questions about the research, after the experiment proper. I understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.

____________________ ____________________

Prof. Jovielyn Mañibo Signature of Participant


Appendix B . Demographic Sheet

Player’s Name:________Age: __Year & Section:______

How many hours do you use computer per week? ___

What percentage of this time is spent playing computer games?

25% 50% 75% 100%

How well competent are you in playing computer games?

Beginner Intermediate Advanced

Have you played The Frustration Game before? ____

If so, how many hours have you played The Frustration Game? ___

Appendix C. Questionnaires

Frustration Scale 1

1 2 3 4 5

Not frustrated at

all

A bit frustrated

Somewhat Frustrated

Frustrated

Very Frustrated

Very easy Easy Neutral Difficult

Extremely Difficult

Very well Well Normal Bad Terrible

1 2 3 4 5

How frustrated did you feel before answering this?

How frustrated do you feel right now?

How frustrated do you think you will feel after playing thefrustration game?

How frustrated do you feel towards other people?

How difficult is life for you?

How well do you think you live your life?

How many times did you feel rejected? __________


Aggression Questionaire (Buss & Perry, 1992)

Instructions: Using the 5 point scale shown below, indicate how uncharacteristic or characteristic each of

the following statements is in describing you. Place your rating in the box to the right of the statement.

1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me 2 = somewhat uncharacteristic of me

3 = neither uncharacteristic nor characteristic of me 4 = somewhat characteristic of me

5 = extremely characteristic of me

1 2 3 4 5

1. Some of my friends think I am a hot-headed.

2. If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will.

3. When people are especially nice to me, I wonder what they want.

4. I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them.

5. I have become so mad that I have broken things.

6. I can’t help getting into arguments when people disagree with me.

7. I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things.

8. Once in a while, I can’t control the urge to strike another person.

9.* I am an even-tempered person.

10. I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers.

11. I have threatened people I know.

12. I flare up quickly but get over it quickly.

13. Given enough provocation, I may hit another person.

14. When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them.

15. I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy.

16.* I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person.

17. At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.

18. I have trouble controlling my temper.

19. When frustrated, I let my irritation show.

20. I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.

21. I often find myself disagreeing with people.

22. If somebody hits me, I hit back.

23. I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode.

24. Other people always seem to get the breaks.

25. There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows.

26. I know that “friends” talk about me behind my back.

27. My friends say that I’m somewhat argumentative.

28. Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason.

29. I get into fights a little more than the average person.

Aggression Questionnaire 2 1- Strongly Disagree 2- Disagree 3- Agree 4- Strongly Agree

1 2 3 4

1. Frustration in the game affects my aggression to play more of it.

2. Frustration in the game affect s my decision to play it.

3. After playing the frustration game, it would be easier for me to commit an aggressive act.

4. After playing the frustration game, I feel it would be easier for me to become more aggressive.

5. The aggression that is prevalent with the youth of today maybe due to computer games.

6. When I am angry or stressed I am most likely to play a computer game

7. Minors (below the age of 18) should not be allowed to play violent video games.

8. I was born with aggressive behaviours.

9. I have developed aggression during my lifetime.

10. I feel that playing computer games develops permanent aggressive behaviour over time.

11. I think, computer games bring out aggression that is being suppressed temporarily.

12. Aggression is part of our life. Not only does it appear in computer games but it appears everywhere in our society.

Appendix D. Laptop (mouse, mouse pad, headset)

\

Appendix E. Incentive

Appendix F. Pen and paper

Appendix G. Figures

Figure 1. Age range of the participants

Figure 2. Level of Competency in playing computer games

Appendix H. Tables Table 1a. Summary T-test table for Aggression

Control group

Incentive group

Level of computer

game group


Computer Game

Ḋobt 6.62 18.34 19.24 21.18 tobt 3.08 7.18 7.53 9.68 tcrit 2.021 2.021 2.021 2.021

Decision Reject Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho

Size of the Effect

0.434 1.02 1.07 1.37

Table 1b. Summary T-test table for Frustration

Control group

Incentive group

Level of computer

game group


Computer Game

Ḋobt 1.58 20.84 13.78 19.06 tobt 0.618 6.521 4.783 7.356 tcrit 2.021 2.021 2.021 2.021

Decision Retain Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho Reject Ho

Size of the Effect

0.922 0.674 1.04

Table 2. Cohen’s criteria for interpreting the value of d

Value of d Interpretation of d

0.00-0.20 Small effect 0.21-0.79 Medium effect

≥0.80 Large effect

Age Range

16-17

18-19

20 and above

Level of Competency

Beginner

Intermidiate

Advanced

Table 3a. Summary ANOVA table for Aggression Source of Variance SS df s2 F obt F crit

Rows (Incentive) 877.805 1 877.805 4.527* 3.89 Columns (Computer

Game Level of Difficulty) 1,265.045 1 1,265.045 6.524* 3.89

Rows x columns 244.205 1 244.205 1.254 3.89

Within cells 38,004.82 196 193.902 Total 40,391.875 199

*Since Fobt >Fcrit, Ho is rejected.

Table 3b. Summary ANOVA table for Frustration

Source of Variance SS df s2 F obt F crit

Rows (Incentive) 2,211.125 1 2,211.125 8.340* 3.89

Columns (Computer Game Level of

Difficulty)

2,695.415 1 2,695.415 10.167* 3.89

Rows x columns 1,317.995 1 1,317.995 4.971* 3.89

Within cells 51,962.42 196 265.114

Total 58,186.955

*Since Fobt >Fcrit, Ho is rejected

Authors’ Information Dior Grita F. De Torres is currently a fourth year student taking up BS Psychology at Lyceum of the Philippines University – Batangas. She’s fond of reading novels especially the works of Sophie Kinsella, Nicholas Sparks and Dan Brown. If given a chance and time she wants to purse a Doctorate Degree and become a Clinical Psychologist. E-mail Address:

Edielyn D. Gonzalvo, BS Psychology, is now in her fourth year at the Lyceum of the Philippines University – Batangas. She was born on January 06, 1994. She loves reading romantic suspense books, watching movies and surfing the net. Someday, she wants to be a forensic psychologist. E-mail Address: [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

APPROVAL SHEET In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements ... · These studies, all of which were...

Documents

Transcript of APPROVAL SHEET In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements ... · These studies, all of which were...