Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents Case Assignment
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages
Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents Case Assignment
The main goal of the current study was to test if short-term exposure to prosocial video games can in- crease helpful and decrease hurtful behaviors in chil- dren compared to neutral and violent games. Results revealed that video games with prosocial content in- creased helpful and decreased hurtful behaviors in a short-term experimental context with children. In contrast, children’s games with violent content in- creased hurtful and decreased helpful behavior. This study adds to the existing literature in several ways: (1) it is the first to test experimental prosocial video game effects on children; (2) it provides additional validity tests of the Tangram procedure for assessing aspects of helpful and hurtful behavior; (3) it is one of a handful of experimental studies that have used vio- lent children’s video games rather than more graphic and realistic violent games.
Sestir and Bartholow (2010) recently demonstrated that some nonviolent games can decrease aggression, despite having no prosocial content. Whether a given game or game-type appears to increase or decrease aggression or prosocial behavior depends, of course, on the conditions with which it is being compared. No-game comparison conditions have been problem- atic in this domain, because they differ in so many ways from the key violent or prosocial game condi- tions. Among other things, they tend to be boring or even frustrating to participants, especially to those who expected to be playing a video game or who
believe that other participants are playing. There- fore, most video game experiments have all partici- pants play some type of game, and the best ones as- sess potential confounding variables (such as fun and frustration) and control for them statistically when necessary. In the present experiment, even after sev- eral theoretically relevant factors were accounted for, results revealed that prosocial game content increased helpful and decreased hurtful behavior relative to both violent and neutral games.
The idea of prosocial games increasing helpful be- haviors in children in the short term is encouraging. Of course, more significant is the potential for these short-term effects to produce long-term changes. In- deed, social-cognitve learning theories suggests that the processes that produce such short-term effects can, with repeated exposure, lead to long-term in- creases in the accessibility and use of prosocial knowledge structures (including behavioral scripts), as demonstrated in cross-sectional and longitudinal studies [Gentile et al., 2009]. Although results from the present study are encouraging in finding be- havioral effects of prosocial games, it is important to study the underlying mechanisms responsible for these behavioral effects.
Previous studies on proso- cial video game effects suggest that these behavioral effects might be due to changes in cognition [e.g., Gen- tile et al., 2009; Greitemeyer and Osswald, 2010, 2011] as well as affect [Greitemeyer and Osswald, 2010; Saleem et al., 2012]. Note that the studies testing the effects of prosocial games on affect have used an adult sample. Future research should explore this link us- ing a sample of children. It would be ideal to test the effects of prosocial video game content on prosocial and antisocial cognitions, affect, and behaviors within the same study in order to do meditational analyses exploring the underlying mechanisms responsible for prosocial effects on prosocial behaviors.
Similar to the behavioral study by Gentile et al. (2009), the present study assessed helpful and hurt- ful behaviors using a single help/hurt tangram mea- sure. This method has an important advantage in that helpful and hurtful behaviors can be assessed simulta- neously. Although helpful and hurtful behaviors are conceptually distinct, they often are inversely related especially in the short-term real world contexts. For example, when people engage in a hurtful behavior toward a target person, they seldom simultaneously engage in helpful behavior toward that same target. By allowing participants the option to help, be neu- tral, or hurt another individual, this tangram measure has the potential to assess a range of interpersonal be- haviors related to conflict.
286 Saleem et al.
However, an important limitation of this design is that individuals who score high on helpfulness by se- lecting a greater number of easy puzzles will tend to score low on hurtfulness, and vice versa. Indeed, even after using our “greater than one” scoring proce- dure, the correlation between the helpful and hurtful scores remained at r = −.51. Thus, there is an is- sue of nonindependence in the way hurtfulness and helpfulness is assessed using the tangram measure. In previous studies [Gentile et al., 2009] and in the current study, this concern has been addressed in at least three ways: (1) ignoring the medium cate- gory for the analyses, thus reducing interdependence; (2) using the number of easy and difficult puzzles greater than one instead of raw scores so partici- pants can obtain a score of 0 on both helpfulness and hurtfulness; and (3) entering both helpful and hurtful scores as a within-subject factor. An alterna- tive scoring procedure is to derive one overall score by assigning equidistant weights to hard, medium, and easy choices, such −1, 0, +1.4 In the present study, this overall score yielded significant main ef- fects of game type, F(2, 152) = 4.43, P < .05, and trait aggression, F(1, 152) = 5.31, P < .05. The pat- tern of means was as expected, with the most positive scores by participants who had played the prosocial game and the most negative scores by those who had played a violent game.
This contrast pattern was sig- nificant, F(1, 152) = 8.40, P < .01, and accounted for 95% of the between groups variance. Of course, none of these solutions completely solve the nonin- dependence question, either with the tangram task or with the broader conceptual questions of whether people can (or do) try to help and hurt others at the same time. Nonetheless, the present study found that prosocial and violent video games with unreal- istic cartoonish characters significantly affected chil- dren’s behavior in a task where they could help or hurt another child.
We believe that there is a need for continued research using novel measures, such as the tangram task, in order to fully understand video game effects on children. Furthermore, additional work with the tangram task is needed to explore its conceptual and methodological advantages and lim- itations within the prosocial and aggressive behavior literatures.
4Note that statistically this is identical to assigning 1, 2, & 3 to the number of hard, medium, and easy tangram choices. We prefer −1, 0, & +1 because negative and positive scores indicate a preponderance of hard vs. easy choices.
Anderson CA, Gentile DA, Buckley K. 2007. Violent video game effects on children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press.
Anderson CA, Sakamoto A, Gentile DA, Ihori N, Shibuya A, Yukawa S, et al. 2008. Longitudinal effects of violent video games aggres- sion in Japan and the United States. Pediatrics 122:1067–1072.
Anderson CA, Dill KE. 2000. Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J Pers Soc Psychol 78:772–790.
Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ, Sakamoto A, et al. 2010. Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Psychol Bull 136:151–173.
Buckley KE, Anderson CA. 2006. A theoretical model of the effects and consequences of playing video games. In: Vorderer P, Bryant J, editors. Playing video games—motives, responses, and conse- quences. Mahwah, NJ: LEA. pp 363–378.
Bushman BJ, Huesmann LR. 2006. Short-term and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults. Arch Pediat Adol Med 160:348–352.
Buss AH, Perry M. 1992. The aggression questionnaire. J Pers Soc Psychol 63:452–459.
Gentile DA. 2009. Pathological video game use among youth 8 to 18: A national study. Psychol Sci 20:594–602.
Gentile DA, Anderson CA, Yukawa S, Ihori N, Saleem M, Ming LK, et al. 2009. The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial be- haviors: International evidence from correlational, experimental, and longitudinal Studies. Pers Soc Psychol B 35:752–763.
Gentile DA, Gentile JR. 2008. Violent video games as exemplary teach- ers: A conceptual analysis. J Youth Adolesc 9:127–141.
Greitemeyer T, Osswald S. 2009. Prosocial video games reduce aggres- sive cognitions. J Exp Soc Psychol 45:896–900.
Greitemeyer T, Osswald S. 2010. Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior. J Pers Soc Psychol 98:211–221.
Greitemeyer T, Osswald S. 2011. Playing prosocial video games in- creases the accessibility of prosocial thoughts. J Soc Psychol 151:121–128.
Huesmann LR, Kirwil L. 2007. Why observing violence increases the risk of violent behavior in the observer. In: Flannery DJ, Vazsonyi AT, Waldman ID, editors. The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. pp 545–570.
Hopf WH, Huber GL, Weis RH. 2008. Media violence and youth violence: A 2-year longitudinal study. J Media Psychol 20:79–96.
Maier JA, Gentile DA. 2012. Learning aggression through the me- dia: Comparing psychological and communication approaches. In: Shrum LJ, editor. The psychology of entertainment media: Blur- ring the lines between entertainment and persuasion, 2nd edition. New York: Taylor & Francis. pp 267–299.
Moller I, Krahe B. 2009. Exposure to violent video games and aggres- sion in German adolescents: A longitudinal analysis. Aggr Behav 35:75–89.
Reynes E, Lorant J. 2001. Do competitive martial arts attract aggres- sive children? Percept Motor Skills 93:382–386.
Reynes E, Lorant J. 2002. Effect of traditional judo training on ag- gressiveness among young boys. Percept Motor Skills 94:21–25.
Reynes E, Lorant J. 2004. Competitive martial arts and aggressiveness: A 2-yr. longitudinal study among young boys. Percept Motor Skills 98:103–115.
Saleem M, Anderson CA, Gentile DA. 2012. Effects of prosocial, neutral, and violent video games on college students’ affect. Aggr Behav 38:263–271.
Helping and Hurting 287
Sestir MA, Bartholow BD. 2010. Violent and nonviolent video games produce opposing effects on aggressive and prosocial outcomes. J Exp Soc Psychol 46:934–942.
Swing EL, Gentile DA, Anderson CA. 2008. Violent video games: Learning processes and outcomes. In: Ferdig RE, editor. Hand- book of research on effective electronic gaming in educa- tion. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference. pp 876– 892.
Wallenius M, Punamaki R. 2008. Digitial game violence and direct aggression in adolescence: A longitudinal study of the roles of sex,
age, and parent-child communication. J Appl Dev Psychol 29:286– 294.
Walters GD, Ronen T, Rosenbaum M. 2010. The latent structure of childhood aggression: A taxometric analysis of self-reported and teacher-rated aggression in Israeli schoolchildren. Psychol Assess 22:628–637.
Zhen S, Xie H, Zhang W, Wang S, Li D. 2011. Exposure to violent video games and Chinese adolescents’ physical aggression: Gen- der and developmental differences. Comput Hum Behav 27:1675– 1687.
Copyright of Aggressive Behavior is the property of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. and its content may not be copied
or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder’s express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Violent Video Game Effects on Children and Adolescents Case Assignment
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!
Tired of getting an average grade in all your school assignments, projects, essays, and homework? Try us today for all your academic schoolwork needs. We are among the most trusted and recognized professional writing services in the market.
We provide unique, original and plagiarism-free high quality academic, homework, assignments and essay submissions for all our clients. At our company, we capitalize on producing A+ Grades for all our clients and also ensure that you have smooth academic progress in all your school term and semesters.
High-quality academic submissions, A 100% plagiarism-free submission, Meet even the most urgent deadlines, Provide our services to you at the most competitive rates in the market, Give you free revisions until you meet your desired grades and Provide you with 24/7 customer support service via calls or live chats.