One big problem with many of the studies of video game violence is that they compare different games. Sure, people might behave more aggressively after playing Carmaggeddon instead of Tetris — they’re completely different games! What would be more impressive is if we could simply remove some of the violence from a game and see if the violence itself — rather than, say, the game’s storyline — is what’s actually the root of the aggressive behavior.
Fortunately, the standard settings of Mortal Kombat: Deadly Alliance allowed a team led by Christopher Barlett to do just that.
They had avid gamers play Mortal Kombat on a Playstation 2 using one of four levels of bloodiness, from Maximum (where combatants not only bled profusely, but the blood pooled on the ground and could be realistically tracked around the combat arena when players stepped in it) to None (where even a brutal hit with a sword or other weapon would cause no bleeding).
Before and after the gaming session, players’ hostile thoughts and feelings were measured with a survey, and heart rate was taken at several points to measure arousal. Here are the results:
As the game got bloodier, hostility levels after playing the game, especially compared to pre-game hostility, were significantly higher. The results for arousal were less clear-cut, but similar:
Arousal levels in the bloodiest version of the game were significantly higher later in the game than at the start of the game. However, this appears to be primarily due to a low initial arousal level. The researchers don’t offer an explanation for why this might be — perhaps the sight of so much blood was initially shocking, but as gamers became accustomed to it, it was arousing.
The researchers also analyzed how often players used a sword in the game, which inflicts more damage, and, they argue, is therefore a direct measure of aggression. Those in the bloodier conditions — Medium and Maximum — used the sword significantly more often than the Low and No-blood conditions.
The study was repeated among non-gamers, with similar results. Overall these results do suggest that the violence itself in a game is what leads to more aggressive behavior and attitudes. But there are some problems with the study. To me the “use of sword” in-game isn’t a real measure of aggression. Players know the game is make-believe and they aren’t really hurting anyone. This is different from other studies where participants believe they are actually hurting real people. We might speculate that similar results would be found in a case like this, but we can’t know for sure until an actual study is done.
Despite these problems, this study offers convincing evidence that violence itself, rather than other aspects of game-play, may be responsible for real-world aggressive behavior and hostile attitudes.
C Barlett, R Harris, C Bruey (2008). The effect of the amount of blood in a violent video game on aggression, hostility, and arousal Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44 (3), 539-546 DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2007.10.003