Violent video games, boys and the difference between game-play aggression and real life aggression

Violent video games, boys and the difference between game-play aggression and real life aggression Universtity of Amsterdam Communication Science Youth and Media Nanouk Daatselaar 5740622 28-06-2013 Teacher: M. J. van der Goot

Abstract This present research aims to provide a valuable contribution to this field by focusing on the underlying motivations of gamers and their views towards violence and aggression within, during and after playing games, in order to create a more nuanced understanding of the link between violent behaviour and violent video games. In order to explore various aspects of this type of behaviour, the motives and meanings of two groups of boys will be compared; one group of boys without behavioural problems or special education and one group of boys, following a special education program, due to their behavioural problems, such as for instance Pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). The outcomes of this study will add a new dimension to the violent video game debate, with valuable insights into what these gamers do in the games they play, in which context gamers play these games and why some act aggressive in real life. Despite the suggestive link between violent video games and aggressive behavior made by the media, gamers use violent video games to express and coop with feelings of anger and aggression. Also, experimenting with feelings in different situations and environment especially gamer with behavioural problems or a special education. Media speculates on negative outcomes but leaves positive outcomes like the social aspect and emotional regulation out of consideration. 2

Table of Content 1. Introduction.4. 2. Theoretical framework and key concepts in violent video game research.8. 2.1 Six main models in violent videogame research..9. 2.2 Measuring aggression and methodological issues...11. 2.3 Humanistic approach in game research...13. 2.4 Low self-esteem, empathy and aggressive personality...14. 3. Methodology.....16. 3.1 Participants..17. 3.2 Interviews 17. 3.3 Analysis.. 18. 4. Results...19. 4.1 Participants without behavioural problems or special education...19. 4.2 Participants with behavioural problems or special education.24. 4.3 Comparison and differences between the two groups.33 5. Conclusions and discussion.. 33. 3

1. Introduction Since 1950 there has been an on-going debate on media violence and its potential effect on the behaviour of teenagers and young people. Games are becoming more realistic than ever before and media continue to speculate about a causal relationship between the popularity of playing violent video games and aggressive behaviour. Some examples of media blaming violent video games are the cases of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, Anders Breivik and James Holmes (NRC 2012; Volkskrant 2012; BN de Stem 2012). These men used games like Quake, Doom and Call of Duty Modern Warfare to train their shooting skills and to prepare themselves for the horrible crimes they committed. Holmes shot 12 and injured 58 people. Breivik shot 69 youngsters and Harris and Kleblod killed 13 people. All of these men played first person shooter games (NRC 2012; Volkskrant 2012; BN de Stem 2012). The causal relationship between playing violent video games and committing crimes of violence is often highlighted, but the media cannot simply blame violent video games without the modification of people with a not normal preference for violence. Ferguson (2008) notes that a particular fascination with violence can prove to be a better indicator of violent behaviour than the interest in violent games and this might have well been the case with Harris, Klebold, Breivik and Holmes. Ferguson (2008) urges media to look beyond the content of violent video games and to consider the role of personality traits, in order to gain more comprehensive understanding of aggressive behaviour. So far, studies on the causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour either suggests that games have positive effects (Griffiths, 1999), negative effects (Anderson & Bushman, 2001), or no effect at all (Scott, 1995). These inconclusive outcomes are the result of using various ways in defining and measuring aggression. In order to fully understand the causal relationship between violent video games and aggressive behaviour, it is important to consider the motives, which gamers have to play these 4

types of games and their attitude towards the aggression displayed in the games. Gamers are the experts when it comes to playing video games and in the field of the usage of these games and therefore they bring a valuable perspective to the violent video game discussion. The meaning they attach to playing these violent video games and their view on the differences between real life aggression and game aggression can provide useful insights for research on this topic. The main focus of aggression models and theories (Bensley & van Eenwyk, 2001) lies on the process of consuming input (i.e. the content of violent video games), and output (i.e. aggressive behaviour). Insights into the motives and perspectives of gamers can help in gaining a better understanding of the complex link between violent games and aggression and maybe even a step closer in finding answers to the violent video game debate. Despite the valuable contribution which gamers perspectives can offer, it has received little attention in the gaming and aggression literature. This present research aims to provide a valuable contribution to this field by focusing on the underlying motivations of gamers and their views towards violence and aggression within, during and after playing games, in order to create a more nuanced understanding of the link between violent behaviour and violent video games. To do this the following research questions were developed: 1. What are the underlying motives of gamers to play violent videogames? 2. What is their definition of aggression in real life and what is their definition of aggression in these violent video games? 3. Is there a difference in these definitions of game aggression and real life aggression? First, it is necessary to define what is meant by violent video games in this present study. Violent video games are often first person shooter games, which are three-dimensional 5

platform games where the player looks through the eyes of the shooter, or third person shooter games, where the player can see the game character that he or she is controlling. The gamer experiences the actions of the game character through the eyes of the protagonist into the virtual world, while shooting virtual enemies. The goal of these games is to conquer the opponent by killing al members of the antagonist (Bonanno & Kommers, 2005). Video games are different from previous media in the way that games are lean forward media. This means that gamers, by playing the game, are actively involved in determining the outcome of the video game. Television, on the contrary, allows the viewer to lean back and simply enjoy the show without any responsibility for the outcome of the TV show or movie. The directors and broadcasters have already determined the outcome of the movie and viewers are therefore passive spectators. Therefore, when someone plays violent video games, the gamer is primary responsible for the actions of the game character and needs to act aggressively and violently when playing first person shooter games. Experiencing what the game character is doing and actually controlling the buttons of the console makes gaming more intense and emotionally engaging than any other media, such as for example books or films. This research focuses on boys, since the gaming industry mainly targets boys because boys generally tend to be more interested in playing violent video games than girls (Lucas & Sherry, 2004). Ferguson (2008) already pointed out that an unnatural preference for violence could be an indicator for violent behaviour. In order to explore various aspects of this type of behaviour, the motives and meanings of two groups of boys will be compared; one group of boys without behavioural problems or special education and one group of boys, following a special education program, due to their behavioural problems, such as for instance Pervasive development disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). By comparing two groups of boy s possible differences in motives and defining aggression will be explored, because previous research mainly focussed on only one group (Lemmens, Bushman & Konijn, 2006). 6

It is important in this research field to explore why some gamers bring the aggressive behaviour that is practised in games, into the real world. The outcomes of this study will add a new dimension to the violent video game debate, with valuable insights into what these gamers do in the games they play, in which context gamers play these games and why some act aggressive in real life. Hence, this research is socially and practically relevant by adding a new dimension to the ongoing debate on media violence and by focussing on the ones that are discussed in the media, i.e. the gamers. Instead of focussing on what do games do in gamers?, scholars should focus on the question what do gamers do to games? The emphasis needs to be on what boys do to these games and the possible negative outcome aggression and integrating a gamer s perspective into the debate is an important part of this present study. 7

2. Theoretical framework and key concepts in violent videogame research According to Williams (2005), there are two types of approaches within violent video game research and both will be discussed briefly, in order to gain more insight in the pros and cons of both approaches and in order to substantiate the preference for the humanistic approach. First, there are the social scientists who try to understand the effects of video games (Anderson & Bushman, 2001) and most of game research falls within this approach. This approach focuses only on the effects that gamers can experience during and after playing violent video games. These effects can either have positive or negative outcomes, like the increase of aggressive behaviour (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). Most of the research in this approach are experiments, surveys or free play observations and focus on mostly two types of video games, non-violent and violent, which are compared with one another. Secondly, there is the humanistic approach, which tries to give meaning to the context of video games. This approach studies the motivations, experiences and attitudes of gamers who play violent video games. Within the humanistic approach, focus groups and interviews are used to explore the motives and opinions of gamers. This present study lies within the humanistic approach, because it explores the meaning that gamers give to playing violent video games, their interpretation of aggression in real life and in video games and the motives they have for playing violent video games. As stated earlier, despite the valuable contribution that gamers perspectives can offer, it has received little attention in the gaming and aggression literature and therefore main models in violent game research are embedded within the social scientist approach. Given the fact that these are the main models used by social scientist in violent video game research, these models cant be left out of consideration. Considering that the perspectives of gamers can help in gaining a better understanding of the complex link between violent games and aggression and maybe even bring us step closer in finding answers to the violent video game 8

debate. This next section will, therefore briefly discuss the six theoretical and theories used in the social scientist approach in order to gain a better insight in previous research within this field and to substantiate the preference for the humanistic approach within this present study. 2.1 Six main models in violent videogame research This section will briefly discuss six main models in which much of violent video game research is embedded. These models all try to measure and explain aggressive outcomes, but with different outcome. Four of these six models try to give an explanation for negative outcome after playing violent video games. First, there is the social comparison theory, which states that aggressive behaviour is observed and imitated from a role model like parents, peers or teachers. When someone sees one of these role models act a certain way, the behaviour can be copied and imitated. Game characters can also become role models and aggressive behaviour within games can be imitated after playing violent video games. The second theory is the arousal theory, which states that when someone plays a violent game and becomes aroused, the player stays aroused after playing the videogame. This can lead to aggressive behaviour in everyday life and not just the virtual environment. The third theory is the cognitive priming theory or information-processing model, which states that structures in the brain of the gamer are triggered when playing violent games. These structures will lead towards a more violent attitude and will cause an aggressive paradigm, which eventually leads to more aggressive behaviour. This theory suggests that aggression is becoming more and more acceptable and it might change people s future attitude towards violence. The fourth theory is the General Affective Aggression Model, which is a general model that combines the previously explained social learning arousal and cognitive processing theory. This model claims that exposure to violent media leads to an increase in violent thoughts, feelings and aggressive behaviour. This leads to a short-term increase of aggression for that particular 9

gamer. Playing violent video games will cause violent thoughts and feelings and these thoughts and feelings stay present even after someone is done with the game. So, if someone s little brother or sister comes along and starts arguing or wrangle, the gamer can react more aggressively then he normally would, because of the already present aggressive feelings and thoughts (Bensley & van Eenwyk, 2001: 244-254). The other two models try to give an explanation for positive outcomes, or no outcomes, after playing games. The first of these theories is the Catharsis theory, which states that violent games provide players with a safe environment to experiment with aggressive feelings. Playing violent video games can be a safe outlet for aggressive behaviour. While playing a violent game, gamers can release feelings of aggression, so that they do not have to act aggressively in real life. The second theory is the Drive reduction theory, which is comparable to the Catharsis theory. It states that playing violent video games manages aggressive behaviour. Playing games leads to a reduction in aggressive behaviour because players can express their aggression in a safe environment. Drive reduction theory differs, from Catharsis in elaboration because drive reduction theory is more detailed than the Catharsis. The principles of these theories, however, are similar (Bensley & van Eenwyk, 2001: 244-254). Despite all the different models and theories within the social scientist approach there are still undefined elements and unanswered questions within the field of violent video games research. Therefore, this research will not peruse theories or models from the social scientist approach and explore other possible explanations that might be brought forward by the users themselves. Studies on the causal link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour either shown inconclusive outcomes or the inconclusive outcomes is the result of using various ways in defining and measuring aggression. 10

2.2 Measuring aggression and methodological issues The models or theories used in the social scientist approach try to explain aggressive behaviour after playing violent videogames. There is much research done on aggression and violent video games, but with conflicting findings and a lack of coherence within the result sections of previous research. This incoherence is to a large extent caused by different ways of measuring and defining aggression (Dill & Dill, 1999 Grifftith, 1999 & Sherry, 2001). Free play is one of the ways aggressive behaviour is measured and some remarks can be made about using this method. Free play entails that children are observed after playing a violent video game to see if there is any increase in aggressive behaviour during free play. Dill and Dill (1999) and Grifftith (1999) conclude that after playing a violent videogame, children show an increase in aggressive behaviour while playing with other children. There are also gender differences, girls tend to become more aggressive after playing violent video games than boys. Both studies conclude that not the games but free play itself can contribute to aggressive behaviour and, therefore, this way of measuring is not fitting to measure aggression in game research. Playing with other children and the interaction between the children could contribute to the aggressive behaviour, which leads to a spurious effect of the causal relationship between playing violent video games and aggressive behaviour. During free play Dill and Dill (1999) and Grifftith (1999) mentioned gender differences in game research, which could be explained by preferences for the type of games and the skills necessary for playing video games, as defined by Bonanno and Kommers (2005) put forward. They state that men and women are different in spatial cognition. Men are more accurate, finish tasks faster, are better in localising, orienting, mental orientation of 3D objects and have better control skills over game characters. Women are better when it comes to language, identifying pictures and verbally recognizing and interpreting emotions. Women prefer puzzle-like games, because of the challenge and excitement. Men prefer violent video 11

games, like the shooting platform and first person shooter games because of the challenge and social interaction between online players. Men have a natural preference for violent video games, because they are naturally equipped with the skills necessary to play these games. This could be an explanation why girls become more aggressive during free play. For boys it is natural easier to play violent video games and girls can get frustrated with not naturally possessing the skills necessary to play these games (Bonanno & Kommers, 2005). These differences could be an explanation for the gender differences in preference for violent video games among boys, the increase in aggressive behaviour during free play for girls but it is not an explanation why some men take the violence outside of the game into the real world. Besides the differences in behaviour during free play, Sherry (2001) makes an important remark on the outcomes of a survey, in which he asked participants about their aggression or the willingness to help or hurt someone. The outcomes of the survey differ from observations made on aggressive behaviour during free play. Measuring aggression through a survey is a way of measuring aggression, but feelings and thoughts will not necessarily lead to actual behaviour. Asking participants about how they feel after playing violent video games could measure aggression, but this could lead to a higher level of aggression then measuring through physical characteristics. Sherry (2001) states that there is a difference in participants feelings and thoughts of aggression and expressing the aggressive feelings through an aggressive deed. So, the outcomes of a survey are different than the aggressive behaviour observed during free play. Measuring aggression through a survey shows higher levels of aggression than measuring through behavioural observations, like free play or experiments. When asking someone through a survey if they feel aggressive would obviously lead to higher outcomes, but whether or not it can lead to actual aggressive behaviour is another question and not measurable, by using this method. Measuring aggression by observing free play or through a survey influences the outcome (Sherry, 2001). 12

Due to their conflicting findings, incoherent results and methodological shortcomings, previous studies fail to provide any significant answers for the public debate. In order to gain a better insight in game behaviour and motives there needs to be a broader view on possible definitions of game aggression, aggression in real life and the differences between those two. This can lead to much needed alterative perceptions, a different perspective and to new ways of measuring aggression in game research. 2.3 Humanistic approach in game research The difference between game violence and real life violence is still a missing link in game research and in order to understand the difference, research should take a closer look into the motives of gamers who play these violent video games. Where the social science approach focuses on the effects of violent video games, the humanistic approach focuses mainly on the motives for playing violent video games and the reasons of the appeal of violent video games and prior to comparing the two groups of boys there will be a short introduction into findings of previous research. Olson, Kutner and Warner (2008) formulated six different motives why boys like violent video games. First, it can provide a way of expressing their fantasy of power and glory. Secondly, boys might identify with aspects of the game characters, like skills and personality. Third, is the challenge, exploration and mastery of violence, which makes the game more fun because these are aspects of violent video games one cannot perform in real life. Fourth, the emotional regulation, coping with anger and stress makes the violent videogames appealing. Playing violent video games can serve as an outlet for emotional expression and a form of distraction. The fifth reason is that games serve as a social tool. Playing games is part of social activities and discussions among friends. The last appeal would be learning new skills. By practising new games with different preferences, boys can practise skills in the games that could help them in real life. 13

The research of Olson, Kutner and Warner (2008) on the motives of gamers is conducted among boys but as stated earlier by Ferguson (2008) who urges media to look beyond the content of violent video games and to consider the role of personality traits for a more comprehensive understanding of aggressive behaviour. Ferguson implies that boys who exhibit violent behaviour could have a special interest for violence but Ferguson doesn t substantiate his assumptions with empirical evidence. Also, special interest in violence is a very broad and vague statement and difficult to explore or to research. Previous exploring research on aggressive personalities shows a preference for violent content and violent video games (Dill, Anderson, Anderson and Deuser, 1997) and to prevent excluding any possible elements or aspects of special interest for violence the second group of boys is therefore kept as accessible as possible. 2.4 Low self-esteem, empathy and aggressive personality Social scientists have done some research on aspects of personality and behavioural problems to search for aspects of special interest in violence. People with a low self-esteem tend to play more violent video games than people with a high self-esteem. A literature review by Dill and Dill (1998) found that people with a low self-esteem become more aggressive after playing violent games. That people with a low self-esteem have a natural preference for playing violent video games, could lead to a higher level of aggression and a natural preference for aggressive behaviour. The interplay with having a low self-esteem and a preference for aggression could lead to playing more violent video games and will cause aggressive behaviour. However, the same remarks and methodological issues mentioned by Sherry (2001), Grifftith (1999) and Dill and Dill (1999) themselves can be made about these results. Not only low self-esteem could be an indicator for aggressive behaviour. According to Anderson and Dill (2000), a preference for violence and aggression also associated with a 14

lower self-perception and social acceptance. According to Anderson and Dill, boys who lack empathy and have a more aggressive personality, have a higher preference for violent games. Lemmens, Bushman and Konijn (2006) state that boys, who are naturally drawn to violent games, show a higher level of aggressive behaviour and they are less able to be emphatic. This can eventually lead to an increase in appreciation and use of violent games. Someone with a more aggressive personality will expect more aggressive behaviour during social interaction, even if they are not directly involved in social interaction. They have more aggressive thoughts and feelings and expect others to act more aggressively because certain scripts and behaviour are linked to aggressive thoughts and feelings. Someone with a more aggressive personality will assimilate the behaviour of others, which could happen in real life but also happen in movies or video games, much more often with aggressive structures and scripts, because these structures and scripts are more top of mind. Their reaction to the behaviour of others will be more easily processed and evaluated within an aggressive script. The reaction to someone s behaviour can also be more aggressive if someone has a more aggressive personality and preference for violent video games (Dill, Anderson, Anderson and Deuser, 1997). All these different aspects of someone s personality or preference for violent content could be a possible indicator for violent behaviour and, as previously stated by Ferguson (2008) a not natural preference for violence could be an indicator for violent behaviour. These are the reasons why this present study aims to assemble possible indicators or moderators of the motives and meanings of gamers and by comparing two groups of Dutch boys with behavioural problems to a group of Dutch boys without behavioural problems. 15

3. Methodology To gain insight in the motives of Dutch boys who play violent video games and their definition of game aggression, this research employs a qualitative method of in-depth interviews. In-depth interviews were chosen to experience and encounter the participant s behaviour and their opinion on game behaviour and aggression. To reveal underlying motives and actual game behaviour, gamers need to be interviewed. A survey would not be sufficient in revealing their motives and behaviour because interaction with the participants makes it possible to discuss answers. Another reason for in-depth interviews is that there are different theories and hypotheses in the field of game research but none of these theories and hypothesis give a clear answer or explanation for the aggression that might occur during and after gaming. While exploring their opinion on aggression and game violence there could be a possibility to exclude some of these theories and hypothesis and come one step closer to finding the answers in the debate around violent video games. In qualitative research, the researcher is the primary research instrument (Croker, 2008). This has two aspects. First, is the so-called observer effect, which entails the researcher and it is possible that they try to give answers that they think the researcher wants to hear. I have tried to mitigate this effect by undertaking the interviews in a to the participant familiar setting. Second, personal aspects and elements of the researchers could influence the interpretative analysis. Intellectual baggage, life experiences, gender age, ethnicity, cultural background, politics and religious beliefs could all contribute to the interpretation and possible explanations the researcher conducts during the research project. This may colour their perception of reality that they develop with the participants. It is important to be constantly aware of all of these priors mentioned aspects of qualitative research and systematically reflect on one s own position as a researcher and the impact this might have on participants and research settings (Croker, 2009). 16

3.1 Participants The participants in this research were Dutch boys, who lived in conurbation of Western Holland and who come from different social economical backgrounds. A total of twelve boys participated in this research. The selection criteria for the participants included their age and gender (boys between 11 and 20 years old) and they had to play videogames on a daily basis. The participants were classified in two different groups. One group of participants were diagnosed with behavioural problems or were send to a school with special education. The other group of participates were not diagnosed with behavioural problems or a special education. The group without behavioural problems or special education were between eleven to twenty years old (M=14.6). The participants with behavioral problems or with a special education were between twelve and nineteen years old (M=15). The group of participants without behavioural problems were recruited through social media and social network of the researcher. The participants who were diagnosed with behavioural problems or with special education were recruited from two health facilities that are specialized in working with children who have behavioural problems or a game addiction. These Dutch health institutions are Spirit and Jellinek and they were willing to contact and introduce possible participants for this research. All participants were presented with a small gift for participating in this research. 3.2 Interviews Interviews were used to elicit participant perspectives. They were held within the period of May 2013 to June 2013. The duration of these sessions was between forty minutes and an hour. Beforehand the participants were given an explanation of the research, the goal, the duration and that they could stop their participation at any given time. The information was also given to them in writing and informed consent was obtained from the parents or 17

caretakers. All interviews were recorded and were copied out into transcripts to be coded afterwards. The interviews were held in the familiar environment of the participants homes to make them feel at ease as much as possible and to help mitigate any potential threat that interviews may pose (Blommaert and Dong 2010). The interviews contained six topics, which were mentioned to the participants beforehand. The first topic was an introduction and short explanation of the goal of the interview. In this introduction the participants were asked to present themselves. The second topic focussed on their game behaviour. Questions included which games they like or dislike, the amount of time that they spend playing games and asked for some examples. The third topic contained questions on their motives and try to find out why they preferred these types of games and what they disliked. They were also again asked to give some examples. The fourth topic contained questions about their feelings when they play video games. The fifth topic was about game characters, their favourite characters and identification with these characters. The last topic was on aggression during and after playing violent videogames. To make them feel at ease the researcher underlined that there are no right or wrong answers and that the main point and most important section of the interview was to give their own opinion on the motives and game behaviour. 3.3 Analysis For the analysis of the interviews were coded using the qualitative research program HyperResearch. After the interviews were held and recorded the recordings were transcribed and put into the research program HyperResearch. The different interviews were coded openly. The codes that were used during the analysis were aggression, feelings during gaming, feeling during gaming when winning, feelings during gaming when loosing, fun parts gaming, less fun parts gaming, motives gaming, type of game, lean forward media, goals, negative 18

reaction, feelings, identification, reality versus game, personality, aggressive behaviour, game addiction, different type aggression, cause aggressive behaviour, tips preventing aggression during and after gaming. These codes were used during the coding of the twelve interviews. The same codes were used for both groups of participants. To make sure that the samples of data are comparable to one another, the numbers of participants in both groups are the same. 4. Results The results will be discussed on the basis of the interview guide that was used during the interviews. First, the group of boys without behavioural problems were coded and will be discussed. Second, the group of boys with behavioural problems or special education were coded and will be discussed. Within the next chapter the comparison and the differences of both groups will be discussed. 4.1 Participants without behavioural problems or special education The participants played different types of video games, which were coded into four types of video games: fantasy games, sports games, adventure games and shooters. Some examples of the different types of games are Modern Warfare, FIFA 13 and League of Legends. An important remark can be made, every boy mentioned Call of Duty as the most important and most played shooter game. When participants were asked about their game behaviour there are two types of genres that could be distinguished; reality versus fantasy. The first group participants preferred games that were based on reality, like sports games and shooters. The other group of participants preferred games that were based on fantasy. Some examples of sports games are FIFA 13 and NBA some examples of shooters are Call of Duty and HALO. The participants who preferred sports games played FIFA 13 and NBA and practiced these sports in real life. 19

They mainly used the teams they supported in real life as characters in the video game. If they supported FC Barcelona in real-life they also played with this team in the game. Their choice for characters was based on their preferences for certain teams or players in real life. They wanted the characters to appear as in real life and as close to reality as possible. The construction of the team had to be like reality; even the shirts, shoes and tattoos needed to look like what the players I real life were wearing. The other groups of participants, the group who preferred fantasy games liked League of Legends, Skyrim and World of Warcraft. The participants who played fantasy games wanted the graphics to appear just like reality but the characters or the storyline needed to be as far from reality as possible. When playing these games, they want to escape reality and experience aspects of the game that can t be done in real life. Boy (20 years) Ofcourse it is fun to play a game but I prefer a game with things I ve never seen before, things that can never occur in real life. Dragons, magic and plot twists were mentioned as ideal subjects of role-playing games. The games varied from online games, mostly played on the computer, to offline games, which were played on the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3. Both online and offline games were played together with friends out of their social network or with strangers they met on the Internet. Playing together online means, being at home, playing video games with the use of Skype to communicate with each other. Skype is used for games on the computer, to discuss strategies and to communicate with team members and it is an integrated aspect for communication during game sessions. The participants were asked about their motives to play video games yielded six main reasons for playing video games. Some of these motives are comparable to the motives of the second group of participants. The motives are discussed below. The similarities with the literature and the differences between groups are discussed in the next chapter. 20

Leisure. The participants played video games in their spared time and this could be with friends playing together online or together offline. When they re bored playing video games is a way to pass the time. Boy (16 years) It s fun when you come home and a friend asks you to come online and we play together. Escaping reality. Participants who played fantasy games mentioned escaping reality as one of the reasons they played these types of games. Situations or experiences that would never occur in real life like dragons, magic or medieval storylines were features the boys preferred. Boy (20 years) Because life is sometimes boring and therefore gaming can be a sort of escaping, I guess. Not being bound to rules. In the game the boys can do things, which they can t do in real life. This could well be because it s physically impossible, like being able to dunk a basketball or the do all sorts of soccer tricks or because they aren t allowed to do such things in real life. Boy (11 years) I think that the reason why people and children like games is that they can do stuff they can t do in real life. I would never do such stuff in real life and it gives you a cool feeling. Lean forward media. The participants mentioned being able to determine the outcomes of the game with the freedom of choice and the various options they are given while engaging in their virtual reality. The gamer is the one in charge determining the outcome. Boy (11 years) I just think it is more interesting than a book because you actually see the things happening and you are the one doing these things. You can determine everything. The effort. The participants mentioned the amount of time that needed to be invested in these video games as an important motive for playing video games. Playing together in a team and depending on each other and maybe even entering the world championships of World of Warcraft was mentioned as a main goal. Discussing strategies, mutual online interaction during hundreds of hours is part of fun, which these participants mentioned as fundamental 21

motives for playing these games. Boy (18 years) I like the effort you need to put into the game. It s not dependent on external factors; you are the one responsible for the outcome. The comparison with experienced gamers on YouTube. Experienced gamers make video clips of their game experiences and post these clips on YouTube. One boy mentioned that he wanted to be as good as those experienced gamers he watched on YouTube. Boy (11 years) You have a lot of gamers who post their games on YouTube. These gamers are very good and experienced and I just think that is entertaining. Some of the boys even started their own YouTube channel to post their own video clips. The participants were asked about the feelings they experienced during and after playing video games. They mentioned two situations where different feelings could occur during their game sessions; winning and losing. When the participants won, they experienced feelings like adrenaline, happiness, pleasure, tension, pride and intense relief during the game. They all mentioned that they experienced feelings of arousal during gaming and that they enjoyed these feelings of arousals and tensions. Boy (16 years) I liked those games because it gives me some kind of kick. They mentioned these feelings as a pleasant part of gaming. The second situation when feelings could occur is when the participants were losing. The feelings they experience are anger, unfortunate frustration, aggression and sourness. The feelings that occurred while winning were much more fiercer than feelings that occurred while losing. The time span these feelings would persist was mentioned to be between ten seconds and fifteen minutes. Boy (11 years) It takes only ten seconds and then I stop thinking about my loss and I don t worry about it anymore. When they lost some participants stopped playing videogames and turned off the console or computer and searched for some distraction to keep their minds of the game. The youngest participants found it more difficult to describe and explain the feelings they experienced during gaming. 22

The participants were asked about their favorite characters and identification. This part of the research revealed, that identification occurred in three different ways. First of all, they often create a game character, which looks like them, and meaning the virtual characters should own their characteristics like weight, height or skin colour. The participants preferred adjusting the characters to their own preferences and characteristics, even though; this is not an option in every game. Not being able to adjust the character was mentioned as a disadvantage of a game. Important is the option for the sports and fantasy games to adjust or choose a character that corresponds with aspects of themselves. Boy (20 years) When I play the same game for a long time and I really like the game, I get some kind of connection with the game character. A connection occurs between the gamers, and the game s main character, when you can get the emotion out of the gamer during gaming. For the shooter game type identification was less of an important aspect as it was for the sports or fantasy games. Secondly, games enable a gamer to upgrade their personality, by adding features to the characters, features which the boys would like to posses in real-life. Especially in sports and fantasy games the participants added extra features or characteristics to the main character they identified themselves with. Last there could be identification by comparing their results with those of other players on YouTube. Experienced gamers post video clips on YouTube of their results and tactics and the participants compare themselves to these top gamers. They want to equal their skills. Owning a YouTube channel and being paid for playing video games was even mentioned by one of the younger participants as an important motivator to play and improve their skills as a gamer of violent video games. The last subject the participants talked about during the interviews was aggression. The participants mentioned different reasons why they could act aggressive or angry during or after playing video games. All participants mentioned that aggressive behavior depends on the type of person who plays these games and he or she is the one responsible for his or her own 23

behavior. They mentioned psychological problems and other disorders as a possible trigger for aggressive behavior in real life. Game addiction or an addiction to electronics was also mentioned as part of problematic behavior. The participants believed that the media exaggerated the possible effects of violent video games. One boy mentioned the Columbine High School massacre as an example of the media overdone some aspects of violent video games. Boy (20 years) It could be a trigger but honestly I think the behavior existed beforehand. He admitted this himself. I trained myself with Doom and something else than Doom encouraged the behavior. Other contextual factors need to be taking into account before one could make such statements on violent video games like someone s living situation or experiences they had. These participants used violent video games as a save outlet for aggressive feelings. Boy (16 years) When you re bullied and you really like playing Call of Duty you can express your aggression. Then you can release that aggression. They all believed that someone else could be influenced by violent content, but they themselves were not influenced by this violent content. All participants were asked if they could come up with answers or solutions for these types of aggression and behavioral problems that could occur during and after playing violent video games, and which would prevent violent outbursts. Several participants mentioned the role of parents as an important part of preventing violent outbursts after playing violent video games. A remark made by one of the boys was to have other hobbies like sports besides video games. Boy (16years) Meet friends or go choose some kind of sports. Keep busy with sports or something. 4.2 Participants with behavioral problems or special education The participants who played games on a regular basis with behaviour problems or a special education were coded after the first group of boys and their results will be discussed below. 24

The participants played different types of video games, which were coded into four types of video games: fantasy games, sports games, adventure games and shooters. Some examples of the different types of games are Minecraft, TombRaider, FIFA 13 Battlefield and League of Legends. When the participants were asked about their game behavior, there were within this group of boys also two types of genres that could be distinguished; reality versus fantasy. One group of participants mainly preferred games that were based on reality like sports games and shooters. The other group preferred games that were based on fantasy. Some examples of sports games are FIFA 13 and some examples of shooter games are Call of Duty and HALO. The participants who preferred sports games played FIFA 13 and NBA and practiced these sports in real life. They mainly played with the teams they supported in real life, as characters (their idols) in the video game, against competing team. For this group of participants there are no differences in choice for characters or teams in comparison to the other group. For example, if they supported FC Barcelona in real-life, they also played with this team in the game. Their choice for characters was based on their own character or their idol in real life. They wanted the characters to appear as the characters and teams existing in real life. Also there was a preference for fantasy games liked League of Legends, Minecraft, Skyrim and World of Warcraft. The boys who played fantasy games wanted the graphics to look like reality but the characters or the storyline as far from reality as possible. The games varied from online games mostly played on the computer, to offline games, which were played on the Xbox and PlayStation. Both online and offline games were played together with friends or with strangers they met on the Internet. Playing together online means being at home playing video games via Skype, which allows gamers to communicate with each other. Skype is used to discuss strategies and to communicate with team members and it is an integrated aspect for communication during game sessions. 25

The participants were asked about their motives to play video games what resulted in six main reasons for playing video games. Some of these motives are comparable to the motives of the other groups of boys but there are differences. The differences are discussed in the next chapter. Their motives are discussed below. The similarities with the literature and the differences between groups are discussed in the next chapter. Leisure. The participants played video games in their spared time and this could be with friends playing together online or together offline. When their bored games is a way to pass the time. Boy (13 years) When I have nothing else to do, I play video games. Releasing of aggression. Several participants mention expressing their aggression and releasing these feelings through playing videogames as a motivation to play shooter games like Call of Duty Modern Warfare. Boy (13 years) When I need to calm down, or for example I m very angry then I can leave the aggression in the game. I play for some time and it helps me to calm down. Boy (17 years) The role it fulfills is releasing your aggression. I used to have trouble expressing my aggression, expressing myself in general. When I started playing these games it made me feel calm and therefore it helped me. Social aspect. Communication is a big part of cooperating and the social aspect of gaming. Talking about games and strategies with friends or with strangers online and offline. Boy (15 years) You need to be able to cooperate, communicate and meanwhile you can laugh with each other. Playing together with friends or strangers online and being able to chat and communicate through Skype during and after game sessions about the game or strategies they use in the online role-playing games. Boy (17 years) You re having social contact with other people. It is easy, you re at home and you can do stuff you like to do. You re not bound to a certain place, you don t need to go somewhere, and it is some sort of laziness. Playing games with people around the world and meeting other gamers online on the Internet or with Xbox Life was mentioned as one of the motives to play video games. Boy 26

(14 years) Well, I really like the fact that you can play with a lot of people all over the world. Lean forward media and control over the outcome of the game. The participants mentioned being able to determining the outcome of the game and the different choices or options you have. The gamer is the one in charge determining the outcome. Boy (14 years) You are the one navigating through the game. No one determines or decides what you have to do. You are the one deciding what to do. Team spirit. All participants within this group mentioned being part of a team as an important motive to play video games. Being part of a team and realizing that you are the one the team relies on can cause a nice feeling of positive tension. Boy (15 years) When you re the only one who is left and you have to fight three others, you destroy two and then the tension that the whole team is counting on me. The effort. To posses the necessary skills to play win or obtain more features and to reach a higher level is mentioned as an important motive to play video games. Also, finishing the game and gaining every level with the maximum amount of points was mentioned as a motive. Boy (17 years) It was a big challenge and I like challenges. That is one of the reasons I play. It was a challenge because I wasn t that good when I started but it wasn t hard enough that I wasn t able to achieve the skills. The participants were asked about the feelings they experienced during and after gaming. There were two situations where different feelings could occur during their game sessions; winning and losing. When the participants won they experienced feelings like happiness, anxiety, pleasure, fun, euphoria, joy, adrenaline and satisfaction. They all mentioned that they experienced feelings of arousal during gaming and that they enjoyed these feelings of arousals and tensions. 27