Vulnerability to Violent Video Games: A Review and Integration of Personality Research

Abstract

In this report, past research is reviewed, which suggests that the personality traits of psychoticism and aggressiveness likely moderate the negative effects of violent video games (VVGs). The Five-Factor Model (FFM) of personality is then used as a taxonomy to integrate these findings and examine why these traits are important moderator variables. Analyses suggest that these traits likely moderate the effects of VVGs because they contain the FFM traits neuroticism (+), agreeableness (-), and conscientiousness (-). A spherical model of personality, derived from these three FFM traits, is presented as a method of predicting aggression and hostility after playing VVGs; archival data confirms the predictions derived from this spherical model. Findings from the current research demonstrate the utility of a three-trait spherical model to examine the moderating effects of VVGs and suggest that only some individuals are adversely affected by VVGs and that those who are affected have preexisting dispositions, which make them susceptible to such violent media.

Full text

Vulnerability to Violent Video Games: A Review and Integration of
Personality Research
Patrick M. Markey
Villanova University
Charlotte N. Markey
Rutgers University
In this report, past research is reviewed, which suggests that the personality traits of psychoticism and
aggressiveness likely moderate the negative effects of violent video games (VVGs). The Five-Factor
Model (FFM) of personality is then used as a taxonomy to integrate these findings and examine why these
traits are important moderator variables. Analyses suggest that these traits likely moderate the effects of
VVGs because they contain the FFM traits neuroticism (⫹), agreeableness (⫺), and conscientiousness
(⫺). A spherical model of personality, derived from these three FFM traits, is presented as a method of
predicting aggression and hostility after playing VVGs; archival data confirms the predictions derived
from this spherical model. Findings from the current research demonstrate the utility of a three-trait
spherical model to examine the moderating effects of VVGs and suggest that only some individuals are
adversely affected by VVGs and that those who are affected have preexisting dispositions, which make
them susceptible to such violent media.
Keywords: video games, violence, personality, five factor model
Although violent video games (VVGs) have been a cause of
concern among activists and laypersons for decades (for a brief
review see Ferguson et al., 2008), the Columbine High School
shootings in 1999 exacerbated this concern to almost epidemic
levels. From this point forward, almost every school shooting was
afforded at least a fleeting association with VVGs (Anderson,
2004; Thompson, 2000). Of course, given that 45.7 million Amer-
ican homes have a least one video game console (Nielson Media
Research, 2007), it is clear that most children who play these
games do not go on to behave in violent or murderous ways. In
fact, although many youths who have engaged in violent school
rampages were video game players (Anderson, 2004), most also
possessed maladaptive personality traits and characteristics.
School violence attributed to violent media has involved shooters
who were described by themselves and others as extremely angry,
mean, depressed, psychotic, unruly, anxious, aggressive, and hate-
ful before the shootings occurred (cf. Cornell, 2006; Cullen, 2009;
Gibbs & Roche, 1999; Sandler & Alpert, 2000). Although care
should be taken when considering these anecdotal observations
(Ferguson, 2007a) these descriptions suggest that certain types of
individuals may be more adversely affected by VVGs than other
individuals. Thus, the direct link from VVGs to school violence
that has been highlighted in the media may obscure a large portion
of the equation: personality traits.
Over a decade of correlational and experimental research sug-
gests that VVGs are linked to various negative behaviors and
cognitions such as aggression, hostility, and aggressive thoughts
(e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Gentile,
Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004; Sheese & Graziano, 2005; for a
critique of this research see Ferguson, 2010; Olson, 2004). Al-
though much of previous research is consistent with the notion that
VVGs increase aggression, a considerable number of studies have
failed to find compelling links between VVGs and aggression (e.g.,
Ferguson et al., 2008; Weigman & van Schie, 1998; Williams &
Skoric, 2005). Possible explanations for these inconsistent findings
have ranged from poor research design and invalid measurements
to publication biases (Ferguson, 2007a, 2007b). It is also possible
that these findings have been less than consistent because the main
effect of VVGs these researchers were examining was moderated
by personality. That is, because of various preexisting dispositions,
not all participants in these studies were likely affected by VVGs
in a similar manner. Although there are numerous personality traits
which might moderate the effects of VVGs, past research exam-
ining VVGs and other forms of media violence suggest that
psychoticism and trait aggression are key characteristics to con-
sider.
Psychoticism
Individuals who score high on psychoticism tend to be cold,
lacking in sympathy, unfriendly, untrustworthy, odd, unemotional,
unhelpful, antisocial, and paranoid. Although psychoticism was
proposed as a vulnerability, given certain environmental expo-
sures, to becoming psychotic (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976), research
has since established that this dimension is more accurately con-
ceptualized as akin to antisocial personality (Claridge, 2006). Past
research suggests that this trait likely moderates the negative
effects of VVGs. Markey and Sherer (2009) found that participants
with elevated levels of psychoticism tended to experience higher
levels of hostility and had more aggressive cognitions after expo-
sure to VVGs than did individuals with lower levels of psychoti-
cism or individual exposed to non-VVGs. Research examining
psychoticism in the context of other forms of violent media has
also produced similar results. After viewing violent films, men
with elevated levels of psychoticism were much more likely to
Patrick M. Markey, Psychology Department, Villanova University;
Charlotte N. Markey, Psychology Department, Rutgers University.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Patrick M.
Markey, Department of Psychology, Villanova University, 800 Lancaster
Avenue, Villanova, PA 19085. E-mail: patrick.markey@villanova.edu
Review of General Psychology © 2010 American Psychological Association
2010, Vol. 14, No. 2, 82–91 1089-2680/10/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0019000
82

accept violence as a means of conflict resolution than other indi-
viduals (Zillman & Weaver, 1996). Men with high levels of
psychoticism also tend to express greater levels of rape proclivity
after repeated exposure to violent and nonviolent pornography
(Barnes, Malamuth, & Check, 1984). Consistent with these stud-
ies, Lynn, Hampson, and Agahi (1989) present data that are
consistent with a genotype-environment correlation and interaction
model implying that viewing TV violence only has an affect on
aggression in genetically predisposed individuals with high levels
of psychoticism.
In an effort to determine why individuals with high levels of
psychoticism are more adversely affected by VVGs, Ravaja and
colleagues (2008) examined phasic psychophysiological re-
sponses, indexing emotional valence and arousal, after playing
VVGs and non-VVGs. These researchers found that after “killing”
or “wounding” opponents in a VVG both zygomatic and orbicu-
laris oculi electromyography activity was less pronounced among
individuals with high levels of psychoticism. Such findings
strongly suggest that these individuals experience less anxiety
when killing or wounding a virtual opponent than other individuals
who do not have high levels of psychoticsim or who are playing
non-VVGs. Consistent with this notion, previous studies have
found that individuals with elevated levels of psychoticism are
often not disturbed by media violence. Individuals with high levels
of psychoticism tend to prefer violent films and even find them
more comical and enjoyable than individuals with low levels of
psychoticism (Bruggemann & Barry, 2002). Participants with high
levels of psychoticism also tend to perceive violence on TV as less
violent and frightening than persons who do not possess this
characteristic (Gunter, 1983).
Trait Aggressiveness
Aggressive individuals are often conceptualized as angry, hav-
ing the propensity to engage in verbal and physical aggression, and
hostile in their cognitive patterns (Anderson & Bushman, 2001;
Buss & Perry, 1992). It has been speculated that aggressive indi-
viduals are more likely to make hostile attributions, thereby in-
creasing their anger and the likelihood of aggressive behavior
(Tiedens, 2001). Consistent with this notion, Giumetti and Markey
(2007) found that participants who were angry were more likely to
make hostile attributions to the actions of others after playing
VVGs than participants who were not angry or those who had
played non-VVGs. When aggression has been experimentally
primed before playing VVGs, it has been found that participants
tend to use more violent actions during game play and report more
hostility than participants who are not primed for aggression
(Panee & Ballard, 2002). Individuals high on trait aggressiveness
are also more hostile after playing VVGs versus non-VVGs, fur-
ther suggesting that VVGs have distinct effects on people depend-
ing on their aggressiveness (Arriaga et al., 2006). Cross-situational
research also suggests that aggressive individuals who play VVGs
are more likely to express delinquent and aggressive behaviors
than individuals who do not play VVGs (Anderson & Dill, 2000).
The above findings concerning the moderating role of aggres-
siveness on VVGs are consistent with research examining other
forms of violent media. In an observational study, Josephson
(1987) found that aggressive children who were exposed to violent
TV expressed more aggressive behavior after provocation than
children who were exposed to nonviolent TV. Similarly, aggres-
sive cartoons shown in a nursery school have been found to
increase aggressive behavior more in children who are ranked high
in trait aggressiveness than children ranked low on this trait
(Friedrich & Stein, 1973). In a laboratory setting, aggressive
individuals were also more likely to feel angry and express hostile
behaviors after watching violent videotapes than individuals who
are low in aggressiveness or those who watched nonviolent vid-
eotapes (Bushman, 1995).
Taken together, previous research suggests that the traits that
have been found to moderate the effects of violent TV and movies
are the same traits that likely moderate the effects of VVGs:
psychoticism and trait aggression. The importance of these two
traits is not particularly surprising given the conceptual overlap
between these constructs. It would seem reasonable to assume that
an individual with high levels of psychoticism—who is cold,
lacking in sympathy and unfriendly (Eysenck & Eysenck, 1976)—
would also be somewhat aggressive and angry. Consistent with
this notion, past research has found that these two traits are
moderately correlated (r⫽.43) with each other (McCroskey,
Heisel, & Richmond, 2001). This modest correlation suggests that
there is likely some overlap between these traits, but that they are
also characterized by qualities which make them distinct from each
other.
The Five-Factor Model: A Taxonomy for Assimilating
Past Research
Although the Five-Factor Model (FFM) is arguably the most
popular model of personality traits, researchers examining VVGs
have not yet examined the importance of its five personality
dimensions: neuroticism, extraversion, openness to experience,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness. In this model, neuroticism is
characterized by individuals’ susceptibility to worry, anxiety, an-
ger, and general emotional instability. Extraversion encompasses
traits such as sociability, dominance, and talkativeness. Openness
to experience is characterized by curiosity, imaginativeness, and
originality. Agreeableness encompasses traits including friendli-
ness, warmth, and cooperativeness. Conscientiousness includes
qualities such as carefulness, self-discipline, and reliability. The
dimensions of the FFM have proven robust across cultures
(Church & Katigbak, 1989; Kallasmaa, Allik, Realo, & McCrae,
2000), sex (Costa & McCrae, 1992a), age (Markey, Markey,
Ericksen, & Tinsley, 2002), methods (McCrae, Costa, & Busch,
1986), and item pools (Costa & McCrae, 1988; Goldberg, 1990).
As noted by Goldberg (1993), the FFM not only provides a list
of broad individual difference variables, but is also a structured
taxonomy. Because the traits of the FFM are conceptualized as
orthogonal, together these five dimensions cover a broad expanse
of personality and can summarize almost any personality con-
struct. In this manner, the FFM is a useful coordinate system for
categorizing various personality constructs within its five dimen-
sions (Ozer & Reise, 1994). By categorizing seemingly differing
traits under a few common dimensional labels, the FFM can be
used to assimilate past research (Funder, 2007). For example,
organizational research studies have related a multitude of various
personality traits (e.g., responsibility, consistency, work ethics,
dependability, etc.; see O’Bannon, Goldinger, & Appleby, 1989)
to the outcome of job performance. Ones and colleagues (1993)
83SPECIAL ISSUE: VULNERABILITY TO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

has demonstrated that most of these traits can be construed as the
FFM trait of conscientiousness. This insight allowed for these
previous studies, using different trait names, to be integrated—
thereby providing a better understanding of job performance. Sim-
ilarly, by relating the FFM to the traits of psychoticism and
aggression, the similarities and dissimilarities between these traits
can be clarified, making it easier to assimilate past VVG research.
Research suggests that psychoticism is related to low agreeable-
ness and low conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Costa,
McCrae, & Dye, 1991; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; McCrae &
Costa, 1985). In other words, individuals who have high levels of
psychoticism tend to be both low in agreeableness and conscien-
tiousness. These relations make sense given that individuals high
in psychoticism would have similar characteristics as those low in
agreeableness (e.g., little concern for others, indifferent to others
feelings, cold, etc.) and low in conscientiousness (e.g., break rules,
don’t keep promises, act without thinking, etc.). Research also
suggests that the trait of aggression is related to high neuroticism
and low agreeableness (Sharpe & Desai, 2001). Again, such rela-
tions make intuitive sense given that individuals high in trait
aggression would possess similar characteristics as those high in
neuroticism (e.g., easily upset, angry, depressed, emotional, etc.)
and low in agreeableness.
Because both psychoticism (low agreeableness and low consci-
entiousness) and trait aggressiveness (high neuroticism and low
agreeableness) tend to moderate the negative effects of VVGs, it is
likely that the FFM trait agreeableness would also moderate this
effect (i.e., individuals who are low on agreeableness would be
adversely affected by VVGs). However, past findings are a little
less clear as to the importance of the FFM traits neuroticism and
conscientiousness. It is possible that neuroticism and conscien-
tiousness do not moderate the effects of VVGs and that previous
findings regarding psychoticism and trait aggressiveness occurred
because these traits both contain elements of agreeableness. It is
also possible that the previous findings regarding psychoticism and
trait aggressiveness occurred because neuroticism, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness are all important elements of personality to
consider in this context. In other words, when high neuroticism,
low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness coexist within indi-
viduals this might render them especially vulnerable to the nega-
tive effects of VVGs. This notion implies that when these three
traits are merged in an additive manner, the resulting combination
would be far more powerful than any individual FFM trait.
A Spherical Model of Personality: When Traits Merge
Within the Individual
A multidimensional approach to personality simultaneously ex-
amines various traits and provides insight into how traits coexist
within an individual (Trapnell & Wiggins, 1990). While the FFM
traits of neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness may be
orthogonal to each other when assessed across individuals they are
not isolated entities within individuals. This understanding has
been an underlying (although sometimes forgotten) theme in the
study of personality since Allport (1937) defined personality
as “. . . the dynamic organization within the individual of those
psychophysical systems that determine his unique adjustments to
his environment” (p. 48; emphasis added). For example, a person
who is high on neuroticism and low on agreeableness will likely
exhibit different characteristics (e.g., temperamental, easily an-
gered, etc.) than a person who is high on neuroticism and high on
agreeableness (e.g., timid, reluctant to express anger, etc.).
Costa and McCrae (1992b) created a circumplex model to
illustrate the eight characteristics that are created by combining
together the traits of neuroticism and agreeableness (see
Figure 1a). As can be seen in this model, neuroticism and agree-
ableness are represented as orthogonal dimensions in a two-
dimensional space. This circumplex structure provides a useful
visual display of the ways in which neuroticism and agreeableness
may be manifested within different individuals. Such circumplex
models have been used extensively to examine how two traits
merge together (cf., Ansell & Pincus, 2004; Pincus & Ansell,
2003). For example, Figure 1a indicates that the characteristic of
timid (i.e., people who often feel victimized but rarely express
anger [Costa & McCrae, 1992b]) is a combination of high neurot-
icism and high agreeableness; however, temperamental (i.e., peo-
ple who are easily angered and typically express their anger
directly [Costa & McCrae, 1992b]) is a combination of high
neuroticism and low agreeableness.
As previously mentioned, it is possible that the trait of consci-
entiousness also moderates the negative effects of VVGs. By
adding conscientiousness to the traits of neuroticism and agree-
ableness, two additional circumplex models can be created. Fig-
ure 1 displays the two circumplex models created by Costa and
McCrae (1992b) by combining together agreeableness and consci-
entiousness (Figure 1b) and neuroticism and conscientiousness
(Figure 1c). By applying the three circumplex models to the
Figure 1. The three cirucmplex models that comprise the sphere. (a) Neuroticism and Agreeableness Circum-
plex. (b) Agreeableness and Conscientiousness Circumplex. (c) Neuroticism and Conscietiousness Circumplex.
84 MARKEY AND MARKEY

previous discussion regarding the moderating role of neuroticism,
agreeableness, and conscientiousness, it is possible to hypothesize
which individuals are most and least affected by VVGs. As seen in
Figure 1, a person who is temperamental (i.e., people who are
easily angered and typically express their anger directly [Costa &
McCrae, 1992b]), undercontrolled (i.e., people who lack self-
control and are often at the mercy of their own impulses [Costa &
McCrae, 1992b]), and undistinguished (i.e., people who are pri-
marily concerned with their own pleasure than with the well-being
of others [Costa & McCrae, 1992b]) are most likely affected by
VVGs. In contrast, individuals who are easy-going (i.e., people
who are slow to anger and typically do not express anger [Costa &
McCrae, 1992b]), directed (i.e., people who have clear goals and
work toward accomplishing goals [Costa & McCrae, 1992b]), and
effective altruists (i.e., people who are self-disciplined and work
toward the well-being of others [Costa & McCrae, 1992b]) are
least likely to be adversely affected by VVGs.
Although the three circumplex models presented in Figure 1
visually demonstrate the importance of considering how two di-
mensions of personality combine together, they would provide an
incomplete picture of who is most affected by VVGs if the three
FFM dimensions of neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscien-
tiousness are important. By merging these three FFM dimensions
into a single, spherical model we gain insight into how these
dimensions combine together and also who is most vulnerable to
the adverse effects of VVGs. The resulting spherical model, which
was created by combining together the primary dimensions of
neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, is presented in
Figure 2. Spherical models of personality are not new and have
proven useful tools for understanding the unique combinations of
different personality traits (e.g., Markey & Markey, 2006; Tracey,
2002). Although no spherical model has utilized the primary
dimensions of neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness,
the geometric formulas and statistics utilized in past models can be
used to better understand the three FFM traits, which appear to be
relevant to VVG research.
The spherical structure displayed in Figure 2 implies that per-
sonality characteristics or “types” vary along a spherical contin-
uum and can be oriented by the primary dimensions of neuroti-
cism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The characteristic
names displayed in Figure 2 are the same names of the character-
istics presented in the three earlier circumplex models (see Figure
1). The different characteristics on the sphere are also presented in
Table 1, along with their theoretical weights on each dimension.
These weights represent hypothetical correlations between each
characteristic and the dimensions of neuroticism, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness (Markey & Markey, 2006).
Each of the characteristics presented in Table 1 and Figure 2 can
be cartographically located on the sphere by their longitude and
latitude coordinates. Using the neuroticism and agreeableness as
the defining location of longitude, a characteristic’s location can
range from 0
o
to 359.9
o
. As seen in Figures 1a and 3 characteristics
creating the longitudinal plane are ordered counterclockwise start-
ing at 0
o
(high agreeableness). To calculate its longitudinal angle,
a characteristic’s neuroticism and agreeableness weights can be
applied to the formula (Markey & Markey, 2006; Wiggins, 1995):
⌳⫽arctangent (NWeight/AWeight)
Where:
⌳is the longitudinal angle of a characteristic
N
Weight
is the characteristic’s weighted relation to Neuroti-
cism
High Conscientiousness (C+)
Low Conscientiousness (C-)
High Agreeableness (A+)
Low Neuroticism (N-)
Easy-Going (N-A+)
Temperamental (N+ A-)
Over-controlled (N+ C+)
Relaxed (N-C-) Under-controlled (N+ C-)
Directed (N-C+) Effective Altruists (A+C+)
Undistinguished (A- C-)
Well-Intentioned (A+ C-)
Self-Promoters (A- C+)
N-A+C-
N+A-C+
Front Back
N-A+C+
High Conscientiousness (C+)
Low Conscientiousness (C-)
High Neuroticism (N+)
Low Agreeableness (A-)
N
+A-C-
Figure 2. The spherical model created by the primary dimensions of neuroticism, agreeableness, and consci-
entiousness.
85SPECIAL ISSUE: VULNERABILITY TO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

A
Weight
is the characteristic’s weighted relation to Agreeable-
ness
For example, the characteristic represented by high neuroticism,
high agreeableness, and low conscientiousness would have a lon-
gitude location of 45
o
(45 ⫽arctangent [.577/.577]). In a similar
manner, a characteristic’s latitude location can be calculated along
the dimension of conscientiousness (see Figure 3; Markey &
Markey, 2006):
⌽⫽arctangent (CWeight/[(NWeight
2⫹AWeight
2)1/2])
Where:
⌽is the latitudinal angle of a characteristic
C
Weight
is the characteristic’s weighted relation to conscien-
tiousness
N
Weight
is the characteristic’s weighted relation to neuroti-
cism
W
Weight
is the characteristic’s weighted relation to agreeable-
ness
Therefore a latitudinal angle can range between 90
o
(high
conscientiousness) and ⫺90
o
(low conscientiousness), with 0
o
indicting no relationship to conscientiousness. The characteris-
tic represented by high neuroticism, high agreeableness, and
low conscientiousness would have a latitude location of ⫺35
o
(⫺35 ⫽arctangent [⫺.577/{.577
2
⫹.577
2
}
1/2
]). Table 1 also
displays the theoretical longitude and latitude location of each
characteristic.
Because past research suggests that neuroticism, agreeable-
ness, and conscientiousness might moderate the negative effects
of VVGs, it is possible to use the spherical model to predict the
“type” of person who would be most adversely affected by
VVGs. Specifically, a person who was high on neuroticism, low
on agreeableness and low on conscientiousness would be lo-
cated at ⌳⫽135 and ⌽⫽⫺35 on the sphere. As seen in
Figure 2, this location also falls directly between the three
locations on the circumplex models presented in Figure 1 pre-
dicting who would be most affected by VVGs (temperamental,
undistinguished, and undercontrolled). It would also be ex-
pected that the more distal a person falls from this location the
less he or she would be adversely affected by VVGs. In fact, a
person who is located opposite this point on the sphere, at ⌳⫽
315 and ⌽⫽35, would likely be the least affected by VVGs.
As seen on the sphere, this location falls directly between the
three locations on the circumplex models that predict who
would be least adversely affected by VVGs (easy going, effec-
tive altruists, and directed).
Table 1
Theoretical Location of 26 Characteristics on the Spherical Model and Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Hostility From a
Given Characteristic and the Characteristic’s Interaction With VVG Condition
Variable ⌳⌽ NAC
Main Effect of
Characteristic (SE B)
Characteristic ⫻
VVG (SE B)
N⫹(high neuroticism) 90 0 1.00 0.00 0.00 .17
ⴱⴱ
(.06) .26 .19 (.12) .15
N⫹A⫺(temperamental) 135 0 0.707 ⫺0.707 0.00 .21
ⴱⴱ
(.06) .33 .23 (.12) .18
A⫺(low agreeableness) 180 0 0.00 ⫺1.00 0.00 .14
ⴱ
(.06) .20 .19 (.12) .14
N⫺A⫺(cold-blooded) 225 0 ⫺0.707 ⫺0.707 0.00 ⫺.03 (.06) ⴚ.03 .02 (.13) .01
N⫺(low neuroticism) 90 0 ⫺1.00 0.00 0.00 ⫺.17
ⴱⴱ
(.06) ⴚ.26 ⫺.19 (.12) ⴚ.15
N⫺A⫹(easygoing) 135 0 ⫺0.707 0.707 0.00 ⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
(.06) ⴚ.33 ⫺.23 (.12) ⴚ.18
A⫹(high agreeableness) 0 0 0.00 1.00 0.00 ⫺.14
ⴱ
(.06) ⴚ.20 ⫺.19 (.12) ⴚ.14
N⫹A⫹(timid) 45 0 0.707 0.707 0.00 .03 (.06) .03 ⫺.02 (.13) ⴚ.01
A⫹C⫺(well intentioned) 0 ⫺45 0.00 0.707 ⫺0.707 ⫺.06 (.06) ⴚ.09 .01 (.13) .01
C⫺(low conscientiousness) 0 ⫺90 0.00 0.00 ⫺1.00 .05 (.06) .07 .22 (.12) .17
A⫺C⫺(undistinguished) 180 ⫺45 0.00 ⫺0.707 ⫺0.707 .13
ⴱ
(.06) .20 .20
ⴱ
(.12) .23
A⫺C⫹(self-promoters) 180 45 0.00 ⫺0.707 0.707 .06 (.06) .09 ⫺.01 (.13) ⴚ.01
C⫹(high conscientiousness) 0 90 0.00 0.00 1.00 ⫺.05 (.06) ⴚ.07 ⫺.22 (.12) ⴚ.17
A⫹C⫹(effective altruists) 0 45 0.00 0.707 0.707 ⫺.13
ⴱ
(.06) ⴚ.20 ⫺.30
ⴱ
(.12) ⴚ.23
N⫹C⫺(undercontrolled) 90 ⫺45 0.707 0.00 ⫺0.707 .16
ⴱ
(.06) .24 .26
ⴱ
(.13) .20
N⫺C⫺(relaxed) 270 ⫺45 ⫺0.707 0.00 ⫺0.707 ⫺.08 (.06) ⴚ.12 .01 (.13) .01
N⫺C⫹(directed) 270 45 ⫺0.707 0.00 0.707 ⫺.16
ⴱ
(.06) ⴚ.24 ⫺.26
ⴱ
(.13) ⴚ.20
N⫹C⫹(overcontrolled) 90 45 0.707 0.00 0.707 .08 (.06) .12 ⫺.01 (.13) ⴚ.01
N⫺A⫹C⫹315 35 ⫺0.577 0.577 0.577 ⫺.21
ⴱⴱ
(.06) ⴚ.31 ⫺.31
ⴱⴱ
(.12)ⴚ.24
N⫺A⫹C⫺315 ⫺35 ⫺0.577 0.577 ⫺0.577 ⫺.14
ⴱ
(.06) ⴚ.22 ⫺.10 (.12) ⴚ.08
N⫺A⫺C⫹225 35 ⫺0.577 ⫺0.577 0.577 ⫺.05 (.06) ⴚ.07 ⫺.11 (.13) ⴚ.09
N⫺A⫺C⫺225 ⫺35 ⫺0.577 ⫺0.577 ⫺0.577 .01 (.06) .01 .15 (.13) .11
N⫹A⫹C⫹45 35 0.577 0.577 0.577 ⫺.01 (.06) ⴚ.01 ⫺.15 (.13) ⴚ.11
N⫹A⫹C⫺45 ⫺35 0.577 0.577 ⫺0.577 .05 (.06) .07 .11 (.13) .09
N⫹A⫺C⫹135 35 0.577 ⫺0.577 0.577 .14
ⴱ
(.06) .22 .10 (.12) .08
N⫹A⫺C⫺135 ⫺35 0.577 ⫺0.577 ⫺0.577 .21
ⴱⴱ
(.06) .31 .31
ⴱⴱ
(.12) .24
Note. N⫽neuroticism; A ⫽agreeableness; C ⫽conscientiousness; VVG ⫽violent video games. Bolded values represent the semipartial r(effect size)
associated with a given main effect or interaction effect. n⫽118.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
86 MARKEY AND MARKEY

An Example: Using a Spherical Model to Predict the
Effects of VVGs
As discussed earlier, two potential explanations can account for
past research linking psychoticism and trait aggressiveness to
negative outcomes after playing VVGs.
Explanation 1: The FFM trait agreeableness moderates the
negative effects of VVGs.
Explanation 2: The FFM traits neuroticism, agreeableness,
and conscientiousness merge in an additive manner with the
resulting combination being more powerful than any individ-
ual FFM trait.
The application of the spherical model to the effects of VVGs
serves to complement previous research examining psychoticism
and trait aggression by suggesting why these traits are important
moderators. For example, Explanation 1 suggests that psychoti-
cism and trait aggression moderate the negative effects of VVGs
simply because they both contain elements of low agreeableness.
Explanation 2 implies that psychoticism and trait aggression mod-
erate the effects of VVGs because they both contain elements of
low agreeableness and they contain high neuroticism (aggressive-
ness) or low conscientiousness (psychoticism). Therefore, the re-
sults from the present report will not only allow for better identi-
fication of who is likely to be most adversely affected by VVGs,
it will also help integrate previous research linking psychoticism
and trait aggressiveness to negative outcomes after playing VVGs.
Archival data were analyzed using the statistical program
SPSS 17 to gain insight into which of these two explanations is
most valid. Previous research by the first author assessed 118
participants’ neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness
using the Big Five Inventory
1
(BFI; John, Donahue, & Kentle,
1991) before playing a VVG (Manhunt 2) or a non-VVG (Tiger
Woods Golf). After playing a given video game, participants’
hostility was assessed using the State Hostility Scale (SHS; Ander-
son, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995). Specifics of this study are pre-
sented in Markey & Scherer, 2009; the findings concerning the
FMM have not been discussed previously. Table 2 displays the
results from the regression analyses in which the centered traits of
neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness, and VVG con-
dition (dummy coded 0 ⫽non-VVG, 1 ⫽VVG) were used to
predict hostility.
2
As indicated by the main effects presented in
Step 1, neuroticism was positively and agreeableness was nega-
tively related to hostility (i.e., participants high in neuroticism and
low in agreeableness tended to be hostile regardless of the VVG
condition) and VVGs slightly increased individuals’ hostility. In
contrast to the first explanation, suggesting only agreeableness
would moderate the negative effects of VVGs, these analyses
indicate that none of the traits significantly moderated the effect of
VVGs. A researcher not considering the importance of the com-
bination of these traits might also incorrectly conclude that the
second explanation was also not supported and that none of these
1
To utilize the geometric formulas the traits of neuroticism, agreeable-
ness, and conscientiousness were forced to be orthogonal. This was done
by submitting these three traits to a principal components analysis and
extracting three components with a Varimax rotation. The resulting com-
ponent scores have the advantage of being highly correlated with their
original scales (all rs⬎.90) while being orthogonal.
2
To be certain that any potential moderating effects were not caused by
possible sex differences on a trait, regression analyses were conducted to
control for the main effect of sex as well as its interactions with video game
condition and a given trait. Results indicated that none of the sex interac-
tion terms were significant and, more importantly, none of the results
significantly changed.
0
o
45
o
90
o
135
o
180
o
225
o
270
o
315
o
Agreeableness
Neuroticism
Conscientiousness
Agreeableness
Conscientiousness
0
o
45
o
-
45
o
90
o
-90o
Longitude Latitude
Figure 3. Longitude and latitude locations on the spherical model.
87SPECIAL ISSUE: VULNERABILITY TO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

traits are important moderators of VVGs. However, whenever
three orthogonal traits (e.g., neuroticism, agreeableness, and con-
scientiousness) are all important predictors of an outcome (e.g.,
hostility) the total possible size of their separate effects is severely
limited (Cohen & Cohen, 1983; Markey & Markey, 2006). Closer
inspection of the interaction effects’ signs are suggestive of results
occurring in the predicted direction of the second explanation.
Specifically, the negative interaction effect of agreeableness and
conscientiousness and the positive interaction effect of neuroticism
suggest that individuals low in agreeableness and conscientious-
ness and high in neuroticism were adversely affected by VVGs.
Rather than being limited by the size of the effects three orthog-
onal traits can produce, a more direct means of examining what
occurs when three traits combine together within an individual
would be to compute characteristic scores for each of the 26 sphere
characteristics presented in Figure 2 and Table 1 for each partic-
ipant. This is easily accomplished using a participant’s neuroti-
cism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness scores and the
weighted relations presented in Table 1 and applying them to the
formula (Markey & Markey, 2006):
Characteristic Scorej⫽
冘
ZiWj
Where:
Z
i
is the individual’s standardized neuroticism, agreeableness,
or conscientiousness score
W
j
is the weighted relation of jth characteristic to neuroti-
cism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness.
As seen in the above formula, characteristic scores are essen-
tially computed using a simple standardized regression equation.
In this manner, each person receives 26 different characteristic
scores representing slightly different combinations of the three
FFM traits. To examine the potential interaction of these charac-
teristics with VVGs, 26 separate regression analyses were con-
duced predicting hostility. In each analysis, a given characteristic
and VVG condition were entered in the first step and the interac-
tion term between these variables was entered in the second step.
The results from these analyses are presented in Table 1. The
column labeled “main effect of characteristic” displays the relation
between a given characteristic and hostility. More central to the
focus of this manuscript are the coefficients displayed in the
column labeled “Characteristic ⫻VVG,” which lists the interac-
tion effect for a given characteristic. A positive value indicates that
people high on a given characteristic were more adversely affected
by VVGs than other individuals whereas a negative value indicates
that people low on a given characteristic were less adversely
affected by VVGs than others. Figure 4 presents a graphical
display of these effects by presenting the different interaction
effects for different combinations of neuroticism and agreeable-
ness at different levels of conscientiousness. As predicted by the
second explanation, Figure 4 and Table 1 show that the individuals
most adversely affected by VVGs tended to be high on neuroticism
and low on agreeableness and conscientiousness (i.e., ⌳⫽135 and
⌽⫽⫺35). As expected, the effects of the interaction tended to get
smaller the more distal to this location, with the people least
adversely affected by VVGs being low on neuroticism and high on
agreeableness and conscientiousness (i.e., ⌳⫽315 and ⌽⫽35).
The findings from these analyses strongly suggest the impor-
tance of considering the cumulative effect of multiple traits within
an individual. When the FFM dimensions of neuroticism, agree-
ableness, and conscientiousness were used to predict hostility, all
of the interaction effects were null. However, when these dimen-
sions are combined to measure a single characteristic representing
high neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness,
significant results emerged from the exact same data set. It seems
likely that a researcher examining these traits in a one-dimensional
manner would fail to realize that these traits are significant mod-
erators of VVGs when they are considered simultaneously. It is
important to note that the methodology of combining together
three dimensions is both computationally and conceptually differ-
ent than examining the interaction between the three traits. Such an
interaction term would be computed by multiplying the three traits
together whereas in the current analyses the combination of the
traits was computed by averaging together the FFM traits with
various weights.
3
Conceptually a three-way interaction would ex-
3
In the current data set the additive method used to combine the three
traits together was not strongly related to the nonadditive method of
multiplying the three traits together (r⫽.14) further suggesting the
difference between these two methodologies.
Table 2
Multiple Regression Analysis Predicting Hostility
BSE B␤Semipartial r
Step 1
Violent video game
(VVG) .24 .12 .18
ⴱ
.18
Neuroticism (N) .17 .06 .26
ⴱⴱ
.26
Agreeableness (A) ⫺.14 .06 ⫺.21
ⴱ
⫺.21
Conscientiousness (C) ⫺.05 .06 ⫺.08 ⫺.08
Step 2
VVG ⫻N .17 .12 .18 .12
VVG ⫻A⫺.17 .12 ⫺.19 ⫺.12
VVG ⫻C⫺.19 .12 ⫺.21 ⫺.14
Note. n ⫽118.
ⴱ
p⬍.05.
ⴱⴱ
p⬍.01.
88 MARKEY AND MARKEY

amine whether a two-way interaction (e.g., neuroticism ⫻agree-
ableness) changed depending on the level of a third variable (e.g.,
conscientiousness); whereas the methodology employed above
allows for different levels of the three traits to be examined when
combined together in an additive manner.
Conclusion
Video games are rapidly becoming one of the most popular
forms of media consumed by children, adolescents, and adults
(Gentile & Anderson, 2003; Olson, 2010). This popularity of video
games, combined with the fact that more than half of the games on
the market today contain some form of violence (Gentile & Ander-
son, 2003), has caused many to express concern about the potential
negative effects of VVGs. Previous research examining the effects
of VVGs suggests that VVGs are linked to various negative
behaviors and cognitions such as hostility and aggressive thoughts
(e.g., Anderson, 2004; Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Gentile et al.,
2004; Sheese & Graziano, 2005). However, more recent research
(e.g., Arriage et al., 2006; Giumetti & Markey, 2007; Markey &
Sherer, 2009; Panee & Ballard, 2002; Ravaja et al., 2008) suggests
that the notion that all, or even most, individuals who play VVGs
will inevitably become aggressive may be unwarranted. Instead, it
appears that it is crucial to consider various personality traits of the
person playing the VVG when predicting whether or not the VVG
will have adverse effects.
By using the FFM as a taxonomy, the current report was able to
assimilate the findings of past studies, which examined the moderat-
ing effects of psychoticism and trait aggressiveness. This integration
of past research using the structure provided by the FFM allowed for
a reconceptualization of the traits most salient in VVG research and
provided insight into why these traits moderate the negative effects of
VVGs. A spherical model of personality was then created to visually
demonstrate the resulting personality characteristics associated
with different combinations of neuroticism, agreeableness, and
conscientiousness. Archival data were then analyzed and con-
firmed the notion that individuals who were most adversely af-
fected by VVGs tended to be high on neuroticism and low on
agreeableness and conscientiousness (i.e., ⌳⫽135 and ⌽⫽⫺35
on the sphere). Additionally, the more distal an individual’s per-
sonality characteristic on the sphere was from this location, the
greater the tendency for VVGs to have less adverse effects. It is
important to note that the games used in this study (Manhunt 2 vs.
Tiger Woods Golf) likely differ from each other in ways other than
their level of violence. However, it seems unlikely that a variable
other than violence might account for the moderating effect of
personality occurring in the exact manner predicted by previous
research, which examined the effects of violence.
The multidimensional view of personality presented in this
manuscript helps integrate previous research examining different
personality traits as moderators of the adverse effects of VVGs.
This model of personality also recognizes that what truly makes an
individual different and unique is not a high or low rating on a
single trait, but their unique combination of traits. When each of
the FFM traits were examined separately, none significantly mod-
erated the effects of VVGs. However, when these traits were
combined together, significant moderating effects emerged. These
results suggest that it is the simultaneous combination of FFM
traits which yield a more powerful moderator of VVGs than any
single FFM trait. It appears that the “perfect storm” of FFM traits
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
VVG Interaction effect (r)
C-
C
C+
A-N- A- A-N+ N+ A+N+ A+ A+ N- N-
Figure 4. The semi partial correlations indicating how strongly each of the 26 personality characteristics
moderated the negative effects of VVGs. Results are presented for the various combinations of neuroticism and
agreeableness at different levels of conscientiousness. Note: N⫽neuroticism; A ⫽agreeableness; C ⫽
conscientiousness.
89SPECIAL ISSUE: VULNERABILITY TO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES

in this context is high neuroticism (e.g., easily upset, angry, de-
pressed, emotional, etc.), low agreeableness (e.g., little concern for
others, indifferent to others feelings, cold, etc.) and low conscien-
tiousness (e.g., break rules, don’t keep promises, act without
thinking, etc.).
It is tempting to directly relate the findings presented here to the
anecdotal evidence describing the personality characteristics of
perpetrators of school violence (e.g., angry, depressed, unruly,
anxious, aggressive, hateful, etc.) who also played VVGs. Many of
these personality descriptions would certainly be related to high
neuroticism, low agreeableness, or low conscientiousness and
would probably be located near ⌳⫽135 and ⌽⫽⫺35 on the
sphere. However, it should be noted that past experimental re-
search examining VVGs has tended to assess outcomes that were
either proxy measures for real world aggression (e.g., question-
naire assessments of hostility or physical aggression) or mild
forms of aggression (e.g., loud “sound blasts” delivered to a
hypothetical person) and not anything as severe as murder. A
direct translation of these findings to a “profiling” of school
shooters needs to be done with great caution.
Although the incidences of violence, particularly school vio-
lence, linked to video games are alarming, what should perhaps
surprise us more is that there are not more VVG-driven violent
episodes. Given the number of youths who regularly engage in
VVG play and the general concern regarding this media, it would
seem likely that resulting violent episodes would be a regular
occurrence. And yet, daily reports of mass violence are not re-
ported. It appears that the vast majority of individuals exposed to
VVGs do not become violent in the “real world.” Thus, the
questions for researchers, policymakers, and laypersons become
“Why do some individuals appear to be affected by VVGs while
others are not?” and “Who is most likely to be affected by VVGs?”
These questions are somewhat analogous to the questions a med-
ical doctor would ask in trying to determine why the majority of
individuals have no adverse effects when exposed to seemingly
benign stimuli (e.g., peanuts) while others may experience life-
threatening consequences from even minimal exposure. In the case
of VVGs, current research suggests that personality moderates
individual proclivity to respond adversely to VVGs. It appears that
VVGs only adversely affect some individual and those who are
affected have a preexisting disposition (i.e., high neuroticism, low
agreeableness, and low conscientiousness) which make them sus-
ceptible to such violent media.
References
Allport, G. W. (1937). Personality: A psychological interpretation. New
York: Holt.
Anderson, C., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts,
feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Person-
ality and Social Psychology, 78, 772–290.
Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video
games. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113–122.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games
on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physi-
ological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the
scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359.
Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. W., & DeNeve, K. (1995). Hot temperatures,
hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of
affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,
434–448.
Ansell, E. B., & Pincus, A. L. (2004). Interpersonal perceptions of the
five-factor model of personality: An examination using the structural
summary method for circumplex data. Multivariate Behavioral Re-
search, 39, 167–201.
Arriaga, P., Esteves, F., Carneiro, P., & Monteiro, M. B. (2006). Violent
computer games and their effects on state hostility and physiological
arousal. Aggressive Behavior, 32, 358–371.
Barnes, G. W., Malamuth, N. M., & Check, J. V. (1984). Psychoticism and
sexual arousal to rape depictions. Personality and Individual Differ-
ences, 5, 273–279.
Bruggemann, J. M., & Barry, R. J. (2002). Eysenck’s P as a modulator of
affective and electrodermal responses to violent and comic film. Per-
sonality and Individual Differences, 32, 1029–1048.
Bushman, B. J. (1995). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the
effects of violent media on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 69, 950–960.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and
hostile expectations: A test of the General Aggression Model. Person-
ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679–1686.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459.
Church, A. T., & Katigbak, M. S. (1989). Internal, external, and self-report
structure of personality in a non-Western culture: An investigation of
cross-language and cross-cultural generalizability. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 57, 857–872.
Claridge, G. (2006). Psychobiological models and issues. In S. Strack
(Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (pp. 137–157).
Springer: New York.
Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. (1983). Applied multiple regression: Correlational
analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Cornell, D. G. (2006). School violence: Fear versus facts. Erlbaum: Hill-
sdale, NJ.
Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992b). Revised NEO Personality
Inventory (NEO PI-R) and the NEO Five-Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI)
professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., McCrae, R. G., & Dye, D. A. (1991). Facet scales for
agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality
Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12, 887–898.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification:
Murray’s needs and the Five-Factor Model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 55, 258–265.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992a). Four ways five factors are basic.
Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653–665.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Primary traits of Eysenck’s P-E-N
system: Three- and five-factor solutions. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 69, 308–317.
Cullen, D. (2009). Columbine. New York: Tweleve Hachett Book Group.
Eysenck, H. J., & Eysenck, S. B. G. (1976). Psychoticism as a dimension
of personality. London: Hodder & Stoughton.
Ferguson, C. J. (2007a). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic
review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychi-
atric Quarterly, 78, 309–316.
Ferguson, C. J. (2007b). Evidence for publication bias in video game
violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 12, 470–482.
Ferguson, C. J. (2010). Blazing angels or resident evil? Can violent video
games be a force for good? Review of General Psychology, 14, 68–81.
Ferguson, C. J., Rueda, S. M., Cruz, A. M., Ferguson, D. E., Fritz, S., &
Smith, S. M. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal
relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence
motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 311–332.
90 MARKEY AND MARKEY

Friedrich, L. K., & Stein, A. H. (1973). Aggressive and prosocial television
programs and the natural behavior of preschool children. Monographs of
the Society for Research in Child Development, 38.
Funder, D. C. (2007). The personality puzzle. Norton: New York.
Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Violent video games: The
newest media violence hazard. In D. A. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence
and children: A complete guide for parents and professionals (pp.
131–152). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The
effects of violent video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive
behaviors, and school performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5–22.
Gibbs, N., & Roche, T. (1999, December). The Columbine tapes. Time
Magazine, 40–51.
Giumetti, G. W., & Markey, P. M. (2007). Violent video games and anger
as predictors of aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 41,
1234–1243.
Goldber, L., & Rosolack, T. K. (1994). The Big Five factor structure as an
integrative framework: An empirical comparison with Eysenck’s P-E-N
model. In R. P. Martin (Ed.), The developing structure of temperament
and personality from infancy to adulthood (pp. 7–35). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum, Inc.
Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The
Big-Five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy, 59, 1216–1229.
Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of personality traits: Vertical and
horizontal aspects. In D. C. Funder, R. D. Parke, C. Tomlinson-Keasey,
& K. Widaman (Eds.), Studying lives through time: Personality and
development (pp. 169–188). Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Gunter, B. (1983). Personality and perceptions of harmful and harmless TV
violence. Personality and Individual Differences, 46, 665–670.
John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The “Big Five”
Inventory: Versions 4a and 54. Berkeley, CA: Institute of Personality
Assessment and Research.
Josephson, W. L. (1987). Television violence and children’s aggression:
Testing the priming, social script, and disinhibition predictions. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 882–890.
Kallasmaa, T., Allik, J., Realo, A., & McCrae, R. R. (2000). The Estonian
version of the NEO-PI-R: An examination of universal and culture-
specific aspects of the Five-Factor Model. European Journal of Person-
ality, 14, 265–278.
Lynn, R., Hampson, S., & Agahi, E. (1989). Television violence and
aggression: A genotype-environment, correlation and interaction theory.
Social Behavior and Personality, 17, 143–164.
Markey, P. M., & Markey, C. N. (2006). A Spherical conceptualization of
personality traits. European Journal of Personality, 20, 169–193.
Markey, P. M., Markey, C. N., Ericksen, A. J., & Tinsley, B. J. (2002). A
preliminary validation of preadolescents’ self-reports using the Five
Factor Model of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 36,
173–181.
Markey, P. M., & Scherer, K. (2009). An examination of psychoticism and
motion capture controls as moderators of the effects of violent video
games. Computers in Human Behavior, 25, 407–411.
McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1985). Comparison of EPI and psychoti-
cism scales with measures of the five-factor model of personality.
Personality and Individual Differences, 6, 587–597.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., & Busch, C. M. (1986). Evaluating compre-
hensiveness in personality systems: The California Q-Set and the Five-
Factor Model. Journal of Personality, 54, 430–446.
McCroskey, J. C., Heisel, A. D., & Richmond, B. P. (2001). Eysenck’s
BIG THREE and communication traits: Three correlational studies.
Communication Monographs, 68, 360–366.
Nielson Media Research. (2007). Nielsen says video game penetration in
U.S. TV households grew 18% during the past two years. Retrieved from
http://www.nielsenmedia.com
O’Bannon, R. M., Goldinger, L. A., & Appleby, G. S. (1989). Honesty and
integrity testing. Atlanta, GA: Applied Information Resources.
Olson, C. K. (2004). Media violence research and youth violence data:
Why do they conflict? Academic Psychiatry, 28, 114–150.
Olson, C. K. (2010). Children’s motivations for video game play in the
context of normal development. Review of General Psychology, 14,
180–187.
Ones, D. S., Viswesvaran, C., & Schmidt, F. L. (1993). Comprehensive
meta-analysis of integrity test validities: Findings and implications for
personnel selection and theories of job performance. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 78, 679–703.
Ozer, D. J., & Reise, S. P. (1994). Personality assessment. Annual Review
of Psychology, 45, 357–388.
Panee, C., & Ballard, M. E. (2002). High versus low aggressive priming
during video-game training: Effects on violent action during game play,
hostility, heart rate, and blood pressure. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 32, 2458–2474.
Pincus, A. L., & Ansell, E. B. (2003). Interpersonal theory of personality.
In T. Millon & M. J. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology: Person-
ality and social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 209–229). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Ravaja, N., Tupeinen, M., Saari, T., Puttonen, S., & Keltikangas-Jarvinen,
L. (2008). The psychophysiology of James Bond: Phasic emotional
responses to violent video game events. Emotion, 8, 114–120.
Sandler, P., & Alpert, J. L. (2000). Violence and group dynamics in the
high school: The Columbine school shootings. Journal for the Psycho-
analysis of Culture and Society, 5, 246–255.
Sharpe, J. P., & Desai, S. (2001). The revised Neo Personality Inventory
and the MMPI-2 Psychopathology Five in the prediction of aggression.
Personality and Individual Differences, 31, 505–518.
Sheese, B. E., & Graziano, W. G. (2005). Deciding to defect: The effects
of video-game violence on cooperative behavior. Psychological Sci-
ence, 16, 354–357.
Thompson, J. (2007). Upcoming sale of murder simulators in Florida.
Retrieved from http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/legal/JT-Wii.doc
Tiedens, L. Z. (2001). The effect of anger on the hostile inferences of
aggressive and nonaggressive people: Specific emotions, cognitive pro-
cessing, and chronic accessibility. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 233–
251.
Tracey, T. J. G. (2002). Personal Globe Inventory: Measurement of the
spherical model of interests and competence beliefs. Journal of Voca-
tional Behavior, 60, 113–172.
Trapnell, P. D., & Wiggins, J. S. (1990). Extension of the interpersonal
adjective scales to include the Big Five dimensions of personality.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 781–790.
Weigman, O., & van Schie, E. (1998). Video game playing and its relations
with aggressive and prosocial behavior. British Journal of Social Psy-
chology, 37, 367–378.
Wiggins, J. S. (1995). Interpersonal Adjective Scales professional manual.
Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
William, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). Internet fantasy violence: A test of
aggression in an online game. Communication Monographs, 72, 217–
233.
Zilmann, D., & Weaver, J. B. (1997). Psychoticism in the effect of
prolonged exposure to gratuitous media violence on the acceptance of
violence as a preferred means of conflict resolution. Personality and
Individual Differences, 22, 613–627.
Received December 28, 2009
Revision received December 28, 2009
Accepted January 15, 2010 䡲
91SPECIAL ISSUE: VULNERABILITY TO VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES