Content uploaded by Alessandro Gabbiadini
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Alessandro Gabbiadini on Sep 30, 2017
Content may be subject to copyright.
For Peer Review
The lone gamer: Social
exclusion predicts violent video
game preferences and fuels aggressive inclinations in
adolescent players
Journal:
Aggressive Behavior
Manuscript ID
AB-17-024.R2
Wiley - Manuscript type:
Research Article
Date Submitted by the Author:
31-Aug-2017
Complete List of Authors:
Gabbiadini, Alessandro; University of Milano-Bicocca, Psychology
Department
Riva, Paolo; University of Milano-Bicocca, Psychology Department
Keywords:
Social exclusion, violent video games, aggressive inclinations, Cyberball,
Voodoo Doll Task
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
For Peer Review
Running head: SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
1
The lone gamer: Social exclusion predicts violent video game preferences and fuels aggressive
inclinations in adolescent players
Alessandro Gabbiadini & Paolo Riva
University of Milano Bicocca, Italy
Word count: 6882
Abstract word count: 248
Author Notes
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to:
Alessandro Gabbiadini,
University of Milano-Bicocca, Department of Psychology
Piazza Ateneo Nuovo, 1, 20126 – Milano, Italy
E-mail: ale.gabbiadini@gmail.com
Phone number: ++39 348.0010477
Fax number: ++39 02.64483716
Page 1 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
2
Abstract
Violent video game playing has been linked to a wide range of negative outcomes, especially in
adolescents. In the present research, we focused on a potential determinant of adolescents’
willingness to play violent video games: social exclusion. We also tested whether exclusion can
predict increased aggressiveness following violent video game playing. In two experiments, we
predicted that exclusion could increase adolescents’ preferences for violent video games and
interact with violent game playing fostering adolescents’ aggressive inclinations. In Study 1, 121
adolescents (aged 10-18 years) were randomly assigned to a manipulation of social exclusion. Then,
they evaluated the violent content of nine different video games (violent, nonviolent, or prosocial)
and reported their willingness to play each presented video game. The results showed that excluded
participants expressed a greater willingness to play violent games compared to nonviolent or
prosocial games. No such effect was found for included participants. In Study 2, both inclusionary
status and video game contents were manipulated. After a manipulation of inclusionary status, 113
adolescents (aged 11-16 years) were randomly assigned to play either a violent or a nonviolent
video game. Then, they were given an opportunity to express their aggressive inclinations towards
the excluders. Results showed that excluded participants who played a violent game displayed the
highest level of aggressive inclinations compared to participants who were assigned to the other
experimental conditions. Overall, these findings suggest that exclusion increases preferences for
violent games and that the combination of exclusion and violent game playing fuels aggressive
inclinations. (248 words)
Keywords: Social exclusion, violent video games, aggressive inclinations, Cyberball, Voodoo Doll
Task
Page 2 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
3
The lone gamer: Social exclusion predicts violent video game preferences and fuels aggressive
inclinations in adolescent players
Over the past 30 years, a number of scholars have expressed concern about the potential
negative impact of exposure to violent video games (e.g., Dominick, 1984; Kestenbaum &
Weinstein, 1985; Anderson et al., 2010; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014). Indeed, media play a
significant role in human development (Plaisier & Konijn, 2013), providing both behavioral and
emotional regulation models (Bandura, 2001; Konijn, Nije-Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007). Moreover,
recent works suggested that adolescents are especially susceptible to the influence of media
contents, given their developmental stage (Dahl & Hariri, 2005; Rich & Bar-on, 2001; Strasburger,
2009; Strasburger, Jordan, & Donnerstein, 2010).
Within youth media culture, video games seem to be a key element. One recent report
(Statista, 2016) suggests that European teenagers (aged 13-18 years) spend an average of 8.9 hours
per week playing video games on their consoles. Although video games are designed to be
entertaining, many include violence and immoral contents (Gabbiadini, Andrighetto, & Volpato,
2012; Gentile & Anderson, 2003; Funk & Buchman, 1996; Plaisier & Konijn, 2013; Roe, 1995).
The PEGI (Pan European Game Information) reported that 40% (rated as 12+) of the video games
present in the market in 2016 are not suitable for adolescents considering that they expose teens to
violence, strong language, blood and gore. One study (Haninger & Thompson, 2004) analyzed the
content of 396 teen-rated video game titles, showing that 96% of them presented explicitly violent
content. Another study analyzed the content of video games (rated both teen and mature) showing
that 89% of the games included violent content (Children Now, 2001) and that approximately half
of the games included violent content towards other game characters that would result in serious
injuries or even death (Dietz, 1998; Dill, Gentile, Richter, & Dill, 2001).
At this regard, in 2000, six major public health organizations (i.e., the American Academy
of Pediatrics, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, American Psychological
Page 3 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
4
Association, American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, and
American Psychiatric Association) stated that children exposed to violent programming at a young
age (8 to 17 years old; see Gentile, Li, Khoo, Prot, & Anderson, 2014) have a higher tendency for
violent and aggressive behavior later in life than children who are not so exposed (see Gentile,
2014; p. 417). Nonetheless, despite this general consensus within the public health and scientific
communities, there is still a common belief that playing violent video games allows people to vent
their aggressive impulses through a cathartic effect, hence reducing aggressive inclinations after
playing (Gentile, 2013).
Two recent meta-analyses (Anderson et al., 2010; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014) showed that
violent games increase aggressive thoughts and emotions, physiological arousal, and aggressive
behaviors while decreasing empathic feelings and prosocial behaviors. Moreover, recent findings
pointed out that when dealing with modern violent video games, aggression is not the only element
of concern. The detrimental consequences of video games exposure can go beyond aggression,
promoting immoral and sexist conduct (see Escobar-Chaves & Anderson, 2008; Gabbiadini, et al.,
2012; Gabbiadini, Riva, Andrighetto, Volpato, & Bushman, 2014, 2016).
However, if the consequences of exposure to violent video games have been widely
considered (see the meta-analyses: Anderson et al., 2010; Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014), the
antecedents of exposure to such violent video games have received less attention. Given their
effects on aggression, it is critical to investigate the factors that might foster the preference for
violent video games in adolescents and young adults in the first place. Moreover, scholars have
advocated that a single risk factor may not account for why a person acts violently; therefore,
factors beyond exposure to violent media should be considered to understand adolescents’
aggressiveness more fully (Berkowitz, 1993).
In the present work, we considered social exclusion as one potential predictor of exposure to
violent media, in particular violent video games. Social exclusion is broadly defined as the
experience of being kept from others physically (e.g., being socially isolated) or emotionally (e.g.,
Page 4 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
5
being ignored or told that one is not wanted; Riva & Eck, 2016). Research has shown that being
excluded causes a wide range of psychological and behavioral reactions. These reactions include
hurt feelings, and a reduction of self- esteem, sense of control, feelings of belonging, and the
perception that life is meaningful (Williams, 2009). Although sometimes socially excluded
individuals respond in ways that should facilitate re-affiliation (e.g., Maner, DeWall, Baumeister, &
Schaller, 2007; Williams & Sommer, 1997), research found that often exclusion increases a
victim’s tendency to act aggressively towards the excluders. In line with these evidences, Plaisier
and Konijn (2013) showed that, compared to non-rejected peers, peer-rejected adolescents reported
higher levels of anger and frustration, which were related to more lenient moral judgment of
antisocial media contents. In turn, such moral judgment was associated with a greater preference for
antisocial YouTube clips.
The present research
In the present study, we focused on a potential determinant of adolescents’ willingness to
play violent video games: social exclusion. We then went a step further by considering the
possibility that exclusionary experiences can predict aggressive inclinations towards the excluders
in adolescents exposed to violent video game playing. Thus, we predicted that (1) social exclusion
could increase adolescents’ willingness to play violent video games and that (2) violent video
games playing could have an incremental effect on the causal link between social exclusion and
aggressive inclinations towards the excluders.
There are a multitude of theoretical accounts that can support our predictions. Firstly, past
research suggested that social exclusion activates a hostile cognitive mindset that can in turn
promote aggression (DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009). In four experiments, the
authors found that individuals who experienced social exclusion showed increases in hostility-
related cognitive processes compared to socially accepted and control participants. Thus, excluded
people might be more prone to look for violent game playing and display higher aggressive
inclinations when they have the chance to exercise aggression through violent video game playing.
Page 5 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
6
Secondly, excluded teenager might try to deal with the painful feelings caused by exclusion by
becoming more attracted to violent video games (Riva, 2016). Thus, violent video game playing
might become a possible strategy to cope with the negative emotions caused by the exclusionary
experience in the eyes of teenagers. As a third account, previous research also suggested that
following social exclusion, individuals are less motivated to exert self-regulatory abilities
(Baumeister, DeWall, Ciarocco, & Twenge, 2005). Thus, excluded teens might have a lower
motivation to resist the temptation to choose a violent video game in the first place. At the same
time, they might lash out to a greater degree when actually exposed to violent games. Finally,
another line of research showed that excluded people feel entitled to act in a more dishonest way
(Poon, Chen, & DeWall, 2013). Thus, excluded teens might have lower levels of moral concern,
which can then account for a greater desire to interact with violent video games and then for the
higher aggression resulting from the combination of being excluded and exposed to violent video
game playing. These are all plausible accounts that allow us to predict our two main hypotheses,
which are tested in two independent studies.
Study 1
Study 1 examined the possibility that social exclusion can selectively increase adolescents’
preference for violent video games compared to other types of video games.
Method
Participants
The sample comprised 121 Italian volunteers (57.9% male, 41.3% female, 1 missing; 10 to
18 years old, M=13.99, SD=1.69). Data collection was performed using an electronic survey. After
agreement was obtained from the high school internal committee, teachers of the school distributed
the link of the web survey through a newsletter in two schools of northern Italy. As soon as the
Page 6 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
7
students accessed the web survey, the electronic system automatically randomized participants to
one of the two experimental conditions.
Design
The study employed a 2 (social exclusion manipulation: excluded vs. included) × 3 (video
game type: violent vs. nonviolent vs. prosocial) mixed ANCOVA factorial design, with the first
factor varying between subjects and the second factor varying within subjects.
Procedure
Participants were told that the study was composed of two unrelated parts. In the first part,
they were asked to provide their demographic information and report the frequency of their typical
video game playing (i.e., “How often do you play video games?” anchored with 1=never, 2=less
than once per month, 3=once per month, 4=less than once per week, 5=about once per week,
6=several times per week, 7=every day). Moreover, several studies have demonstrated that
adolescents are most attracted to video games in which the main action is predominantly violence
(Buchman & Funk, 1996; Funk, 1993; Gentile & Anderson, 2003; Lemmens, Bushman, & Konijn,
2006), thus participants were also asked to report their preferences for violent (“How much do you
like violent video games?” and “How much do you like shooter video games?” anchored with 1=not
at all to 7=extremely; α=0.84) and nonviolent video games (“How much do you like nonviolent
video games?” and “How much do you like platform video games?” anchored with 1=not at all to
7=extremely; α=0.44).
Participants were then told that the second part of the study related to the effects of mental
visualization on adolescents. As a cover story, students were informed that they would take part in a
mental visualization exercise and then evaluate their mental visualization experience (for a similar
procedure see Williams, Cheung, & Choi, 2000). In reality, they experienced a standard
manipulation of inclusionary status (i.e., Cyberball; Williams et al., 2000). Participants were told
that they would engage in a ball-throwing online game with two other players, ostensibly real
Page 7 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
8
participants that were playing Cyberball in another school, for the purposes of exercising their
mental visualization abilities. Participants were told that they should visualize all aspects of the
game, the players and the location. Actually, the two computer characters were pre-programmed
agents randomly assigned to either include or exclude the real participant from the game. In the
exclusion condition, after two passes, the two computer players stopped throwing the ball to the
participant for the remainder of the game. In the inclusion condition, the computer players threw the
ball to the actual participant for 10 of the 30 total tosses (Williams et al., 2000). After playing
Cyberball, two items assessed the subjective perception of ostracism (“I felt ignored”; “I felt
excluded” anchored with 1=not at all to 7=extremely). These two items were combined to create a
single score for perceived ostracism (α=0.96), with higher scores reflecting higher levels of
perceived exclusion. Participants were then asked to estimate the percentage of ball tosses they
received (0%-100%). Then, participants were asked to complete a series of self-report items
assessing negative emotions linked to experiences of exclusion (see Buckley, Winkel, & Leary,
2004; α=.95). They included anger (e.g., “I felt angry”), sadness (e.g., “I felt sad”), hurt (e.g., “I felt
hurt”), anxiety (e.g., “I felt anxious”), happiness (e.g., “I felt happy”, reverse coded) and rejection
(e.g., “I felt accepted”, reverse coded).
However, the main dependent variable in Study 1 was participants’ willingness to play
video games. Participants were presented with nine different video games in a random order. More
specifically, for each video game, a gameplay screenshot, the original cover of the game package, a
brief description of the game and the PEGI evaluation were presented. That is, it was as if they were
evaluating the original game’s package. The selected video games represented three main
categories: violent video games (i.e., GTA 5, Mafia II, Counter Strike), nonviolent video games
(i.e., Guitar Hero, Tony Hawk’s Pro Skater, Mini Golf 3D) and prosocial video games (i.e., E.R.,
City Crisis, Zoo Vet). Participants were asked to evaluate their willingness to play each video game
(“How likely would you be to choose to play this video game now?”). They were also asked to rate
to what extent they perceived each video game’s content to be violent (“To what extent do you
Page 8 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
9
evaluate this video game as being violent?”). All the items relating to the video game’s content
were assessed on a 7-point scale (1=not at all to 7=extremely).
Results
Preliminary analyses
All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.24.0. One participant in the exclusion
condition was excluded from the analyses because he/she was an outlier on the index of violent
content evaluation for neutral and prosocial video games (3.06 and 5.89 SDs, respectively, below
the mean). Thus, all the analyses were conducted on data from 120 participants (see also Table 1).
Inclusionary status manipulation checks. A series of independent-samples t-tests revealed
that excluded participants reported higher perceived ostracism (M=5.50, SD=1.98) than included
participants did (M=1.70, SD=1.40), t(118)=11.80, p<.001, d=2.21). They also reported receiving
fewer tosses (M=6.07, SD=6.05) than those who were included (M=34.34, SD=17.55),
t(118)=12.30, p<.001, d=2.15. Additionally, participants who were excluded had higher scores on
the overall index of rejected emotions scale (M=4.02, SD=1.36) than participants who were
included (M=2.51, SD=0.81), t(118)=7.09, p<.001, d=1.34 (see also Table 1).
Baseline video game preferences. Given that past research has shown that video games are
most enjoyed and played by males (Anderson & Dill, 2000; Funk & Buchman, 1996; Lemmens et
al., 2006), we first checked whether there were any differences in media consumption between male
and female participants. Using an independent-samples t-test, we found that males indicated a
stronger preference for violent video games (M=5.19, SD=1.68) than females (M=2.62, SD=1.83),
t(117)=7.94, p<.001, d=1.46 . No significant differences were found for nonviolent video game
preferences between males (M=4.04, SD=1.55) and females (M=3.89, SD=1.52), t(117)=0.53,
p=.59, d=0.09 (1 observation was not considered due to missingness). Male participants also
reported a higher frequency of video game exposure (M=5.62, SD=1.58) than female participants
(M=4.40, SD=1.85), t(117)=3.87, p<.001, d=0.70.
Page 9 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
10
Therefore, the baseline frequency of video game exposure and the baseline preferences for
violent video games were entered as covariates in the primary analyses.
Primary analyses
Video games’ violent content rating. The scores for each video game were averaged to
create three overall indexes of content rating for violent (α=.83), neutral (α=.22), and prosocial
(α=.27) video games. Considering the covariates, no significant effects were found for participants’
baseline preference for violent video games, F(1,116)=2.58, p=.11,
η
p2
=.02, whereas the baseline
frequency of video game exposure was significant F(1,116)=4.87, p=.029,
η
p2
=.04
Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated
χ
2
(2)=44.91,
p<.001, therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity
(
ε
=.78). The analyses showed a main effect of the type of video game, F(1.56, 181.73)=78.07,
p<.001,
η
p2
=.40. Pairwise comparisons indicated that violent video games were rated as being more
violent (M=5.87, SD=1.25) than neutral games (M=1.35, SD=0.51; p<.001) and prosocial games
(M=1.72, SD=0.75; p<.001), whereas the violence scores for prosocial games were significantly
higher than those for neutral games (p<.001). No significant main effects were found for the social
exclusion manipulation, F(1,116)=0.61, p=.436,
η
p2
=.005, on the evaluation of violent content. We
also found a significant interaction effect between the type of video game and the social exclusion
manipulation, F(1.56, 181.73)=6.31, p=.005,
η
p2
=.05. Pairwise comparisons revealed significant
differences between excluded (M=5.63, SD=1.44) and included participants (M=6.18, SD=0.88),
F(1,116)=5.86, p=.017, d=0.46, in the violence content ratings for violent video games, with
excluded participants tending to perceive violent games as less violent than did included ones.
However, no significant differences were found for neutral video games content ratings between
included (M=1.27, SD=0.43) and excluded (M=1.41, SD=0.56) players, F(1,116)=2.45, p=.120,
d=0.28. No significant differences emerged between participants in the exclusion (M=1.79,
SD=0.82) and inclusion (M=1.62, SD=0.63) conditions when considering the evaluation of the
Page 10 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
11
violent contents for prosocial video games, F(1,116)=1.68, p=.198, d=0.23. Specifically, excluded
participants tended to perceive prosocial games as more violent than included ones did
1
.
Willingness to play the video game. The scores for each video game evaluated by the
participants were averaged to create three overall indexes of willingness to play violent (α=.89),
neutral (α=.60), and prosocial (α=.71) video games.
Considering the covariates, no significant effects were found when considering participants’
baseline frequency of video game exposure F(1,116)=0.197, p=.65,
η
p2
=.002. We found a
significant effect of participants’ baseline preference for violent video games F(1,116)=14.65,
p<.001,
η
p2
=.112 on the willingness to play the selected video games.
Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been violated
χ
2
(2)=26.76, p
<.001, therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity
(
ε
=.86). The analyses showed a significant main effect for type of video game on the willingness to
play violent video games, F(1.72,199.58)=21.04, p<.001,
η
p2
=.154. Pairwise comparisons indicated
that, overall, participants expressed higher willingness to play violent video games (M=4.08,
SD=2.11) compared to prosocial games (M=3.13, SD=1.59; p<.001), whereas the willingness to
play neutral games (M=3.70, SD=1.50) was significantly higher than that for prosocial games
(p<.001). No significant difference between the willingness to play neutral games and violent video
games was found (p=.106).
There was no significant main effect of the manipulation of inclusionary status on
willingness to play with games, F(1,116)=0.88, p=.35,
η
p2
=.008. However, we found the predicted
interactive effect between the type of video game and the manipulation of inclusionary status on
willingness to play with games, F(1.72,199.58)=10.51, p<.001,
η
p2
=.083 (see Figure 1). Pairwise
comparisons revealed that excluded participants reported a greater willingness to play a violent
video game (M=4.48, SD=2.09) than included participants did (M=3.58, SD=2.05), F(1,116)=9.73,
p=.002, d=0.43. In a complementary way, excluded participants reported a lower willingness to
Page 11 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
12
play neutral video games (M=3.44, SD=1.47) than included participants did (M=4.02, SD=1.49),
F(1,116)=4.28, p=.041, d=0.39. Similarly, excluded participants expressed a lower willingness to
play a prosocial video game (M=2.81, SD=1.67) compared with what reported by included
participants (M=3.53, SD=1.40), F(1,116)=5.82, p=.017, d=0.46
2
.
Brief discussion
Overall, Study 1 supported the hypothesis that social exclusion can increase adolescents’
preference for playing violent video games. In a complementary way, excluded participants
reported a lower willingness to play a prosocial or a neutral video game than did included
participants. The latter result suggests that social exclusion not only increases to chances of
exposure to video games known for their detrimental impact (i.e., violent video games; see
Anderson et al., 2010) but it also reduces the probability that a teenager will engage with video
games known for their beneficial effects (i.e., prosocial video games; see Gentile et al., 2009;
Greitemeyer & Osswald, 2010). Our findings also suggested that excluded participants evaluated
violent video games as being less violent than did included participants. Therefore, social exclusion
not only influenced adolescents’ preferences for playing violent and prosocial games, but it might
have also changed their perceptions of the video games themselves, by seeing less violence in
actually violent video games.
Study 2
Results of Study 1 suggested that even a momentary lack of social connections (e.g., social
exclusion) can foster teens’ proneness for interacting with video games characterized by violent
content. Study 2 aimed to extend the findings of Study 1 by testing the hypothesis that the
combination of social exclusion and violent video game playing could produce the highest levels of
aggression in an adolescent sample.
Method
Page 12 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
13
Participants
The sample comprised 124 Italian middle school volunteers (59.7% male, 11 to 16 years old,
M=12.57, SD=0.98; see also Table 2) who had not taken part in Study 1. Data collection was
performed using a written questionnaire. After agreement was obtained from the middle school
internal committee, teachers of the school distributed a consent form to the parents of the students.
Furthermore, students completed a second form indicating their personal consensus. The parental
consent rate and participant assent rate were both 100%.
Design
The study employed a 2 (social exclusion manipulation: excluded vs. included) × 2 (type of
video game: violent vs. nonviolent) between-subjects design.
Procedure
Participants were tested in the school laboratory during class time and the data collection
lasted 7 days. We had 7 middle school classes available for this study. Classes were tested in group
of 5/6 participants at a time and each class was tested on the same day. Participants were told that
the study was composed of three unrelated parts and that the first part related to the effects of
mental visualization on adolescents (Williams et al., 2000). In reality, participants were randomly
assigned to the same manipulation of inclusionary status as they were in Study 1. Then, similar to
Study 1, they were asked to report how much they felt ignored and excluded (α=.98) and estimate
the percentage of ball tosses they received (0%-100%). Participants were then asked to complete a
series of negative emotion items (Buckley et al., 2004; α=.93).
In the second part of the experiment, we told participants that the study was designed to
investigate the effects of video games on cognitive abilities. Given the popularity of violent video
games among adolescents, before video game content was manipulated, we also measured how
frequently they used to play violent games (0=never played before to 7=every day) and how
frequently they played video games in general (0=I do not play video games to 7=every day). Then,
Page 13 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
14
participants were randomly assigned to play a violent video game (i.e., GTA San Andreas, which is
rated 18+ for violent content) or a nonviolent video game (i.e., TRI: A Friendship and Madness,
which is rated 3+ for having no violent content).
Both these games have been successfully used in previous studies (Gabbiadini et al., 2014;
Gabbiadini et al., 2016; Riva et al., 2017). In both the violent and the nonviolent video game
conditions, participants first practiced by playing for 5 minutes. During the practice session,
participants learned how to control their character and how to interact with the game’s virtual
environment. A list of the most important keyboard shortcuts for each game was also provided.
When the practice session ended, students were invited to play their assigned game for 15 minutes.
Subsequently, they completed video game manipulation checks. They were first asked to
report the title of the video game that they played and rate how violent, competitive, involving,
difficult to play, enjoyable, frustrating, exciting and boring they thought the game was (1=not at all
to 7=extremely).
Finally, in the third part of the experiment, we measured participants’ aggressive
inclinations towards the excluders, which was the main dependent variable of this study. To do so,
we adopted the Voodoo Doll Task (VDT; DeWall et al., 2013). The VDT offers participants the
opportunity to inflict harm by stabbing pins into a doll that represents a specific person (either
someone whom they know or someone who has provoked them in some way). Indeed, as reported
by DeWall et al. (2013) people transfer characteristics of a person onto a voodoo doll representing
that person. As a result, causing harm to a voodoo doll may have psychological similarities to
causing actual harm to the person the voodoo doll represents. In some experimental procedures, the
doll is virtual. Regardless of whether it is real or on a computer screen, the participants are told that
they can stab the doll with as many real or virtual pins as they want (DeWall et al., 2013). For the
purposes of our study, participants were presented with a doll representing one of the ostensible
partners with whom they played Cyberball. The voodoo doll was presented with a picture of a doll.
Participants were then told that they had the opportunity to stab the doll with 0 to 10 pins as they
Page 14 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
15
wished. Stabbing the doll with more pins indicated higher levels of aggressive intentions (DeWall et
al., 2013). Then, demographic information was collected.
Finally, about 2 weeks later, following the completion of the study, all participants were
fully debriefed. No participants expressed suspicion about the true purpose of the study. In
particular, none of the participants reported a link between video games and social exclusion. The
experimenter then disclosed the purpose of the study, and discussed the potentially harmful short-
terms effects of violent video games on players. A group discussion followed.
Results
Preliminary analyses
All statistical analysis was performed using SPSS v.24.0. Due to some initial technical
problems in the computer lab of the school, the Cyberball paradigm failed to load for 11
participants. Thus, all the analyses were conducted on data from 113 participants (see also Table 2).
Inclusionary status manipulation checks. A series of independent-samples t-tests revealed
that excluded participants reported to feel more ignored/excluded (M=4.69, SD=2.29) than included
participants (M=1.78, SD=1.11) t(111)=8.52, p<.001, d=1.61). Excluded participants also reported
receiving fewer tosses (M=4.84, SD=5.21) than included participants (M=10.76, SD=6.84),
t(111)=5.17, p<.001 d=0.97. Excluded participants also reported higher levels of negative emotions
(M=3.59, SD=1.30) than included participants (M=1.96, SD=0.79), t(111)=7.95, p<.001, d=1.51
Baseline video game preferences and video games manipulation checks. Similar to
Study 1, we found significant gender differences in video game usage. Males reported a higher
frequency of violent video game exposure (M=4.65, SD=2.06) than females (M=2.02, SD=1.72),
t(111)=7.13, p<.001, d=1.38. Moreover, males reported spending more time with video games in
general (M=6.29, SD=0.76) than females (M=5.34, SD=1.55), t(111)=4.29, p<.001, d=0.77. Thus,
the overall frequency of video game play and the frequency of violent video game exposure were
treated as covariates in all the analyses.
Page 15 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
16
Four items were included to assess whether the video game manipulation was successful.
First, we checked the name of the game reported by each participant. All the participants correctly
named the video game that they played. We then tested whether the violent video game was rated as
being more violent than the nonviolent video game. Independent-samples t-test indicated that the
violent game (M=5.37, SD=2.02) had significantly higher violence ratings than the nonviolent
game (M=1.16, SD=0.45), t(111)=15.72, p<.001, d=2.87.
No significant differences were found in game competitiveness between the violent
(M=4.38, SD=2.05) and nonviolent (M=4.59, SD=1.55) games, t(111)=0.60, p=.547, d=0.11.
Moreover, the violent game (M=4.62, SD=1.99) and nonviolent game (M=5.20, SD=1.48) were not
statistically different in terms of perceived involvement, t(111)=1.77, p=.079, d=0.33.
The violent game was also rated as difficult to play (M=2.87, SD=1.81) as the nonviolent
one (M=2.79, SD=1.61), t(111)=0.24, p=.80, d=0.04. We did not find significant differences on the
enjoyment of play between the two games adopted in our study (violent game M=4.81, SD=2.05;
non-violent game M=4.79, SD=1.95), t(111)=0.05, p=.95, d=0.01). Participants also reported that
playing the violent video game was frustrating (M=2.38, SD=1.79) and boring (M=2.13, SD=1.87)
as it was playing the non-violent game (respectively M=2.15, SD=1.51, t(111)=0.76, p=.44, d=0.13;
and M=2.20, SD=1.65, t(111)=0.18, p=.85, d=0.04). Finally, playing the violent game was also
perceived as exciting (M=4.27, SD=2.31) as the non-violent game (M=4.28, SD=1.72), t(111)=0.02,
p=.98, d=0.00 (see also Table 2).
Primary analyses
Our main hypothesis was tested using a 2 (inclusionary status: inclusion vs. exclusion) × 2
(type of video game: violent vs. nonviolent) ANCOVA. Regarding the covariates, no significant
effects were found for the frequency of video game play F(1,107)=2.50, p=.11,
η
p2
=.023 or for the
frequency of violent video game exposure F(1,107)=.006, p=.93,
η
p2
=.00.
Page 16 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
17
We found a significant main effect of the inclusionary status manipulation on aggressive
inclinations, indicating that excluded participants were more inclined to aggression (M=6.55,
SD=3.25) than included ones (M=2.56, SD=2.74), F(1,107)=54.35, p<.001, d=1.32. The analyses
also yielded a main effect of video game content, suggesting that adolescents who played a violent
video game stabbed the doll with more pins (M=5.85, SD=3.80) than participants who played a
nonviolent game (M=3.56, SD=3.09), F(1,107)=16.84, p<.001, d=.66. Most importantly, we found
a significant interaction effect between the inclusionary status manipulation and the video game
content on the number of pins used to stab the doll, F(1,107)=4.11, p=.045,
η
p2
=.037 (see Figure 2).
For excluded participants, the levels of aggressive inclinations towards the excluders were higher
following violent game playing (M=8.33, SD=2.37) than following nonviolent game playing
(M=5.00, SD=3.14), F(1,107)=19.41, p<.001, d=1.19. However, when participants were included,
the number of pins used to stab the doll did not differ for violent game players (M=3.16, SD=3.19)
and nonviolent game players (M=2.07, SD=2.24), F(1,107)=2.12, p=.148, d=0.39
3
.
Brief discussion
Study 2 showed that violent video game playing can interact with social exclusion,
strengthening the effects of social exclusion on aggressive inclinations towards the perpetrators of
exclusion. Thus, not only did exclusion lead adolescents to have stronger preferences for violent
media (see Study 1) but the combination of exclusion and violent media exposure produced the
highest levels of aggressive inclinations towards the excluders.
General Discussion
Similar to violent video game playing, social exclusion has a strong impact on a wide array
of adolescents’ feelings, thoughts, and behaviors. Importantly, young adolescents have been found
to be particularly vulnerable to the detrimental consequences of both social exclusion (Juvonen,
Graham, & Schuster, 2003) and violent video games exposure (Dahl & Hariri, 2005). Social
Page 17 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
18
exclusion and violent video games exposure both have the ability to induce in the target a hostile
mindset and increased aggressive inclinations.
To date, research has primarily focused on the direct links between social exclusion and
aggression or violent video game exposure and aggression. However, little is known about the
reasons why adolescents choose to play violent video games in the first place. Moreover, little is
known about the relationship between these two experiences, which often co-occur during
adolescence. In the present research, we first predicted that social exclusion could increase
adolescents’ willingness to play violent video games. We also predicted that violent games could
increase the detrimental effects of social exclusion on aggressive inclinations. Our main findings
supported both predictions, showing that exclusionary experiences motivate adolescents to engage
with violent video games, which, in turn, could make these adolescents even more incline to
aggression. We also found that the specific combination of social exclusion and violent game
playing produces the highest aggressive tendencies responses towards the excluders (compared to
the other combinations of experimental conditions that we tested). Thus, our data suggest that social
exclusion and violent video game playing can interact fostering aggressive inclinations.
Considering the results of Study 1, we note that numerical trends suggested that excluded
participants, compared to included players, seemed to be less aware of the violent content of each of
the presented video games. However, excluded players were more eager to play violent video
games even when controlling for the baseline preferences for violent video games. In this regard,
previous literature showed that experiencing social exclusion can cause the activation of hostile
cognitions, which, in turn, have consequences on aggressive tendencies (DeWall et al., 2009). Past
research also suggested that teens play mature-rated violent video games because they believe that
violent gaming can help them to deal with anger and negative affect (Olson et al., 2007).
Accordingly, it is possible that the excluded adolescents in Study 1 might have been more prone to
look for the media content (e.g., violent games) either because it simply matched their current
mindset or because they believe that playing violent games would have allowed them to cope with
Page 18 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
19
the angry feelings caused by the exclusionary experience. At this regard, it is worth noticing that
findings of Study 2 further disconfirm the aggression catharsis hypothesis. In accordance with
previous research (Bushman, 2002; Bushman, Baumeister, & Phillips, 2001) we showed that the
use of violent media in response to the painful affective state caused by exclusionary episodes is not
an effective way of managing these emotions and actually leads to increased aggressive
inclinations.
Another interpretation of our finding could relate to the mood adjustment approach
(Knobloch, 2003). Following this rationale, the willingness to play violent video games in response
to social exclusion may be functional to maintain a hostile mindset to confront the perpetrators of
the exclusion (Knobloch-Westerwick & Alter, 2006). Results of Study 2 seem to support this
rationale. Several plausible mechanisms might account for the founded effects. A first explanation
would consider violent media playing following social exclusion to be a (dysfunctional) emotional
regulation strategy (Riva, 2016). At this regard, a possible strategy for terminating undesirable
affective states caused by exclusionary events is to engage in activity unrelated with the sources of
social exclusion (Riva, 2016). However, in the long run, teenagers who choose violent media to
deal with exclusionary experiences might end up more socially isolated than before considering
their higher antisocial tendencies.
A second explanation is suggested by an ego depleted state. Indeed, following social
exclusion, individuals are less able to exert self-regulation (Baumeister et al., 2005). Accordingly,
in Study 1, excluded teens might have preferred violent games because of their reduced motivation
to self-regulate. Similarly, in Study 2, excluded people might have entered the stage of violent
video game playing with reduced self-regulation abilities that ultimately lead them to display more
aggressive inclinations thereafter.
A third potential mechanism could be represented by a higher degree of moral
disengagement. Past research showed that excluded people feel entitled to act in a more dishonest
way (Poon et al., 2013). Thus, in both studies, excluded adolescents might had lower levels of
Page 19 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
20
moral concern (see also Footnote 1). In light of this, future studies should consider investigating the
role of moral disengagement as a possible moderator of the combined effects of social exclusion
and violent video game playing on aggressive tendencies.
Considering the findings of Study 1, we speculate that violent video games selection in
adolescence as a response to social exclusion will further influence beliefs, attitudes, and behavior
accordingly, leading to even stronger preferences for violent video games (see also Plaisier &
Konijn, 2013). In turn, violent video games exposure may produce aggression-related knowledge
structures and a hostile expectation bias (Bushman & Anderson, 2002) which may prime
adolescents to interpret ambiguous social situations as hostile, thus fostering hurt feelings and
increasing feelings of exclusion. In such a way, we argue that the unique combination of social
exclusion and exposure to violent video games can create an upward spiral of aggressive tendencies
in teenager (see also Den Hamer, Konijn, & Keijer, 2014; Den Hamer & Konijn, 2015 for a similar
approach).
Consideration should also be given to the potential positive effects of playing prosocial
video games. Study 1 suggested that social exclusion might have reduced adolescents’ preferences
for prosocial video games. Previous research has shown that playing video games in which the main
goal is to help other characters can decrease the accessibility of aggressive thoughts (Greitemeyer &
Osswald, 2009) and reduce aggressive behavior (Greitemeyer, Agthe, Turner, & Gschwendtner,
2012). Thus, not only exclusion might increase teens’ preference for violent media, it might also
decrease their attraction to prosocial ones. Therefore, future studies are needed to test the
hypothesis that exclusionary experience can stave off teenager from prosocial video game playing
and that exclusion-related aggressive tendencies could be counteracted by prosocial video game
exposure.
The present work is not without limitations. First, in Study 1, we explored participants’
perceptions of video games’ violent content following our manipulation of social exclusion.
However, given that violent video games are becoming increasingly more realistic and complex
Page 20 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
21
(e.g., often involving players with moral dilemmas), it would of primary importance to explore
other evaluative dimensions such as the identification with the game’s world. Second, to simplify
the data collection process at the schools, in Study 2, we employed only one violent (i.e., GTA San
Andreas) and one nonviolent (i.e., TRI: A Friendship and Madness) video game. However, to
increase the generalizability of the findings, future studies should consider adopting two video
games of each type (e.g., Gabbiadini et al., 2014) and control for video game attractiveness. Third,
we considered only the effects of short-term experiences of social exclusion and game playing.
Although it is noteworthy that only 60 seconds of ostracism from two unknown avatars on the
screen could produce a detectable effect in both studies, future researchers should consider long-
term or chronic experiences of social exclusion (e.g., social isolation). Similarly, future research
should take into account the effects of chronic exposure to violent video games beyond
experimental exposure to a violent game in a single session. Fourth, future studies should also
consider the role of individual differences (i.e., trait aggressiveness; trait hostility) in the
relationship between social exclusion, video game exposure and aggressive tendencies in
adolescents.
Conclusion
The present research contributes to both social and media psychology by showing that the
negative effects of violent video game exposure on aggression are only a small piece of a larger
puzzle, especially when considering adolescents. Although the links between violent video game
play and aggression have been repeatedly shown (for meta-analyses, see Anderson et al., 2010;
Greitemeyer & Mügge, 2014), most studies have focused on young adults (e.g., college students).
In fact, few studies have assessed the influence of violent video games on aggression during early
and middle adolescence. This is surprising, given that media’s effects on dysfunctional behaviors
can be greater during early adolescence, given the higher reactivity to physiological arousal that
occurs during this stage of development (Spear, 2000). In parallel, the consequences of social
Page 21 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
22
exclusion might be exacerbated in childhood and adolescence (Buhs, Ladd, & Herald, 2006; Hymel,
Vaillancourt, McDougall, & Renshaw, 2002).
Our research shows that social exclusion represents a risk factor that can exacerbate the
negative effects of violent video games on adolescents, at least in the short term. Increasingly more
cases of bullying are being reported in schools, and these episodes represent prototypical cases of
social exclusion for adolescents (Williams, Forgas, & von Hippel, 2005). From this perspective, our
findings should be of particular interest among teachers and educators. Knowing the factors (e.g.,
social exclusion) that make some adolescents more vulnerable than others to the detrimental effects
of violent media exposure on aggression can help teachers to develop targeted interventions for
teenagers. It is important for individuals who work with adolescents to be aware of the
consequences of violent media exposure, especially when dealing with those who are most
vulnerable to their effects, such as socially excluded teenagers.
Acknowledgements
The authors would like to thank the Editor and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful and
constructive comments. Finally, they would like to thank the “Rita Levi Montalcini” middle school
institute for allowing us to collect the data reported in this manuscript.
Page 22 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
23
Notes
1. We also included one item (“How much do you evaluate this video game as morally
acceptable?” assessed on a scale from 1 = not at all to 7 = extremely) for measuring the
moral acceptability of video games content in Study 1. However, a similar measure was not
included in Study 2 due to an error in preparing the study materials, and therefore it was not
included in the main text of the manuscript. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of
sphericity had been violated
χ
2
(2)=76.17, p<.001, therefore degrees of freedom were
corrected using Huynh-Feldt estimates of sphericity (
ε
=.69). However, the analyses yielded
a main effect of the type of video game F(1.39,161.55)=29.20, p<.001,
η
p2
=.201 on the
evaluation of video games content moral acceptability, whereas the main effect of the social
exclusion manipulation was not F(1,116)=0.419, p=.519,
η
p2
=.004. These effects were
qualified by a significant interaction between the type of video game and the experimental
condition, F(1.39,161.55)=7.55, p=.003,
η
p2
=.061. Pairwise comparison revealed that
participants who were excluded evaluated violent video games as more morally acceptable
(M=3.75, SD=1.73) than participants who were included (M=2.58, SD=1.54;
F(1,116)=12.20, p=.001, d=0.71). No significant differences between excluded (M=4.76,
SD=1.41) and included participants (M=5.03, SD=1.64; F(1,116)=0.62, p=.432, d=0.17)
were found when considering the moral acceptability of non-violent games. Moreover, there
was no significant difference in the evaluation of pro-social games between excluded
(M=4.48, SD=1.57) and included (M=5.02, SD=1.60; F(1,116)=2.34, p=.129, d=0.34)
participants. These preliminary results suggest a possible effect of exclusionary status on
moral acceptability ratings for violent video games, thus highlighting the need for future
studies considering the role of this evaluative dimension.
2. The result patterns did not change when participants’ gender was entered as covariate.
Nevertheless, when treated as a covariate, participants’ gender showed a significant effect
Page 23 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
24
on the willingness to play the presented video games [F(1,114)=8.95, p=.003,
η
p2
=.073]
whereas no significant gender differences emerged on the evaluation of the violent content
of the games [F(1,114)=2.97, p=.087,
η
p2
=.025]. Thus, we tested an alternative model
considering participants’ gender as a separate factor. Therefore, gender and the social
exclusion manipulation were entered as independent variables, whereas the baseline
frequency of video game exposure and the baseline preference for violent video games were
entered as covariates. Mauchly’s test indicated that the assumption of sphericity had been
violated
χ
2
(2)=22.76, p <.001, therefore degrees of freedom were corrected using Huynh-
Feldt estimates of sphericity (
ε
=.89). No significant three-way interaction effect among the
type of video game (violent, neutral, prosocial), the experimental condition (exclusion,
inclusion) and gender emerged for the willingness to play the presented video games
[F(1.78,202.05)=0.116, p=.87,
η
p2
=.001]. A similar pattern of results was found for the
evaluation of video game violent contents (Mauchly’s test
χ
2
(2)=42.70, p <.001;
ε
=.80). The
three-way interaction effect among the type of video game, the experimental condition and
gender on the the evaluation of violent contents was not significant [F(1.60,181.14)=0.25,
p=.726,
η
p2
=.002]. Thus, our results are independent of participants’ gender.
3. The result patterns did not change when participants’ gender was entered as covariate. When
treated as a covariate, gender showed no significant effects on the number of stabbed pins in
the Voodoo Doll [F(1,106)=0.60, p=.43,
η
p2
=.006]. We also tested an alternative model
considering participants’ gender as a separate factor affecting the effects of video games on
aggressive inclinations. Thus, gender, the social exclusion manipulation and the type of
video game were entered as independent variables, whereas the baseline frequency of video
game exposure and the exposure to violent video games were treated as covariates. No
significant three-way interaction effect among the type of video game (violent, nonviolent),
Page 24 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
25
social exclusion and gender was found on aggressive inclinations [F(1,103)=2.15, p=.145,
η
p2
=.02].
Page 25 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
26
References
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Videogames and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior
in the laboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772–
790.
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., … Saleem, M.
(2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in
eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136,
151- 73.
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. Media Psychology, 3, 265-
298.
Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N. J., & Twenge, J. M. (2005). Social exclusion
impairs self-regulation. Journal of personality and social psychology, 88(4), 589.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Pain and aggression: some findings and implications. Motivation and
Emotion, 17, 277–93
Buchman, D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer games in the ’90s: Children report time
commitment and game preference. Children Today, 31, 12 – 15.
Buckley, K., Winkel, R., & Leary, M. (2004). Reactions to acceptance and rejection: Effects of
level and sequence of relational evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
40, 14 –28.
Buhs, E. S., Ladd, G. W., & Herald, S. L. (2006). Peer exclusion and victimization: Processes that
mediate the relation between peer group rejection and children’s classroom engagement
and achievement? Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 1-13.
Bushman, B. J. (2002). Does venting anger feed or extinguish the flame? Catharsis, rumination,
distraction, anger, and aggressive responding. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 724-731.
Page 26 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
27
Bushman, B. J., Baumeister, R. F., & Phillips, C. M. (2001). Do people aggress to improve their
mood? Catharsis beliefs, affect regulation opportunity, and aggressive responding
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 17-32.
Bushman, B., & Anderson, C. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test ofthe
general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686.
Children Now. (2001). Fair play? Violence, gender and race in video games. Los Angeles, CA:
Children Now.
Dahl, R. E., & Hariri, A. R. (2005). Lessons from G. Stanley Hall: Connecting new research in
biological sciences to the study of adolescent development. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 15, 367-382.
Den Hamer, A., Konijn, E. A., & Keijer, M. G. (2014). Cyberbullying behavior and adolescents’
use of media with antisocial content: a Cyclic process model. Cyberpsychology
Behavior and Social Networking, 17, 74-81.
Den Hamer, A. H., & Konijn, E. A. (2015). Adolescents’ Media exposure may increase their
cyberbullying behavior: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Health, 56, 203–
208.
DeWall, C. N., Finkel, E. J., Lambert, N. M., Slotter, E. B., Bodenhausen, G. V., Pond, R. S., …
Fincham, F. D. (2013). The voodoo doll task: Introducing and validating a novel
method for studying aggressive inclinations. Aggressive Behavior, 39, 419-439.
DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It's the thought that
counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social
exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45-59.
Dietz, T. L. (1998). An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games:
implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior. Sex Roles, 38, 425–442.
Page 27 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
28
Dill, K. E., Gentile, D. A., Richter, W. A., & Dill, J. C. (2001). Portrayal of women and minorities
in video games. Paper presented at the 109th Annual Conference of the American
Psychological Association, San Francisco, CA.
Dominick, J. R. (1984). Videogames, television violence, and aggression in teenagers. Media effects
on the young, 34, 136-147.
Escobar-Chaves, S. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2008). Media and risky behaviors. Future of Children,
18, 147–180.
Funk, J. B. (1993). Reevaluating the impact of video games. Clinical Pediatrics, 32, 86 – 90.
Funk, J. B., & Buchman, D. D. (1996). Playing violent video and computer games and adolescent
self-concept. Journal of Communication, 46, 19-32.
Gabbiadini, A., Riva, P., Andrighetto, L., Volpato, C., & Bushman, B. J. (2016). Acting like a
tough guy: Violent-sexist video games, identification with game characters, masculine
beliefs, & empathy for female violence victims. Plos One, 11, 1–14.
Gabbiadini, A., Andrighetto, L., & Volpato, C. (2012). Brief report: Does exposure to violent video
games increase moral disengagement among adolescents? Journal Of Adolescence, 35,
1403-1406.
Gabbiadini, A., Riva, P., Andrighetto, L., Volpato, C., & Bushman, B. J. (2014). Interactive effect
of moral disengagement and violent video games on self-control, cheating and
aggression. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 450-457.
Gentile, D. A. (2013). Catharsis and Media Violence: A Conceptual Analysis. Societies, 3, 491-510.
Gentile, D. A. (2014). Media violence and children: A complete guide for parents and professionals
(2nd ed.). Santa Barbara, CA: Praeger.
Gentile, D. A., & Anderson, C. A. (2003). Violent video games: The newest media violence hazard.
In D. A. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence and children. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishing.
Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa, S., Ihori, N., Saleem, M., Ming, L. K., . . . Sakamoto, A.
(2009). The effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behaviors: International
Page 28 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
29
evidence from correlational, experimental, and longitudinal studies. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 752–763.
Gentile, D. A., Li, D., Khoo, A., Prot, S., & Anderson, C. A. (2014). Mediators and Moderators of
Long-Term Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggressive Behavior: Practice,
Thinking, and Action. JAMA Pediatrics, 168, 450-457.
Greitemeyer, T., & Mügge, D. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic
review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin 40, 578–589.
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2009). Prosocial video games reduce aggressive cognitions.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 896 –900.
Greitemeyer, T., & Osswald, S. (2010). Effects of prosocial video games on prosocial behavior.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 211-221.
Greitemeyer, T., Agthe, M., Turner, R., & Gschwendtner, C. (2012). Acting prosocially reduces
retaliation: Effects of prosocial video games on aggressive behavior. European Journal
of Social Psychology, 42, 235–242.
Haninger, K., & Thompson, K. M. (2004). Content and ratings of teen-rated video games. Journal
of the American Medical Association, 291, 856-865.
Hymel, S., Vaillancourt, T., McDougall, P., & Renshaw, P. D. (2002). Peer acceptance and
rejection in childhood. In P. K. Smith & C. H. Hart (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of
childhood social development (pp. 285–306). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Juvonen, J. J., Graham, S., & Schuster, M. (2003). Bullying among young adolescents: The strong,
weak, and troubled. Pediatrics, 112, 1231– 1237.
Kestenbaum, G. I., & Weinstein, L. (1985). Personality, psychopathology, and developmental
issues in male adolescent video game use. Journal of the American Academy of Child
Psychiatry, 24, 329-333.
Page 29 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
30
Knobloch-Westerwick, S., & Alter, S. (2006). Mood adjustment to social situations through mass
media use: How men ruminate and women dissipate angry moods. Human
Communication Research, 32, 58-73.
Knobloch, S. (2003). Mood adjustment via mass communication. Journal of Communication, 53,
233–250.
Konijn, E. A., Nije-Bijvank, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). I wish I were a warrior: The role of
wishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescent
boys. Developmental Psychology, 43, 1038-44.
Lemmens, J. S., Bushman, B. J., & Konijn, E. A. (2006). The appeal of violent video games to
lower educated aggressive adolescent boys from two countries. Cyberpsychology &
Behavior, 9, 638-641.
Maner, J. K., DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Schaller, M. (2007). Does social exclusion
motivate interpersonal reconnection? Resolving the "porcupine problem". Journal of
personality and social psychology, 91, 42.
Olson, C., Kutner, L., Warner, D., Almerigi, J., Baer, L., … Beresin, E. V. (2007). Factors
correlated with violent video game use by adolescent boys and girls. Journal of
Adolescent Health, 41, 77–83.
Plaisier, X. S., & Konijn, E. A. (2013). Rejected by peers—Attracted to antisocial media content:
Rejection-based anger impairs moral judgment among adolescents. Developmental
Psychology, 49, 1165–1173.
Poon, K. T., Chen, Z., & Dewall, C. N. (2013). Feeling entitled to more: ostracism increases
dishonest behavior. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1227-39.
Rich, M., & Bar-on, M. (2001). Child health in the information age: Media education of
pediatricians. Pediatrics, 107, 156-162.
Page 30 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
31
Riva, P. (2016). Cognitive and emotion regulation strategies to reduce the negative effects of social
exclusion. In P. Riva, & J. Eck, J. (Eds.). Social Exclusion: Psychological approaches to
understand and reduce its impact. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Riva, P., & Eck, J. (Eds). (2016). Social exclusion: Psychological approaches to understanding and
reducing its impact. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Riva, P., Gabbiadini, A., Romero Lauro, L. J., Andrighetto, L., Volpato, C., & Bushman, B. J.
(2017). Neuromodulation can reduce aggressive behavior elicited by violent video
games. Cognitive, Affective, and Behavioral Neuroscience, 17, 452-459.
Roe, K. (1995). Adolescents’ use of socially disvalued media: Towards a theory of media
delinquency. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 24, 617-631.
Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioral manifestations. Neuroscience
and Biobehavioral Reviews, 24, 417–463.
Statista. (2016). Video game market in the UE. - Statista Dossier.
Strasburger, V. C. (2009). Why do adolescent health researchers ignore the impact of the media?
Journal of Adolescent Health, 44, 203-205.
Strasburger, V. C., Jordan, A. B., & Donnerstein, E. (2010). Health effects of media on children and
adolescents. Pediatrics, 125, 756-67.
Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: effects of being excluded and ignored, in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, ed Zanna M., editor. (New York, NY: Academic
Press), 275–314.
Williams, K. D., & Sommer, K. L. (1997). Social ostracism by coworkers: does rejection lead to
social loafing or compensation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 693–
70.
Williams, K. D., Cheung, C. K., & Choi, W. (2000). Cyberostracism: effects of being ignored over
the Internet. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 748-62.
Page 31 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
32
Williams, K. D., Forgas, J. P., & von Hippel, W. (Eds). (2005). The social outcast: Ostracism,
social exclusion, rejection, and bullying. New York: Psychology Press.
Page 32 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
33
Figure captions
Figure 1. Effect of social exclusion (vs. inclusion) on the willingness to play violent, nonviolent
and prosocial video games. The capped vertical bars denote 1 standard error (SE). Means with
different letters are significantly different at the .05 level.
Figure 2. Effect of social exclusion (vs. inclusion) and type of video game (violent vs. nonviolent)
on aggressive inclinations as measured by the number of pins stabbed into a Voodoo Doll. The
capped vertical bars denote 1 standard error (SE). Means with different letters are significantly
different at the .05 level.
Page 33 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
Included participants Excluded participants
Willingness to play
violent games
non-violent games
pro-social games
a
b
b
bb
c
Page 34 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
Running head: SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
1
Table 1. Number of participants, means and standard deviations for each of the variables measured
for Study 1.
Inclusion Exclusion
N=53 N=67
M SD M SD
Age 14.09 1.83 13.91 1.59
Perceived ostracism 1.70 1.40 5.50 1.98
Rejected negative emotions scale 2.51 0.81 4.02 1.36
Frequency of video game exposure 5.11 1.68 5.09 1.88
Overall preference for violent video games 4.00 2.18 4.19 2.13
Overall preference for nonviolent video games 3.83 1.62 4.05 1.50
Violent content rating for violent video games 6.18 0.88 5.63 1.44
Violent content rating for neutral video games 1.27 0.43 1.41 0.56
Violent content rating for prosocial video games
1.62 0.63 1.79 0.82
Willingness to play violent video games 3.58 2.05 4.48 2.09
Willingness to play neutral video games 4.02 1.49 3.44 1.47
Willingness to play prosocial video games 3.53 1.40 2.81 1.67
Page 35 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
SOCIAL EXCLUSION, VIDEO GAMES, AND AGGRESSION
2
Page 36 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
Nonviolent video games
Violent video games
Included participants Excluded participants
Number of stabbed pins
a
a
b
c
Page 37 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
For Peer Review
Table 2. Number of participants, means and standard deviations for each of the variables measured for Study 2.
Nonviolent video game Violent video game
Inclusion
Exclusion
Inclusion
Exclusion
N=30 N = 31 N=25 N = 27
M SD M SD M SD M SD
Age 12.47 0.97 12.77 0.88 12.60 1.04 12.52 0.89
Perceived ostracism 1.66 1.04 4.75 2.29 1.92 1.20 4.62 2.32
Rejected negative emotions scale 1.76 0.65 3.18 1.04 2.19 0.90 4.05 1.43
Frequency of violent video games exposure 3.90 2.23 3.55 2.36 3.20 2.30 3.52 2.45
Overall frequency of video games play 5.70 1.34 5.94 1.45 5.68 1.18 6.26 0.81
Video game violence rating 1.07 0.25 1.26 0.57 4.64 2.28 6.04 1.50
Video game competitiveness rating 4.80 1.44 4.39 1.64 4.16 2.09 4.59 2.04
Video game involvement rating 5.30 1.36 5.10 1.59 3.96 2.07 5.22 1.74
Video game difficulty of control rating 2.90 1.64 2.68 1.60 3.00 1.89 2.74 1.76
Video game enjoyment rating 5.43 1.65 4.16 2.05 4.48 2.10 5.11 2.00
Video game frustration rating 2.17 1.41 2.13 1.62 2.04 1.30 2.70 2.12
Video game excitement rating 4.53 1.71 4.03 1.72 4.12 2.29 4.41 2.37
Video game boredom rating 2.10 1.42 2.29 1.86 2.16 1.57 2.11 2.13
Number of stabbed pins (VDT) 2.07 2.24 5.00 3.14 3.16 3.19 8.33 2.37
Page 38 of 38
John Wiley & Sons
Aggressive Behavior
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
