This literature review was completed as part of an assessment at the University of York. The condensed version presented here provides a brief overview of the study's scope and findings. Please note that this summary is not exhaustive and represents only a concise outline of our work.
The Aggression Game: A review on General Aggression Model and the Heated Debate on the Impact of Violent Video Games
With the rise of video games, researchers have begun to investigate the impact of depicted violence in the games on player’s behaviour. The General Aggression Model (GAM) has been proposed as a framework for understanding how exposure to violent video games can lead to increased aggression in players. However the opponents of the GAM have raised concerns about its ability to adequately account for confounding variables, such as the competitive nature of video games, and have criticised its overall validity. Additionally, an alternative perspective, the competitive hypothesis, has emerged, suggesting that the competitive nature of video games, rather than the violent content, may be the main factor in predicting aggressive behaviour. This review explores the role of the GAM, the opponents of the model, the alternative perspectives offered by the competitive hypothesis and, it also talks about the potential positive impact of violent games. Ultimately, this review aims to contribute to our understanding of the strengths and limitations of the GAM and alternative hypotheses, and understanding of the link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour.
Research Qestion
RQ) To what extent does the General Aggression Model accurately predict the link between violent video games & aggressive behaviour and how opponents have responded to its claim?
​
This literature review aims to critically evaluate the existing research on the topic, with a particular focus on the relationship between video game violence and aggressive behaviour. It aims to provide insights of supporters and opponents of GAM as well as the role that competitive game play may play in this relationship. Moreover, It also tries to grab the attention of readers towards possible positive effects of violent video games. The main focus of this research is to ask existing research:-
Summary of work
With videogames one of the most popular and immersive forms of entertainment media, concerns have been raised with depicted violence. The relationship between violent video games and aggression is complex and still a subject of debate. This literature review (by answering the stated question) has contributed to a deeper understanding of the relationship between violence in video games and aggression by building upon previous works and examining the current state of evidence on the effects of violent video games. The topic has been hotly debated for decades, with researchers and experts weighing in on both sides of the argument. On one hand, supporters of GAM have found a positive correlation between exposure to violent video games and aggression. They have demonstrated that playing violent video games can prime aggressive thoughts, aggressive feelings and physiological arousal. Moreover, long term exposure can cause desensitisation from real world violence, decrease in empathy and can also lead to extreme violent acts like school shootings. On the other hand, opponents of GAM have found no significant link or have suggested that the relationship may be mediated by other factors. This literature review brings three important points to understand the opponents of GAM. Firstly, the continuous null results of recent studies have led the scholars to question ecological validities of GAM and its failure to take into account the confounding variables. Opponents of GAM argue that GAM is an old model and it's time to consider other factors while understanding this complex relationship. Secondly, the authors of the competitive hypothesis argue that it's not in-game violent content but competitiveness which triggers aggressive behaviour. They also point out that as violent video games involve competition, it might have led to false positives of GAM studies. Finally, authors point out that GAM has failed to take into account the possible positive effects of violent games like improved cognition, cooperative game play and to vent out frustration.
In conclusion, while proponents argue that the GAM provides a useful framework for understanding the link between violent video games and aggressive behaviour, opponents have raised concerns about its validity and lack of consideration for important confounding variables. The emergence of the competitive hypothesis has further complicated the debate, as researchers continue to explore alternative explanations for the relationship between video game content and aggression. Ultimately, the findings suggest that while there is evidence to support the link between violent video games and aggression, the relationship is complex and cannot be attributed solely to the violent content of the games. Factors such as competitiveness, individual differences, and game context also play a role. Moreover, some authors argue that the positive effects of violent video games have been overlooked by GAM supporters. Despite these challenges, continued research in this area is critical to informing policy decisions and promoting healthy game habits among players.