3
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
APPROVAL SHEET
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in
Experimental Psychology, this thesis entitled: “The Interrelationship
between Aggression and Frustration Brought About by Computer
Games with Incentives” is submitted by Dior Grita F. De Torres and
Edielyn D. Gonzalvo and is hereby recommended for final
examination.
The Interrelationship Between Aggression and Frustration Brought
About by Computer Games with Incentives
A Research Paper Presented
to the Faculty of College of Education, Arts and Sciences
Lyceum of the Philippines University –Batangas
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements in
Experimental Psychology
by
Prof. Jovelyn Mañibo, M.A
Dior Grita F. De Torres
Edielyn D. Gonzalvo
September 2012
___________________________
Prof. Jovelyn Mañibo, M.A
Thesis Adviser
4
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
The Interrelationship between Aggression and
Frustration brought about by Computer Games
with Incentives among LPU Male students
Prof. Jovelyn Mañibo, M.A
Dior Grita F. De Torres
Edielyn D. Gonzalvo
The experimental study aims to measure the level of aggression and
frustration brought about by computer games with incentives and the
interrelationship of the said variables. With 50 participants for each four
groups, a total of 200 males who are avid of playing computer games
participated in the study. The results and analyses presented in the
study concluded that incentives differentially affect the level of
aggression and frustration of the players with tobt = 7.18 and 6.521 >
tcrit = 2.021 using t-test for dependent groups and Fobt = 4.527 and
8.340 > Fcrit = 3.89 using ANOVA with alpha level of 0.05, two tailed.
At the same time, computer game’s level of difficulty also affects the
level of aggression and frustration of the players with t obt = 7.53 and
4.783 > tcrit = 2.021 respectively and Fobt = 6.524 and 10.167 > Fcrit =
3.89. Moreover, there is also an interaction between incentive and the
level of difficulty of computer game with tobt = 9.68 for aggression and
tobt = 7.356 > 2.021 for frustration. Computer games and /with
incentives has a large effect on the level of aggression and frustration
among male students of LPU.
Keywords: aggression, frustration, computer game, incentive
Debates about aggression and frustration brought about by
computer games have taken place for centuries. Scientific interest in
the effects of computer gaming however, only really began in the late
1920s. A body of sociological work known as the ‘Payne Fund Studies’
argued that a link existed between games (particularly the violent
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
games of the 1930s) and delinquent behavior among young people.
These studies were highly influential and fuelled demands for tighter
regulation of computer games.
There have been a number of experimental studies looking at
the relationship between aggression and frustration and computer
game playing although a number of these studies use computer games
as an experimental paradigm to investigate other theoretical concerns
(e.g., the relationship between aggression and temperature, the
influences of social roles on sex differences using a computer game).
Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, and Sears came out with a
hypothesis called the frustration aggression hypothesis which was
later called the Frustration aggression theory and then became the
most well-known drive theory of aggression. In this theory, frustration
and aggression are linked in a cause and effect relationship.
Frustration is the cause of aggression and aggression is the result of
frustration (Smith, 1999). Frustration, as defined by Doug Kaufman,
Ph.D. (2012), is a feeling of tension that occurs when our efforts to
reach some goal are blocked. When this occurs, it can produce
feelings of anger, which in turn can generate feelings of aggression
and aggressive behavior. And aggression is defined as an action with
the intent to harm, and can be physical and non-physical (Baron, &
Richardson, 1994).
Violence in computer games has been a major social issue, not
limited to violence in sports video games. Over 85% of the games on
the market contain some violence. Approximately half of computer
games include serious violent actions toward other game characters
(Children Now, 2001; Dietz, 1998; Dill, Gentile, Richter, & Dill, 2005).
Since 1999, the amount of daily video game usage by youth has
nearly doubled (Roberts, Foehr, & Rideout, 2005). Video game usage
is high in youth regardless of sex, race, parental education, or
household income (Roberts et al., 2005).
Recent meta-analyses (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004, submitted
for publication) have shown that violent video game exposure
5
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
increases physiological arousal, aggressive affect, aggressive
cognition, and aggressive behavior. Other studies link violent video
game play to physiological desensitization to violence (e.g., Bartholow,
Bushman, & Sestir, 2006; Carnagey, Anderson, & Bushman, 2007).
Particularly interesting is the recent finding that violent video game play
can increase aggression in both short and long term contexts.
People of all ages in most modern countries get a heavy dose of
violent media, especially in TV programs, films, and video games (e.g.,
Comstock & Scharrer, 2007; Gentile, 2003; Gentile, Saleem, &
Anderson, 2007; Kirsh, 2006; Singer & Singer, 2001).
Potential harmful effects of media violence have been
scrutinized for over six decades, and considerable consensus has
been reached on several of the most important issues. As stated by a
recent panel of experts assembled by the U.S. Surgeon General,
“Research on violent television and films, video games, and music
reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the
likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and
long-term contexts” (Anderson et al., 2003, p. 81).
One of the main concerns that has constantly been raised
against video and computer games is that most of the games are
claimed to feature aggressive elements. This has led some people to
state that children become more aggressive after playing such games
(e.g.,Koop, 1982; Zimbardo, 1982).
Many authors claim that most computer games are violent in
nature and feature death and destruction (e.g., Dominick, 1984; Loftus
& Loftus, 1983). In a survey reported by Bowman and Rotter (1983),
85% of games that were examined (n 5 28) involved participants in
acts of simulated destruction, killing or violence.
The General Aggression Model (GAM) would predict that shortand long-term exposure when combined with increased arousal and
negative affect could result in aggressive behavior (Anderson & Dill,
2000). It has been found that trait aggression as well as self-reported,
peer reported, and teacher-reported aggressive behavior has
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
correlated well with exposure to violent television shows and video
games (Ulhmann & Swanson, 2004; Fling et al., 1992; Lin & Lepper,
1987).
The General Aggression Model (GAM) suggests that each time
someone plays a violent video game, they in effect rehearse an
aggressive script which teaches and reinforces aggressive behavior
towards another, positive attitudes towards using violence, and the
belief that violence is an effective, appropriate way to resolve conflict
(Anderson & Dill, 2000). Thus, a positive correlation should exist
linking exposure to violent video games to aggressive characteristics.
Anderson and Dill (2000) explored this relationship between
long-term exposure to video game violence and aggressive behavior
and delinquency. The duo found that aggressive delinquent behavior
(such as assault) and nonaggressive delinquent behavior (such as
grand theft auto) was positively related to both trait aggression and
exposure to video game violence but the strength of the relation to
aggressive delinquent behavior was better. Gentile, Lynch, Linder, and
Walsh (2004) found that exposure to video game violence and amount
of video game play were both positively associated with adolescents’
trait hostility, the frequency in which they got into arguments with their
teachers, the likelihood of being involved in a physical fight, and were
negatively linked to school grades.
Many authors claim that most computer games are violent in
nature and feature death and destruction (e.g., Dominick, 1984; Loftus
& Loftus, 1983). In a survey reported by Bowman and Rotter (1983),
85% of games that were examined (n 5 28) involved participants in
acts of simulated destruction, killing or violence.Amore recent study of
computer game content by Provenzo (1991) reported that of the 47
leading Nintendo games that he analyzed, only seven of them did not
involve violence. He reported that video games were populated by
terrorists, prizefighters, SWAT teams, robotic cops, and the like, and
that women were cast as “victims,” and foreigners as “baddies.”
Findings, such as this, led Provenzo to conclude that video games
6
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
encourage sexism, violence and racism by conditioning children to
view the world in a way that they see on the computer screen.
Wei Peng, Ph.D., Ming Liu, M.A., and Yi Mou, M.A. conducted a
study in 2008 entitled “Do Aggressive People Play Violent Computer
Games in a More Aggressive Way? Individual Difference and
Idiosyncratic Game-Playing Experience” which investigates whether
individual difference influences idiosyncratic experience of game
playing. In particular, they examine the relationship between the game
player’s physical-aggressive personality and the aggressiveness of the
player’s game playing in violence oriented video games. Screen video
stream of 40 individual participants’ game playing was captured and
content analyzed. Participants’ physical aggression was measured
before the game play. The results suggest that people with more
physical-aggressive personality engage in a more aggressive style of
playing, after controlling the differences of gender and previous gaming
experience.
Craig A. Anderson and Nicholas L. Carnagey (2009) performed
three experiments that examined the impact of excessive violence in
sport video games on aggression-related variables. Participants played
either a nonviolent simulation-based sports video game (baseball or
football) or a matched excessively violent sports video game.
Participants then completed measures assessing aggressive
cognitions (Experiment 1), aggressive affect and attitudes towards
violence in sports (Experiment 2), or aggressive behavior (Experiment
3). Playing an excessively violent sports video game increased
aggressive affect, aggressive cognition, aggressive behavior, and
attitudes towards violence in sports. Because all games were
competitive, these findings indicate that violent content uniquely leads
to increases in several aggression-related variables, as predicted by
the General Aggression Model and related social–cognitive models.
Finally, Irwin and Gross (1995) measured interpersonal
aggression and aggression toward inanimate objects in 60 second
grade boys (aged 7 to 8 years). After playing computer games with
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
aggressive or nonaggressive themes, they found that those who
played the aggressive games exhibited significantly more object
aggression during a free play situation and more interpersonal
aggression during a frustrating situation.
These studies, all of which were carried out on young children,
do seem to suggest that the playing of violent computer games has the
effect of increasing a child’s aggressive behavior—at least in the short
term. It is possible that this particular methodology (i.e., observational
analysis of free play) may itself be contributing to the effect.
Aggression is defined as an action with the intent to harm, and
can be physical and non-physical (Baron, & Richardson, 1994). There
are many areas where aggression manifests in our society today, such
as domestic violence, abuse, school bullying, road-rage, and war.
Many social scientists look to theories to explain this phenomenon.
Amongst the many different explanations, some say frustration, which
is defined as the blocking of on-going goal-directed behaviour, often
leads to aggression (1994).
Frustration on the other hand, is an emotional state that arises
as a response to a perceived opposition towards the achievement of a
goal, and it can either resolve in anger or disappointment according to
whether the level of perceived opposition is too high or too low and
according to each individual’s personality. Frustration is also a factor
that has been recognized as pivotal in shaping or spoiling optimal
experiences: if the cause of frustration is mild and internal (laziness,
lack of confidence, etc.) it can easily be a positive force to inspire and
motivate, but if it is caused by external forces that are perceived to be
outside an individual’s control (i.e. a task too hard compared to the
skills available) it can lead to feeling of powerlessness and eventually
anger. Frustration would normally be characterized as an unwanted
component of user experience; however, frustration is also a
recognized component of the experience of play.
Several
psychological theories are relevant to the possible role of computer
game violence in youth aggression. J. L. Sherry identified six theories
7
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
used to predict either increased or decreased aggression after violent
computer game play. First, social learning theory suggests that at least
some aggression is learned by observing, and then by imitating, a
model who acts aggressively. Aggressive computer game characters
might serve as models for aggressive behaviour. Further, rewards
such as higher points and longer playing times within the game and
increased status provide a motivation for increased aggression by
reinforcing the behaviour.
Second, an arousal theory predicts that, if the computer game
player has an aggressive disposition or is angered; playing an arousing
computer game might cause increased aggression owing to a
generalized increase in energy and intensity. According to this theory,
violent computer games would be expected to increase aggression
only in the presence of anger from some other cause.
Third, a cognitive “priming” theory and a social informationprocessing model suggest that violent computer games will activate
related cognitive structures, making it more likely that other incoming
information would be processed in an “aggression” framework,
possibly increasing aggressive behaviour. For example, someone for
whom thoughts of aggression have been evoked might be more likely
to interpret an ambiguous behaviour as aggressive and respond
accordingly.
Fourth, catharsis theory suggests that violent computer games
can provide a safe outlet for aggressive thoughts and feelings. Fifth,
drive-reduction theory suggests, similar to catharsis theory, that violent
computer games may be useful in managing aggression. According to
this theory, highly stressed or frustrated individuals may play violent
computer games to re-establish emotional equilibrium through arousal
or relaxation.
A sixth theory, the general affective aggression Model,
integrates social learning, arousal, and cognitive processing theories
and includes individual variables (such as aggressive personality) as
well as situational variables (such as computer game play).
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
According to this model, whenever exposure to violent media
primes aggressive thoughts, increases hostile feelings, or increases
arousal, short-term increases in aggression would be expected. Longterm increases in aggression might also result if computer gameplaying led to changes in aggression-related knowledge structures or
“scripts.”
In the case of Skinner’s learning theory, all behavior, including
human aggression, operates either through classical or operant
conditioning. In this instance, aggression is a learned behavior
because it has in the past been rewarded. For example, a bully beats
up schoolyard children because it eventually leads to them giving him
their milk money. On the other hand punishment can lead to aversion
from using aggression. In another example, perhaps the child who got
beat up gets his older brother to beat up the bully in retaliation. In this
sense the bully has been punished for his original behavior and is less
likely to enact that behavior against the same target in the future.
When viewing television or movies, a viewer may only receive
indirect rewards for violent actions of the characters (e.g., witnessing
when a violent character is rewarded for his or her actions). When
individuals play violent computer games, there is direct (and typically
instant) reinforcement for their choice of action. This reinforcement can
come in numerous forms: visual effects, sound effects (e.g., groans of
pain from an injured target), verbal praise (e.g., when a target is hit the
computer says “well done” or “impressive”), points for various violent
actions, and advancing to the next game level after obtaining certain
goals. Bandura 50, 51 has demonstrated that aggression is likely to
increase when it is rewarded.
Frustration theory has been reformulated more recently by
Berkowitz (1989). The original work of Dollard et al. (1939) stated the
following: 1) “the occurrence of aggressive behavior always assumes
the existence of frustration” (p. 1), and 2) “the existence of frustration
always leads to some form of aggression” (p. 1). These two statements
caused much debate during their time among scholars studying
8
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
aggression and inspired research designed to prove the hypothesis
wrong. Again, the original proposition of this theory was that all
aggression stems from frustration and that frustration must always lead
to aggression.
Objectives of the Study
The study aims to measure the level of aggression and
frustration brought about by computer games with incentives and the
interrelationship of the variables. Specifically, it attempts (1) to
investigate if presence of incentives can affect the level of (1a)
aggression; and (1b) frustration of the players. This is also (2) to
determine if level of difficulty can affect the level of (2a) aggression;
and (2b) frustration of the players. Lastly, it also wishes (3) to know if
there is an interaction between the presence of incentives and the
computer game’s level of difficulty.
The general hypotheses specifies that incentive do not
differentially affect the level of aggression and frustration of the
players, computer game’s level of difficulty are equal in their effects on
the level of aggression and frustration of the players and there is no
interaction effect between incentive and the level of difficulty of
computer game.
METHOD
This chapter presents the brief description of the research
design, participants, instruments, data gathering procedures and data
analysis used by the researchers in conducting the study.
Research Design
The study made use of the experimental approach of research.
This research method involves manipulating one variable to determine
if a change in one variable causes changes in another variable. This
method relies on controlled method, random assignment and the
manipulation of variables to test hypothesis.
The measures of aggression and frustration included: (a)
behavioural observations, (b) self-ratings. Behavioural observations
included observer ratings of participants during free-play on behaviours
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
such as physical aggression (e.g., pinching lips), verbal aggression
(e.g., teasing), and aggression against objects (e.g., hitting the mouse,
punching the table).
Self-ratings included paper-and-pencil questionnaires and
measures of frustration and aggression (verbal aggression, physical
aggression, physical aggression, and hostility); questions about
aggressive behaviour in real or hypothetical situations; and mood
checklists in which participants checked off which of a list of adjectives
described their current mood.
Participants
Participants were assigned using the stratified random
sampling; members of the population who are males, avid of playing
computer games.
The college male is an appropriate target for a study on the
impact of computer game on aggression and frustration. In past
psychological studies, men have been identified as behaving more
aggressively than women (Calvert & Tan, 1994). Also, it has been
suggested that men maybe more affected by computer game than
women (Bartholow & Anderson, 2002). This could be a consequence
of more exposure to computer game. Research notes that men spend
more time playing computer games in general than women (Gentile,
Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004), and that men prefer and do play
computer games more so than women (Anderson & Murphy, 2003;
Funk, Buchman, Jenks, & Bechtoldt, 2003; Uhlmann & Swanson,
2004). For these reasons, the experimenter thought it sufficient to only
study males and leave the study of gender effects for a later time.
The age representing the typical college male is also an
appropriate target for this study. Panee and Ballard (2002) note that
this age sample has practical implications since most of the media’s
attention on the negative effects of computer games has focused on
this age group. The authors also comment that “the empirical evidence
regarding television has generalized well across age groups and
9
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
cohorts, so it is likely that these findings will hold up similarly” (p.
2470).
Sherry (2001) found a correlation of .2 between effect size and
subject age suggesting that older subjects were affected more by
violent computer games than younger subjects. These results and
comments support the use of college-aged subjects in this experiment.
Study designs Include: (a) control group (participants will be
assigned using the stratified random sampling; members of the
population who are males avid of playing computer games) to just play
the simple type of computer game (b) the first experimental group to
play the simple type of computer game and beat “our highest scorer” in
order to receive a Php500.00 incentive (c) the second experimental
group to just play the complex type of computer (d) third experimental
group to play the complex type of computer game and beat “our
highest scorer” in order to receive a Php500.00 incentive .The total of
200 participants (50 for each group) ranges from first year to fourth
year college with age ranges from 16 to 21. The control group served
as the basis for comparison with the other three experimental groups.
Apparatus
Aside from the subjects, the experimenters also needed
instrument for the better completion of the experiment. The apparatus
consisted of a laptop (mouse, mouse pad, headset), Php500.00 bill
that served as the incentive stimulus, two sets of questionnaires that
the participants answered before and after playing the computer game,
pen and paper was also used to record the verbal and non-verbal
activity of the players while playing.
Computer Game. Laptop (mouse, mouse pad, headset). Critical
to this study was the selection of games that would vary in simplicity
and could also be manipulated to aid in increasing or decreasing
aggression frustration. Many computer games now have an option
which allows the player to change the difficulty level of the game. In an
experimental setting, one often wishes for the treatments to be
identical except for the variable that is to be manipulated. In a perfect
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
setting, one would create two versions of a game that was identical
except that one is more difficult than the other. However, the
researchers wanted to maintain natural validity by using computer
game that is simple. Therefore, the researchers looked for computer
game that could be matched on several differing variables. The games
needed to be visually similar as well as having game play
characteristics that were similar; a very basic maze game called The
Frustration Game was used for the experiment.
Incentive. Php500.00 bill that served as the incentive stimulus,
Demographic sheet. On a single page, participants indicated
their age, self-described gaming level (whether they are beginner,
intermediate or advance) and education level. Included also in the
demographic sheet is the hours they use computer per week and what
percentage of this time is spent playing computer games. And if they
had already played The Frustration Game before and how much time
did they spend playing the game. This allowed for a general measure
of computer game playing habits in participants.
Aggression Questionnaires. To measure trait aggressiveness,
participants completed the Aggression Questionnaire (Buss & Perry,
1992). The Aggression Questionnaire consists of the summed score of
the 29-item statements and was designed to measure the degree to
which respondents endorse statements about their levels of
aggression. Item responses were based on a 5-point, likert-type scale,
ranging from 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to 5 (extremely
characteristic of me), with higher scores indicating more
aggressiveness. After playing the game, the participants were asked to
answer another questionnaire about aggression towards playing more
and winning the incentive. The second aggression questionnaire
merely asks whether the participants after playing the game will be
more able to commit an aggressive act etc.
Frustration Questionnaire. To measure frustration, participants
completed the Frustration Questionnaire The Frustration Questionnaire
consists of the summed score of the 7-item statements and was
10
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
designed to measure the degree to which respondents endorse
statements about their levels of frustration before playing the game.
Item responses were based on a 5-point, likert-type scale, ranging
from 1 (not frustrated at all/ very easy/ very well) to 5 (very frustrated/
very difficult/ terrible), with higher scores indicating more frustration.
After playing the game, the participants were asked to answer another
questionnaire about frustration towards the game.
Pen and paper. The researchers record the computer game
habits by adapting the pen and paper method. While playing the game,
the participants’ behavior-verbal and non-verbal were also recorded.
Procedures
First and foremost, the experiments consulted for the approval
of their topic, the instruments to be utilized and the most appropriate
procedures to be followed. Upon approval of the research topic and
other factors concerning the experiment, the researchers conducted a
pilot study in order to test the validity and maintenance of the
experiment. The pilot study was conducted among 20 college male
students of LPU who were chosen through stratified random sampling.
The proposed research title, instruments and statistical treatments
gone through several revisions for the strength of the actual
experiment.
All procedures were approved and were designed to be
consistent with APA ethical standards. Participants who volunteered
for this study signed up for a 10-minute appointment time to assure
that all procedures could be completed.
The researchers made use of the stratified random sampling to
obtain participants who possesses a certain characteristic-avid of
playing computer games. Indicated in the demographic profile is the
level of competency of the players (whether a beginner, intermediate
or advance in playing computer games). After being asked to read and
sign an informed consent form and invited to ask any questions about
their rights, participants were given the Aggression and Frustration
questionnaires. After these were completed, participants who were
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
randomly assigned to either the control group/incentive group/game
level group/ incentive and game level were then seated at a PC to play
depending on the condition of the group were they belonged.
Participants who were randomized into the control condition
were provided with brief, three-sentence descriptions of the game.
Both descriptions were designed to have three main components. The
first sentence described the game’s story. The second sentence
described the gameplay. The last sentence of each description noted
the condition of the group. The description for the control group and
game level group, “This is a maze game, you are the mouse cursor
and all you have to do is to avoid touching the walls and the obstacles
at the maze. In each stages, you must first click the START button
then after doing so, the screen will automatically move (shake, stock,
go back or speed up) and it is up to you how will you manipulate the
movement of the mouse cursor. Just play the game and enjoy it, so, if
you have no more questions shall we start?”
By contrast, the description of Incentive group and incentive and
game level group, “This is a maze game, you are the mouse cursor
and all you have to do is to avoid touching the walls and the obstacles
at the maze. In each stages, you must first click the START button
then after doing so, the screen will automatically move (shake, stock,
go back or speed up) and it is up to you how will you manipulate the
movement of the mouse cursor. Beat our highest scorer and you’ll get
Php500.00 bill and will be recognized as our new highest scorer, so, if
you have no more questions shall we start?”
All participants were allowed to play the game for a 5-minute
interval. After playing the computer game, participants were asked to
fill out the follow-up questionnaire. This is to compare the results of the
first and second questionnaires and to know whether an increase in
aggression and/or frustration occurred. Finally, participants were
thoroughly debriefed, informed of the deception in the incentive (for the
Incentive and Incentive and Computer game group). Participants were
given a cover story for the study: that the study was designed to
11
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
examine whether playing computer games with incentive affects the
level of aggression and frustration among players. After all the
procedures, the data were gathered, computed, tabulated, analyzed
and interpreted.
RESULTS
Descriptive Information
Although not the key focus of this study, it is interesting to note
some key descriptive trends about computer game use that have also
been mentioned in past studies. An estimate of time spent playing
computer games revealed that subjects typically play computer games
on average of 9.5 hours per week. This number is higher than the 5.72
hours per week reported by the Kaiser Family Foundation (2005);
however, their research study only focused at 8 to 18 year olds.
Perhaps game play increases once one enters college.
All subjects reported having played a computer game in their
lifetime. When asked to rate themselves according to their competency
in playing computer games (see figure 2), Intermediate, meaning they
are average players was most frequently cited. Using the paper and
pen method, the experimenters noted the most common behaviors of
the players when playing the game. Most of the players shouts with
tendencies of punching the table, tightly grasping their hands, the
mouse etc. Most of the players, after 1 to 2 minutes of playing with an
average of 15 mistakes tends to get a closer look to the monitor, re
arrange their sitting position and the like.
Combining Variables for Analysis
Of particular interest to this study was the effect of incentive and
computer game’s level of difficulty on measures of aggression and
measures of frustration. The key measures composing the dependent
variable of aggression and frustration were behavioural observations
and self-ratings. Key measures of affect were scores on the MANOVA
and T-test for Dependent Groups, the aggression scale of the
Aggression Questionnaire, and the frustration scale of the Frustration
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
Scale. The experimenters used the alpha level of 0.05 for both
MANOVA and T-test for dependent groups, two-tailed.
In the analysis of the experiment, t-test for dependent groups
was used by the experimenters. This allows the utilization of both the
magnitude and direction of the difference scores. Essentially, it treats
the difference scores as though they were raw scores and test the
assumption that the difference scores are a random sample from a
population of difference scores having a mean of zero.
Table 1a. Summary T-test table for Aggression
Ḋobt
tobt
tcrit
Decision
Size of the
Effect
Control
group
Incentive
group
Level of
computer
game group
Incentive and
level of
Computer
Game
6.62
3.08
2.021
Reject Ho
0.434
18.34
7.18
2.021
Reject Ho
1.02
19.24
7.53
2.021
Reject Ho
1.07
21.18
9.68
2.021
Reject Ho
1.37
Table 1a and 1b shows the summary t-test results for
aggression and frustration wherein the null hypothesis specifies that for
the Incentive group, incentives do not affect the level of aggression
and frustration of the players, for the Level of Computer Game group,
computer game’s level of difficulty do not affect the level of aggression
and frustration of the players while the Incentive and level of compute
game group assumed that both independent variables do not affect the
level of aggression and frustration of the players. As with the t test for
dependent groups, the researchers reject the null hypotheses except
for the Control group under the frustration variable since /t obt/ > tcrit =
2.021.
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
12
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
Table 1b. Summary T-test table for Frustration
Ḋobt
tobt
tcrit
Decision
Size of the
Effect
Control
group
Incentive
group
Level of
computer
game group
Incentive and
level of
Computer
Game
1.58
0.618
2.021
Retain Ho
20.84
6.521
2.021
Reject Ho
0.922
13.78
4.783
2.021
Reject Ho
0.674
19.06
7.356
2.021
Reject Ho
1.04
The results obtained in Table 1b, T-test table for Frustration, is
quite similar to the first table except the control group wherein the null
hypothesis was retained.
To evaluate the size of the effect (see Table 2 at the appendix
section), the experimenters use Cohen’s method involving the statistic
d. To interpret the value of d, the researchers used the criterion of
Cohen that was presented in Table 3. In the control group (Aggression)
the value of d is 0.434 while the rest is greater than 0.80 indicating a
large effect.
Table 3a. Summary ANOVA table for Aggression
Source of Variance
SS
df
s2
F obt
F crit
Rows (Incentive)
877.805
1
877.805 4.527* 3.89
Columns (Computer
1,265.045
1 1,265.045 6.524* 3.89
Game Level of Difficulty)
Rows x columns
244.205
1
244.205
1.254 3.89
Within cells
38,004.82 196 193.902
Total
40,391.875 199
*Since Fobt >Fcrit, Ho is rejected.
Table 3a and 3b shows the data and analysis from aggression
and frustration questionnaires. Two-way analysis of variance allows
the researchers of this experiment to evaluate the effect of two
independent variables (incentive and computer game’s level of
difficulty) and the interaction between them. The experiment used fixed
effects, 2x2 factorial design with independent groups. There are 50
participants per cell, 50 participants who played easy level of computer
game with no incentive, 50 participants who played the easy level of
computer game with incentive, 50 participants who played the difficult
level of computer game without incentive and another 50 participants
who played the difficult computer game with incentive, a total of 200
participants. Scores are the level of aggression and frustration
measured in percentage.
Table 3b. Summary ANOVA table for Frustration
Source of Variance
SS
df
s2
F obt
F crit
Rows (Incentive)
2,211.125
1 2,211.125 8.340* 3.89
Columns (Computer
2,695.415
1 2,695.415 10.167* 3.89
Game Level of
Difficulty)
Rows x columns
1,317.995
1 1,317.995 4.971* 3.89
Within cells
51,962.42 196 265.114
Total
58,186.955
*Since Fobt >Fcrit, Ho is rejected
Table 3b shows the summary of ANOVA results for aggression
and frustration wherein the null hypothesis specifying that for the
Incentive variable (main effect), incentives do not affect the level of
aggression and frustration of the players, for the Level of Computer
Game variable(main effect), computer game’s level of difficulty do not
affect the level of aggression and frustration of the players while for
the interaction between incentive and computer game’s level of
difficulty assumed that there is no interaction between incentive and
computer game’s level of difficulty. With any main effects removed, the
population cells means are equal.
As shown in the table, since Fobt of row and column > Fcrit =3.89,
the researchers rejected the null hypotheses for the row and column
13
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
effect for both aggression and frustration. The researchers retain the
hypothesis that there is no interaction between incentive and computer
game’s level of difficulty for the aggression variable while rejecting the
hypothesis for the frustration variable.
DISCUSSION
Results from this study provide several important answers
related to the hypotheses discussed earlier. The analyses presented
here fail to support the hypothesis that the presence of an incentive as
a stimulus does not differentially affect the level of aggression and
frustration of the players after playing a computer game. Thus, it
appear that aggressive behavior and frustration is displayed after an
exposure to computer games, as had been predicted by the AQ
manual (Buss & Warren, 2000) which explains that high scores on this
scale are often associated with the presence of irritability, frustration,
emotional liability, and temperamental gesturing” (p. 14). Subjects with
elevated scores on this scale experience “a high proportion of angry
thoughts and generate internalized reactions to perceived assaults on
their well-being by others” (p. 15).
Similarly, the hypothesis that computer games’ level of difficulty
is equal in their effects on the level of aggression and frustration of the
player after playing will also be rejected.
Upon reviewing the results obtained, the researchers concluded
that computer games and /with incentives has a large effect on the
level of aggression and frustration among male students of LPU. The
hypothesis that there is no interaction effect between the presence of
an incentive as stimulus and the level of computer games to be played
when it comes to the level of frustration was retained while rejecting
the same hypothesis for the aggression variable.
Interestingly, although males appeared to prefer to play difficult
or more frustrating computer games relative to females, there was no
evidence from this study to suggest that people who prefer these
computer games are more innately aggressive and frustrated than
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
those who do not prefer such computer games, aside from gender
effects.
The advancement of computer game research in the past
decade has greatly helped our understanding of its effects on
development. Unfortunately though, more research is still needed. The
computer game industry has grown to the proportions of the movie
industry, and shows no sign of stopping. With each generation of
games come more realistic graphics, more violence, bigger world,
more aggressive scenes and frustrating gameplay and more
possibilities. In order to fully control the effect that it has on people
specifically on youth today, everyone first better understand the effect
it has on the personality and behaviours, and not just in the areas of
aggression and frustration. As the experimenters reach this
understanding hopefully developers can create games which will help
the youth, expand their minds, and cautious away from the current
trend of aggression and frustration in computer games.The
researchers recommend the future researchers to attempt the use of
other group of participants e.g. females, elementary or high school
students and to use other kind of computer game to validate the results
of the experiment.
Considering the popularity of computer games much more
research needs to be done on this issue. Chambers and Ascione
(1987) report that 100% of elementary and high school students
surveyed had played computer games at least once. That was more
than 20 years ago. This is an obvious indicator that computer games
have entered the mainstream media, and that more research needs to
be done on the effects of computer games on adolescence. The
majority of research thus far has been on the negative effects of
computer games, mostly due to the violence contained within. But the
exact relationship is still undetermined, so research must continue.
However, there are also many who hypothesize that computer games
can have a positive effect on youth, and believe that it is worth time
and effort to explore these possibilities.
14
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
REFERENCES
Anderson CA, Bushman BJ. Effects of violent video games on
aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect,
physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic
review of the scientific literature. Psychol Sci 2001;12:353-9.
Anderson CA, Dill KE. Computer games and aggressive thoughts,
feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J Pers Soc
Psychol 2000;78:772-90.
Anderson, C. A., & Murphy, C. (2003). Violent video games and
aggressive behavior in young women. Aggressive Behavior, 29,
423-429.
Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Heusmann, L. R.,
Johnson, J., Linz, D., et al. (2003). The influence of media
violence on youth. Psychological Science in the Public Interest,
4, 81-110.
Baron, R. A. (1999). Social and personal determinants of workplace
aggression: evidence for the impact of perceived injustice and
the Type A behavior pattern. Aggressive behavior, 25, 281-296.
Bartholow, B., Bushman, B., & Sestir, M. (in press). Chronic violent
video game exposure and desensitization to violence:
Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. Bushman, B., & Anderson, C.
(2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of
the general aggression model. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679-1686.
Berkowitz, L. (1989). The frustration-aggression hypothesis revisited.
In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Roots of aggression (pp. 1-28). New
York: Atherton.
Buchman, D. D., & Funk, J. B. (1996). Video and computer games in
the ‘90s: Childrens’ time commitment and game preference.
Children Today, 24, 12-16.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452-459.
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
Buss, A. H., & Warren, W. L. (2000). Aggression Questionnaire:
Manual. Los Angeles: Western Psychological Services.
Calvert, S. L., & Tan, S. (1994). Impact of virtual reality on young
adults’ physiological arousal and aggressive thoughts:
Interaction
versus
observation.
Journal
of
Applied
Developmental Psychology, 15, 125-139.
Carnagey, N., & Anderson, C. (2005). The effects of reward and
punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect,
cognition and behavior. Psychological Science, 16, 882-889.
Children Now (2001). Children and the Media. Retrieved July 1, 2001,
from http://www.childrennow.org
Frustration-Aggression Theory - PsychWiki - A Collaborative
Psychology
Wiki
(1).htm.
Retrieved
from
http://www.psychwiki.com/wiki/FrustrationAggression_Theory27 June 2010,
Funk, J. B., Baldacci, H. B., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004).
Violence exposure in reallife, video games, television, movies,
and the internet: Is there desensitization? Journal of
Adolescence, 27, 23-39.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. J., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The
effects of computer game habits on adolescent hostility,
aggressive behaviours, and school performance. Journal of
Adolescence, 27,5-22.
Griffiths, M. D. (1993). Are computer games bad for children? The
Psychologist: Bulletin of the British Psychological Society, 6,
401–407.
Irwin, A. R., & Gross, A. M. (1995). Cognitive tempo, violent video
games, and aggressive behavior in young boys. Journal of
Family Violence, 10 (3), 337-350.
Koop, E. (1982, November 10). Surgeon general sees danger in video
games. New York Times, p. A-16.
15
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
Lynch, P. (1994). Type A behaviour, hostility, and cardiovascular
function at rest after playing video games in teenagers.
Psychosomatic Medicine, 56, 152.
Murphy JK, Alpert BS, Walker SS. Whether to measure change from
baseline or absolute level in studies of children’s
cardiovascular reactivity: A two-year followup. J Behav Med
1991;14:409-19.
Sherry, J. (2001). The effects of violent video games on aggression: A
meta-analysis. Human Communication Research, 27, 409-431.
Singer, J. & Antrobus, J. (1970). Imaginal Process Inventory. Center
for Research in Cognition and Affect. C.U.N.Y. copyright 1966,
revised 1970.
Spear, L. P. (2000). The adolescent brain and age-related behavioural
manifestations. Neuroscience and Biobehavioural Reviews,
24, 417-463.
Walsh DA. Interactive violence and children: Testimony submitted to
the Committee on Commerce, Science, and Technology,
United States Senate. Minneapolis, MN: National Institute on
Media and the Family, 2000, March 21 Available at:
http://www.mediafamily.org/-press/senateviolence-full.shtml.
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
APPENDICES
Appendix A. Consent Form
I agree to take part in a research study titled the
interrelationship between Aggression and Frustration brought about by
Computer Games with Incentives which is being conducted by Dior
Grita De Torres and Edielyn Gonzalvo of the Lyceum of the Philippines
University-Batangas. Dior can be reached by calling 09064250487
while Edielyn can be reached by calling 09996601254. This study is
under the direction of Ms. Jovielyn Manibo of College of Education Arts
and Sciences.
In order to make this study a valid one, some information about
my participation will be withheld until after the study. If I am
uncomfortable with what I see during the course of this experiment, I
understand that I can stop taking part at any time without giving any
reason, and without penalty. I understand that any information which
could personally be connected to me will be kept confidential and not
shared with anyone outside the research group. This personal
information can only be released with my permission. If information
about me is published, it will be written in a way that I cannot be
recognized. However, research records may be obtained by court
order. The researcher will answer any further questions about the
research, after the experiment proper. I understand the procedures
described above. My questions have been answered to my
satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a
copy of this form.
____________________
Prof. Jovielyn Mañibo
____________________
Signature of Participant
16
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
Appendix C. Questionnaires
Appendix B . Demographic Sheet
Player’s Name:________Age: __Year & Section:______
How many hours do you use computer per week? ___
What percentage of this time is spent playing computer games?
25%
 50%
 75%
 100%
How well competent are you in playing computer games?
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
1
Not
frustrated at
all
Very easy
Very well
Frustration Scale 1
2
3
A bit
Somewhat
frustrated
Frustrated
Easy
Neutral
Well
Normal
4
Frustr
ated
5
Very
Frustrated
Difficul
t
Bad
Extremely
Difficult
Terrible
Have you played The Frustration Game before? ____
If so, how many hours have you played The Frustration Game? ___
1 2 3 4 5
How frustrated did you feel before answering this?
How frustrated do you feel right now?
How frustrated do you think you will feel after playing
thefrustration game?
How frustrated do you feel towards other people?
How difficult is life for you?
How well do you think you live your life?
How many times did you feel rejected? __________
17
AGGRESSION AND FRUSTRATION
DE TORRES & GONZALVO
Aggression Questionaire (Buss & Perry, 1992)
Instructions: Using the 5 point scale shown below, indicate how uncharacteristic or characteristic each of
the following statements is in describing you. Place your rating in the box to the right of the statement.
1 = extremely uncharacteristic of me
2 = somewhat uncharacteristic of me
3 = neither uncharacteristic nor characteristic of me
4 = somewhat characteristic of me
5 = extremely characteristic of me
1
1. Some of my friends think I am a hot-headed.
2. If I have to resort to violence to protect my rights, I will.
3. When people are especially nice to me, I wonder what they want.
4. I tell my friends openly when I disagree with them.
5. I have become so mad that I have broken things.
6. I can’t help getting into arguments when people disagree with me.
7. I wonder why sometimes I feel so bitter about things.
8. Once in a while, I can’t control the urge to strike another person.
9.* I am an even-tempered person.
10. I am suspicious of overly friendly strangers.
11. I have threatened people I know.
12. I flare up quickly but get over it quickly.
13. Given enough provocation, I may hit another person.
14. When people annoy me, I may tell them what I think of them.
15. I am sometimes eaten up with jealousy.
16.* I can think of no good reason for ever hitting a person.
17. At times I feel I have gotten a raw deal out of life.
18. I have trouble controlling my temper.
19. When frustrated, I let my irritation show.
20. I sometimes feel that people are laughing at me behind my back.
21. I often find myself disagreeing with people.
22. If somebody hits me, I hit back.
23. I sometimes feel like a powder keg ready to explode.
24. Other people always seem to get the breaks.
25. There are people who pushed me so far that we came to blows.
26. I know that “friends” talk about me behind my back.
27. My friends say that I’m somewhat argumentative.
28. Sometimes I fly off the handle for no good reason.
29. I get into fights a little more than the average person.
2
3
4
Aggression Questionnaire 2
1- Strongly Disagree 2- Disagree
3- Agree 4- Strongly Agree
1
5
1. Frustration in the game affects my aggression to
play more of it.
2. Frustration in the game affect s my decision to play
it.
3. After playing the frustration game, it would be
easier for me to commit an aggressive act.
4. After playing the frustration game, I feel it would be
easier for me to become more aggressive.
5. The aggression that is prevalent with the youth of
today maybe due to computer games.
6. When I am angry or stressed I am most likely to play
a computer game
7. Minors (below the age of 18) should not be allowed
to play violent video games.
8. I was born with aggressive behaviours.
9. I have developed aggression during my lifetime.
10. I feel that playing computer games develops
permanent aggressive behaviour over time.
11. I think, computer games bring out aggression that
is being suppressed temporarily.
12. Aggression is part of our life. Not only does it
appear in computer games but it appears everywhere
in our society.
2
3
4
Appendix D. Laptop (mouse, mouse pad, headset)
Appendix E. Incentive
Appendix F. Pen and paper
\
Appendix G. Figures
Appendix H. Tables
Table 1a. Summary T-test table for Aggression
Age Range
16-17
18-19
20 and above
Ḋobt
tobt
tcrit
Decision
Size of the
Effect
Control
group
Incentive
group
Level of
computer
game group
Incentive and
level of
Computer
Game
6.62
3.08
2.021
Reject Ho
0.434
18.34
7.18
2.021
Reject Ho
1.02
19.24
7.53
2.021
Reject Ho
1.07
21.18
9.68
2.021
Reject Ho
1.37
Table 1b. Summary T-test table for Frustration
Figure 1. Age range of the participants
Level of Competency
Beginner
Intermidiate
Advanced
Figure 2. Level of Competency in playing computer games
Ḋobt
tobt
tcrit
Decision
Size of the
Effect
Control
group
Incentive
group
Level of
computer
game group
Incentive and
level of
Computer
Game
1.58
0.618
2.021
Retain Ho
20.84
6.521
2.021
Reject Ho
0.922
13.78
4.783
2.021
Reject Ho
0.674
19.06
7.356
2.021
Reject Ho
1.04
Table 2. Cohen’s criteria for interpreting the value of d
Value of d
Interpretation of d
0.00-0.20
Small effect
0.21-0.79
Medium effect
≥0.80
Large effect
Table 3a. Summary ANOVA table for Aggression
Source of Variance
SS
df
s2
F obt
F crit
Rows (Incentive)
877.805
1
877.805 4.527* 3.89
Columns (Computer
1,265.045
1 1,265.045 6.524* 3.89
Game Level of Difficulty)
Rows x columns
244.205
1
244.205
1.254 3.89
Within cells
38,004.82 196 193.902
Total
40,391.875 199
*Since Fobt >Fcrit, Ho is rejected.
Authors’ Information
Dior Grita F. De Torres is currently a fourth year student taking up BS
Psychology at Lyceum of the Philippines University – Batangas. She’s
fond of reading novels especially the works of Sophie Kinsella,
Nicholas Sparks and Dan Brown. If given a chance and time she wants
to purse a Doctorate Degree and become a Clinical Psychologist.
E-mail Address:
Table 3b. Summary ANOVA table for Frustration
Source of Variance
SS
df
s2
F obt
F crit
Rows (Incentive)
2,211.125
1 2,211.125 8.340* 3.89
Columns (Computer
2,695.415
1 2,695.415 10.167* 3.89
Game Level of
Difficulty)
Rows x columns
1,317.995
1 1,317.995 4.971* 3.89
Within cells
51,962.42 196 265.114
Total
58,186.955
*Since Fobt >Fcrit, Ho is rejected
Edielyn D. Gonzalvo, BS Psychology, is now in her
fourth year at the Lyceum of the Philippines
University – Batangas. She was born on January
06, 1994. She loves reading romantic suspense
books, watching movies and surfing the net.
Someday, she wants to be a forensic psychologist.
E-mail Address: [email protected]