The Hand that Holds the Controller: The Moderating Effect of Personality on Violent Video Games

2. The Hand that Holds the Controller: The Moderating Effect of Personality on Violent Video Games Patrick M. Markey & Charlotte N. Markey Healthy Development Lab HealtyDevelopmentLab.com Interpersonal Research Lab InterpersonalResearch.com

3. Past research suggests VVGs are linked to various negative behaviors and cognitions (e.g., Anderson et al., 2004; Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Gentile, Lynch, Linder, & Walsh, 2004; Sheese & Graziano, 2005). However, a considerable number of studies have failed to find compelling links between VVGs and negative outcomes (e.g., Ferguson et al., 2008; Weigman & van Schie, 1998; Williams & Skoric, 2005).

4. Why? Poor design Invalid measurements Publication biases (Ferguson, 2007a, 2007b) Personality traits moderate the effects of VVGs (Giumetti & Markey,2007; Markey & Scherer, 2009; Markey & Markey, 2010) Psychoticism Aggression

5. Psychotocism Individuals with high levels of psychoticism. . . . . . experience less anxiety playing VVGs and are less disturbed and frightened by violent media. . . . are more aggressive after playing VVGs and are more likely to express violent desires after exposure to violent media (Lynn, Hampson, and Agahi, 1989 ; Zillman & Weaver, 1996; Barnes, Malamuth, & Check, 1984; Markey & Sherer, 2009).

6. Aggression Individuals with high levels of aggression. . . . . . feel more angry after viewing violent media . . . after playing VVGs are more hostile (Giumett & Markey, 2007; Panee & Ballard, 2002; Arriaga et al., 2006)

7. Finding a Common Language The Five Factor Model (FFM) A useful coordinate system for categorizing various personality constructs within its five dimensions (Ozer & Reise, 1994). By categorizing seemingly differing traits (e.g., psychoticism and aggression) under a few common dimensional labels, the FFM can be used to assimilate past research (Funder, 2007).

8. Psychoticism = low agreeableness + low conscientiousness (Costa & McCrae, 1995; Costa, McCrae, & Dye, 1991; Goldberg & Rosolack, 1994; McCrae & Costa, 1985).

9. Aggression = high neuroticism + low agreeableness (Sharpe & Desai, 2001).

10. high N + low A + low C = + + = Markey & Markey (2006)

11. Longitude Conscientiousness 180o 225o 135o 270o 90o Neuroticism 45o 315o 0o Agreeableness

12. Latitude Conscientiousness 90o 45o Agreeableness 0o -45o -90o

13. Predictions Λ 315 and Φ 35 Λ 135 and Φ -35

14. Method 118 participants (M age = 19.35 years; 42% female). Study done in 3 phases

15. Phase 1 Completed the Big Five Inventory dimensions of neuroticism, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. The three dimensions scores were forced to be orthogonal using a PC with varimax rotation • Resulting component scores were highly corrected to the original scales (all r values > .90) while being orthogonal

16. Phase 2 Video Game Play Participants were randomly assigned to play either a VVG or a non-VVG for 20 min. Tiger Woods Golf Manhunt 2

17. Phase 3 Current level of hostility State Hostility Scale (Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995). • Particpants use 35 items to describe their current level of hostility • ‘‘I feel furious.” • ‘‘I feel like banging on a table.”

18. Typical Analysis

19. Geometric Analysis • Interaction effect . Gurtman, 1992; Markey & Markey,2006; Markey & Markey, 2009

20. Geometric Analysis • Interaction effect . Longitude Λ = arctangent (rneu/ragr) Λ = 137o

21. Geometric Analysis • Interaction effect . Latitude Φ = arctangent (rcon / rneu2+ragr2)1/2]) Φ = -39o

22. Geometric Analysis • Interaction effect . Vector Length VL = [(rneu)2+(ragr) 2+(rcon) 2] ½ VL = .22

23. Geometric Analysis It is possible to compute the expected interaction effect (r-value) for any location on the sphere (Gurtman, 1992; Markey & Markey,2006; Markey & Markey, 2009). r = VL(cosθdiff) cosθdiff = [cos(Ʌ)cos(λ)+sin(Ʌ)sin(λ)]cos(Ø)cos(ɸ)+sin(Ø)sin(ɸ) Where: Ʌ and Φ are the longitude and latitude location of the effect λ and Ø are the longitude and latitude location of a given octant

24. Interaction Effect

25. Interaction Effect

26. Interaction Effect

27. Interaction Effect

28. Interaction Effect Least Effected Most Effected Predicted Location: Λ 315 and Φ 35 Λ 135 and Φ -35 Actual Location: Λ 317 and Φ 39 Λ 137 and Φ -39

29. Replication N = 115 (M age =18.54; 52% female) Video Games • 3 VVGs • 3 Non-VVGs DV = Aggressive responses to story stems (Rule, Taylor, & Dobbs 1987; Bushman & Anderson,2002)

30. Interaction Effect Least Effected Most Effected Predicted Location: Λ 315 and Φ 35 Λ 135 and Φ -35 Study 1: Λ 317 and Φ 39 Λ 137 and Φ -39 Study 2: Λ 293 and Φ 40 Λ 113 and Φ -40

31. The notion that all, or even most, individuals who play VVGs will inevitably become aggressive may be unwarranted. The “perfect storm” of FFM traits are: • high neuroticism • low agreeableness • low conscientiousness

32. Video Games and Peanut Butter “Why do some individuals appear to be affected by VVGs while others are not?” For VVGs it appears that many individuals who are adversely affected have a preexisting disposition (i.e., high neuroticism, low agreeableness and low conscientiousness) which causes them to be susceptible to such violent media.