Models for Aggressive Behavior: The Attributes of Violent Characters in Popular Video Games

In addition to age considerations, it was also found that violent actors in video games were overwhelmingly male. Again, if we are to consider perceived similarity an important factor in likelihood to imitate aggressive acts, then video games present perpetrators that are in at least one way similar to the people playing the games: namely male. From the standpoint of ethnicity, violent characters are almost entirely white, with Asian characters coming in a distant second. This is an interesting and unexpected dichotomy, though the prevalence of Asian perpetrators may be attributable to the large number of games made by Japanese software companies. In any case, the bulk of the violent role models in such games are Caucasians, so we can start to see a picture developing of the most at risk individuals in terms of learning aggression. In video games marketed toward male adolescents in the United States, there are a large number of white, male perpetrators with whom young game players may perceive similarity.

Research Question 2 attempted to further examine the contextual features of violence in light of these demographic and behavioral character features. The Caucasian characters making up the bulk of the violent actors were portrayed as justified in their actions about three quarters of the time, and Asian characters (who also commit more acts of extreme graphicness) were always seen as justified. Younger characters, though appearing in fewer violent acts, were almost always seen as justified. Here, it becomes apparent that there may be important perpetrator characteristics that present a double-dose of problematic context. The aforementioned white, male characters that are commonly seen engaging in violence in popular video games are also more often than not presented in a way in which the motives for their behavior seem socially normative (protection of life, protection of property, etc.). Not only may young game players attend to these characters by perceiving them to be similar to themselves, they may simultaneously receive contextual clues concerning justification that have been shown to facilitate aggressive responses (Berkowitz & Geen, 1967; Berkowitz & Powers, 1979; Hoyt, 1970).

Finally, Research Question 3 examined differences across character variables in terms of the level of graphic content (measured through depicted harm). Again, Asian characters were more often seen committing acts of an extremely graphic nature, though most perpetrators regardless of ethnicity were portrayed as engaging in mild violence only. Males, not surprisingly, were more often seen committing acts of an extremely graphic nature. Once again, it appears as if the characters engaging in graphic violence are somewhat similar to the people playing the games, and this should be cause for concern. The possibility again exists here that multiple contextual cues may be present in the violent presentations associated with video game violence that make them potentially dangerous behavioral models. While most of the violent interactions coded were not of an extremely graphic nature, there are a substantial number of visceral presentations of violence associated with characters with whom game players may identify. Combined with the findings from Research Question 2, this suggests that the contextual facilitators of identification, justification, and graphicness may be acting simultaneously to produce especially powerful behavior models. Children, though not often seen as violent perpetrators, are almost always seen as at least drawing blood when they do so. This once again calls special attention to games featuring child perpetrators, as the potentially strong identification processes in these games may make their violent content especially problematic.