New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Being Bad at Video Games Ups Aggression

A custom-designed video game that frustrated players left them at least as aggressive after playing as did other games famous for their violence. Larry Greenemeier reports

 

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Video game playing can make you angry or aggressive. But it seems that the key factor may not be the violence. It’s the player’s incompetence at the game that’s behind the ramped-up emotions, whether they’re upping their kill count in Grand Theft Auto 3 or simply trying to solve a puzzle in Tetris.
 
That’s the take-away from a study in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. [Andrew K. Przybylski et al, Competence-Impeding Electronic Games and Players’ Aggressive Feelings, Thoughts, and Behaviors]
 
Researchers tested violent and nonviolent variations of a custom-designed game on 600 players. They found that poorly designed or overly difficult games left participants as enraged, if not more so, than violent games did.
 
Violent games have long been blamed for subsequent violent behavior in players. And some research finds that long-term play changes regions in the brain associated with cognitive function and emotional control. Additional studies say such games increase aggression in children. But other investigators say the games actually have a calming effect on players, especially those with a preexisting mental health condition.
 
All those research efforts may need to be re-examined in light of the new finding. In other words, don’t hate the game, hate the player. Or at least his lack of skills.
 
—Larry Greenemeier
 
[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe