Facultyofeducation,Brockuniversity,St.Catharines,ON,Canada

EducationalMedia International,2013

Vol.50,No.3,177–191,

Violentvideogamingandmoralreasoninginadolescents:isthere anassociation?[SMAG1]

MirjanaBajovic*

FacultyofEducation,BrockUniversity,St.Catharines,ON,Canada

(Received18June2013;ﬁnalversionreceived20August2013)

Inthis studyof109adolescentsfromtheeighthgradeofsevenpublicelementary schoolsinCanada,therelationship betweenadolescents’violentvideogame playingpatterns,habitsandattitudes,andtheirlevelsofmoralreasoningwas investigated.Theresultssuggestedthatplayingviolentvideogamesingeneral wasaverypopularactivityamongtheadolescents.Theresultsdemonstratedthe signiﬁcantnegativerelationship betweenadolescents’amountoftimeplaying violentvideogamesduringthedayandtheirsociomoralmaturitybasedontheir scoresonTheSociomoral ReﬂectionMeasure.Theﬁndingsareputintothe educationalandthecontextofnormaldevelopment,andsuggestionsaregiven forparents,foreducatorsandforfutureviolentvideogameresearch.

Keywords:adolescence,violentvideogames,moral reasoning,education

Introduction

Concernsaboutviolenceinthemediaand itspotentialimpactonchildren’sbehaviors andattitudesarenotnew.Researchers expressedconcernabouttheviolence portrayedinthepopularscreenmediaandthepossibleharmtheseportrayals might haveonchildren(Andersonetal.,2003;AndersonBushman,2001;Berkowitz,

1984; Huesmann Taylor, 2003; Wagner, 2004). Previous studies found that

childrenwhospendsigniﬁcantamountoftimewatching violencepresented insome televisionshowsormoviesaremorelikelytoexhibitaggressive behaviorandmay experience violenttendenciesintheirattitudesandvaluesinreallife(Bushman& Anderson,2009;DahlbergPotter,2001).

Thereisalsoanexpressedfearthatexposuretomediaviolencemayinﬂuence children’smoraldevelopment (KrcmarCurtis,2003;VieiraKrcmar,2011; Wilson,2008).KrcmarandCurtisarguedthattheexposuretotelevisionviolence

couldaffect children’smoralreasoninginreal-lifesituationsthataresimilartothose

seenontelevision. Theyfoundthatchildrenwhowatchedalotofviolenceon televisionusedlessadvancedmoralreasoningstrategies inexplainingtheir judgmentswhenaskedtodifferentiatebetweenfantasyviolenceandviolenceseen inmorerealistictelevisionshows.

Timespentviewingtelevisionasaprimaryactivityhasdeclinedlatelyduetothe increasedpopularityofvideogamesamongchildrenandyouth(Ivory,Williams,

*Email:

Note:PaperpresentedattheCSSEAnnualConference2012,WilfridLaurierUniversity,

Waterloo,ON.

Martins,Consalvo,2009).AKaiserFamilyFoundationsurvey(Roberts,Foehr,

Rideout,2005)inUSAfoundthat77%ofboysingrades7–12hadplayeda gameintheGrandTheftAutoseriesandnearlyhalf(49%)hadplayedagamein thepopularMaddenNFL series.Thelatestresearchalsostatedthatthemost preferredvideogamesaretheoneswithfantasyandhumanviolence,suchasMortal Combat,GrandTheftAuto,GrandTurismo,andNHLseries.(Olsonetal.,2007; Pollon,2003;TheCanadianTeachers’Federation, 2005).Drawingonresearch conductedonthepossibleharmfuleffectsoftelevisionandmoviesonchildren’s

behaviorandmoralreasoning,thereisalikelihoodthatexposuretoviolentvideo

gamesmayproducesimilarnegativeeffects(AndersonBushman,2001;Funk, Baldacci,PasoldBaumgardner,2004;GentileGentile,2008;Subrahmanyam, Kraut,Greenﬁeld,Gross,2000).Eron(2001)reportedthatexposuretoviolence invideogamesmayinﬂuencethedevelopmentofmoralreasoningbecause,insuch games, violence is not only presented as acceptable, but is also justiﬁed and rewarded.According toEron,empathyandattitudestowardviolenceareimportant components oftheprocessofmoralreasoning,andifcognitivedesensitization happensduetooverexposuretoviolentvideogamesitmaylaterleadtostronger proviolenceattitudes.Itisthenpossiblethat,forsomechildren,immersioninviolent videogamesmayresultinthedevelopmentofscriptsforaggressionthatbypassthe typicalprocessofmoralevaluation.Althoughresearchinthisareaislimited,the mostrecentresearchonviolentvideogamesandmoralreasoningconducted by VieiraandKrcmar(2011)foundthatviolentvideogamingwasnegativelyrelatedto children’sperspective-taking andabilitytosympathize,bothofwhicharevery important in the process of moral reasoning. According to these ﬁndings, violentvideogameplayingmayhavesomeinﬂuenceonthedevelopment ofmoral reasoning.

Moraldevelopmentinadolescence

Accordingtomoraldevelopmenttheories,adolescenceisastageoflifewhenmajor changesinmoraldevelopmenttakeplace(Gibbs,2003;Kohlberg,1984;Piaget,

1965).Atthisstage,adolescentstendtobelievethatgoodbehaviormeanshaving goodintentionsandinterpersonalfeelings,suchasempathy,trust,andconcernfor

others.Piaget(1965)andKohlberg(1984)proposedthatchildrenusuallydevelop morematuremoraljudgmentinthenaturalcourseofinteractions withothers.This maturemoraljudgmentinvolvesagrowingabilitytotaketheperspective ofothers. GibbsconceptualizedKohlberg’smainstagesasdevelopmental levelsofmoral immaturity andmaturityorsociomoral justiﬁcationstages(Gibbs,Basinger,Ful- ler,1992).Stages1and2representimmature orsuperﬁcialmoraljudgmenttypical foryoungerchildrenage5–12,whileStages3and4representmatureorprofound

moraljudgmentexpectedtobeformedatadolescenceandlastthroughoutadult-

hood.These fourstagesaresummarizedasfollows:

Stage1. Power:“Might makesright.” Moralityiswhateverbigorpowerful peoplesaythatyouhavetodo.Ifyouareincharge,whatever youdoisrightand whateveryougetisfair.Atthisstage,childrendonotunderstandthemoralreasons forrules;itiswrongonlyifyougetpunished.

Stage2.Thedeals:Moralityatthisstageisanexchangeoffavors(e.g.“pay themback”or“dotothembeforetheydotoyou”).Theythinktheyhavetheright

to do what they want and that authority should not “boss anybody around.”

Judgmentismorepsychological,butstillsuperﬁcialinapragmaticway.Achild mightjustifykeepingpromisessothatotherswill“keep theirpromisestome”or “treatmeniceandnotgetmad.”

Stage3.Mutuality:Atthisstage,moraljudgmentadvancesbeyondpragmatic thinkingtoaperspectiveofmutual trust.Piaget (1932)describedthisas“reciprocity asanideal”or“doasyouwouldbedoneby”(p.323).Bycaring about others and treatingthemfairly,peoplefeelpartofacommunityofbelonging.

Stage4.Systems:Atthisstage,theindividual comestoappreciatetheneedfor universal,consistentstandardsofinterdependence.Moralityisgroundedinadeep

commitmenttojusticeandcaring.Honoringcommitments becomesthemeasureof self-respect,evenifretainingintegritymeansbecomingunpopular.

Adolescents whohavenotadvancedinmoraljudgmentbeyondStage2usually havenothadenoughopportunitiestotaketherolesorconsidertheperspectiveof others.Hecalledita“moraljudgmentdelay.”Individualswhoweremorallymature generallyusedStage3reasons.Forexample,theselﬁshnessoflawbreakingandthe resultingchaosthatcanfurthercauseinsecurity,orevenlossoftrustintheworld. Incontrast,childrenwhoweremorallyimmature usedreasoning thatgenerally appealedtotheriskofbeingcaughtandgoingtobepunished(Stage2).[SMAG2]

Videogamesgenre

Avideogamegenrereferstoaparticular typeorclassiﬁcationofvideogames (Surette,2002).Mostvideogamesfallwithinaparticular genre,althoughsomeof thembridgedifferentgaming stylesandcouldappearundermorethanonecategory. Toaneducatorinterestedintheeducational valueofdigitalgaming,agenre-based taxonomyofvideogames canbeinstrumentalintherecognitionofgamesthathave thecognitiveimpactongamers.Thevideogamegenretaxonomyispresentedinthe Table1onpage5and6.[SMAG3]

Violentvideogamesdeﬁnition[SMAG4]

By deﬁnition, violent video games include depictions of or simulations of human-on-humanviolenceinwhichtheplayerkillsorotherwisecausesserious physical harm to another human; serious physical harm includes depictionsof death,dismemberment,amputation,decapitation,maiming,disﬁgurement,mutila- tionofbodyparts,orrape(AndersonBushman,2001;Funketal.,2004).For instance,inaﬁrst-personshootervideogame,CallofDuty:BlackOps,players assumetheroleofAlexMason,asoldierwhoworksfortheCIAandparticipates inbothwell-knownandsecreteventsduringtheColdWar(e.g.stealthespionage, assassinations,andinterrogationsinvolvingtorture).Playersuseawidevarietyof weapons,suchaspistols,riﬂes,machine guns,andexplosivestoinjure/killenemies. Players canuseenemybodiesashumanshieldsandexecutethematcloserange.In onesequence,brokenglassisplacedintothemouthofamanwhileheisrepeatedly punched,causingbloodtospillfromhismouthentertainmentsoftwareratingboard ESRB,(2010).

Table1. VideoGamesGenreTaxonomy.

GenreDescriptionVideogames

First- person- Shooter

Theplayer controlsanenvironment fromaﬁrst-personperspectiveandis requiredtoshooteveryoneandblow everythingwheneverpossible(Ernest

Rollings,2006)

Doom,Descent,Marathon,Halo, Quake,CallofDutyseries,Grand TheftAutoseries

AdventureTheprogressionisbased onpuzzles andability keysastheprimaryformof progression.Anability keygivesthe player anabilitywhich allowsthemto overcomeaspeciﬁctypeofobstacle and,therefore,access tothenewareas (ErnestRollings,2006)

PlatformPlatformgenrevideogamesare identiﬁedbynavigatingenvironments thatrequiretiming andjumpingin ordertoreachadestinationwhile avoidingand/ordisposingofenemies (ErnestRollings,2006)

LucasArts,Cyan,GabrielKnight, IndianaJones,TheLegendofZelda, MonkeyIsland

Pac-ManWorld,SpyrotheDragon, BubbleBobble,DonkeyKong,Super MarioBros.

Role

-Playing

Thesegamesincorporatethreemajor elements:aspeciﬁcquest;aprocessfor evolvingacharacterthroughexperience toimprovehis/herability tohandle deadlierfoes;andthecareful

acquisitionofinventoryitemsforthe quest(ErnestRollings,2006)

FinalFantasy,ShadowsofDarkens, DragonWarrior

Simulations Simulationgenrevideogames are designedtoaccuratelyrecreateareal-

lifeexperience.Onlinesimulation

games allowaperson toinspireandbe

inspiredbyotherplayers’creationsor

teststrategiesagainstthem(Ernest

Rollings,2006).

TheSimCity,GrandTursimo,Spore, TheSims

Dance/

rhythm

Survival/

horror

Thesegamesrequiretheplayertoinput rhythmsbysteppingwiththeirfeetona dancepad,orusinga devicesimilartoa speciﬁcmusicalinstrument,likeaguitar ordrumset(ErnestRollings,2006) Playersneedtosurviveorovercome

theenvironmentthatincludesfantastic orsupernaturalelementsthatarevery frightening.Manyofthesetitles are ratedmatureandarenotintendedfor youngeraudiencesbecauseof disturbinggraphicscenes(ErnestRollings,2006)

GuitarHero,RockBand,SingStar.

ResidentEvil,SilentHill,Fatal

Frame,Doom

Videogamesinaneducationalcontext

Whileviolentvideogameshavebeenasourceofconcern, somevideogameshave the potentialto positivelyinﬂuence the cognitivedevelopment.Prensky(2001) statedthatwell-designed videogamesprovidetheplayerwithclearobjectivesthat areadaptable tothelearningpaceoftheviewer.Intheattempttoreachthese objectives,notonlydovideogamesreinforce masteryoftheirmaterialthrough immediateand constantfeedback but they also provide extrinsicreinforcement

(e.g. awarding points, impressive visual and sounds effects), which motivates playerstocontinueplaying.Theapplicationofskillsinmultiplecontextshelpsin thetransferoflearningfromthegame totherealworld(GentileGentile,2008).

Researchconﬁrmedthatevenviolentvideogames,whenputintotheeducational context,mayhavethepotentialtobeusedastrainingaidsinclassrooms andthera- peuticsettings,andtoprovideskillsinpsychomotor coordinationinsimulationsof real-life events;forexample,trainingrecruitsforthearmedforces(Anderson& Bushman,2001;Grifﬁths,Davies,Chappell,2004).Anumberofstudies,both

experimentalandcorrelational,foundthatplayingviolentvideogamesisassociated

withhighervisuospacial acuity,perception,processing,visualmemory,andmental rotation(Feng,Spence,Pratt,2007;Ferguson,2011).

Thenewliteracyadvocates,suchasGee (2007),Pahl(2006),andPrensky(2001) explainedthatthe millennials,astheycalledthisnewgeneration,havebeenborn ina worldwheretraditional/printliteracynolongerdeterminesthecourseofcultural, political,and generalsocietaldevelopment.Today’syounglearners,therefore,require anewframeworkforliteracyinstruction,whichacknowledgesboththeﬂuidand

dynamicnatureofliteracy,whosemeaningsaresubjecttochangeaccordingtothe

culturalcontextandsocietalneeds(Bandura,2001).Andbringingvideogamesin ourclassroomswill,indeed,fulﬁll thesesocialneedswithintheculturalcontext.

Videogameplayingconcerns

Asvideogameplayingbecomesincreasingly popularamongchildren,parentsand teacherscontinually expressfearaboutnotknowingwhatvideogameschildrenare playingandaboutwhateffect violentvideogamesmayhaveonthem.Parentsfeel increasinglyvictimizedbyaculture ofviolencepresentedinvideogames(CantorWilson,2003).CantorandWilsonfoundthatamajorityofchildrenreportedthat theirparents donotimposeatimelimitonthenumber ofhourstheyareallowedto playvideogames,andmostparentsareunawareofthecontentortheESRBrating ofthevideogamestheirchildrenplay.

Biglan(2004)arguedthatparentswhoknowwhattheirchildren aredoingare abletodetectwhentheyaredriftingintoactivitiesthatmightposearisk.Prohibit- ingadolescents fromplayingviolentvideogamesisnotrealistic,buttheawareness ofwhatkindofvideogamestheirchildrenareplayingandforhowmanyhours mayallowparentstobetterunderstandthevideogamestheyplay,todiscussthe games,andtosettimelimitsifnecessary. Hence,thereisaneedforproviding par- entswiththeinformation aboutviolentvideogamesingeneralandthepossible effectsthatthosevideogamesmayormaynothaveontheirchildren’s attitudes, behavior,andmoraldevelopment (CantorWilson,2003).Onlyinformedparents willbeabletomakesounddecisionsabouttheirchildren’s leisuretime,andonly thenwilltheybeabletoavoidtheinﬂuenceofmoralpaniccreatedaround violent video games (Ferguson, 2011; Ferguson Kilburn, 2010). Shaffer, Squire, Halverson andGee(2005)alsoexpressedconcernthatteachersdonothaveenough awarenessaboutvideogames.Theystated:

However,evenifwehadtheworld’s besteducationalgamesproducedandreadyfor parents,teachers,andstudentstobuyandplay,itisnotclearthatmosteducatorsor schoolswouldknowwhattodowiththem.Althoughthemajorityofstudentsplay videogames,themajorityofteachersdonot.(p.26)

Therefore, majoreffortsshouldbemadetoeducateteachersabout(a)thetypesof gamesaccessible totheirstudents,(b)theviolentcontentthatthosegamescontain, and(c)thepossibleeffectsthosekindsofgamesmayhaveontheirstudents’atti- tudesandbehavior.Researchimpliedthatteachers’awarenessaboutvideogamesin generalandaboutstudents’videogameplaying patterns andhabitsmayhelpteach- ersandstudentsindeconstructing themeaningsbehindvideogamemessages,and eveninspire theincorporationofsomeofthegames ineverydayclassroomactivities (BajovicElliott, 2011;CantorWilson,2003;Gentile,Lynch,Linder,Walsh,

2004;VanDeventerWhite,2002).

Whilesome researchhasbeendoneonthepossibleconsequencesofplayingvio- lentvideogamesonchildren’sbehaviors andattitudes,verylittleacademic research hasfocusedonthepotentialrelationship amongadolescents’violentvideogame playingpatternsandhabitsandtheirmoraldevelopment.Thepurposeofthisstudy, therefore,wastoexplorethepossibleassociation betweenviolentvideogameplay- ingpatternsandhabitsandthelevels ofmoral maturityinadolescents.Inthepresent study,twoprimaryresearchquestionswereaddressed:

Q1:What areadolescents’videogameplayingpatternsandhabits?

Q2:Isthereanassociationbetweenadolescents’ violentandnonviolentvideo gameplayingpatternsandhabits andtheirlevelsofmoral reasoning/maturity?[SMAG5]

Method

Participants

Participantsinthisstudywere109grade8students,61boysand48girls,aged between13and14fromseven public elementaryschoolsinOntario,Canada.

Instruments

Aself-reportingpencilandpaperquestionnairewith21questions,sevenpageslong, wasdesignedtodetermineparticipants’videogameplayingpatternsandhabits.This questionnairewasbasedontheMediaSelf-ReportQuestionnaire(Elliott,2006)used inlongitudinalprojectinvestigatingchildren’s mediapreferencesandhabitsacross variousmediamodalitiesand theimpactofmediaonvalues,beliefs,and worldviews. Thepresentresearchstudyreplicatedand updatedthequestionsthatfocusedon video gamespatternsandhabits.Priortodatacollection, themodiﬁedself-reporting questionnairewaspilottestedforclarityandsixadolescentswererecruitedthrough theresearcher’sacquaintance.[SMAG6]Thesixadolescents(age13)werecontactedbyphone andtheresearcherexplainedthepurposeofthequestionnaireandasked themifthey werewillingtocompleteit.Theresearcheralsoexplainedthattheydidnotneedto submitﬁnishedquestionnairestotheresearcher andthatthemainpurposewas checkingforclarity.Uponagreement,thequestionnaireswereemailedtothemand theywereaskedtoreadeachquestioncarefullyforunderstanding. Afterthey ﬁnished,theycalledtheresearcheranddescribedtheiroverallexperiencewitheach question.Accordingtotheirresponses, noneofthequestionsappearedconfusingor unclear.[SMAG7]Theself-reportedquestionnaireusedinthisstudycontainedclosedand open-ended questions,andLikertscale-typequestions.Closedquestionsprovideda limitedchoicewithYesorNoresponses(e.g.Doyouplayvideogames?, Haveyou everplayedanyviolentvideogames?,etc.)Closedquestions askedspeciﬁc,narrow questions and enabled collection of numerical data from participants. Likert

scale-typequestionswereintheformofstatementsandtheparticipantsdecidedhow stronglytheyagreeordisagreewiththestatementsprovided(e.g.Iplayvideogames because:Itisfun;itisexciting,etc.).DatagainedfromaLikert-typescalewere quantitativedatathatprovidedinformationabouthowstronglyaparticipantfeltabout videogamespatterns,habits,andattitudes.Open-endedquestionswerealsoprovided togiveanopportunity forparticipantstoprovidethechoicesnotofferedinthe questionnaire.

Thequestionsfromself-reportingquestionnaireanalyzedforthepurposeofthis studywere:doyouplayvideogames?Howoftendoyouplayvideogames?(with

thechoicesspeciﬁedas:foronehour,twohours,threeormorehoursaday,aweek, amonth,andontheweekends).Whatareyourtwofavoritevideogames?and whichvideogamesdoyouplaymostoften?Themainpurpose oftheself-reporting questionnairewastodetermineadolescents’videogameplaying patternsandhabits. Aftertheanalysesoftheresultsobtainedwiththeself-reportingquestionnaire,it waspossibletodetermineandidentifytheviolentandnonviolentgroupofvideo gameplayers.

Sociomoralreﬂectionobjectivemeasure-shortform(SRM-SF)

TheSRM-SF;Gibbsetal.(1992)elicitsthereasonsconcerningmoralvaluesthat arerepresentativeofthemoraldomain:life,law,afﬁliation,contract,truth,and socialjustice. TheSRM-SFuses11brief, lead-in statements(e.g.“Let’ssayafriend ofyoursneedshelpandmayevendie,andyou’re theonlypersonwhocansave himorher”).Thelead-instatements arefollowedbyevaluationquestions; for example,“How importantisitforaperson(withoutlosinghisorherownlife)to savethelifeofafriend?Circleone:veryimportant/important/notimportant.”The adolescents werealsoaskedtoelaborateontheirstatementsandtheelaborative answerswereusedforcodingandtheanalyses.ResponsestotheSRM-SFquestions werescoredbyconsultingtheappropriatechapterinthereferencemanualprovided bytheauthoroftheinstrument. ThebasicideaofSRM-SFscoringistoassessthe developmentallevelofquestionnaireresponsesinaccordancewiththecriteriainthe referencemanual.

All11itemsarescored,andthesummaryofallscoreswerecalculated, andthe primaryscoreintheSRMS-SFassessment represented thesociomoral reﬂection maturity levelbasedonthemeanofallitemsscored.Thelevelsofsociomoral maturityrangedfromtheImmaturitylevel,whichrepresentsStage1(Unilateraland Physical)andStage2(ExchangingandInstrumental),totheMaturitylevelwhich representsStage3(MutualandProsocial)andStage4(SystematicandStandard). The SRM–SF evidences acceptable levels of reliability (interrater, test–retest, internalconsistency)and validity(criterion-related,construct).For example,the

SRM–SFdemonstratedgoodconcurrentvalidity(r=.69)withtheMoralJudgment

Interviewinstrument(ColbyKohlberg, 1987),andcomparableagetrendsinsam- plesfromItaly(Gielen,Comunian,Antoni,1994),Northern Ireland,andSweden (Ferguson,McLernon,Cairns,1994).Themeasurecorrelateswiththeoretically relevantvariables,suchassocialperspective-taking(MasonGibbs,1993)and prosocialbehavior(Gielen,Comunian,Antoni,1994).Itsdiscriminant validityis supportedbyitsconsistentidentiﬁcationofthesamplesasdevelopmentallydelayed inmoraljudgment(Gavaghan,Arnold,Gibbs,1983;Gregg,Gibbs,Basinger,

1994).RelativetotheMoralJudgmentInterviewinstrument(ColbyKohlberg,

1987),theSRM-SFisgroup-administrable,takeslesstimetocomplete,requiresless inferentialscoringtime(25to30minvs.30to60mintoscoreatranscribedMoral JudgmentInterviewinstrumentprotocol),andisaccompaniedbyadequateself-train- ingmaterials.

Results

Preliminaryanalyses

Thequantitativedatafromself-reportingquestionnairewereenteredandanalyzedin theStatisticalPackageforSocialScience (SPSS). Inordertodetermineparticipants’ videogameplayingpatternsandhabits,adescriptivestatistical procedurewas employedaimingtoquantitativelysummarizeadata-set(Creswell,2008;Creswell& PlanoClark,2007).Inordertoestablishthe amountoftimethatparticipantsspenton playingvideogames,adescriptivestatisticsprocedure offrequency distributionand crosstabulationwasperformed.Inordertodeterminetherelationship between amountofparticipants’violent videogametimeplayed andSRMSscores, abivarite correlationprocedurewasperformed.Independentsamples’T-testwasperformedto establishiftheparticipants intheviolentvideoplayinggroupsigniﬁcantlydifferin SRMSscoresbythehoursofplayofviolentvideogamesperday.[SMAG8]

Theresults areorganizedintotwosectionsalignedwithtworesearchquestions.

Q1:What areadolescents’videogameplayingpatternsandhabits?

Inordertodetermine adolescents’videogameplayingpatternsandhabits,a frequencycountswereemployedtoanalyzequestionsfromself-reporting question- nairerelatedtoadolescents’self-declaredvideogameplayingpatternsandhabits. According totheresults,96(88%)adolescentsreportedplayingvideogames,while

13(12%)declaredthattheydidnotplayvideogamesatall.Basedontheresults,

59(54%)adolescentsdeclaredplayingvideogameseverydayfromonehourto threeormorehours.Inthegroupthatdeclaredplayingvideogames everyotherday foronehour,therewere21(19%)adolescents.Therewere30(28%)adolescents whodeclaredplayingvideogamesafewtimesamonthfortwohours,and32 (29%)whodeclaredplayingvideogamesonlyonweekendsforonehour.Thus,

morethanahalfofalltheadolescents(54%)declaredplayingvideogamesevery daybetweenoneandthreeormorehoursaday.The resultsarepresentedinTable2.

Afrequencyanalysiswasperformedtodeterminehowfrequentlytheadolescents declaredplayingacertaintypeofvideogame.A3-pointfrequencyscaleincluded answersoften,rarely,never.Thefollowingchoicesofvideogameswereoffered: CallofDuty:ModernWarfare,FIFA10,NHLseries,NeedforSpeed,SuperMario Galaxy2.RockBand3,GrandTheftAuto:SanAndreas,Sims, PrinceofPersia:

Table2. Amountoftime playingvideogames.

1hour,n(%) / 2hours,n(%) / 3ormorehours,n(%) / Total, n(%)
Everyday / 25(23) / 26(24) / 8(7) / 59(54)
Everyotherday / 6(5) / 7(6) / 8(7) / 21(19)
Fewtimesperweek / 13(12) / 13(12) / 8(7) / 34(31)
Fewtimesamonth / 15(14) / 7(6) / 8(7) / 30(27)
Onweekend / 13(12) / 4(3) / 15(14) / 32(29)

Table3. Frequencyofvideogamesplayed.

Often / Rarely / Never
Videogames / n / % / n / % / n / %
CallofDutyseries / 35 / 33 / 31 / 28 / 42 / 38
SuperMarioseries / 25 / 23 / 28 / 26 / 70 / 64
NHLseries / 15 / 16 / 27 / 26 / 64 / 58
GrandTheftAutoseries / 15 / 16 / 24 / 22 / 72 / 66
TheSims / 13 / 12 / 25 / 23 / 71 / 65
MaddenNFL / 13 / 12 / 17 / 16 / 79 / 73
RockBand3 / 13 / 12 / 35 / 32 / 71 / 64
Halo / 13 / 12 / 33 / 31 / 65 / 59

TheForgottenSands,MonsterHunterTri,MaddenNFL,andWordofWarcraft.The offeredchoices of video games were based on the previousresearchon most popularvideogamesamongchildrenandadolescents ( Olsonetal.,2007;TheCanadianTeachers’Federation,2005;TheMediaAwareness Network,2005).Anopen-endedquestionwasalsoprovidedtoenableadolescentsto writevideogamechoicesotherthanthoseofferedinthequestionnaire.Accordingto theresults,thegamesthatwereplayedmostoftenwere:CallofDutyseries(33%), SuperMarioseries(23%),NHLseries(16%),GrandTheftAutoseries(16%),The Sims(12%),RockBand3(12%),MaddenNFL(12%),andHalo(12%).Theresults revealed thatthemostpopularandmostplayedvideogamesaretheﬁrst-person shootergenrevideogames(CallofDutyseries),theplatformgenre(SuperMario series),andthesportsgenre(NHLandNFLseries).Theresultsarepresentedin Table3.

Deﬁningviolentandnonviolentvideogameplayinggroups

Basedonthedescriptiveanalysesofadolescents’self-declaredvideogameplaying patternsandhabits,theresultsrevealedthat48(44%)adolescents declaredplaying violentvideogamesbetweenoneandthreehourseveryday,choseviolentvideo gamesastheirfavoritegamesandthegamestheyplayedoften(e.g.CallofDuty Series,Grand TheftAutoSeries),anddeclaredenjoymentwhileplayingviolent videogames.These48adolescentswereidentiﬁedasviolentvideogameplayers for thepurposeofthisstudy.Withintheviolentvideogame playinggroup,threeadoles- centswereexcludedfromthesampleduetomissingdataontheSRMS;thus,the analyseswerebasedon45adolescents. Therewere61adolescentsidentiﬁedasthe nonviolentvideogameplayinggroup.Withinthenonviolentvideogaminggroup,

10adolescents wereexcludedduetomissingdataontheSRMS;therefore,the nonviolentvideogaminggroupcomprised51adolescents.

Q2:Isthereanassociationbetweenadolescents’ violentandnonviolentvideo gameplayingpatternsandhabits andtheirlevelsofmoral reasoning/maturity?

In orderto determineassociationsbetweenthe amountsof timeadolescents spendinplayviolentvideogames andtheirlevelsofsocimoralmaturity,ananalysis ofbivariatecorrelationwasperformed.Therewere45adolescents identiﬁedas violentvideogameplayers.ThePearson’srforthecorrelationbetweentheamount oftimeplayingviolentvideogamesandthescoresonSRMSwasr =−.324, p=.04(p.05)showingthattherewasastrong,negativecorrelationbetweentwo variables.Thesigniﬁcant(2tail)valuep=.04demonstratedthatthecorrelation

Table4. Correlationsbetweenamountoftime playingviolentvideogamesandSRMS.

Amountofviolentgame

Sig.(2-tailed).04

aCorrelation issigniﬁcantatthe.05level(2-tailed).

between theamount oftimeplayingviolentvideogamesandthescoresonSRMS wasstatisticallysigniﬁcant.Theresultsindicatedthatincreaseordecreaseinthe amountoftimeplayingviolentvideogamessigniﬁcantlyrelates tohigherorlower scores onSRMStest. Theresults arepresentedinTable4.

Inordertofurtherexplainthisﬁnding,anindependentsamplesT-test was performedtoestablishiftheadolescents intheviolentvideoplayinggroup signiﬁcantlydiffer inSRMSscoresbythehoursofplayaday.Theamount oftime playing violentvideogamesintheviolentvideogameplaying groupwasbasedon threecategories:onehouraday,twohoursaday,andthreeormorehoursaday. ThemeanonSRMSscoresforadolescentswhoplayedviolentvideogamesforone

hourwasM=2.85;themeanonSRMSscoresforadolescentswhoplayedviolent

videogamesfortwohourswasM=2.76;themeanonSRMSscores foradolescents whoplayedviolentvideogamesforthreeormorehourswasM =2.30.Theresults indicatedthattherewassigniﬁcantdifferencet(45)= 2.09,p = .021(p.05) betweenadolescentswhoplayedviolentvideogamesforonehouradayandadoles- centswhoplayed violentvideogamesforthreeormorehoursadayontheirSRMS scores.TherewasnosigniﬁcantdifferenceinSRMSscoresbetweenadolescents whoplayed violentvideogamesforonehouradayandthosewhoplayed fortwo hoursadayt(45)=1.19,p=.240,andforadolescentswhoplayviolentvideo gamesfortwohoursa dayandforthreehoursa dayt(45)= 1.20.p = .231. Therefore,adolescents whoplayedviolentvideogamesforthreeormorehours signiﬁcantlydifferonSRMSscoresonlyfromadolescentswhoplayedviolent video gamesforonehouraday.

Abivariatecorrelation procedure wasalsoperformedtodeterminethe relationship betweenlevelsofadolescents’sociomoralreasoningandtheamountof timetheyspentplayingnonviolent videogames.ThePearson’srforthecorrelation betweentheamountoftimeplayingnonviolentvideogamesandthescoreson SRMSwasr =.157,p=.651(p.05)showingthattherewasnocorrelation betweentheamountoftimeadolescents’reportingplayingnonviolent videogames andthescores onSRMS.

Discussion

Thepurposeofthepresentstudywastodetermine adolescents’videogameplaying patternsandhabitsandtoexaminewhethertherewasanassociation between adolescents’violentvideogameplayingpatterns andhabitsandtheirlevelof sociomoralreasoning.Themajorityofadolescents inthepresentstudydeclared playingvideogameswhichgoesinlinewithpreviousresearchﬁndingsstatingthat[SMAG9]

playingvideogameshas one of the mostpopularactivitiesamong adolescents (Olsonetal.,2007;Robertsetal.,2005;TheCanadianTeachers’Federation, 2005; TheMediaAwarenessNetwork,2005).Theresultsofthepresentstudywerealsoin linewithpreviousresearchabouttheamountofhoursspentonplayingvideogames (Olsonetal.,2007;Robertsetal.,2005).Morethanahalfofalladolescents inthe presentstudydeclaredplayingvideogameseverydayfrom1–3ormorehoursa day.Thelatestresearchpositedthatthemostpreferred videogamesareoneswith humanviolence,withageneralentertainment theme,andwithsportsthemes (Bajovic, 2006; Pollon, 2003; The Canadian Teachers’ Federation, 2005). The presentresultsconﬁrmedthatfavoritevideogamesforthesegroupofadolescents wereﬁrst-personshooter genre(e.g.CallofDutyseries),thesportsgenre(e.g.NHL andNFLseries),platformgenre(e.g.SuperMarioseries),andsimulationgenre (e.g.TheSims).

Previousstudiesonmediaviolenceandmoralreasoning foundthatwatching a greatdealofviolenceontelevision ormoviesmayhinderchildren’smoraldevelop- mentandthatsomechildren whowereexposedtomediaviolence mayuseless advancedmoralreasoningskills(Eron,2001;Funketal.,2004;KrcmarVieira,

2005;KrcmarCurtis,2003).Basedontheresultsinthepresentstudy,itcanbe speculatedthatitwastheprolongedamountofplayingviolentvideogamesthat mighthindermoraldevelopmentinsomeadolescents.Thepresentresultsindicate thatsomeadolescents intheviolentvideogameplayinggroupwhospentthreeor morehoursadayplaying videogamesscoredatthelowerlevel(Stage2)ofsocio- moralmaturity.Gibbsbelievedthatmostadolescents shouldbereachingStage3of moralmaturitywhichischaracterizedbyadvancedmoraljudgmentandmutualcar- ingandtrust.Kohlberg(1984)believed thatattheconventionalmorality stage,ado- lescentsbecome moreseriousaboutmorality andtheystarttobelievethatgood behaviormeanshavinggoodmotivesandinterpersonalfeelings,suchaslove,empa- thy,trust,andconcernforothers.AccordingtoGibbs,adolescentswhohavenot advancedinmoraljudgmentbeyondStage2areatthe“moral judgmentdelay” stageandusuallyhavenothadenoughopportunities totakedifferent rolesor considertheperspectiveofothersinreallife.Thepresentresultsindicatethatsome adolescentsintheviolentvideogameplayinggroup,whospentthreeormorehours adayplayingviolentvideogames,whileassumingly detachedfromtheoutside world, aredeprivedofsuchopportunities.[SMAG10]

Implications

Insummary,thepresentﬁndings suggestthatplayingviolentvideogamesmay hindermoraldevelopmentinsomeadolescents.However,notalladolescentswho playedviolentvideogamesdemonstrated lowerlevelofsociomoralmaturity.Only thoseadolescentswhodeclaredplayingviolentvideogamesforprolongedhours demonstratedatendencytoscoreatthelowerlevelofsociomoralmaturity.Itcanbe speculatedherethatspendingtoomuchtimewithinthevirtualworldofviolence maypreventthemfromgettinginvolvedindifferentpositivesocialexperiencesin reallife,andindevelopingapositivesenseofwhatisrightorwrong.Different socialopportunities areimportantastheypromotedevelopment bystimulating mentalprocessesandchildren’smoraldevelopmentdependsontheirroleindifferent socialcontexts(Bandura, 1989;Kohlberg,1984;Nucci,1997).Thisiswhere teachers,parents,and studentsshouldstartworkingcollaborativelyin providing[SMAG11]

thosemissingopportunities.Itcanbesuggestedthatworkingcollaborativelytocre- ateopportunitiesforchildren’sparticipationincharitywork,incommunityinvolve- ment,andinextracurricularactivitieswillprovidethemwithdifferentperspectives andpositiveroletakingopportunities. Piaget(1965)emphasizedtheimportanceof schoolenvironmentin children’s moraldevelopmentstatingthatschoolsshould workoncooperativedecision-makingandproblem-solving,nurturingmoraldevel- opmentbyrequiringstudentstoworkoutcommonrulesbasedonfairness.Inthe contextofvideogameplaying, teachersarerequired, ﬁrst,tounderstandthecontent ofvideogamesandthestorylineinthegameand,second,toinitiatediscussions aboutvideogamesintheclassroom.Throughthisdialog,theycanguidechildren to differentiatebetweenrightandwrongwithinthestoriesdepictedinvideogames.

Charactereducationshouldalsoservetofurtherenhancemoralskills,suchas sensitivitytoothers,andcareforbothothersandself(BajovicElliott,2011). Withinthecontextofschools,theteachersareresponsible forcreatingamoral community,inwhichstudentslearntorespectandcareabouteachothersothat everyonefeelsvaluedwithinthegroup,andforthattheyneedopportunities to developtheirintuitionsinwell-structuredenvironmentsthatprovideguidancefor developingproperethicalskills(Lickona,2008;Narvaez,2002;Noddings,2006). Thus,teachersneedmoreopportunitiesthroughprofessionaldevelopmenttolearn about video games and to directly experiencevideo game playing in order to perceive thepossible applicationsofsuchtoolsintheclassrooms.Itisimportantfor teacherstobeinformed aboutthepossibleeffects ofvideogamesinordertoavoid theinﬂuencesonmediamoralpanicsrelatedtotheportrayalofviolentvideogames inthemedia(Kirkland,2009;Schrader,Zheng,Young,2006).

Anotherimportantskillthatchildrenneedtodevelopthroughcritical media literacyandcharacter educationistheabilitytounderstandtherelationshipamong thecommongood,thegoodofothers,andtheindividualgood(BajovicElliott,

2011).Itisofessencethateverydaysocialandeducationalexperiencescontain moral dimensions;thus, both moral literacy and critical media literacy should involvetheanalysisoftheviolentvideogamemessagesaswellasunderlyingissues ofmoralvaluesandbeliefspresented inthesegames.Thereshouldbenodesireto stopchildrenfromplayingvideogames,butopportunitiescanbecreatedinandout

ofschooltoenhancetheirabilitytobecometolerantandcompassionateinhelping

othersandthemselves.

Future research

Futureresearchcanexpandtheseﬁndingsinavarietyofways.Onedirectionfor futureresearchmayinvolveinvestigationofhowotherindividualvariables,suchas personality,socioeconomic status,andfamilysituation,maymitigatetheeffectsof violentvideogameplayingonrealaggression. Anotherwaytoextendpresent ﬁndingsistoutilizealongitudinaldesigntomeasurepossibleviolentvideogame effects.Itispossiblethatchildrenaremoreaffected byviolentvideogameplaying overtime.Inclarifyingpresentﬁndings,itwouldalsohelptoinvestigate thepossi- blereasonsforlowerscoresonsociomoralmaturitytest.Andﬁnally,thisresearch canbeextendedinmeasuringtheeffectsofdifferentprogramsandstrategiesutilized throughcharactereducationtoremediatemoraldevelopmentaldelayinchildren.As Gibbs(2003)stated,throughadequateprograms createdtohelpchildren,itis possibletostimulatemorematureunderstandingwithrespecttovalues,suchas

[SMAG12]

helpingothers,peerorfamilyrelationships,resistingdrugs,andpreventingsuicide, orsavingalife.Itwouldalsobebeneﬁcialforfutureresearchtofurtherexplore teachersandparents’levelsofawareness aboutviolentvideogames.Thisstudy indicatedthatparentsandteachersneedadditionalknowledgeabouttheviolent videogamecontentandthenature oftheviolencepresentedinthegames.

References

Anderson,C.A.,Berkowitz,L.,Donnerstein,E.,Huesmann,L.R.,Johnson,J.D.,Linz,D., Mala,N.M.,Wartella, E.(2003).Theinﬂuenceofmediaviolenceonyouth.PsychologicalScienceinthePublicInterest, 4,81–110.

Anderson,C.A.,Bushman,B.J.(2001).Effectsofviolentvideogamesonaggressive

behavior,aggressivecognition,aggressiveaffect,physiologicalarousal,and prosocial

behavior:Ameta-analyticreviewofthescientiﬁcliterature.PsychologicalScience,12,

353–359.

Bajovic,M.(2006).Preadolescenceandsocialdevelopment:Theintersectionoffriendships

andvideogaming(Unpublishedmaster’sthesis).St.Catharines,ON:Brock University.

Bajovic,M.,Elliott,A.(2011).Theintersectionofcriticalliteracyandmoralliteracy:

Implicationsforpractice.CriticalLiteracy:TheoriesandPractices,5,27–37.

Bandura,A.(1989).Humanagencyinsocialcognitivetheory.AmericanPsychologist,4,

1175–1184.

Bandura,A.(2001).Socialcognitivetheory:Anagenticperspective.AnnualReviewinPsy-

chology,52(1),1–26.

Berkowitz,L.(1984).Someeffectsofthoughtsonanti-andprosocialinﬂuencesofmedia

events:Acognitive-neoassociationanalysis.PsychologicalBulletin,95,410–427.

Biglan,A. (2004).Contextualismand thedevelopmentofeffectivepreventionpractices.

PreventionScience,5,15–21.

Bushman,B.J.,Anderson,C.A.(2009).Comfortablynumb:Desensitizingeffectsof

violentmedia onhelpingothers. PsychologicalScience,20,273–277.

Cantor,J.,Wilson,B.J.(2003).Mediaandviolence:Interventionstrategiesforreducing

aggression.Media Psychology,5,363–403.

Colby,A.,Kohlberg,L.(Eds.).(1987).Themeasurementofmoral judgment(Vols.1

and2).NewYork:CambridgeUniversityPress.

Creswell, J. W. (2008). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixedmethods

approaches.ThousandOaks,CA:Sage.

Creswell,J.W.,PlanoClark,V.L.(2007).Designatingandconductingmixedmethods

research.ThousandOaks, CA:Sage.

Dahlberg,L. L., Potter, L. B. (2001).Youth violence:Developmentalpathwaysand

preventionchallenges.AmericanJournalofPreventiveMedicine,20,3–14.

Elliott,A.(2006).Children’s storiesasCulturalMirrors.Longitudinalresearchproject.St.

Catharines,ON:Brock University,FacultyofEducation.

Ernest, A., Rollings, A. (2006). Fundamentals of game design (game design and

developmentseries).Upper SaddleRiver, NJ:PrenticeHall.

Eron,L.D.(2001). Seeing isbelieving:Howviewingviolencealtersattitudesandaggressive

behavior.InA.C.Bohart,D.J.Stipek(Eds.),Constructiveanddestructivebehavior:

Implicationsfor family,schooland society(pp. 49–60).Washington,DC: American

PsychologicalAssociation.

EntertainmentSoftwareRatingBoard. Retrievedfrom

Feng, J., Spence,I., Pratt,J. (2007).Playingan action video game reduces gender

differencesinspatialcognition.PsychologicalScience,18,850–855.

Ferguson, C. J. (2011). Video games and youth violence: A prospective analysis in

adolescents.JournalofYouthandAdolescence,40,377–391.

Ferguson,C.J.,Kilburn,J.(2010).Muchadoaboutnothing:Themisestimationandover

interpretationofviolentvideogameeffectsinEasternandWesternnations:Comment on

Andersonetal.(2010).PsychologicalBulletin,136,174–178.

Ferguson,N.,McLernon,F.,Cairns,E.(1994).Thesociomoralreﬂectionmeasure-short form:AnexaminationofitsreliabilityandvalidityinaNorthernIrishsetting.British JournalofEducationalPsychology,64,483–489.

Funk, J. B., Baldacci,H., Pasold,T., Baumgardner,J. (2004).Violenceexposurein real-life,videogames,television,movies,andtheinternet: Istheredesensitization? JournalofAdolescence,27,23–39.

Gavaghan,M.P.,Arnold,K.D.,Gibbs,J.C.(1983).Moraljudgmentindelinquents and nondeliquents:Recognitionversusproductionmeasures.TheJournalof Psychology,114,

267–274.

Gee,J.P.(2007).Whatvideogameshavetoteachusaboutlearningandliteracy(Revised

andupdateded.).NewYork,NY:McMillan.

Gentile,D.A.,Gentile,J.R.(2008).Videogamesasexemplaryteachers:Aconceptual

analysis.JournalofYouthandAdolescence,37,127–141.

Gentile,D.A.,Lynch,P.J.,Linder,J.R.,Walsh,D.A.(2004).Theeffectsofviolent

video game habits on adolescent aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Journal of

Adolescence,27,5–22.

Gibbs,J.C.(2003).Moraldevelopmentandreality:BeyondthetheoriesofKohlbergand

Hoffman.ThousandOaks, CA:Sage.

Gibbs, J. C., Basinger, K. S., Fuller, D. (1992). Moral maturity: Measuring the

developmentofsociomoralreﬂection.Hillsdale,NJ:Erlbaum.

Gielen,U.P.,Comunion,A.L.,Antoni,G.(1994).Moralreasoningandprosocialaction

inItalianculture.TheJournalofSocial Psychology,10,35–47.

Gregg,V.R.,Gibbs,J.C.,Basinger,K.(1994).Patternsofdevelopmentaldelayinmoral

judgmentbymaleandfemaledelinquents.Merrill-PalmerQuarterly,40,538–553.

Grifﬁths,M.D.,Davies,M.N.O.,Chappell,D.(2004).Onlinecomputergaming:A

comparisonofadolescentandadultgamers.JournalofAdolescence,27,87–96.

Huesmann,L.R.,Taylor,L.D.(2003).Thecaseagainstmediaviolence.InD.A.Gentile

(Ed.),Mediaviolenceandchildren(pp.232–255).Westport,CT:Preaeger.

Ivory,J.D.,Williams,D.,Martins,N.,Consalvo,M.(2009).Goodcleanfun?Acontent

analysisofprofanityinvideogamesanditsprevalence acrossgamesystemsandratings.

Cyber PsychologyBehavior,12,457–460.

Kirkland,E.(2009).Masculinityinvideogames:Thegenderedgameplayofsilenthill.

CameraObscura,24,1–24.

Kohlberg,L.(1984).Essaysonmoraldevelopment:Thepsychologyofmoraldevelopment.

SanFrancisco,CA:HarperRow.

Krcmar,M., Curtis, S. (2003).Mentalmodels:Understandingthe impactof fantasy

violenceonchildren’smoral reasoning.JournalofCommunication,53,460–478.

Krcmar,M.,Vieira,E.(2005).Imitatinglife,imitatingtelevision:Theeffectsoffamily

andtelevisionmodelsonchildren’smoralreasoning.CommunicationResearch,32,267–

294.

Lickona,T.(2008).Educatingfor character.NewYork,NY:Bantam.

Mason,M.G.,Gibbs,J.C.(1993).Socialperspectivetakingandmoraljudgmentamong

collegestudents.JournalofAdolescentResearch,8,109–123.

Narvaez, D. (2002). EthEx: Nurturing character in the classroom. Chapel Hill, NC:

CharacterDevelopment.

Noddings,N. (2006).Critical lessons: Whatour schoolsshouldteach. NewYork,NY:

CambridgeUniversityPress.

Nucci,L.(1997).Moraldevelopmentandcharacterformation.InH.J.WalbergG.D.

Haertel (Eds.), Psychologyand educational practice (pp. 127–153). Berkeley, CA:

MacCatchan.

Olson,C.,Kutner, L.A.,Warner,D.E.,Almerigi,J.,Baer,L.,Nicholi,M.(2007).Factors

correlated with violent video game use by adolescent boys and girls. Journal of

AdolescentHealth,41,77–83.

Pahl,K.(2006).Travelnotesfromthenewliteracystudies:Instancesofpractice.Clevedon:

MultilingualMatters.

Pollon,D.E.(2003).Alongitudinalinquiryintopreadolescents’internetusage:Psychoso-

cialandpsychoeducationalimplications(Unpublishedmaster’sthesis).BrockUniversity,

St.Catharines,ON.

Piaget, J.(1932).Themoraljudgmentofthechild.London:FreePress.Piaget,J.(1965).Moraljudgmentofthechild. NewYork,NY:FreePress.Prensky,M.(2001).Digitalnatives,digitalimmigrants.OntheHorizon,9,1–6.

Roberts,D.F.,Foehr,U.G.,Rideout,V.(2005).GenerationM:Mediainthelivesof

8–18yearolds.PaloAlto,CA:KaiserFamilyFoundation.

Schrader, P., Zheng, D., Young, M. (2006). Teachers’ perceptions of video games:

MMOGsandthefutureofpreserviceteachereducation.Innovate,2.Retrievedfrom

Shaffer,D.W.,Squire,K.R.,Halverson,R.,Gee,J.P.(2005).Videogamesandthefuture

oflearning.PhiDeltaKappan,87,104–111.

Subrahmanyam,K.,Kraut,R.E.,Greenﬁeld,P.M.,Gross,E.F.(2000).Theimpactof

homecomputeruseonchildren’s activitiesanddevelopment.Childrenand Computer

Technology,10,123–145.

Surette,R.(2002).Self-reportedcopycatcrimeamongapopulationofseriousandviolent

juvenileoffenders.Crime Delinquency,46,69–71.

The Canadian Teachers’ Federation. (2005). Kids’ take on media. Retrieved from

TheMediaAwarenessNetwork.(2005).Youngchildreninawired world-phase II.Retrieved

from

VanDeventer, S., White, J. (2002). Expert behavior in children’s video game play.

SimulationGaming,33,28–48.

Vieira,E.T.,Krcmar,M.(2011).TheinﬂuencesofvideogamingonUSchildren’smoral

reasoningaboutviolence.JournalofChildrenandMedia, 5,113–131.

Wagner,J.(2004).Constructingcredibleimages:Documentarystudies,socialresearch,and

visualresearch.AmericanBehavioralScientist,47,147–150.

Wilson, B. (2008). Media and children’s aggression,fear and altruism. The Future of

Children,18,87–118.

Copyrightof EducationalMediaInternationalisthepropertyof Routledgeanditscontentmay notbecopiedor emailedtomultiplesitesor postedtoalistservwithoutthecopyrightholder's expresswrittenpermission.However,usersmayprint,download,or emailarticlesfor individualuse.

[SMAG1]Research question

[SMAG2]Lit review/intro

[SMAG3]Definitions

[SMAG4]Definitions

[SMAG5]Research question/subquestions

[SMAG6]Method

[SMAG7]Ethical research practices explained.

[SMAG8]Results

[SMAG9]Discussion of results

[SMAG10]Situating the new understanding/knowledge back into the body of knowledge of the field.

[SMAG11]The terms “suggest” and “speculate” infer a discussion of implications and limitations of research.

[SMAG12]Conclusion with future research