Content-Type: text/html

Effects of Success and Failure in Interpersonal Competition in
Violent and Nonviolent Video games on Players'
Affect and Self-Ascribed Toughness


by
Hong-sik Yu, Ph. D
Institute for Communication Research
College of Communication & Information Sciences
Box 870172
The University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172
205-348-9703 (O)
205-347-8379 (H)
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0209A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D5269392%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_3148942%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>

Dolf Zilmann, Ph. D
Senior Associate Dean for Graduate Studies
College of Communication & Information Sciences
Box 870172
The University of Alabama
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0172
205-348-8593
<a href="/cgi-bin/wa?LOGON=A3%3Dind0209A%26L%3DAEJMC%26E%3D8bit%26P%3D5269392%26B%3D--%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D%253D_3148942%253D%253D_%26T%3Dtext%252Fplain%3B%2520charset%3Diso-8859-1" >[log in to unmask]</a>

Running Head: The effects of Interpersonal Competition in Video Games
Please address all correspondence to the first author
 Abstract
This study investigated whether personal victory in interpersonal competitive play of video games would lead to an increase in postgame positive mood states, distress tolerance and self-defensive confidence, while personal defeat would result in the reverse effect.  It was also hypothesized that personal victory would lower distress perception, whereas personal defeat would heighten it.  In addition, this study explored whether these suggested effects were larger after violent video games than after nonviolent ones.  Sixty male participants in a same-sex pair, with a confederate who was purported to be another participant, played competitively to win an interpersonal video game.
The study found that personal victory produced more positive and less negative mood than did personal defeat.  Positive affect was rated higher after playing a violent video game than after playing a nonviolent video game.  The study found that personal defeat led to increased distress tolerance and lower distress perception, whereas personal victory had reversed effects.  In addition, participants in the victory condition perceived a strong-looking man as being more noxious than participants in the defeat and tied conditions, and show high self-defensive confidence, not differing from participants' confidence in the defeat condition. However, participants in the defeat condition perceived the strong-looking man as less tough and showed defensive confidence comparable to the participants in the victory condition.  Implications for further research are discussed.


The effects of Interpersonal Competition in Video Games

Effects of Success and Failure in Interpersonal Competition in Violent and Nonviolent Videogames on Players' Affect and Self-Ascribed Toughness

The popularity of video games is phenomenal in the United States and other countries.  About 145 million (60%) Americans enjoy playing video or computer games on a regular basis, and about 42% of U.S households have at least one video console in their home (Interactive Digital Software Association, 2001a, 2001b).  Computer and video game sales reached $5.9 billion in 2000 and $6.35 billion in 2001, nearly approaching movie box office sales ($7.5 billion and $8.1 billion in 2000 and 2001, respectively) during the same years (Interactive Digital Software Association, 2002; The NPD Group, 2001, 2002; "Top 250," 2001, "Top Grossing," 2002).  The Japanese video game market reached approximately $8.2 billion in 1999 and $9 billion in 2000 (Computer Entertainment Software Association, 2001).  With the growing availability of advanced home consoles and new game software, the global video game market is expected to reach $50 billion in 2001 and $86 billion in 2006 (Informa Media Group, 200
0).
During recent years, there has been growing public and academic concern about the negative impact of violent video games on attitudes toward violence and on the violent behavior of children and adolescents.  Several recent shooting rampages in American schools fueled intense public fear and harsh criticism of violent video games.  Attorney General Ashcroft criticized video games for depicting too much violence that would contribute to American teenagers learning a culture of violence and lead them to resort to violent behavior (Gullo, 2001).
Some critics have pointed out that children's heavy and chronic exposure to violent video games might be a potential contributor to, or even the driving force behind, recent shooting incidents in schools (Grossman & DeGaetano, 1999; Lemos, 1999; Van Horn, 1999).  Arguably, these concerns about the negative effects of violent video games are an extension of the persistent claim that media violence breeds antisocial consequences.  The relationship between exposure to media violence and increased aggressive behavior is well documented (Huesmann & Miller, 1994; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Parke & Slaby, 1983; Pearl, Bouthilet, & Lazar, 1982; Turner, Hesse, & Peterson-Lewis, 1986; Wood, Wong, & Chachere, 1991).
Although it seems to be clear that the majority of popular video games are violent in nature, the research on violent video game effects, compared to the research on media violence effects, is relatively sparse and inconsistent in its findings.  Several studies identified that the majority of video games contain violent features (Braun & Giroux, 1989; Dietz, 1998; Lachlan, Smith, & Tamborini, 2000), and that playing violent video games increases levels of arousal in the players (Carvert & Tan, 1994; Lang, Schneider, & Deitz, 1999; Mehrabian & Wixen, 1986), levels of hostile affect (Anderson & Ford, 1986; Ballard & Wiest, 1996), and aggressive behaviors (Cooper & Mackie, 1986; Dominick, 1984; Fling et al., 1992; Irwin & Gross, 1995; Schutte, Malouff, Post-Gorden, & Rodasta, 1988; Silvern & Wiliamson, 1987; Wiegman & Van Schie, 1998).  A meta-analysis of over 30 video game studies revealed that playing violent video games has an significant effect on players' aggression (Sherry, 200
1).  However, no effects of playing violent video game on aggressive behaviors have been also reported (Egli & Meyers, 1984; Gibb, Bailey, Lornbirth, & Wilson, 1983; Winkel, Novak, & Hopson, 1987).
Although playing video game has been characterized as a solitary entertainment activity and the research on video game effects have focused on the stereotyped picture, the fact that video game play involves social interaction has been neglected.  People are motivated to play competitively with friends, family members, and other individuals (Interactive Digital Software Association, 2000a, 2000b; Kubey & Larson, 1990; Quittner, 1998; Selnow, 1984; Sherry, Lucas, Rechtsteiner, Brooks, & Wilson, 2001).  Playing video games in pairs is common and reflects the involvement of competitive circumstances between the players.  Many home video consoles and much of the software available on the market provide competitive play modes for two to four different players simultaneously.  The competitive nature of playing video games has, however, not received attention, and the effects of interpersonal competitive video game play have not yet been explored.
Video Games and Mood
While the majority of video game studies have focused on aggressive behavior effects, only a few studies have investigated the effects of playing video game on the players' postgame affective experiences.  The findings are not consistent, however.
Several studies reported that playing violent video games increases the likelihood of postgame intense affective, noxious experiences (Anderson & Ford, 1986; Ballard & Wiest, 1996; Nelson & Carson, 1985).  Anderson and Ford (1986) examined the effect of aggressive video games on players' hostile affect, utilizing the Multiple Affective Aggression Model (Anderson, 1997; Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1996; Anderson & Dill, 2000; Anderson & Ford, 1986).  Incorporating the Cognitive Neoassociation Analysis (Berkowitz, 1984, 1990, 1993) as one of the theoretical models, the analysis explains that cognition, affect, and arousal are interrelated, and activating one is likely to activate the other two in associative networks.  Thus, semantic priming of aggression by playing a violent video game can spread along associative networks and activate hostility as a semantically related category, resulting in an increase of hostile mood in game players.  Anderson and Ford (1986) found that, compared to the no-game condition, highly and mildly aggressive video games produced heightened hostile feelings in players.  In addition, a highly aggressive game produced more anxiety in the players than a mildly aggressive game or no game.
Another study (Ballard & Wiest, 1996) reported that a highly aggressive video game elicited more hostility than a mildly aggressive video game, suggesting the likelihood of a linear relationship between the levels of violence in video games and players' hostile feelings.  The researchers employed two different levels of violence within the same violent video game (Mortal Kombat), holding constant other game features such as graphics and sound.  A nonviolent video game (Corner Pocket) was employed as a control condition.  On the hostility measures, the more violent version of the experimental video game elicited the highest self-reported scores, the milder violent version the second highest scores, and the control condition the lowest scores.
Two studies showed little or no evidence of increased negative affect from playing violent video games. Calvert and Tan (1994) found no difference in hostile feelings after playing violent video game and observing violent video game play.  Scott (1995) reported no significant differences in postgame hostility across three levels of violence in video games.
Video Game and Interpersonal Competition
Interpersonal video game play.  It is generally held that a competitive situation, compared to noncompetitive or cooperating situations, tends to increase arousal and to intensify affective states and aggressive behaviors.  Competitive situations are significantly correlated with cardiovascular arousal (Obrist et al., 1978; Van Egeren, 1979; Van Egeren, Abelson, & Thornton, 1978).  Competitive circumstances cause anger (Anderson & Morrow, 1995; Deutsch, 1993) and frustration (Berkowitz, 1962, 1989).  Competitive activities may result in the disentangling of interpersonal relationships, in interpersonal conflict, or in overt aggressive behaviors (Berkowitz, 1962, 1989; Deutsch 1949a, 1949b, 1993; Nelson et al., 1969; Sherif, Harvey, White, Hood, & Sherif, 1961; Sherif & Sherif, 1953; Worchel, Andreoli, & Folger, 1977).  Athletic competition produces anxiety, anger, stress, and fatigue (Sternberg, Bailin, Grant, & Gracely, 1998; Sternberg, Bokat, Kass, Alboyadjian, & Gracely, 2001).
  The instruction to play competitively a video game induced more aggressive behavioral tendencies during the video game play than did the instruction to be cooperative (Anderson & Morrow, 1995).
Although a significant body of video game research has focused on individual's solitary video game play, video games are considered a part of regular social activities with friends and other family members (Quittner, 1998; "Video Game Culture," 1998).  Mitchell (1985) argued that video games "brought families together in common recreational interaction more than any other activity in recent memory"(p. 132).  The fifth annual consumer survey of Interactive Digital Software Association (2000b) presents an interesting finding that, on a multiple-choice option, about 60% of the frequent players enjoy playing video games with their friends, 42% with family members, 27% with their spouse, and 25% with their parents.  Sherry et al. (2001) indicated that young adults enjoy playing video games in interacting with friends, as well as for competition to show themselves to be the best players of the game.  The popularity of online game sometimes even involves interpersonal competitive play wi
th anonymous people.  A total of 18 million adults were enthusiastic game players on the Internet (Cyber Dialogue, 1999).  It was predicted that 40 million households would enjoy online games by 2004 (IDC, 2001).
Interpersonal competitive play and mood.  Arguably, personal victory or defeat in interpersonal competitive video game play may influence an individual's mood.  The reasoning behind this assumption lies in the ability of entertainment fare to change one's mood (Kubey & Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Morris, 1989; Thayer, 1989; Zillmann, 2001), and personal success in a competitive setting elicits a positively valenced mood, whereas personal failure produces a negatively valenced mood (Batson & Weeks, 1996; Goldstein & Strube, 1994; Lane, Beedie, Lane, & Firth, 2000; Parrott & Sabini, 1990; Russell & McAuley, 1986; Terry & Slade, 1995).  In addition, many studies have found that success and failure feedback manipulations at certain tasks influence one's mood (Gerrads-Hesse, Spies, & Hesse, 1994; Goldberg, Alon, Weisenberg, & Gotestam, 2000).  The outcome of a competition tends to bring about different results for winner and loser.  The winner may feel excited and receive some kind of rewards (e.g., heightened self-esteem, recognition from observers, or material incentives), whereas the loser may feel anger, humiliation, distress, and lowered self-esteem (Buss, 1986).  Thus, we can expect that the outcome of competitive play of video games may have a co
mparable effect on players' mood.
The mood experienced from video game play may also affect self-confidence in players' estimations of their ability to perform certain tasks or to cope with environmental stimuli.  It has already been shown that positive moods induced by positive events can lead to heightened self-confidence on subsequent tasks, whereas negative moods produced by negative events work in the opposite way (Kavanagh & Bower, 1985; McFarland & Ross, 1982; Wright & Mischel, 1982).
Video Game, and Distress Perception and Tolerance.
Mood and pain experience.  It has been shown that one's mood has the potential to influence pain perception and tolerance (Eich, Rachman, & Lapotka, 1990; Hodes, Howland, Lightfoot, & Cleeland, 1990; Stevens, Heise, & Pfost, 1989).  Psychological manipulations and interventions that can reduce one's negative emotional states have been shown to reduce pain perception and increase pain tolerance in natural and laboratory settings (for a review, see Baker & Kirsch, 1991) and in clinical settings (for review, see Turk & Rudy, 1992).  For example, attentional distraction from pain is effective in decreasing pain-sensitivity or increasing discomfort thresholds (De Wied & Verbaten, 2001; Johnson, Breakwell, & Douglas, 1998).
It has been shown that positive mood change is associated with increased pain or distress tolerance, while negative mood change has the reverse effect (Hertel & Hekmat, 1994; Zelman et al., 1991).  For example, Hertel and Hekmat (1994) found that the use of pleasant or unpleasant mental imageries changed moods, and that positive mood leads to increased pain tolerance.  Zelman et al. (1991) investigated the effects of induced mood on pain tolerance in a laboratory setting.  The results showed clearly that after the mood induction elated mood fostered an apparent increase of pain tolerance, whereas depressed mood fostered an apparent decrease of it.  The findings of this study suggest that behaviorally assessed pain tolerance increases with positively valenced mood and decreases with negatively valenced mood.
Overall, the results of the studies have identified that induced positive moods are related to increased pain and distress tolerance.  It may suggest that pleasant moods may be beneficial to cope with pain or distress from stressful stimulations.
Competition, and distress perception and tolerance.  Competitive circumstances are likely to reduce pain perception and increase pain thresholds on competition encounters.  Several studies have identified that athletic competition reduces pain sensitivity by the incretion of endogenous opioids, producing competition- or stress-induced analgesic states (O'Connor, & Cook, 1999; Sternberg et al., 1998; Sternberg et al., 2001).  Regarding video games, Sternberg et al. (2001) found that competitive video game play can increase pain thresholds.  Participants played competitively a racing video game (Need Speed II) in same-sex pairs and were then exposed to cold-pressor pain.  The competitive play of the video game induced an analgesic state in males, but not on females.  The outcome of the competitive video game play was, however, not considered in this study.  Thus, it is fair to say that the function of the outcomes of competitive video game play on distress perception and tolerance remains in question.
The intent of the present study was to investigate the effect of interpersonal competitive play of video games on game players' affective states, physical toughness to noxious, painful stimulation, and cognitive self-defensive toughness in estimating one's ability to cope with aggressive situations.  Based on evidence that mood has a considerable effect on discomfort and pain tolerance (De Wied & Verbaten, 2001; Zelman, Howland, Nichols, & Cleeland, 1991) and cognitive judgments (Forgas & Bower, 1987; Forgas & Moylan, 1987; Isen, 1984; Isen & Levin, 1972; Parkinson, Totterdell, Briner, & Reynolds, 1996), this study examined that mood experienced from the outcome of interpersonal competitive play of video games is likely to influence one's estimation of self-defensive confidence in coping with aggressive situations involving other people, and distress perception and tolerance to pain.
Furthermore, the study intended also to examine the interplay of the different levels of violence in video games with the outcome of interpersonal competitive play on physical distress perception and tolerance and cognitive self-defensive confidence.  Considering the existing findings that violent video games elicited more intense affective states in players than do nonviolent video games (Anderson & Ford, 1986; Ballard & Wiest, 1996), this study proposed that competitive play with violent video games would have significantly different effect from a competitive play with nonviolent video games on self-ascribed cognitive and physical toughness.
Hypotheses
The specific hypotheses to be evaluated are as follows:
H1a:  Personal victory in interpersonal competitive play of a video game elicits more intensely positive mood and less intensely negative mood than does personal defeat.
H1b:  The suggested effect on postgame moods is greater for violent video game play than for nonviolent video game play.
H2a:  Personal victory increases distress tolerance, whereas personal defeat diminishes distress tolerance.
H2b:  The suggested effect on distress tolerance is greater for violent video game play than for nonviolent video game play.
H3a:  Personal victory lowers distress perception, whereas personal defeat heightens it.
H3b:  The suggested effect on distress perception is greater for violent video game play than for nonviolent video game play.
H4a:  Personal victory enhances self-defensive toughness in aggressive situations, whereas personal defeat reduces it.
H4b:  The suggested effect on estimates of self-defensive toughness is greater for violent video game play than for nonviolent video game play.
Method
Overview
A total of 60 male participants were asked to compete with a male confederate in pairs to win a video game under one of six experimental conditions, differing in levels of video game violence and competition outcomes.  After the completion of interpersonal competitive video game play, postgame affective states were measured.  A finger-pressor test of noxious stimulation was then administered to assess the participants' distress perception and actual tolerance of time of endurance served as a measure of pain tolerance.  The participants were also asked to indicate their perceptions of danger posed by several persons displayed on a computer screen, as well as their reactions to hypothetical aggressive situations involving those people.  The data were subjected to analyses of variance (ANOVA), with the factorial design including the two levels of violence and the three competition outcomes.
Design
        The experimental design for this study was a 2 levels of game violence (violent vs. nonviolent) ( 3 levels of competition outcome (victory vs. tied vs. defeat) factorial one, with between-subjects measures.  Participants were randomly assigned to either a violent video game (Tekken 3) or a nonviolent video game (Tennis) on PlayStation 1.  The outcome was predetermined and accomplished by a confederate's superior playing skills.
Research Participants
Sixty male undergraduates at a large southeastern university served as participants.  They were recruited from introductory communication classes and received extra credit for their research participation.  Their mean age was 20.1 years.  Participants played an average of 11.6 minutes in a practice session, and an average of 15.8 minutes in actual competition.
Procedure
For each research session, a male participant was scheduled in a pair with a confederate who was purported another research participant.  The experimenter explained the rules of the video game and the key configuration of a controller pad.  A several-minute warm-up period was given for participants to experience and become familiar with the game.  After the warm-up period, participants were asked to compete with their partner (the confederate) to win the game.  During the play, game scores of each player were unobtrusively recorded.  Immediately after all play was completed, participants were asked to evaluate the game they just played and to answer the questions for assessing their current feeling state.
Participants were told that the second study was a pretest for another communication study that would deal with how people coped with aversive stimulation in general situations.  Participants were asked to put the index finger of the nondominant hand into the finger-pressor device, which exerted 1.4 kg pressure on a ridge of the second link of the finger, and then to lift the lever of the device when the distress was close to unbearable.  The duration of distress tolerance and distress perception were measured.
After the completion of the finger-pressor test, participants were asked to indicate their perceptions of several persons displayed on the computer screen, as well as their reactions to certain violent situations involving those people. After the participants filled out the questions, they were debriefed and thanked for participating.
Apparatus
Finger-pressor device is a pain stimulator that elicits pain by placing weight on a sharp edge on the nonmuscular bone of a finger.  It is a modified version of the Forgione-Barber pressure stimulator (Forgione & Barber, 1971).  A dull translucent plexiglass wedge (1.7mm wide) with a total pressure of 1,400 grams was applied to the skin over the middle phalanx of the index finger (Peters & Schmidt, 1991; Peters et al., 1989).
Dependent Measures
Affective states.  A multiple mood-related adjective list was used to assess subjective responses of participants' postgame mood state.  A set of 18 adjectives from the Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) was rated on an 11-point scale, ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely).  This mood-related adjective list is are attached as Appendix A.
Distress tolerance and perception to noxious pressure.  The distress tolerance measure was to assess a sense of physical toughness of participants after an interpersonal competitive play of video game.  Participants were asked to stop the pressure by lifting the lever of the device when the pressure became unbearable.  Tolerance was measured by the duration to that point.
Additionally, the ratings of distress were to ascertain subjectively experienced distress.  Participants were asked to evaluate the distress experience with the finger-pressor test on an 11-point scale ranging from 0 (no distress at all) to 10 (a great deal of distress).
Cognitive self-defensive toughness in aggressive situations.  In order to assess participants' postgame cognitive self-defensive toughness in terms of self-defensive confidence in hypothetical aggressive or fighting situations, three portraits of men (a weak-looking, a normal-looking, and a strong-looking man) selected from the pretest were presented in random order.  First, participants were asked to indicate their perception of each portrait on 10 bipolar scales raging from 0 (not at all) to 5 (extremely).  This assessment focused on perceived dangerousness.  Second, on two 11-point scales ranging from 0 (not confident at all) to 10 (very confident), participants rated how confident they were that, if attacked by the portrayed person, they could get out of a fighting situation without being harmed, and how confident they were that they could beat him.  Person-Perception and self-defensive confidence measures are attached as Appendix B.


Results
Tests of the Experiential Mood Hypotheses
Data reduction.  A principle component analysis using varimax rotation was performed on the 18 mood adjective items.  Four factors with eigenvalues greater than one emerged.  However, a close inspection of the eigenvalues by means of a scree test identified a major break between the third and fourth factors, and the fourth factor had only one high factor loading that was greater than .70.  The criterion for including an item into a factor was that it had at least two factor loadings greater than .70 on that factor and less than .40 on the other factors.  Thus, it appears that a three-factor solution best fits our data, and the three factors accounted for 63.3% of variance.
Hedonic valence.  The first factor (Positive Affect) accounted for 29.6% of the variance.  It consisted of the following seven items with factor loadings indicated in parentheses: Powerful (.88), Satisfied (.81), Proud (.79), Happy (.79), Active (.78), Strong (.76), and Excited (.72).  The second factor (Negative Affect 1) accounted for 24.9% of the variance and consisted of four mood adjectives: Vulnerable (.84), Sad (.83), Hostile (.82), and Weak (.78).  The third factor (Negative Affect 2) accounted for 8.8% of the variances and consisted of Frustrated (.84) and Upset (.80).  The items that loaded highly on each factor were averaged for composite measures.
Analyses of variance.  A two-way (Violence Level ( Competition Outcome) univariate analysis of variance (ANOVA) was performed on the positive affect composite measure.  This analysis identified a significant main effect of violence level, F(1, 54) = 7.83, p = .007.  Playing a violent video game (M = 5.82) produced a more positive mood than did playing a nonviolent video game (M = 4.50).  The analysis also identified a significant main effect of competition outcome, F(2,54) = 3.78, p = .03.  A subsequent Newman-Keuls' post-hoc test revealed that participants in the victory condition (M = 5.96) rated their current mood to be more positive than participants in the defeat condition (M = 4.37).  The tied condition (M = 5.14) was not significantly different from the victory and defeat conditions.  There was, however, no significant interaction between violence level and competition outcome, F < 1, ns.  Next, a two-way univariate ANOVA was conducted on the first negative affect composite
 measure.  This analysis showed no significant main effects of violence level and competition outcome, and no significant interaction effect, Fs < 1, ns.

Table 1 Ratings of Positive and Negative Affect After Competitive Play
Competition outcome
Violence level
Victory
Tied
Defeat
Combined
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Violent
Positive Affect
6.61
2.1
5.46
1.9
 5.40
2.0
5.82B
2.0
Negative Affect 1
  .78
1.0
1.40
1.5
 1.10
1.0
  1.09
 1.2
Negative Affect 2
2.20
1.1
2.98
2.0
 3.47
  .7
  2.88
1.4
Nonviolent
Positive Affect
5.31
1.7
4.83
1.6
 3.34
1.7
4.50A
1.8
Negative Affect 1
  .60
1.0
  .63
1.3
 1.18
2.2
    .80
1.6
Negative Affect 2
2.18
1.0
2.45
1.7
 3.80
1.1
  2.81
1.4
Combined
Positive Affect
5.96b
2.0
5.14ab
1.7
4.37a
2.1
  5.16
2.0
Negative Affect 1
 .69
1.0
1.01
1.4
 1.14
1.7
    .95
1.4
Negative Affect 2
2.19a
1.0
  2.71a
1.8
3.64b
1.0
  2.85
1.4
Note.  Scores range from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely).  Comparisons between means indicated by lowercase superscripts are within rows only (horizontal).  Means not sharing a lowercase superscript differ significantly at p < .05 by Newman-Keuls test.  Comparisons between means indicated by uppercase superscripts are within positive affect only (vertical) by F test.

A two-way univariate ANOVA was performed on the second negative affect composite measure.  This analysis found a significant main effect of competition outcome, F(2,54) = 7.83, p = .004.  A subsequent Newman-Keuls post-hoc test revealed that participants in the defeat condition rated their current mood to be more negative (M = 3.64) than those in both the tied (M = 2.71) and victory (M = 2.19) conditions.  The tied and victory conditions were not significantly different from each other.  There was no significant main effect of violence level, and no significant interaction effect, Fs < 1, ns.  The means and standard deviations associated with the main effect are shown in Table 1.
Tests of the Distress Tolerance Hypotheses
Preliminary analysis.  Preliminary inspection of the data showed that 28 participants (46.7%) endured finger-pressor pressure to the preset maximum of five minutes without lifting up the lever of the device to release the pressure.  These extreme data were removed from further analysis.  It was felt that the extreme tolerance durations might make the data entirely unsuitable for analysis due to the potential distress from the excessive tolerance itself.
Analyses of variance.  A two-way univariate ANOVA was performed to determine whether violence level and competition outcome induced differentiation in distress tolerance duration.  This test yielded a main effect of competition outcome, F(2,26) = 3.69, p = .039, and a significant interaction effect, F(2,26) = 3.63, p = .041.  However, there was no significant main effect of violence level, F < 1, ns.
To determine whether there was a significant linear trend in the mean scores in terms of the outcome of competition, a trend analysis in the form of orthogonal polynomial contrasts was conducted on the distress tolerance measure.  Contrast coefficients entered were as follows: (a) victory condition -1, (b) tied condition 0, and (c) defeat condition +1).  The result approached significance, t(29) = 2.04, p = .050.  The linear trend suggests that distress tolerance is a function of competition outcome.  Specifically, mean scores of distress tolerance tended to increase as players lose but to decrease as players win a video game competition.
Subsequent ANOVAs were performed separately on the violent game and nonviolent game conditions to understand the nature and characteristic of the main and interaction effects.  Within the nonviolent video game condition, there was a significant main effect of competition outcome, F(2,11) = 5.21, p = .026.  However, the effect of competition outcome was not significant within the violent game condition, F < 1, ns.  The mean scores and standard deviations associated with these analyses are displayed in Table 2.

Table 2 Distress Tolerance Duration on the Finger-Pressor Test
Competition outcome
Violence level
Victory
Tied
Defeat
Combined
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Violent
108.48
48.9
 79.80
48.4
106.20
54.1
99.83
48.6
Nonviolent
  47.00a
28.2
96.80ab
49.8
 169.40b
77.4
108.50
73.7
Combined
87.92
51.5
 88.30
46.7
137.80
71.2
103.63
60.0
Note.  Distress tolerance was measured in seconds.  Comparisons between means indicated by lowercase superscripts are within row only (horizontal).  Means not sharing a lowercase superscript differ significantly at p < .05 by Newman-Keuls test.  N = 32.


Tests of the Distress Perception Hypotheses
Preliminary analysis.  Immediately after the finger-pressor procedure, participants rated their subjective distress from the finger-pressure pain on an 11-point scale, ranging from 0 (no distress at all) to 10 (a great deal of distress).  After removing the 28 participants who endured the preset maximum of five minutes, distress perception had a negative relationship with distress tolerance (r = -.26).
Analyses of variance.  A two-way univariate ANOVA was performed on the hypothesis that competition outcome induced differentiation in distress perception.  This analysis found a main effect of competition outcome, F(2,26) = 4.08, p = .029.  There was no significant main effect of violence level and no significant interaction effect, F < 1, ns, and F(2,26) = 3.15, ns, respectively.
To determine whether there was a significant linear trend in the mean scores in terms of the outcome of competition, a trend analysis in the form of orthogonal polynomial contrasts was conducted on the distress perception.  This analysis indicated a significant effect, t(29) = -2.26, p = .031.  It was obvious that there was a linear trend in the mean scores of distress perception as a function of the competition outcome.  Mean scores of distress perception increased as players won, but decreased as players lost a video game competition.
Separate ANOVAs were conducted on violent game and nonviolent game conditions to figure out the nature and characteristics of the main effect of competition outcome.  Within the nonviolent video game condition, there was a significant effect of competition outcome on distress perception, F(2, 11) = 10.03, p = .003.  There was, however, no significant effect of competition outcome on distress perception within the violent game condition, F < 1, ns.  The mean scores and standard deviations associated with these tests are displayed in Table 3.

Table 3 Ratings of Distress Perception after the Finger-Pressor Test
Competition outcome
Violence level
Victory
Tied
Defeat
Combined
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
      M
SD
Violent
5.13
2.5
5.00
2.7
4.80
1.5
5.00
2.2
Nonviolent
 7.75b
1.7
 4.60a
1.7
 3.00a
1.4
4.93
2.5
Combined
6.00
2.5
4.80
2.1
3.90
1.7
4.97
2.3
Note.  Scores range from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely).  Comparisons between means indicated by lowercase superscripts are within row only (horizontal).  Means not sharing a lowercase superscript differ significantly at p < .05 by Newman-Keuls test.
Tests of the Self-Defensive Toughness Hypotheses
Data reduction for person perception.   The three portraits of men (one weak-looking man, one normal-looking man, and one strong-looking man) selected from the pretest were arranged in random order and presented to the participants for evaluation.  Participants rated each portrait on the 10 bipolar adjective scales.  The ratings on five of them were reversed to ensure parallel meaning.  The scores were subjected to a principle component analysis using varimax rotation.  Two factors with eigenvalues greater than one emerged, but the second factor did not qualify because it had a factor loading greater than .65 on the factor and less than .40 on the first factor.  Thus, a one-factor solution was appropriate for further analysis, and the factor (Dangerousness) consisted of the following seven items with factor loadings indicated in parentheses: Mean-Considerate (.86), Rude-Polite (.83), Hostile-Kind (.82), Deceitful-Honest (.80), Dangerous-Tolerant (.78), Brutal-Tender (.75), and Stu
pid-Bright (.65).  The Cronbach alpha coefficient of the seven items was .91. The factor accounted for 51.92 % of the variance.  The ratings were averaged for a composite measure.
ANOVAs on person perception.  The composite measure of dangerousness was then analyzed in two-way univariate ANOVAs on each of the three men.  These analyses identified a significant main effect of competition outcome on the strong-looking man, F(2, 54) = 3.50, p = .037.  A subsequent Newman-Keuls post-hoc test revealed that participants in the victory condition (M = 5.84) rated the strong-looking man as being tougher than participants in the tied (M = 4.56) and defeat (M = 4.74) conditions.  There was, however, no significant main effect of violence level and no significant interaction effect, Fs < 1, ns.

Table 4  Ratings of Person-Perception on the Portraits of Men
Competition outcome
Violence level
Victory
Tied
Defeat
Combined
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Violent
Weak
Normal
Strong
2.11
4.44
5.76
1.3
  .9
1.7
2.24
4.33
4.41
1.2
2.0
1.8
1.61
3.64
4.73
1.5
1.0
1.9
1.99
4.14
4.97
1.3
1.4
1.8
Nonviolent
Weak
Normal
Strong
1.79
4.20
5.93
  .8
1.1
1.3
3.06
4.09
4.71
2.7
1.9
2.0
2.93
4.61
4.74
1.8
1.5
1.2
2.59
4.30
5.13
2.0
1.5
1.6
Combined
Weak
Normal
Strong
1.95
4.32
 5.84b
1.1
1.0
1.5
2.65
4.21
 4.56a
2.1
1.9
1.8
2.27
4.13
 4.74a
1.7
1.3
1.5
2.29
4.22
5.05
1.7
1.4
1.7
Note:  Scores range from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely).  Comparisons between means indicated by lowercase superscripts are within row only (horizontal).  Means not sharing a lowercase superscript differ significantly at p < .05 by Newman-Keuls test.

For the weak-looking man, there were no significant main and interaction effects, Fs < 1 for the main effects of violence level and competition outcome, and F(1,54) = 1.15 for the interaction effect.  For the normal-looking man, there were no significant main and interaction effects, F < 1 for the main effect of competition outcome, and Fs(1,54) < 2.0 for the main effect of violence level and the interaction effect.  The means and standard deviations associated with these tests are summarized in Table 4.
ANOVAs on self-defensive confidence.  Two separate repeated-measures analyses were performed on two measures of self-defensive confidence in hypothetical aggressive situations involving the three men: (1) self-defensive confidence of being unharmed, and (2) self-defensive confidence of beating.  Both violence level and competition outcome were between-subjects variables in the repeated-measures analyses.  Either the self-defensive confidence of being unharmed or the self-defensive confidence of beating was a within-subjects variable.
For the self-defensive confidence measure of being unharmed, there were no significant main and interaction effects, Fs < 1, ns.  The means and standard deviations associated with these tests are shown in Table 5.

Table 5 Ratings of Self-Defensive Confidence of Being Unharmed
Competition outcome
Violence level
Victory
Tied
Defeat
Combined
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Combined
Weak
Normal
Strong
9.05
6.75
4.60
2.2
2.9
2.7
9.10
7.05
5.60
1.1
1.9
2.7
9.25
7.05
5.30
2.2
3.0
3.0
9.13
6.95
5.06
1.9
2.6
2.8
Note.  Scores range from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely).

For the self-defensive confidence of beating, there were no significant main and interaction effects, Fs < 1 for the main effect of violence level and the interaction effect, and F(1,54) = 1.62 for the main effect of competition outcome.  The results are shown in Table 6.

Table 6  Ratings of the Self-Defensive Confidence of Beating
Competition outcome
Violence level
Victory
Tied
Defeat
Combined
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
M
SD
Combined
Weak
Normal
Strong
9.65
7.40
3.90
  .7
2.1
2.7
8.80
6.05
3.40
2.0
3.0
2.6
9.40
7.25
4.30
1.0
2.1
2.6
9.28
6.90
3.97
1.4
2.5
2.6
Note.  Scores range from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely).
Discussion
Hypothesis 1a, was supported.  The outcome of interpersonal competitive play of a video game strongly affected participants' postgame moods.  Personal victory produced more positive and less negative moods than personal defeat.  This finding is consistent with the evidence from previous studies that have identified differentiated postcompetition moods experienced after victory and defeat in athletic and general competition (Batson & Weeks, 1996; Goldstein & Strube, 1994; Lane, Beedie, Lane, & Firth, 2000; Parrott & Sabini, 1990; Russell & McAuley, 1986; Terry & Slade, 1995).
Hypothesis 1b was partially supported.  Experiential positive affect was rated higher after playing a violent video game than after playing a nonviolent video game.  However, postgame negative mood showed no significant difference between violent and nonviolent video games.  Overall, the induction of mood was successful and as needed to test the stated hypotheses.
The finding concerning Hypothesis 2a do not lend support to the prediction that personal victory is capable of inducing physical toughness by increasing endurance of distress.  Personal defeat, in contrast, was found to be capable of increasing distress tolerance.  The results did not reveal that postcompetition positive mood is carried over to players' physical toughness in terms of distress tolerance to noxious finger-pressor pain.  However, it is noteworthy that, although a significant effect was not obtained, it appears that there is a linear trend across conditions.  Distress tolerance duration was longer after personal defeat than after personal victory, and the distress tolerance time in the tied condition was in between the defeat and victory conditions, not differing significantly from the two.  Although it is contradictory to the evidence that a positive mood increases pain or discomfort tolerance, this finding is similar to the evidence of previous studies that have identified competition- or stress-induced analgesic effects in athletic competitions, at least in males (O'Connor & Cook, 1999; Sternb
erg et al, 1998; Sternberg et al., 2001).  Moreover, the finding may indicate that distress-reducing or analgesic effects of interpersonal competition on distress tolerance, at least in video games, is likely to be induced by the humiliation associated with defeat.
Hypothesis 2b was not supported.  There was no significant difference on distress tolerance between violent and nonviolent video games.  However, a significant main effect of competition outcome was identified in the nonviolent video game condition, but not in the violent game condition.  Personal defeat from playing the nonviolent video game led to increased distress tolerance, whereas personal victory resulted in lower distress tolerance.  Overall, the results do not lend support to the assumption that, compared to nonviolent video games, violent video games may have a higher potential for inducing distress tolerance due to more intense affect or emotion.
Hypothesis 3a was not supported.  However, it is noteworthy that, although a significant effect was not obtained, there is a linear trend across conditions.  Distress is perceived as being more substantial in the victory condition than in the defeat condition.
The findings concerning Hypothesis 3b did not support the prediction that there would be a significant difference in distress perception between violent and nonviolent video games.  However, an unexpected inverse effect was identified in the nonviolent video game condition.  Personal defeat from playing the nonviolent video game was related to lower distress ratings, whereas personal victory resulted in increased distress ratings.  This finding is contradictory to evidence from previous investigations that have demonstrated lowered pain perception during positive affect and emotion in natural, experimental and clinical settings (Baker & Kirsch, 1991; Glover et al., 1995; Shacham et al., 1984; Sternbach, 1974; Turk & Rudy, 1992; Weisenberg et al., 1998; Zelman et al., 1991).
Overall, it appears that the humiliation associated with defeat from interpersonal competitive play of video games, at least in nonviolent video game, leads to increased distress tolerance and lower distress ratings, whereas triumphant victory elicits lowered distress tolerance and heightens distress ratings.  An alternative explanation of the unexpected finding would be that individuals who are frustrated or upset from personal defeat take a subsequent task as another competition and try to show their ability and competency in this second "competition."  In contrast, individuals who enjoy their victory may not take a subsequent task as a competition because they enjoy their victory and showed their ability and competency in the first competition.  It can be also speculated that the experience of personal defeat in interpersonal competitive play of a video game creates a cognitive mind set that makes people try harder in a subsequent task in order to show their competitiveness and
 repair their self-image.
Hypotheses 4a and 4b were not supported.  However, when self-defensive confidence and perception of dangerousness of the portrayed men is considered together, there is an interesting result to be reported.  Participants in the victory condition perceived the strong-looking man as being more dangerous than participants in the defeat and tied conditions.  When this is compared to the rating (M = 5.67) on the same man in the pretest sample, in which there was no competition, it appears that the rating (M = 5.84) in the victory condition are similar to the rating in the pretest sample, but the rating (M = 4.74) in the defeat condition is lower.  Although participants in the victory condition perceived the strong-looking man as more dangerous than participants in the defeat condition, they reported high self-defensive confidence that was not significantly different from the confidence of the participants in the defeat condition.  In contrast, participants in the defeat condition perceived the strong-looking man as less dangerous and showed a comparable self-defensive confid
ence to the participants in the victory condition.
This may indicate that winners perceive people's dangerousness without distortion, and then they show heightened self-defensive confidence or competency to cope with aggressive situations involving dangerous people.  In contrast, personal defeat makes losers devaluate people's dangerousness, and the losers express their self-defensive confidence in an aggressive way.  This suggests that conflict, dispute, or fights may result from the distorted perception induced by a personal defeat.
Collectively, this study suggests the possibility that the induction of mood via personal victory or defeat experienced from playing video games competitively with other individuals is capable of changing individuals' distress perception and tolerance and person perception.  However, it appears that the experience of personal defeat may lead to distress amelioration, underestimation of person's dangerousness or noxiousness, and an increase of distress tolerance.
Additional studies giving consideration to the following limitations and suggestions are needed.
First, this study involved only one violent video game and only one nonviolent video game.  It could be argued that the obtained effects may be unique to those games involved in this study.  Therefore, future study should consider different themes, genres, and levels of violence in video games.
Second, it remains to be clarified as to why distress tolerance and perception are affected by personal defeat in nonviolent video games, but not by personal defeat in violent video games.  The serendipitous finding of a pain-ameliorating effect of personal defeat, especially in the nonviolent video game, should be investigated.
Third, regarding individual differences, future studies should consider gender, contexts, and age groups.  In contemporary society, males have been avid consumers of violent entertainment materials, and target audiences to such violent movies and video games (Goldstein, 1999).  However, recent surveys have revealed that females are also enthusiastic consumers of video games and violent entertainment may appeal to females.  Specific contexts (e.g., family, peer group, real competition, or online video game to name a few) and different age groups are considerable factors to be investigated.
Fourth, this study did not deal with the direct long-term effects of video games on video game players.  Although the short-term effects of playing violent video games are quite important, attention to the potential long-term effects should be warranted.  Extensive and frequent exposure to video game violence over a long period may lower activation thresholds of aggression-related mental constructs, and increase the accessibility of aggressive mental constructs that are chronically accessible (Chory-Assad & Mastro, 2000).
In conclusion, although the pervasiveness of violent computer and video games in our society is obvious, little research has been conducted on the unhealthy effects of playing violent video games on public health, especially health of children and adolescents.  Availability of and accessibility to violent computer and video games that feature realistic violence lend to require more research on public health, especially physical and mental health of children and adolescents who are at highest risk for being affected by violent video games.


The effects of Interpersonal Competition in Video Games

References
Anderson, C. A. (1997).  Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts.  Aggressive Behavior, 23, 161-178.
Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000).  Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 772-790.
Anderson, C. A., & Ford, C. M. (1986).  Affect of the game player: Short term effects of highly and mildly aggressive video games.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 12, 390-402.
Anderson, C. A., & Morrow, M. (1995).  Competitive aggression without interaction: Effects of competitive versus cooperative instructions on aggressive behavior in video games.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1020-1030.
Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1996).  Examining an affective aggression framework: Weapon and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 366-376.
Baker, S. L., & Kirsch, I. (1991).  Cognitive mediators of pain perception and tolerance.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61, 504-510.
Ballard, M. E., & Weist, J. R. (1996).  Mortal Kombat: The effects of violent video game play on males' hostility and cardiovascular responding.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 717-730.
Baton, C. D., & Weeks, J. L. (1996).  Mood effects of unsuccessful helping: Another test of the empathy-altruism hypothesis.  Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 148-157.
Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological analysis.  New York: McGrew-Hill.
Berkowitz, L. (1984).  Some effects of thoughts on anti- and prosocial influence of media events: A cognitive neoassociationist analysis.  Psychological Bulletin, 95, 410-427.
Berkowitz, L. (1989).  Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 59-73.
Berkowitz, L. (1990).  On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression.  American Psychologist, 45, 494-503.
Berkowitz, L. (1993).  Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control.  New York: McGraw-Hill.
Braun, C. M. J., & Giroux, J. (1989).  Arcade video games: Proxemic, cognitive and content analyses.  Journal of Leisure Research, 21, 343-349.
Buss, A. H. (1986).  Social behavior and personality.  Hillsdale, NJ: Erbaum.
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.
Computer Entertainment Software Association. (2001, July 16).  CESA publishes two types of research report.  Retrieved Jan 2, 2002, from http://www.cesa.or.jp/english/press/ wp01_e010716.html
Cooper, J., & Mackie, D. (1986).  Video games and aggression in children.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 726-744.
Cyber Dialogue. (1999, March 1).  Internet entertainment users demand V.I.P treatment. Retrieved July 2, 2001, from http://www.cyberdialogue.com/news/releases/1999/ 03-01-cce-portals.html.
De Wied, M., & Verbaten, M. N. (2001).  Affective pictures processing, attention, and pain tolerance.  Pain, 90, 163-172.
Deutsch, M. (1949a).  A theory of co-cooperation and competition.  Human Relations, 2, 129-152.
Deutsch, M. (1949b).  An experimental study of the effects of co-operation and competition upon group process.  Human Relations, 2, 199-231.
Deutsch, M. (1993).  Educating for a peaceful world.  American Psychologist, 48, 510-517.
Dietz, T. (1998).  An examination of violence and gender role portrayals in video games: Implications for gender socialization and aggressive behavior.  Sex Roles, 38, 425-442.
Egli, E. A., & Meyers, L. S. (1984).  The role of video game playing in adolescent life: Is there reason to be concerned?  Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 22, 309-312.
Eich, E., Rachman, S., & Lapotka, C. (1990).  Affect, pain, and autobiographical memory.  Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 99, 174-178.
Fling, S., Smith, L., Rodriguez, T., Thornton, D., Atkins, E., & Nixon, K. (1992).  Videogames, aggression, and self-esteem: A survey.  Social Behavior and Personality, 20, 39-46.
Forgas, J. P., & Bower, G. H. (1987).  Mood effects on person perception judgments.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 53-60.
Forgas, J. P., & Moylan, S. (1987).  After the movies: Transient mood and social judgments.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 13, 467-477.
Forgione, A. G., & Barber, T. X. (1971).  Instrumentation: A strain gauge pain stimulator.  Psychophysiology, 8, 102-106
Gerrads-Hesse, A., Spies, K., & Hesse, F. W. (1994).  Experimental inductions of emotional states and their effectiveness: A review.  British Journal of Psychology, 85, 55-78.
Gibb, G. D., Bailey, J. R., Lornbirth, T. T., & Wilson, W. P. (1983).  Personality differences between high and low electronic video game users.  Journal of Psychology, 114, 143-152.
Goldberg, J., Alon, R., Weisenberg, M., & Gotestam, K. G., (2000).  Influence of success and failure on pain tolerance.  European Journal of Psychiatry, 14, 171-179.
Goldstein, M. D., & Strube, M. (1994).  Independence revisited: The relation between positive and negative affect in a naturalistic setting.  Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 57-64.
Grossman, D., & DeGaetano, G. (1999).  Stop teaching our kids to kill: A call to action against TV, movie and video game violence.  New York: Crown, 1999.
Gullo, K. (2001, March 23).  Ashcroft criticizes video games. Retrieved January 3, 2002, from http://speakout.com/activism/apstories/5734-1.html
Hertel, J. B., & Hekmat, H. M. (1994).  Coping with cold-pressor pain: Effects of mood and covert imaginal modeling.  The Psychological Record, 44, 207-220.
Hodes, R. L., Howland, E. W., Lightfoot, N., & Cleeland, C. S. (1990).  The effects of distraction on responses to cold pressor pain.  Pain, 41, 109-114.
Huesmann, L. R., & Miller, L. S. (1994).  Long-term effects of repeated exposure to media violence in childhood.  In L. R. Huesmann (Ed.), Aggressive behavior: Current perspectives (pp. 153-188).  New York: Plenum.
IDC. (2001, February 7).  Online gaming companies are evolving their business models according to the changing gaming landscape.  Retrieved January 4, 2002, from http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jhtml?containerId=pr50218
Informa Media Group. (2000, June 14).  Value of global games industry to reach $86 billion.  Retrieved July 16, 2001, from http://www.informamedia.com
Interactive Digital Software Association (2000a, May 11).  Remarks of Douglas Lowenstein president, Interactive Digital Software Association Electronic Entertainment Expo 2000 media briefing.  Retrieved July 15, 2001, from http://www.idsa.com/pressroom.html
Interactive Digital Software Association (2000b, September 12).  IDSA reports popularity of computer and video games with adults.  Retrieved July 15, 2001, from http://www.idsa .com/releases/9_13_ 2000.html
Interactive Digital Software Association (2001a).  State of the industry: Report 2000-2001. Retrieved August 20, 2001, from http://www.idsa.com
Interactive Digital Software Association (2001b).  IDSA announces results of 6th annual consumer survey revealing that games are a central part of American life. Retrieved June 9, 2001, from http://www.idsa.com/consumersurvey2001.html
Interactive Digital Software Association (2002).  2001 game sales and graphs. Retrieved March 14, 2002, from http://www.idsa.com/2001SalesData.html
Irwin, A. R., & Gross, A. M.  (1995).  Cognitive tempo, violent video games, and aggressive behavior in young boys.  Journal of Family Violence, 10, 337-350.
Isen, A. M. (1984).  The influence of positive affect on decision making and cognitive organization.  In T. C. Kinnear (Ed.), Advances in Consumer Research, Vol. 11 (pp. 534-537).  Provo, UT. Association for Consumer Research.
Isen, A. M., & Levin, P. F. (1972).  Effect of feeling good on helping: Cookies and kindness.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 21, 384-388.
Johnson, M. H., Breakwell, G., & Douglas, W. (1998).  The effects of imagery and sensory detection distractors on different measures of pain: How does distraction work?  British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 141-154.
Kavanagh, D. L., & Bower, G. H. (1985).  Mood and self-efficacy: Impact of joy and sadness on perceived capabilities.  Cognitive Therapy and Research, 9, 507-525.
Kubey, R. W., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990).  Television and the quality of life: How viewing shapes everyday experience.  Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Kubey, R., & Larson, R. (1990).  The use and experience of the new video media among children and young adolescents.  Communication Research, 17, 107-130.
Lachlan, K., Smith, S. L., & Tamborini, R. (2000, November).  Popular video games: Assessing the amount and context of violence.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Communication Association in Seattle, WA.
Lane, A., Beedie, C., Lane, H., & Firth, S. (2000).  Relationships between performance satisfaction and post-competition mood among runners.  Journal of Sports Sciences, 18, 53.
Lang, A., Schneider, E. F., & Deitz, R. (1999, August).  Emotional experience and physiological arousal during violent video game playing: Gender, experience, and presence matter.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education in Journalism and Mass Communication, New Orleans, LA.
Lemos, R. (1999, April 22).  Violent games, shootings connected.  Retrieved June 8, 2001, from http://www.zdnet.com/filters/printerfriendly/0,6061,2246075-2,00.html
McFarland, C., & Ross, M. (1982). Impact of causal attributions on affective reactions to success and failure.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 937-946.
Mehrabian, A., & Wixen, W. J. (1986).  Preferences for individual video games as a function of their emotional effects on players.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 3-15.
Mitchell, E. (1985).  The dynamics of family interaction around home video games.  Marriage and Family Review, 8, 121-135.
Morris, W. N. (1989).  Mood: The frame of mind.  New York: Springer-Verlag.
Nelson, J., Gelfand, D., & Hartmann, D. (1969).  Children's aggression following competition and exposure to an aggressive model.  Child Development, 40, 1085-1097.
Nelson, T. M., & Carlson, D. R. (1985).  Determining factors in choice of arcade games and their consequences upon young male players.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15, 124-139.
O'Connor, P. J., & Cook, D. B. (1999).  Exercise and pain: The neurobiology, measurement, and laboratory study of pain in relation to exercise in humans.  In J. O. Holloszy, & D. R. Seals (Eds.), Exercise and sports sciences reviews Vol. 27 (pp. 199-166).  Philadelphia, PA: Williams & Wilkins.
Obrist, P., Gaebelein, C., Teller, E., Langer, A., Light.,K., Grignolo, A., & McCubbin, J. (1978).  The relationship among heart rate, carotid dp/dt, and blood pressure in humans as a function of type of stress.  Psychophysiology, 15, 102-115.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994).  The effects of television violence on anti-social behavior: A meta-analysis.  Communication Research, 21, 516-546.
Parke, R. D., & Slaby, R. G.  (1983).  The development of aggression.  In E. M. Hetherington (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 4, Socialization, personality, and social development (pp. 547-641).  New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Parkinson, B., Totterdell, P., Briner, R. B., & Reynolds, S. (1996).  Changing moods: the psychology of mood and mood regulation.  London: Longman.
Parrott, W. G., & Sabini, J. (1990).  Mood and memory under natural conditions: Evidence for mood incongruent recall.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 321-336.
Pearl, D., Bouthilet, L., & Lazar, J. (Eds.).  (1982).  Television and behavior: Ten years of scientific progress and implications for the eighties (Vol. 1) summary report.  Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Peters, M. L., & Schmidt, A. J. M. (1991).  Psychophysiological responses to repeated acute pin stimulation in chronic low back pain patients.  Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 35, 59-74.
Peters, M. L., Schmidt, A. J. M., & Van Den Hout, M. A. (1989). Chronic low back pain and the reaction to repeated acute pain stimuli. Pain, 39, 69-76.
Quittner, J. (1998, January 19).  Fun for the whole family.  Time, 151(2), p.16.
Russell, D., & McAuley, E. (1986).  Causal attributions, causal dimensions and affective reactions to success and failure.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 1174-1185.
Schutte, N. S., Malouff, J. M., Post-Gorden, J. C., & Rodasta, A. L. (1998).  Effect of playing video games on children's aggressive and other behaviors.  Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 454-460.
Scott, D. (1995).  The effect of video games on feelings of aggression.  The Journal of Psychology, 129, 121-132.
Selnow, G. W. (1984).  Playing videogames: The electronic friend.  Journal of Communication, 34, 148-156.
Shacham, S., Dar, R., & Cleeland, C. S. (1984).  The relationship of mood state to the severity of clinical pain.  Pain, 18,187-197.
Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953).  Groups in harmony and tension.  New York: Harper.
Sherif, M., Harvey, O. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961).  Intergroup cooperation and competition: The Robbers Cave experiment.  Norman, OK: University Book Exchange.
Sherry, J. (2001).  The effects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis.  Human Communication Research, 27, 409-431.
Sherry, J., Lucas, K., Rechtsteiner, S., Brooks, C., & Wilson, B. (2001, May).  Video game uses and gratifications as predictors of use and game preference.  Paper presented at the annual meeting of International Communication Association, Washington D. C.
Silvern, S. B., & Williamson, P. A. (1987).  The effects of video game play on young children's aggression, fantasy and prosocial behavior.  The Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 8, 453-462.
Sternbach, R.A. (1974).  Pain patients: Traits and treatment.  New York: Academic Press.
Sternberg, W. F., Bailin, D., Grant, M., & Gracely, R. H. (1998).  Competition alters the perception of noxious stimuli in male and female athletes.  Pain, 17, 231-238.
Sternberg, W. F., Bokat, C., Kass, L., Alboyadjian, A., & Gracely, R. H. (2001).  Sex-dependent components of the analgesia producing by athletic competition.  The Journal of Pain, 2, 65-74.
Stevens, M. J., Heise, R. A., & Pfost, K. S. (1989).  Consumption of attention versus affect elicited by cognitions in modifying acute pain.  Psychological Reports, 64, 284-286.
Terry, P. C., & Slade, A. (1995).  Discriminant effectiveness of psychological state measures in predicting performance outcome in karate competition.  Perceptual and Motor Skills, 81, 275-286.
Thayer. R. E. (1996).  The origin of everyday moods: Managing energy, tension, and stress.  New York: Oxford University Press.
The NPD Group. (2001, January 17).  NPD reports U.S. video game industry sales decline for the year 2000.  Retrieved November10, 2000, from http://www.npd.com/news
The NPD Group. (2002, February 17).  NPD reports annual 2001 U.S. interactive entertainment sales shatter industry record.  Retrieved March 15, 2002, from http://www.npd.com/corp/content/news/releases/press_020207.htm
Top 250 of 2000.  (2001, January 8-14).  Variety, p. 9.
Top grossing pics of 2001.  (2002, January 7-13).  Variety, pp. 38-39.
Turk, D. C., & Rudy, T. E. (1992).  Cognitive factors and persistent pain: A Glimpse into Pandora's Box.  Cognitive Therapy and Research, 16, 99-122.
Turner, C. W., Hesse, B. W., & Peterson-Lewis, S. (1986).  Naturalistic studies of the long-term effects of television violence.  Journal of Social Issues, 42, 51-73.
Van Egeren, L. F. (1979).  Cardiovascular changes during social competition in a mixed-motive game.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 858-864.
Van Egeren, L. F., Abelson, J. L., & Thornton, D. W. (1978).  Cardiovascular consequences of expressing anger in mutually dependent relationships.  Journal of Psychosomatic Research, 22, 537-548.
Van Horn, R. (1999). Violence and video games. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 173-174.
Video game culture: Leisure and play preferences of B.C. teens (1998, October).  Retrieved December 23, 2001, from http://www.media-awareness.ca/eng/ issues/violence/ resource/reports/vgames.htm
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988).  Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Weisenberg, M., Raz, T., & Hener, T. (1998).  The influence of film-induced mood on pain perception. Pain, 76, 365-375.
Wiegman, O., & Van Shie, E. G. M. (1998).  Video game playing and its relations with aggressive and prosocial behavior.  British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 367-378.
Winkel, M., Novak, D. M., & Hopson, M. (1987).  Personality factors, subject gender and the effects of aggressive video games on aggression in adolescents.  Journal of Research in Personality, 21, 211-223.
Wood, W., Wong, T. Y., & Chachere, J. G. (1991).  Effects of media violence on viewers' aggression in unconstrained social interaction.  Psychological Bulletin, 109, 371-383.
Worchel, S., Andreoli, V. A., & Folger, R. (1977).  Intergroup cooperation and intergroup attraction: The effect of previous interaction and outcome of combined effect.  Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13, 131-140.
Wright, J., & Mischel, W. (1982).  Influence of affect on cognitive social learning person variables.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 899-908.
Zelman, D. C., Howland, E. W., Nichols, S. N., & Cleeland, C. S. (1991).  The effects of induced mood on laboratory pain.  Pain, 46, 105-111.
Zillmann, D. (2001, Forthcoming).  Mood effects and media exposure.  In J. R. Schement (Ed.), The macmillan encyclopedia of communication and information. New York: Macmillan Reference.
 Appendix A:  Video Game Evaluation
Video Game Evaluation
On the scales below, please indicate your overall enjoyment of the video game, as well as your specific reactions to it.

(1) How much did you enjoy this video game?
did not enjoy it at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  enjoyed it very much

(2) How are you feeling right now?
        relaxed not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        frustrated      not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        excited not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely

        upset   not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        strong  not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        happy   not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely

        intimidated     not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        hostile not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        hurt    not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely

        proud   not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        irritable       not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        vulnerable      not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely

        weak    not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        sad     not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        aggressive      not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely

        powerful        not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        active  not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
        satisfied       not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely

(3) Have you ever played this particular game before?  ____ no; ____ yes

(4) If you were to play against the same opponent again,
how confident would you be of winning?
not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely

(4) If you were to play against the same opponent again,
how apprehensive would you be about losing?
not at all  0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10  extremely
 Appendix B:  Person Perception and Coping Skills
Your Person Perception and Coping Skills

Look at person # (1,2,or3) on the screen.
On the bipolar scales below, could you please indicate your perception of person #1?  Circle the number that best approximates your judgment.
        kind    5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   hostile
        stupid  5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   bright
        mean    5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   considerate
        pleasant        5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   obnoxious
        brutal  5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   tender
        tolerant        5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   dangerous
        strong  5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   weak
        deceitful       5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   honest
        dull    5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   interesting
        polite  5-4-3-2-1-0-1-2-3-4-5   rude


Imagine it's Friday night.  You are in a bar, and you have a beer while waiting for a friend.  A guy you've never met before, person #1, gets noisy.  He suddenly walks up to you, calls you names, and starts to grab you by the throat.
How confident are you that you could get out of this mess unharmed?
        not confident   0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10   very confident


Imagine that person #1 grabbed you and you can't avoid fighting him, how confident are you that you could beat him and get him running?
        not confident   0-1-2-3-4-5-6-7-8-9-10   very confident