6. References �1. Buss, A. & Perry, M (1992). The Aggression Questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Vol. 63(3), pp 452-459

3. Newzoo games market research (2015). Newzoo Summer Series #1: UK Available at:<http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/newzoo-summer-series-1-uk/> [accessed on 4th December 2015]

5. Conclusions �Research shows that video games contain within them choice, which can significantly modify the perceptions of violence from the per-spective of the individual player. There seems to be a flaw that scientific scrutiny may have left unac-counted, video games allow players to choose how they engage with them, whether this is caused by their skill or knowledge of the game, they create their own lens which potentially gives researchers an inconsistent measurement.

Future research should explore this further with factors such as moral reasoning in games.

2. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence e�ects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior. Vol. 12, pp. 470–482.

4. Prensky, M. (2001). Digital game-based learning, McGraw-Hill, New York.

5. Williams, R. B. & Clippinger, C. A(2002). Aggression, competition and computer games: computer and human opponents. Computers in Human Behavior. Vol. 18, pp. 495–506

Aggerssion Levels

PercievedChallenge

Game Violence Level

Percieved Import-ance of Violence

PercievedPlayability

Percieved Player Ability

Watched Violent Game Play

Watched Non-Violent Game Play

0

1

2

3

4

1.99 1.93

2.79

3.76

2.51

3.172.99

2.803.10 3.11

2.28 2.33

(.60)(.53)

(.75)

(.59)

(.99)

(.89)(1.38)

(1.20) (.47)(.47)

(.57)(.61)

4. Results �H1: There is a significant correlation between average game hours and perceived challenge participants reported (p < .005).

H2: There is a significant and strong difference between groups reported level of game violence, when playthrough involves player exercising choice to attack enemies than when the player exercises the choice to not attack enemies (p < .001, cohen’s d = 1.4).

H3: Average game hours did not predict game player perception of player skill (p > .05).

H4: Controlling for A/B grouping, aggression levels did not predict perceived levels of violence, importance

of violence or desire to play violent content (p >.05).

H5: Focus group analysis pointed to the possibility that avid game players worry about moral choice in games, in a way that non-gamers do not.

2. Aims �To better understand the inconsistency of the definition “violent

video game” as a factor of scientific measurement.

To explore the influence of individual differences surrounding player choice in violent video games and explore explanatory factors.

Hypotheses:H1: Experience of gaming will be negatively correlated with perception of difficulty in a side-scrolling action stealth(SSAS) game.H2: Participants who witness character death will perceive a SSAS game more violent than participants who witness character deceit. H3: Experienced game players will have stronger views on knowl-edge and experience of an SSAS game than non-experienced game players.H4: Participants aggression levels will affect reported level of vio-lence and importance of violence within the SSAS game play video (Two-Tailed)H5: Research will further explore how participants feel about vio-lence in games, there should be seen an array of emotions when confronted with violent content.

3. Methodology �Participants:152 participants completed the survey section of this study, recruited through online forums and social media websites. Six of these participants formed the focus group conducted thereafter.

Procedure:The online survey gained background and game experience information, as well as a four factor aggression scale (Buss & Perry, 1992).Participants were assigned to either a violent game viewer or non-violent game viewer groups and were asked to watch a three minute video of gameplay from “Mark of the Ninja”. Finally a selection of questions regarding the video playthrough and their option of the game and player were asked. The focus group conducted two weeks after the survey involved a semi-structured discussion of literature surrounding this research.

1. Introduction �Video games as an entertainment medium have been steadily grow-ing in popularity for many years (Newzoo games market research, 2015). With the rapid growth of a new industry surrounding this medium there has been an increased interest in their effects in the wider academic community (Williams & Clippinger, 2002; Prensky, 2001).

Broadly, the vast body of research more than critiquing studies and developing a unified direction of theory, tends to make polar claims, entirely rejecting previous analysis (Ferguson, 2007). A clear issue is a consistent model of language when defining criteria such as “A Vio-lent Video Game”. Furthermore, research rarely take consideration to the human factor of autonomy, when playing time can used in differ-ent ways based on factors such as game experience.

An investigation into the reliability of measurement of violent con-tent and perceptions of side-scrolling action stealth games.

Paul McGranaghan & Karen Thomson, Glasgow Caledonian University