Portal de Periódicos da CAPES

M-Rated Video Games and Aggressive or Problem Behavior Among Young Adolescents

2009; Taylor & Francis; Volume: 13; Issue: 4 Linguagem: Inglês

10.1080/10888690903288748

1532-480X

Cheryl K. Olson, Lawrence A. Kutner, Lee Baer, Eugene V. Beresin, Dorothy E. Warner, Armand M. Nicholi,

Impact of Technology on Adolescents

Abstract This research examined the potential relationship between adolescent problem behaviors and amount of time spent with violent electronic games. Survey data were collected from 1,254 7th and 8th grade students in two states. A "dose" of exposure to Mature-rated games was calculated using Entertainment Software Rating Board ratings of titles children reported playing "a lot in the past six months," and average days per week of video game play. Analyses were conducted using simultaneous logistic regression for binary outcome variables, and simultaneous multiple linear regression for continuous outcome variables, controlling for a series of potential confounders. M-rated game dose predicted greater risk for bullying (p < .01) and physical fights (p < .001), but not for delinquent behaviors or being a victim of bullies. When analyzed separately, these associations became weaker for boys and stronger for girls. This research was supported by Grant No. 2003-JN-FX-0078 awarded by the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice. The sponsor had no role in study design; collection, analysis, and interpretation of the data; the writing of the report; or the decision to submit the paper for publication. We thank Jason Almerigi, Sarah M. Hertzog, Jane R. Littmann, George C. Nitzburg, Molly R. Butterworth, and Catherine C. Garth for assistance with data collection and/or analysis; Richard M. Lerner and Jacqueline Lerner for their contribution to survey design; Michael S. Jellinek, Chester M. Pierce, and Jerrold F. Rosenbaum for their contributions to research scope and design; and Danielle DeLuca for assistance with preparation of the manuscript. Notes Note: Some denominators were less than 1069 due to missing data for particular responses. Notes: ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001 (note: dichotomous outcomes tested by logistic regression and odds ratio given; continuous outcome measures tested by linear regression and unstandardized B weights given). Notes: ∗p < .05, ∗∗p < .01, ∗∗∗p < .001 (note: dichotomous outcomes tested by logistic regression and odds ratio given; continuous outcome measures tested by linear regression and unstandardized B weights given).