Cited by 228Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionDigital Games and MediaImpact of Technology on Adolescents

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 74 of the 75 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 9 of the 38 sources its claims cite were checked for support.

Violent video game engagement is not associated with adolescents' aggressive behaviour: evidence from a registered report

Open access
Przybylski, Andrew K., Weinstein, Netta·2019·Royal Society Open Science

Abstract

In this study, we investigated the extent to which adolescents who spend time playing violent video games exhibit higher levels of aggressive behaviour when compared with those who do not. A large sample of British adolescent participants ( n = 1004) aged 14 and 15 years and an equal number of their carers were interviewed. Young people provided reports of their recent gaming experiences. Further, the violent contents of these games were coded using official EU and US ratings, and carers provided evaluations of their adolescents' aggressive behaviours in the past month. Following a preregistered analysis plan, multiple regression analyses tested the hypothesis that recent violent game play is linearly and positively related to carer assessments of aggressive behaviour. Results did not support this prediction, nor did they support the idea that the relationship between these factors follows a nonlinear parabolic function. There was no evidence for a critical tipping point relating violent game engagement to aggressive behaviour. Sensitivity and exploratory analyses indicated these null effects extended across multiple operationalizations of violent game engagement and when the focus was on another behavioural outcome, namely, prosocial behaviour. The discussion presents an interpretation of this pattern of effects in terms of both the ongoing scientific and policy debates around violent video games, and emerging standards for robust evidence-based policy concerning young people's technology use.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

In a preregistered study of 1004 British 14–15-year-olds and their carers, violent video game engagement was not associated with carer-rated aggressive behaviour. The null result held across linear, parabolic, sensitivity, and exploratory operationalizations.

Key findings

  • The primary regression found neither linear nor parabolic violent game engagement predicted carer-rated aggressive behaviour (text reports linear p = 0.402 and parabolic p = 0.624; Table 3 lists linear p = 0.688).
  • Equivalence testing showed the semi-partial effect was r = 0.01 (95% CI −0.08 to 0.10), which was inferior to the meta-analytic estimate of r = 0.21 (95% CI 0.20–0.22), indicating the observed effect was statistically and practically insignificant.
  • Sensitivity analysis using PEGI age ratings found no significant linear (p = 0.899) or parabolic (p = 0.851) effects; exploratory ESRB ratings also showed no significant linear (p = 0.98) or nonlinear (p = 0.07) effects, and prosocial behaviour showed no significant linear (p = 0.49) or nonlinear (p = 0.70) effects.
  • Participants devoted an average of 2.07 hours per typical day to violent games (SD = 2.30); 48.8% of female and 68.0% of male participants played at least one violent game in the past month.

Methods

  • Registered report using a cross-sectional survey of a nationally representative quota sample of British adolescents aged 14 and 15 years (n = 1004; 497 14-year-olds, 507 15-year-olds; 540 male, 461 female, 3 another gender orientation) and an equal number of their carers.
  • Violent game engagement was computed from self-reported top three games, play-time estimates, and blind coding of PEGI/ESRB violent content; the outcome was the carer-completed Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire conduct problems subscale (range 5–15, M = 6.93, SD = 2.20, α = 0.76).
  • Hierarchical regressions controlled for gender and adolescent trait aggression (Buss–Perry physical, verbal, anger, hostility facets) and tested linear and parabolic terms; equivalence testing used the two one-sided tests procedure against r = 0.21.

Limitations

  • Stated: the work is based entirely on self-report data; it is cross-sectional and cannot test enduring or compounding effects over time; and general population inferences may miss specific cohorts defined by factors such as carer educational attainment or material deprivation.
  • Evident: the sample was predominantly white (8.1% reported Black and other minority ethnicities), which limits generalizability; carer reports of aggression may not capture all relevant behavioural contexts.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1098/rsos.171474

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

9 of 38 cited sources checked · 3 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

Show all 22 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 22
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 37
50 of 50
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Adolescents accurately reported the games they played and the time they spent playing them.

    “This work depends on children and young people accurately reporting on their video game play, the level of violent content present in this play and their own trait- or state-level aggression”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    PEGI and ESRB violent-content ratings validly indicate the violent content of the games played.

    “We operationalized violent game contents using European Union [50] and North American media rating systems [51].”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many researchers ask participants to estimate their own aggressive behaviours and provide subjective ratings of the violence present in the games they play.

    “First, we observed that many researchers ask participants not only to estimate their own aggressive behaviours but also to provide subjective ratings of the violence present in the games they play.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    All studies of violent video game effects encountered by the authors use statistical significance as a surrogate for determining if the effects of gaming are practically significant in real-world terms.

    “Finally, all studies of violent video game effects we have encountered use statistical significance as a surrogate for determining if the effects of gaming are practically significant in real-world terms.”
4 of 4

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Positive-association claim conflicts with the correlation table

    Minor

    The text says aggressive behaviour was positively associated with all observed variables, but the table reports a negative correlation with playing any violent games.

  • Play time is called objectively assessed despite being self-reported

    Minor

    The methods say adolescents reported their play frequency on a scale, but a later description calls the assessment of time spent playing objective.

2 of 2

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 75 references

1 of the 75 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Gelman A, 2013, The garden of forking paths: why multiple comparisons can be a problem, even when there is no ‘fishing expedition’ or ‘p-hacking’ and the research hypothesis was posited ahead of time

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Przybylski, A. K., & Weinstein, N.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Cardiff University (GB)
Corresponding author
Przybylski, Andrew K.
Venue
Royal Society Open Science
Published
2019-02
Volume
6
Issue
2
Pages
171474
ISSN
2054-5703 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914745182
Cited by
228
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 27 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 32 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 39 · 2019: 11
FWCI
40.80
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Royal Society Open Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University) (acceptedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
John Fell Fund, University of Oxford (163/079)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Impact of Technology on Adolescents
Keywords
violent video games, aggression, adolescents, game engagement, game ratings, prosocial behavior, carer assessment, video game effects

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-11, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-11 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review