Excellent article. You successfully presented the arguments of both sides while coming to a definitive conclusion.
I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the pervasiveness of violence in all forms of media has long-term effects on our attitudes and dispostions towards violence, but there certainly hasn't been enough evidence to prove that is the truth, especially when it comes to video games.
I earnestly question the legitimacy of many psychological experiments in this regard. There is a significant difference between blowing a horn at somebody anonymously and killing somebody in cold blood. Except in the most extreme (and still arguable) of cases, being driven to aggression is not sufficient to commit murder -- one must still overcome their moral reasoning. Experiments showing increases in long-term aggression do not automatically show either a lack of moral reason nor a skewed or misdirected moral attitude.
The priming explanation is quite reasonable, especially when one considers the nature of these games and their immediate biological effects on the body. A game like Wolfenstein 3D consists almost entirely of surprises, with each turning of a corner possibly resulting in the character being shot by a ready-and-waiting guard. The anticipation, the expected quick response, and the hectic, fast-paced music, all create a sense of immediacy and tension. The player's adrenaline response kicks in, raising their heart rate and putting them into fight-or-flight mode. Compare this to Myst which has no time limits, no immediacy, calm music, and requires deep, concentrated thought rather than twitch reactions.
The fact that these violent video games cause players to experience adrenaline rushes is certainly not damning evidence. After all, many things cause us to experience adrenaline rushes. One look no further than the modern amusement park filled with thrilling, high-speed rides. Nobody would contend that these cause long-term violence, but they produce the same adrenaline response that playing most video games does. Adrenaline is a natural response to both fear and exhiliration.
However, people on an adrenaline high act different than those who are not. Among other things, adrenaline causes one to be twitchy, making split decisions often without taking time to fully consider the consequences. This is part of the fight-or-flight response. They also tend to have very exaggerated actions, such as talking fast and loud or using excessive force. Lastly, they tend to have higher tolerances to extreme sensations, such as pain and loud noises.
So it is not surprising that a person who had been playing an intense video game and was experiencing an adrenaline rush would proceed to blare a siren longer than somebody who was not. Not only would they likely press the button harder than a calm person, they would be less alarmed by the loud noise. Also, given that "time flies" from the perspective of somebody who is on an adrenaline rush, they probably would hold the horn longer, experiencing it, in their mind, as the same amount of time they otherwise would have pushed it.
All of these well-understood reactions to an adrenaline rush, which can easily be shown to occur while playing a game like Wolfenstein, would easily explain why the person would activate the horn longer than a calm person. It does not, however, show that they would be less likely to abide by moral considerations. This is especially true since, in this experiment, there were no apparent moral implications in blasting the horn -- aside from perhaps being mildly unenjoyable to the recipient, it's not the sort of action that even the Myst player objected to on moral grounds. If nothing else, a calm person would likely find the loud noise startling, quickly stopping, whereas the excited person would be ready for it and would have a much higher tolerance to it.
