Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, ... a meta-analytic review(ncbi.nlm.nih.gov)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, ... a meta-analytic review
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20192553
6 comments
I would mistrust individual studies for all the reasons you mention, but these are also the same reasons that meta-analyses exist, and they will look for those things and more. Generally, they will try to find and correct for systematic biases, and (although I haven't read this one) they will often completely discard other studies if their results are useless.
They obviously took the effect into account, at least to some extent.
What do you find worrying? That they may not have dealt with it thoroughly enough?
Edit:
Actually, they mean that they took different study design (short-term, experimental vs long term, observational, etc...) into account.
What do you find worrying? That they may not have dealt with it thoroughly enough?
Edit:
Actually, they mean that they took different study design (short-term, experimental vs long term, observational, etc...) into account.
I think he's worried they didn't reach the conclusion he wanted.
this. As usual, the dominant trend on HN takes the line that pediatricians, psychiatrists, etc, make weak claims about violent video games, backed up by weak evidence. In reality, its a tough public health study to do, but the effects are quite noticeable in clinic. The docs stand to gain nothing on this except maybe some additional adderall or anti-depressants, scrips, which most of us aren't very fond of writing. Maybe, just maybe, some of us might look out for the public interest.
And maybe, just maybe, some computer gamers and game authors have demonstrated a pattern of turning a blind eye to evidence that doesn't satisfy their position.
And maybe, just maybe, some computer gamers and game authors have demonstrated a pattern of turning a blind eye to evidence that doesn't satisfy their position.
This linked response discusses several problems with this meta-analysis, and the fact that most other meta-analyses have found no effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20192554
"Several recent meta-analyses, examining outcome measures most closely related to serious aggressive acts, found little evidence for a relationship between violent video games and aggression or violence. In a new meta-analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. (2010) questioned these findings. However, their analysis has several methodological issues that limit the interpretability of their results. In their analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. included many studies that do not relate well to serious aggression, an apparently biased sample of unpublished studies, and a "best practices" analysis that appears unreliable and does not consider the impact of unstandardized aggression measures on the inflation of effect size estimates. They also focused on bivariate correlations rather than better controlled estimates of effects. Despite a number of methodological flaws that all appear likely to inflate effect size estimates, the final estimate of r = .15 is still indicative of only weak effects."
Meta-analyses are usually either a cheap way to get a well-cited publication or a way to impose one's biases on other people's research. They're rarely as useful as some people would like to think, and the issue a meta-analysis reviews is rarely as simple as some would like to think.
That said, I've got an almost 8 year old, and I obviously don't let him play videos games or watch TV shows with explicit violence (blood, gore, realistic violence, etc.). So for example Mario Kart is okay, but Family Guy is not (they often show bloody violence).
"Several recent meta-analyses, examining outcome measures most closely related to serious aggressive acts, found little evidence for a relationship between violent video games and aggression or violence. In a new meta-analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. (2010) questioned these findings. However, their analysis has several methodological issues that limit the interpretability of their results. In their analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. included many studies that do not relate well to serious aggression, an apparently biased sample of unpublished studies, and a "best practices" analysis that appears unreliable and does not consider the impact of unstandardized aggression measures on the inflation of effect size estimates. They also focused on bivariate correlations rather than better controlled estimates of effects. Despite a number of methodological flaws that all appear likely to inflate effect size estimates, the final estimate of r = .15 is still indicative of only weak effects."
Meta-analyses are usually either a cheap way to get a well-cited publication or a way to impose one's biases on other people's research. They're rarely as useful as some people would like to think, and the issue a meta-analysis reviews is rarely as simple as some would like to think.
That said, I've got an almost 8 year old, and I obviously don't let him play videos games or watch TV shows with explicit violence (blood, gore, realistic violence, etc.). So for example Mario Kart is okay, but Family Guy is not (they often show bloody violence).
(I'm not trying to troll the thread, I'm not trying to stir up any trouble, I am asking a sincere question, so please be gentle)
Why is it that whenever someone makes a link between violent video games and violent real life behavior the studies are widely considered to be unfounded, yet folks seem to believe that many of the ills that affect black communities can be directly attributable to aspects of "black culture" (gangsta rap and minstrel media in particular)? There are certainly studies that make the case for the link in both instances, but the conventional wisdom for the two seem to be stark opposites. I've seen these differing beliefs expressed in discussions at Reddit, Ars Technica, and to a lesser extent here.
Why is it that video games can't possibly be a problem, but gangsta rap is most certainly the problem?
(Again, not trying to be a troll, I'm just wondering if there is some fundamental difference that perhaps I've missed. This is your chance to enlighten me.)
Why is it that whenever someone makes a link between violent video games and violent real life behavior the studies are widely considered to be unfounded, yet folks seem to believe that many of the ills that affect black communities can be directly attributable to aspects of "black culture" (gangsta rap and minstrel media in particular)? There are certainly studies that make the case for the link in both instances, but the conventional wisdom for the two seem to be stark opposites. I've seen these differing beliefs expressed in discussions at Reddit, Ars Technica, and to a lesser extent here.
Why is it that video games can't possibly be a problem, but gangsta rap is most certainly the problem?
(Again, not trying to be a troll, I'm just wondering if there is some fundamental difference that perhaps I've missed. This is your chance to enlighten me.)
I'm interested in a similar question: how come no one asks about the psychosocial influence in glorifying the military, whether in the context of movies, games, or history classes? I understand that there are circumstances where military action is a necessary evil, but it's always seemed to me that there are some people who get a little too excited by socially sanctioned violence.
The answer to this, IMO, is pretty simple. The people you're talking to probably like video games, to some extent, and don't like rap.
There's research on how people will discard scientific evidence that goes against their belief and embrace those that support their beliefs.
Now it's possible that the body of evidence is actually much stronger for one than the other, but my ability to predict how people will react to such studies based on their beliefs prior to the study causes me to believe that the evidence has no real bearing on their opinions.
With that said, I do like rap and video games, and think they both contribute. I knew some MMA competitors who used to play some really violent game killing zombies before matches -- they said it got them in the mood for what they were about to do. Now they were playing a completely legal sport, but it did seem to actually get them pumped up. A minor effect maybe, and maybe doesn't map to crime or real violence, but it does do something.
There's research on how people will discard scientific evidence that goes against their belief and embrace those that support their beliefs.
Now it's possible that the body of evidence is actually much stronger for one than the other, but my ability to predict how people will react to such studies based on their beliefs prior to the study causes me to believe that the evidence has no real bearing on their opinions.
With that said, I do like rap and video games, and think they both contribute. I knew some MMA competitors who used to play some really violent game killing zombies before matches -- they said it got them in the mood for what they were about to do. Now they were playing a completely legal sport, but it did seem to actually get them pumped up. A minor effect maybe, and maybe doesn't map to crime or real violence, but it does do something.
Interesting thought... Personally, I think we're affected by all media to a greater or lesser degree. A colleague disagreed with me so we discussed his movie viewing habits. He likes horror movies. When he started watching them, they really freaked him out and scared him. Now he just laughs -- ie has become somewhat numb to the display. To me, that is a real change that has taken place. Sure, we all know it's fake. But in those early days, something primal and empathetic was reacting to grotesque scenes. Somehow that has now been supressed.
I've read this study before and I couldn't analyse it in the detail it probably warrants - but I couldn't help but think that this meta study deliberately ignores that teenage boys going through puberty may correlate with these changes. If you don't consider something that's been understood for thousands of years its probably disingenuous.
I can't read the article either, but you make a lot of assumptions here. One of them supposes that the authors are idiots, and another one is simply wrong.
Whatever the design, studies without proper control groups are useless. People who do and review meta-analysis are very aware of methodological pitfalls, and the likelihood of seeing a meta-analysis based on such papers is extremely small.
The abstract also mentions that there is no gender effect, barring the "boys" part of your "teenage boys" argument.
Whatever the design, studies without proper control groups are useless. People who do and review meta-analysis are very aware of methodological pitfalls, and the likelihood of seeing a meta-analysis based on such papers is extremely small.
The abstract also mentions that there is no gender effect, barring the "boys" part of your "teenage boys" argument.
No I mean I have read the article, I just didn't go that into depth. And it very explicitly points out that there is a gender effect. The author has made a career being the academic against violent games - you don't need to be an idiot to have an agenda.
Edit: a link to the full text is posted in this comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2880901
-- The paper reports no significant sex effect: --
There was no evidence that the VGV effect on aggressive behavior differed for males and females (ps .10). The VGV effect was slightly larger for females in experimental and longitudinal studies and was slightly larger for males in the crosssectional studies, but none of these differences were significant.
-- The age effect is only borderline significant: --
Average age of the participants was not significantly related to the VGV effect sizes in experimental or longitudinal studies ( ps .50). However, it is important to note that there were no longitudinal studies on participants older than 16. For crosssectional studies there was a marginally significant effect of age (b .005, Z 1.82, p .07). Studies with older participants tended to yield slightly smaller effect sizes than did those with younger participants
--
Anyone with a dash of understanding of the human mind wouldn't find these results surprising, BTW. Even if you're able to make the difference between real life and games, acting violently in virtual environments trains your brain to react more violently in general.
BTW, I don't have any personal bias against violent video games.
-- Initial post, before the editions:
Indeed, then, and I'm a bit surprised that the peer review accepted an abstract that contradicts the content of the paper. Is the journal also biased against violent games?
-- The paper reports no significant sex effect: --
There was no evidence that the VGV effect on aggressive behavior differed for males and females (ps .10). The VGV effect was slightly larger for females in experimental and longitudinal studies and was slightly larger for males in the crosssectional studies, but none of these differences were significant.
-- The age effect is only borderline significant: --
Average age of the participants was not significantly related to the VGV effect sizes in experimental or longitudinal studies ( ps .50). However, it is important to note that there were no longitudinal studies on participants older than 16. For crosssectional studies there was a marginally significant effect of age (b .005, Z 1.82, p .07). Studies with older participants tended to yield slightly smaller effect sizes than did those with younger participants
--
Anyone with a dash of understanding of the human mind wouldn't find these results surprising, BTW. Even if you're able to make the difference between real life and games, acting violently in virtual environments trains your brain to react more violently in general.
BTW, I don't have any personal bias against violent video games.
-- Initial post, before the editions:
Indeed, then, and I'm a bit surprised that the peer review accepted an abstract that contradicts the content of the paper. Is the journal also biased against violent games?
I think peer review is a very basic hurdle in the research process. The results are then up for review - and that's what we're doing here in a minor way. In the section that really matters, violent behaviour, results seem massively skewed in favour of results from cross-sectional studies. Experimental and longitudinal studies showed strong sex differences. All non-experimental (and no doubt some of the experimental) studies were strongly subject to self-selection. None of the longitudinal studies were done on subjects over 16. Just because its a meta-study doesn't mean it isn't subject to massive flaws.
Does anything in there reliably address the issue of correlation versus causation. Most people play video games - if I was a violent person surely that would be my entertainment of choice right?
Does anything in there reliably address the issue of correlation versus causation. Most people play video games - if I was a violent person surely that would be my entertainment of choice right?
Have a look at this FAQ from one of the authors from 2009: http://www.psychology.iastate.edu/faculty/caa/Video_Game_FAQ...
Totally surprising that a following meta(!)-study has the same conclusion.
It is known for years that studies in that area are biased (conservative/christian sponsors?) and are often eager to see casualty where none can be proven. A meta-study proves only that such studies exist.
Totally surprising that a following meta(!)-study has the same conclusion.
It is known for years that studies in that area are biased (conservative/christian sponsors?) and are often eager to see casualty where none can be proven. A meta-study proves only that such studies exist.
Meta study had to be completed before 2010 to be published in Mar 2010. FAQ was published in 2009, I guess at the same time the paper was submitted for review. That's the reason for having same conclusions.
The FAQ mentions an article from 2003. I don't know these people, don't know if this role is part of their academic career like suggested in a comment above, but even being of that opinion such a long time suggests a bias when starting a new study.
And this area is biased in both direction. From one side you have family groups and from other side you have game industry. And there are studies showing both sides. That's why meta studies are needed.
Which then would only reveal the truth if they could read those intentions of the studies they are using, or if both biases negate each other.
What evidence would change your mind, or is your belief also faith-based?
Probably none, even though i didn't state my opinion on the subject itself.
Measuring long-time-effects is hard. You probably could convince me with a well-done study that violence in games has a short-term effect on aggression. Like letting people play and provoke them afterwards, measuring the different reactions when playing prior an ego-shooter or Sims.
But long-term-effect? Just a have a look in the study. Using factors like the VGV-general measure fails to convince me that they didn't just discovered that violent people like violent games, or that people of the working-class or lower prefer to play (and are generally more aggressive) and so on.
Measuring long-time-effects is hard. You probably could convince me with a well-done study that violence in games has a short-term effect on aggression. Like letting people play and provoke them afterwards, measuring the different reactions when playing prior an ego-shooter or Sims.
But long-term-effect? Just a have a look in the study. Using factors like the VGV-general measure fails to convince me that they didn't just discovered that violent people like violent games, or that people of the working-class or lower prefer to play (and are generally more aggressive) and so on.
Like letting people play and provoke them afterwards, measuring the different reactions when playing prior an ego-shooter or Sims.
It would be interesting to test various ways of mitigating violent behavior, like whether or not subjects are reminded before and after playing that "it's just a game." You'd also need to compare playing a video game for x hours to watching a movie for x hours, reading a book for x hours, or being made to wait quietly in a room with nothing to do for x hours. Finally, comparison to other pseudo-violent pastimes like high-contact sports would also be enlightening.
Edit: it should also be considered whether the benefits of video games outweigh any negative behavioral influence they may have.
It would be interesting to test various ways of mitigating violent behavior, like whether or not subjects are reminded before and after playing that "it's just a game." You'd also need to compare playing a video game for x hours to watching a movie for x hours, reading a book for x hours, or being made to wait quietly in a room with nothing to do for x hours. Finally, comparison to other pseudo-violent pastimes like high-contact sports would also be enlightening.
Edit: it should also be considered whether the benefits of video games outweigh any negative behavioral influence they may have.
"Moderator analyses revealed significant research design effects..."
What that means is that the design and sample selection of the studies influenced the outcomes of the studies to a large degree. Oftentimes, we see this happen in studies that draw from clusters of the population. Clusters are not truly random samplings. So when you take a sample population from a cluster -- be it geographic, ethnic, national, political, etc. -- you're run the risk of not taking a genuinely population-representative sample. Your sample population is likely to be more homogenous than a truly random sampling would be, as seen in a lower variance rate among respondents than you'd expect to find from a random sampling.
This is all well and good if what you're testing is the effect of X or Y on that cluster. But if you're trying to study effects of X or Y on the general population, then cluster sampling is far from ideal.
Let's say I'm designing a study called "National Attitudes Toward Ohio State Football." And for my sample population, I select 500 study participants from the state of Michigan. Would anyone in his right mind believe that my study will produce a nationally representative outcome? Similarly, if I'm doing a study called "The Effect of Gas Prices on Grocery Budgets," I might be pre-biasing my outcome if I select from a cluster of long-commute suburbanites. Or from a cluster of poor people. Or a cluster of rich people. Etc.
It's hard to know what sort of design effects were noticed in the various studies aggregated into this particular meta analysis, or how the meta-analysis attempted to compensate for such effects. But the presence of that line in the abstract gives cause for concern.