eLetters to:

ARTICLES: Craig A. Anderson, Akira Sakamoto, Douglas A. Gentile, Nobuko Ihori, Akiko Shibuya, Shintaro Yukawa, Mayumi Naito, and Kumiko Kobayashi Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and the United States Pediatrics 2008; 122: e1067-e1072 [Abstract] [Full text] [PDF]

eLetters: Submit a response to this article

eLetters published:

Weak Results, Misleading Conclusions

Christopher J Ferguson   (1 November 2008)

Why?

Michael C Sangirino   (3 November 2008)

Not an indictment on games.

Paul E Schwanz   (5 November 2008)

Let's Appreciate Good Research When We See It

Dr. Vic Strasburger   (28 November 2008)

Response to Anderson et al Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and

Dorothy Singer, Jerome L. Singer   (6 December 2008)

ideology versus methodology

Karen E. Dill   (9 December 2008)

Weak Results, Misleading Conclusions 1 November 2008
Christopher J Ferguson, Psychologist Texas A&M International University Send letter to journal: Re: Weak Results, Misleading Conclusions CJFerguson1111{at}aol.com Christopher J Ferguson	The Anderson et al., paper is on an interesting topic. Unfortunately there are numerous flaws in the literature review, methodology and conclusions that greatly reduce my enthusiasm for it, and call into question the meaningfulness of the study. In the literature review the authors suggest that research on video game violence is consistent when this is hardly the case. The authors here simply ignore a wide body of research which conflicts with their views. A bibliography of research studies finding either null results for video game violence or results that suggest that violent game play reduces aggression is appended to this review. The authors fail to control for relevant "third" variables that could easily explain the weak correlations that they find. Family violence exposure for instance, peer group influences, certainly genetic influences on aggressive behavior are just a few relevant variables that ought either be controlled or at minimum acknowledged as alternate causal agents for (very small) link between video games and aggression. Overall results are very weak with effect sizes ranging from (.07 to .15). Video game exposure overlapped in this study approximately half a percent to 2% with the variance in aggression, which is as close to zero as one can get without being zero. If anything it is remarkable how little effect that violent games had on trait aggression, considering that other relevant variables were not controlled. Likely if other variables had been better controlled, such small effects may have vanished. Lastly the authors link their results to youth violence in ways that are misleading and irresponsible. The authors do not measure youth violence in their study. The Buss Aggression measure is not a violence measure, nor does it even measure pathological aggression. Rather this measure asks for hypothetical responses to potential aggressive situations, not actual aggressive behaviors. In the paragraph beginning "youth violence is a public…" the authors appear to generalize their results to youth violence, but offer no compelling reason why this should be, particularly in light of the weak results they achieve. The authors also fail to note that during the period in which violent video games became increasingly popular, youth violence has plummeted approximately 66% to levels not seen since the 1960s (childstats.gov, 2008; FBI, 1951- 2007). Although I suspect the authors would simply try to argue that this does not matter, such arguments are disingenuous, particularly as they raise the issue of youth violence themselves. In short, given the weak effect sizes, the lack of control of relevant variables, and the failure of the authors to acknowledge data and research which contradicts their hypothesis, I am left with little confidence that the results of the current study provides much meaningful information on the impact of violent games. Baldaro, B., Tuozzi, G., Codispoti, M., Montebarocci, O., Barbagli, F., Trombini, E., & Rossi, N. (2004). Aggressive and non-violent videogames: Short-term psychological and cardiovascular effects on habitual players. Stress and Health, 20, 203-208. Barnett, J., Coulson, M., & Foreman, N. (2008, April). The WoW! factor: Reduced levels of anger after violent on-line play. Poster presented at the British Psychological Society Annual Meeting, Dublin, Ireland. Childstats.gov. (2008). America’s children: Key national indicators of well-being, 2007. Retrieved 9/10/08 from: http://www.childstats.gov/. Colwell, J., & Kato, M. (2003). Investigation of the relationship between social isolation, self-esteem, aggression and computer game play in Japanese adolescents. Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 6, 149-158. Federal Bureau of Investigation. (1951-2007). Uniform crime reports. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office. Ferguson, C. J., Rueda. S., Cruz, A., Ferguson, D., Fritz, S., Smith, S. (2008). Violent video games and aggression: Causal relationship or byproduct of family violence and intrinsic violence motivation? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 311-332. Ferguson, C. J., Cruz, A. M., Martinez, D., Rueda, S. M., Ferguson, D. E., & Negy, C. (in press). Personality, parental, and media influences on aggressive personality and violent crime in young adults. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment and Trauma, 17,. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta- analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games. Psychiatric Quarterly, 78, 309-316. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence effects literature: A meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 470-482. Kutner, L., & Olson, C. (2008). Grand theft childhood: The surprising truth about violent video games and what parents can do. New York: Simon & Schuster. Lenhart, A., Kahne, J., Middaugh, E., MacGill, A., Evans, C., & Mitak, J. (2008). Teens, video games and civics: Teens gaming experiences are diverse and include significant social interaction and civic engagement. Retrieved 10/2/08 from: http://www.pewinternet.org/PPF/r/263/report_display.asp. Sherry J. (2007). Violent video games and aggression: Why can’t we find links? In R. Preiss, B. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant, (Eds.) Mass Media Effects Research: Advances Through Meta- analysis (pp 231-248). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum. Williams, D., & Skoric, M. (2005). Internet fantasy violence: A test of aggression in an online game. Communication Monographs, 72, 217- 233. Unsworth, G., Devilly, G., & Ward, T. (2007). The effect of playing violent videogames on adolescents: Should parents be quaking in their boots? Psychology, Crime and Law, 13, 383-394. Conflict of Interest: None declared
Why? 3 November 2008
Michael C Sangirino, eMarketing Humanist Send letter to journal: Re: Why? szabo31{at}yahoo.com Michael C Sangirino	Every time I read one of these I ask the same question, and I never get a good response. Where is your analysis on the correlation between aggressive children being predisposed to playing violent games? Why does the game make the child aggressive? Why isn't it the already aggressive child being drawn to the game? Frankly, any study on this matter that is done via survey, can be considered a joke. The confidence in the conclusions being made is shocking. Lastly, I leave you with this. Why are video games under such a microscope? There are a lot of football and hockey playing children out there that never play video games but are far more aggressive than any video game player. Sounds like lot of time, money, effort, wasted on trying to prove something that cant be proven using the methods that have been tried to date. It's not an important subject. It's a sensational subject. Quit your jobs. Conflict of Interest: None declared
Not an indictment on games. 5 November 2008
Paul E Schwanz, Game Designer Edge of Reality Send letter to journal: Re: Not an indictment on games. schwanz{at}edgeofreality.com Paul E Schwanz	Most gamers who take the time to think about the link between media and behavior tend to couch things in terms of causes. It seems obvious to them (and rightly so) that a game about shooting things doesn't *cause* someone to go on a shooting spree. But studies like this one appear to be looking for more subtle links that are more appropriately thought of as influences, not causes. Nearly $150 billion was spent last year on advertising in the US. Evidently, someone is pretty convinced that a 30 second spot of people enjoying a particular brand of soda on TV can influence consumer buying habits. This isn't about mind control. No one can say that a TV ad *caused* their eyes to glaze over and prompted them to walk, zombie-like with arms stretched out in front of them, to the nearest convenience store for a cold drink. But a whole lot of people seem convinced that the aggregate influence of lots of consumers simply seeing a picture, hearing a radio spot, or viewing moving pictures will influence buying patterns to the point that they will make their ad budget back and more in sales. We don't like to think that we can be influenced so easily, but hundreds of billions of dollars say otherwise. Media is often used for propaganda purposes as well. Once again, there appears to be a belief that media has the power to influence people's opinions, beliefs, etc. In fact, from a decidedly more cynical perspective, effective media is *all* about audience manipulation. It is often designed to influence the way we feel. If it doesn't accomplish this, it is considered somewhat less successful in its design than a piece of media that does. If games do not have the power to influence, then they are the weakest and most useless form of media known to man. On the other hand, if they do have the power to influence, then should we assume that they must always and only influence for good? Where's the logic in that? This study appears to indicate that games can sometimes influence us in ways that may be seen as negative. Rather than shocking, this is to be expected based on all the knowledge we've managed to garner so far on media and influence. Why even have an ESRB rating system if this were not already thought to be true? Rather than an indictment on games as a medium, this study confirms its status as a legitimate and robust art form. The study also confirms that, as with everything that is produced, the power to influence the lives of others to some degree places a burden of responsibility on the producer. Rather than denying the science behind this study, I believe that the game industry should embrace its responsibilities, continue to try to improve game-rating systems, work to better educate parents, and support further research into games and how they influence gamers. Conflict of Interest: None declared
Let's Appreciate Good Research When We See It 28 November 2008
Dr. Vic Strasburger, Professor of Pediatrics Univ of New Mexico School of Medicine Send letter to journal: Re: Let's Appreciate Good Research When We See It vstrasburger{at}salud.unm.edu Dr. Vic Strasburger	As one of the reviewers for this manuscript, I feel compelled to point out how off-base Chris Ferguson and Michael Sangirino are. The authors DID account for baseline aggression -- read the article! All of the "third variables" that Ferguson wants to be included would be covered in that baseline figure. Ferguson also cites 14 articles that show that video games have no impact, but 4 of them are by him! And crime rates may not reflect aggression, as David Grossman points out in his excellent (and Pulitzer-Prize nominated) book, ON KILLING. Rates of interpersonal aggression have risen dramatically around the world. There are thousands of studies linking media violence to real-life aggression, and only a handful showing no influence. Why should video games be any different than violent movies or TV shows? And, in fact, the third-person shooter games may represent even more of a problem. For example, how do you explain how a school shooter in Paducah, Kentucky can take 8 shots and have 8 hits -- all upper torso and head -- having never fired a real gun in his life before killing 3 classmates and leaving 1 paralyzed? The military routinely uses variants of third-person shooter video games to de -sensitize new recruits. Isn't it possible that children and teenagers are similarly de-sensitized? Paul Schwanz is absolutely correct -- there wouldn't be ratings if these games were all harmless, and it's up to the industry to produce more pro-social games and less potentially harmful ones. And we need more researchers like Craig Anderson et. al. to point the way. Conflict of Interest: None declared
Response to Anderson et al Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and 6 December 2008
Dorothy Singer, Psychologist Yale University, Jerome L. Singer Send letter to journal: Re: Response to Anderson et al Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and dorothy.singer{at}yale.edu Dorothy Singer, et al.	Our careful reading of both the Anderson et al article Longitudinal Effects of Violent Video Games on Aggression in Japan and the United States published in Pediatrics, and the critique by Ferguson leads us to the acceptance of the significance of the findings reported by the Anderson group of researchers. It seems clear that Anderson et al have been extremely sensitive to a variety of alternative explanations and have built in statistical and experimental controls to allow one to make reasonable inferences about the causal connection between the playing of violent video games and subsequent aggressive tendencies. The results are also in keeping with the data from many studies of the effects of simply viewing violent TV content and later aggressive tendencies. If one puts these patterns of behavior into a broader context of social learning effects to humans, it seems clear that the Anderson et al studies as a whole point to a significant social problem. Indeed, the care in the design of these studies, and of this one particularly, indicate a sophisticated knowledge of methodology and statistical procedures. The fact is that the general body of research on aggression effects of viewing violent content on TV or of playing violent video games has been peer reviewed in the most carefully monitored journals in psychology and by review committees composed of scientific professionals in major funding agencies. Conflict of Interest: None declared
ideology versus methodology 9 December 2008
Karen E. Dill, Psychologist Lenoir-Rhyne University Send letter to journal: Re: ideology versus methodology dillk{at}lrc.edu Karen E. Dill	William James said, “As a rule we disbelieve all the facts and theories for which we have no use.” These criticisms are more about ideology than methodology. Interested readers should read and compare the methodologies of Anderson and colleagues' paper with those of the critics’ papers and draw their own conclusions. Conflict of Interest: None declared