On 25 Feb 2004, don allen wrote: > Hi All- > > A reporter from the local paper just asked me to comment about the > recent reports in the J. of Adolescence that purport to show that > exposure to violent video games produces violent behaviour in > children. Our library hasn't received this issue yet so I haven't read > the articles, but from the synopses that I've been able to glean from > the web these look like more of the flawed, retrospective, > correlational studies that have been touted in the past as "proof" > that video games (or rap music, or television, etc) are the work of > the Devil and will destroy our children. Has anyone had a chance to > actually read these articles to see if they have any real substance? > TIA for your input. >
Well, I'm going to plead no time as well; otherwise I'll have Jim Clark on my case again about not having a life and being funded by corrupt Quebec politicians (but I repeat myself). I knew it wasn't wise to have tweaked him about Winnipeg being the coldest place on earth. There's a lot of data in that issue (Journal of Adolescence, v. 27, issue 1, February 2004). I counted four empirical studies. Three of the studies were correlational, and one was experimental. The correlational studies (or at least their abstracts) were appropriately cautious in using the C-word (cause), preferring the less indicting terms "associations" and "relationships". What never fails to get me, though, is that when they speak to the press, you don't hear this cautious tone, and instead it's the C-word that gets the workout. The one experimental study (Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004) is interesting. They let adolescents play either violent Doom (for ten minutes!) or non-violent Mahjongg (but I dunno: can't things get pretty ugly around the Mah-jongg table?). They then gave them some self-reports. The study is notable for an unfortunate typo which appears to indicate that they used as adolescents subjects born in the early 1920s, which would make them the oldest adolescents known (Judge for yourself: they said "While our participants were all 18 years or slightly older, current definitions of adolescents include not only the late teens but in some cases even the early 1920s...thus...the sample used may be older than is typical"). It's also notable for failing to say that they randomized subjects to groups until you get to footnote 3, where you discover that they tried but failed. However, their inadvertent non-randomization which they admit to indicates that the Doom-players reported playing _"less"_ [should be "fewer", no?] violent games than the Mahjonggers. So, as they point out, it should work against their hypothesis. As for results, they did find an increase in "automatic aggressive self-concept" after playing Doom compared with the sissy game. But did they find an increase in their self-report measures of aggressiveness? No way. To wit, "Overall, our results suggest that exposure to the violent game did not significantly influence the self- reported aggressiveness of either male or female participants". But you'd have to look hard to find this. While they play up the increase in automatic aggressiveness self-concept, both in the title and in the abstract (while dropping the word "self-concept" for better effect), you won't find any mention in either place that they failed to find an increase in self-reported aggression. Nice, eh? Finally, there's one of those ubiquitous meta-analyses in Anderson (2004). In the abstract, they use the word "linked" for the correlational studies. Then they say "Experimental studies reveal this linkage to be causal". I was curious to see if the experimental studies were of the same calibre as the Uhlmann study of that same issue. But their link to the list of studies gives the dreaded "not found". Overall, these papers don't impress me that they provide good support for confident assertions in the press about demonstrating a causal relationship. But that's the way it always is. Bury the cautions in the papers; throw caution to the wind when talking it up. In Britain, I believe they call that "sexing it up". Stephen ___________________________________________________ Stephen L. Black, Ph.D. tel: (819) 822-9600 ext 2470 Department of Psychology fax: (819) 822-9661 Bishop's University e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Lennoxville, QC J1M 1Z7 Canada Dept web page at http://www.ubishops.ca/ccc/div/soc/psy TIPS discussion list for psychology teachers at http://faculty.frostburg.edu/psyc/southerly/tips/index.htm _______________________________________________ --- You are currently subscribed to tips as: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
