Hi Mark- I just re-read the Carnagey and Anderson paper and I'm still not impressed. In the Method section re Exp. 2 they say, " The participant also rated the video game on various dimensions (difficult,absorbing,action-packed, arousing, boring, enjoyable, entertaining, exciting, frustrating, fun, involving, stimulating, violent, and addicting)." However in the Results section they merely say, "Note that the effect of violence was obtained even though the violent and nonviolent games were equally arousing and all games were competitive." without providing any data whatever. A strange omission don't you think? Then in Exp. 3 they say, "Also,several video-game ratings (absorbing, boring, enjoyable, entertaining, exciting, fun, involving, stimulating, addicting) predicted aggressive behavior, Fs(1, 134) = 4.75, ps <.05". Doesn't that just make my case? Even if this one study did stand up it has not (to my knowledge) been replicated by an independent lab. The studies on the Mozart Effect looked good on their own, but replication proved to be a problem.
As far as the Anderson and Bushman study; it's just the old "bundle of sticks" argument. Each study may be too weak on its own to prove the case, but if we take them all together then they must constitute a proof. As far as I'm concerned a bunch of weak studies is just that; a bunch of weak studies. More importantly, even if all of Anderson's assertions were true he is still only accounting for less than 10% of the variance. If you are really concerned about violence then focus on important issues like economic disparity and prevelence of handguns. I still remain in the skeptics corner. -Don. Mark A. Casteel wrote: > > Hi Don. For a good study that (in my opinion) satisfies your > requirement for a high-action no-violence group, take a look at > Carnagey and Anderson (2005). Ps played either a violent version of > Carmageddon 2, a version where violence was punished (points were lost > for killing people/hitting objects, and a no-violence version (same > game) where violence wasn't possible. Aggressive affect, cognition, > and behavior all differed in the reward compared to the no-violence > group, and aggressive cognition and behavior differed between the > reward and the punishment groups. > > Also, what about the meta-analysis done by Anderson and Bushman > (2001), which found no gender diffs and no diffs as a function of > experimental vs. correlation studies? Granted, the /r/s were all in > the range of .16-.27, but as the authors note, the average effect size > was the same as that between condom use and the prevention of HIV. Do > we take that association seriously? > > -- Mark > > At 02:06 PM 3/27/2008, you wrote: > > >> It's this kind of junk science that really gets my goat. It is highly >> reminiscent of Frederick Wertham's "Seduction of the Innocent" which >> set off a frenzy for banning comic books because they were corrupting >> our children. For those of you who are too young to remember this era >> you can find a good discussion of it here: >> >> http://art-bin.com/art/awertham.html >> >> I have reviewed the literature that purports to show a causal link >> between media violence and violent behaviour in children and I remain >> highly unimpressed. Most of the studies are correlational and even >> there the correlations are weak (.20 to .30). The studies that >> actually attempt to manipulate exposure to violent media are all >> badly flawed. They merely compare children who watched a violent >> video (or played a violent video game) with children who watched a >> non-violent version. What's wrong with that? Well, for one thing the >> violent media were also action-packed while the non-violent >> comparitors were dull as dishwater. Since violence and action are >> confounded in these studies you need a third group (high action-no >> violence) to determine which component produces the effect. So far, I >> have been unable to find a properly controlled replicated studies >> that clearly establishes a causal link. Until I see one I'll remain >> in the skeptics corner. >> >> -Don. >> >> Christopher D. Green wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Check out this /Times/ (of London) article on British efforts to put >>> warning labels on video games. >>> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3628894.ece >>> >>> Chris Green >>> York U. >>> Toronto, Canada >>> >>> >>>--- >>>To make changes to your subscription contact: >>> >>>Bill Southerly >>>([EMAIL PROTECTED] <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>) >>> >>> >>> >> >> >>-- >>Don Allen >>Department of Psychology >>Langara College >>Vancouver, B.C., Canada >>V5Y 2Z6 >> >>604-323-5871 >> >> >> >> >>--- >>To make changes to your subscription contact: >> >>Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) >> >> > > ********************************* > Mark A. Casteel, Ph.D. > Associate Professor of Psychology > Penn State York > 1031 Edgecomb Ave. > York, PA 17403 > (717) 771-4028 > ********************************* > >--- >To make changes to your subscription contact: > >Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > -- Don Allen Department of Psychology Langara College Vancouver, B.C., Canada V5Y 2Z6 604-323-5871 --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
