Hi Marie- I disagree. I think that most researchers in any area ask the question, "What is the most important factor which determines behaviour X?" Especially when you want to try to change that behaviour. Would you be impressed with research that examined the effect of taillight size on accident prevention while ignoring the effects of drinking and driving? Given that this research has important policy implications I think that it is ridiculous to focus on an (at best) fringe factor when major factors are staring you in the face.
When you say,"why wouldn't endless playing of extremely violent games (in which you get point for raping and murdering) affect teenagers (especially comparing to other activities such as playing soccer, talking to your friends, or reading a book)?" my response is that most children have the demonstrated ability to differentiate fantasy from reality. That is why very few kids jump off the roof after reading Superman comics. When you say that, "the current evidence is not perfect" I think that gives it far too much credit. A meta-analysis of a bunch of seriously flawed studies is not any better than its substrate. Pooling ignorance does not lead to knowledge. I'm sure that if you did a meta-analysis of all of the acupuncture studies you would conclude that acupuncture is effective. If, however, you do a properly controlled experiment (like the recent German study that used sham acupuncture) you find that there is no effect at all. I don't know whether violent media is a contributor to violence but I would contend that neither does anyone else. As a scientist I try to remain skeptical until I have seen some hard data. To date I still say that I have yet to see a properly controlled study in this area which has been replicated by independent researchers. Until that day arrives I will remain in the skeptics corner. -Don. Don Allen Dept. of Psychology Langara College 100 W. 49th Ave. Vancouver, B.C. Canada V5Y 2Z6 Phone: 604-323-5871 ----- Original Message ----- From: "Helweg-Larsen, Marie" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Friday, March 28, 2008 8:53 am Subject: RE: RE: [tips] Computer games to get cigarette-style health warnings - Times Online To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" <[email protected]> > Don > I think you are asking a different question from what most researchers > (in any area) ask. It seems that you're asking "what is the MOST > important factor in predicting violence?" or perhaps "if we wanted to > reduce violence what should we put most of our efforts toward?". But > those are not usually the questions (I think) researchers ask. > They ask > "what role does factor X play in violence" or "if factor X changed how > much would that reduce violence". Is video game/tv violence the most > important factor in violence? -- I don't know anyone who would argue > that. Is video game/tv violence ONE factor? Clearly that is what the > current evidence suggests. I'm not sure that would surprise any > psychologist -- why wouldn't endless playing of extremely violent > games(in which you get point for raping and murdering) affect > teenagers(especially comparing to other activities such as > playing soccer, > talking to your friends, or reading a book)? > > Of course the current evidence is not perfect (what is?) but a > meta-analysis gives a pretty good estimate of the likely effect > size. As > far as I recall (I could not find the article online full text) the > Anderson and Bushman meta analysis has a nice discussion of comparing > this effect size to other effect sizes that we consider important > (condom->STDs, smoking->lung cancer, aspirin->heart attacks) as > well as > discussion of how this particular association (violence in video > games/media matters) has met particular resistance in the media. > Marie > > **************************************************** > Marie Helweg-Larsen, Ph.D. > Department Chair and Associate Professor of Psychology > Kaufman 168, Dickinson College > Carlisle, PA 17013 > Office: (717) 245-1562, Fax: (717) 245-1971 > http://alpha.dickinson.edu/departments/psych/helwegm > > **************************************************** > > -----Original Message----- > From: Don Allen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Friday, March 28, 2008 11:22 AM > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > Subject: Re: RE: [tips] Computer games to get cigarette-style health > warnings - Times Online > > I tried to send this yesterday, but I had exceeded the 3 post limit. > > Well, I certainly agree that violent behaviour is multiply > determined. > However, before I started getting concerned about violent media > I'd > look at the statistics comparing the US and Canada in terms of > Violence. Here is some recent date which compares major US and > Canadian cities: > > Crime Rates - Selected North American Cities > (per 100,000 population) > Cities Homicides Robberies > Baltimore, MD 43.5 638.5 > Detroit, MI 42.1 596.2 > Washington, DC 35.8 552.3 > Atlanta, GA 25.8 724.6 > Philadelphia, PA 22.2 657.4 > Dallas, TX 20.1 607.5 > Miami, FL 17.9 614.5 > Chicago, IL 15.5 552.0 > Minneapolis, MN 14.1 597.5 > San Francisco, CA 11.6 399.9 > Boston, MA 10.5 418.6 > Vancouver, BC 3.0 149.0 > Toronto, ON 2.0 108.5 > Hamilton, ON 2.0 39.0 > Montreal, QC 1.5 147.5 > Ottawa, ON 1.5 88.0 > Sudbury, ON 1.0 53.0 > Guelph, ON 1.0 60.0 > > Source: The Geographic Reference Report 2007 (3/2007) > http://www.2ontario.com/welcome/ooql_602.asp > > Given that all of the kids in these cities watch pretty much the > same > TV, the same movies, play the same video games and listen to the > same > Rap music it would seem to me that there are some other factors > out > there that are a lot more worrisome than violent media. > > -Don. > > > Don Allen > Dept. of Psychology > Langara College > 100 W. 49th Ave. > Vancouver, B.C. > Canada V5Y 2Z6 > Phone: 604-323-5871 > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Bourgeois, Dr. Martin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Date: Thursday, March 27, 2008 3:05 pm > Subject: RE: [tips] Computer games to get cigarette-style health > warnings - Times Online > To: "Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS)" > <[email protected]> > > > I'd be curious to hear why you think that any single cause of > > violent behavior, which is obviously multiply determined (as is > > virtually everything we study), would account for more than 10% > of > > the variance. And as far as the "less than 10% of the variance" > > criticism, I'll adapt an example from Rosenthal and Rosnow: > > imagine a design in which a researcher compared kids who played > > violent vs. nonviolent video games to see whether they became > > school shooters, and found the following results: > > > > nonviolent games > > > violent games > > did not become shooters 66 > > > 34 > > became shooters 34 > > > 66 > > > > What percent of the variance do you thnk playing video games > > accounted for~ If you said 9%, you're right (r = .30). Is this a > > trivial effect~ > > > > > > ________________________________ > > From: Don Allen [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Sent: Thursday, March 27, 2008 5:11 PM > > To: Teaching in the Psychological Sciences (TIPS) > > Subject: Re: [tips] Computer games to get cigarette-style health > > warnings - Times Online > > > > > > 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 rs 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]<mailto:[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]<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]) > > > > --- > > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > > --- > To make changes to your subscription contact: > > Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) > --- To make changes to your subscription contact: Bill Southerly ([EMAIL PROTECTED])
