The Skeptic's Guide to Violent Video Game Studies

A few days ago, The Washington Post published an article entitled "Study Links Violent Video Games, Hostility" that combined some fairly old American research with two new Japanese studies that claimed there is "conclusive evidence" that violent video games are a "public health risk". I propose that researchers who say they have conclusive evidence on this subject aren't actually good researchers, and here's why you should be skeptical as well:

1. Research results in this topic have been very contradictory. I tried to compile a list of video game studies and their findings a while back, and this list is what I found. About five studies support the idea that games lead to increased aggressive behavior. Approximately six studies could be interpreted as saying video games did not cause aggressive behavior in at least among normal people, and two or three had more nuanced findings. Saying that your study shows conclusive evidence is somewhat obnoxious when faced with the other research that has been done.

2.Studies have a lot of very important choices to make with how they define the key words in their study. First of all, "aggression" is very difficult to measure objectively, and sometimes studies don't follow common sense with how it's measured. For example, several studies on college students have used noise tests to measure aggression. The study participants are told that they're linked to another person in the group in a contest where they punish one another through noise blasts of the volume they choose. Actually, a computer determines what blast to send at the participant, so that person theoretically is more aggressive if he or she sends louder noise blasts. The clear problem is that this is set up more like a game than real life. The noise blasts aren't particularly harmful, so there is little to no remorse paired with sending a loud blast at your partner if he or she is sending one at you. This may make sense when you consider that such tests used to involve electric shocks, which were later considered too harmful.

3. Next, the definition of "violence" in games is a surprisingly difficult one. I propose a Kirby test for studies' definitions of violence. If the study's definition of violence considers the Kirby series violent games, then the definition is automatically invalid, rendering the research useless. Yes, the main character swallows his enemies whole to absorb their powers. This is a dangerous thing to teach our children, but I have a feeling they'll be okay. The Madden series is a less silly distinction that studies have to make, considering how socially accepted the violence is in football.

4. Correlations prove very little. What we're looking for is cause-and-effect, which is harder to find. Which is more likely: Do violent video games make children more aggressive, altering their character through raw media persuasion? Or do more aggressive children and teens generally prefer more aggressive media? Longitudinal studies try to take this issue into account by quantifying previous aggression, but children can change unpredictably over the years without media being the cause. A rowdy baby won't necessarily be the schoolyard bully, and who may not necessarily shoot up his high school.

Article Author: Nathaniel Edwards

Nathaniel Edwards is a freelance writer covering topics ranging from baseball and soccer to history and video games, based at his homepage, NathanielEdwards.com. He contributes articles and reviews to BlogCritics Magazine and is the gaming writer for KidzWorld.com. …

Visit Nathaniel Edwards's author page — Nathaniel Edwards's Blog