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.
5. No matter what a study's results show, the media can be counted on to warp it enough to make it interesting. Typically, this means that headlines claim a greater link between violent media and aggression. There are few details in the actual news stories, and instead there are lots of sweeping claims which don't allow the reader to interpret anything. This goes even beyond the potential bias resulting from research not even getting published if it shows an uninteresting result like "Weak correlation between mature-rated games and childhood aggression".
6. How could we actually prove a relationship, then? It would be difficult. The vast majority of children play video games, and most of them play at least some violent ones. Children that don't play video games are also likely going to skew poorer, which has potential affects on childhood aggression of its own. Therefore, reliable control groups are nearly impossible to find. Then, the already mentioned issue with cause-and-effect isn't entirely ruled out by studies over time. I'm not actually sure what would qualify as conclusive evidence.
7. We've been through all this before. Rock 'n' Roll, professional wrestling, comic books, television, and violent movies have all been forced through this process in the past. Rap music has been going through a similar process as well. Looking back at the earlier "public health threats" of crime comic books and Elvis music, we find them quaint and wonder how we ever thought they were real concerns.
Video games haven't caused an epidemic of youth violence and they aren't going to, no matter how horrendous and popular they may be. Even if they made kids more aggressive, the results aren't apparent and there are clearly better things we could be doing than introducing yet another violent game bill that gets rejected in favor of the Constitution. Research in this area is very difficult, due to regulations on studying children and the definition issues raised here. We aren't going to find "conclusive evidence" of anything, so any researcher that says they've found it for either side isn't to be trusted.
Article comments
1 - Tall Writer
Great article! You hit a lot of great points, especially research being difficult. Dating all the way back to the beginning of printed media, this topic will always debated and scrutinized because of the powerful influences and message it communicates to the public. I really enjoyed reviewing the Grand Theft Childhood book, which also touched on many of these points.
2 - Nathaniel Edwards
I've been reading Grand Theft Childhood on my new Kindle. That combined with the stupidly written Washington Post story inspired me to write this.
3 - Funky J
Here is another psychologist Christopher Ferguson systematically destroying this study.
Also, this study, done by Craig Anderson was commissioned by the NIMF, so I wonder just how impartial he is - if you're paid by someone to find something, you're going to find it, right?