Does Being More Vocal In Video Game Violence Debate Mean You Have The Better Argument?
from the quantity-vs.-quality? dept
A few folks sent over the news of some really bizarre research done by Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson on the question of whether or not violent video games harm teens. First of all, the research is already somewhat suspect, in that Anderson has a long history of claims about how violent video games must harm children based on questionable data. This new report is based on such questionable and loop methodology, you almost wonder why they even bothered.What they did was take the amici briefs from the Supreme Court case concerning California's anti-violent video game law, and run some numbers on who wrote the briefs and how many "published" studies they had. And that was how they determined which one was more credible. I'm not kidding. Quantity over quality:
The researchers analyzed the credentials of the 115 people who signed the Gruel brief, who believe video violence is harmful, and the 82 signers of the Millett brief, who believe video violence is not harmful. (The briefs are named after the lead attorneys for each side.)And they claim that this is "a very objective approach." It's also a profoundly meaningless approach. In case you didn't follow it, there were a ton of amici briefs filed by various parties in this case. This study picked just two of the briefs. The first one (pdf) filed by California State Senator Leland Yee (whom, I believe, may have written the legislation in question), the California Chapter of the American Academy of Pediatrics and the California Psychological Association. That brief supports California's position in the case. The second one (pdf) is a brief from "social scientists, medical scientists and media effects scholars," which is the one that supports the other side, saying that the law isn't constitutional. You can read the two briefs that I linked to above, and you can judge the relative merits of both.
The data for the study came from the PsycINFO database, which provides more than 3 million references to the psychological literature from the 1800s to the present, including peer-reviewed journal articles, book chapters or essays, and books.
For each of the signers of the two briefs, the researchers calculated how many articles and books they published on issues relating to violence and aggression in general and on media violence specifically.
The results showed that 60 percent of the Gruel brief signers (who believe video game violence is harmful) have published at least one scientific study on aggression or violence in general, compared to only 17 percent of the Millett brief signers.
Moreover, when the researchers looked specifically at the subject of media violence, 37 percent of Gruel brief signers have published at least one study in that area, compared to just 13 percent of the Millett brief signers.
But that's not what Bushman and Anderson did. They simply took the signers of each brief and measured how many of them have published studies on this specific question. Of course, that's a meaningless and arbitrary number, especially when presented in percentages. Based on this methodology, it would mean that if only one person signed the amicus brief, but had published research, then that one would clearly be the most credible, since 100% of the signers would have published. Obviously, that makes no sense.
Now, Bushman and Anderson -- clearly expecting the quantity over quality issue to make for easy mockery of such a ridiculous study -- also added a second element to try to show "quality" as well:
In a further analysis, Bushman and Anderson examined where the signers of both briefs have published their research. The best academic journals have the highest standards and the most rigorous peer review, so only the best research should be published there, Bushman said.But, again, this attempt at showing "quality" is really a "quantity" study in disguise. It's not looking at the actual credibility of any of the studies, but trying to create an aggregate (but meaningless) number. And, again, the entire basis of this result is a meaningless dataset. I'm really wondering who would possibly read this and think that the results are credible.
The researchers used a well-established formula, called the impact factor, to determine the top-tier journals, and then calculated how many signers had published in these journals.
Results showed that signers of the Gruel brief had published over 48 times more studies in top-tier journals than did those who signed the Millett brief.
Oh yeah, and one final point. Guess what two academics signed that first brief? You guessed it: Craig Anderson and Brad Bushman. Talk about researcher objectivity huh? They create a bogus methodology to try to "prove" that the brief they signed is more credible than someone else's brief? Honestly, when they present methodology like this, it serves mostly to raise questions about their methodology on any other study as well. They've made it clear that they're not researching the truth. They're starting with an established position and trying to figure out ways to present evidence to support that. That's not science.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: brad bushman, craig anderson, methodology, studies, video games, violence
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Unfortunately that is what passes for science these days...
This is what passes for science in many circles today, not the least of which is the whole global warming lie.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunately that is what passes for science these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfortunately that is what passes for science these days...
Besides, I am sure you superior human beings will drag us inferior primates along with your superior grasp of the ways of the world. So we inferior primates may be more evolved than the superior human beings since we can sit back and let you do all the work an yet we reap the same benefits.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Unfortunately that is what passes for science these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Unfortunately that is what passes for science these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Unfortunately that is what passes for science these days...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sounds like typical modern "science" to me. It's a shame there aren't more people genuinely trying to understand the world, instead of people like these hired by some cause or another to fabricate proof.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Without video games you might have to go shoot some lawyers and academics in real life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Apples and oranges
For goodness sakes, I have played numerous exceedingly bloody games, as have my children and relatives children from younger than when I started.... we are goddamned near PACIFISTS!
That's right..... we turn the other cheek so damned often (except when using words to snipe, we are masters at that) that we have been PHYSICALLY INJURED because we didn't want to fight back when physical force was used against us in real life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Apples and oranges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
More hack science
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Naturally, many researchers assume that those who write more papers on a topic are more credible, rather than those who publish higher quality research less frequently.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nothing new... again
Does that mean all the people who did an all-night D&D hack fest are the very individuals sitting on death row??? Wow! What a concept!! I think I've just figured this all out. Amazing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new... again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nothing new... again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Nothing new... again
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The real problem, of course, is that video game sales have increased, particularly to the young male demographic that is statistically most associated with violent behavior, and as video games have become more realistically violent, the incidence of violent crime has steadily decreased. That does not, of course, disprove the notion that there is a "pro-violence" influence of video games. What it does prove is that any such effect (if it exists at all) must be so small as to be swamped by other social and demographic factors influencing violent behavior.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Answers in Genesis Anyone?
See the trick is to present the right "evidence" ingore anything to the contrary and use big science like words to sound like you are smart. Like lambs to theslaughter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2011 @ 12:33pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2011 @ 12:33pm
http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/glance/cv2.cfm - violent crime has clearly been trending down since the release of the original Playstation.
And you really think that TV/video games are significant driver of violent crime rates, as opposed to say the war on drugs?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2011 @ 12:33pm
Looking at the two separate graphs - actual crime has steadily increased but estimated crime has dramatically decreased. Combining the results is just total bullshit - a combination of an anecdotal estimate and actual figures is meaningless. Anyway - the graph clearly shows actual real life crime has gone up. It helps if you read the data first ;)
Now - my anecdote was about the ability of medicine to decrease the murder rate by saving people that 40 years ago would have died. Now this isn't just an anecdote - it is a fact. Medicine is much more advanced than it was 40 years ago. Quick example - back then a subdural bleed from a punch in the head meant your death - now they'll save you. See http://hsx.sagepub.com/content/6/2/128.abstract for a comprehensive study supporting this (3 out of 4 murders now prevented by medical intervention).
Onto your request for my "evidence". Firstly I'm not obliged to do this - this is a comment section of an article. These are all from Dave Grossman's "On Combat"
Look at: FBI Uniform Crime Report - 1957 to 2000 shows a 5x increase in per capita crime rates.
Consider Australia - http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4524A092E30E4486CA2569DE00256331
The murder rate from the beginning of the 20th Century until about 1950 halved. People killing less, maybe, more likely medicine saved them. Of course the trend should be continually downward but it isn't. It doubles again to in the next 50 years. Now combine this your new knowledge about medical advances and you can see that it would be 4 times this number without medical advances - or an 8 times increase in murder rate. The only thing stopping this is more advanced medicine.
Now my request. Please show how medicine is less advanced and saves less people than it did 50 years ago. If you can show that I'll eat my words.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2011 @ 12:33pm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Response to: Anonymous Coward on Apr 25th, 2011 @ 12:33pm
Seriously though, suggesting that virtual violence begets real violence is not a specious argument. Exposure to anything at a high enough level both makes you intimate with it and numbs you to it.
Case in point - police, paramedics, firefighters, doctors and nurses all have a high amount of trauma and death around them. The regular population (or people new to the job) don't cope particularly well with it. But with enough exposure you'll be eating your lunch next to a stretcher dripping with blood from the last massive trauma patient and cracking jokes about deceased people - while they're still warm (totally random examples of course...)
So, expose yourself to violence and expect that you'll get pretty intimate with it and numb to the reality of it (until you get the shit kicked out of you because you can't fight - like most urban ninjas). Keep in mind this is a totally accepted general principal - so why oh why are people trying to suspend it with this particular topic?
I'm happy to admit I've been an avid FPS gamer since 1990. I've played just about every good FPS game since then, although it's getting hard to keep up with the amount that are released these days so I'm much more picky choosy now. Do I think it's affected me? You betcha. Twenty years of killing mutant zombies has given me an itchy trigger finger should I ever see one. Same as most people really.
We'll see if people find photorealistic virtual rape games acceptable when they hit the internet. I'm sure the users of it will be adamant that their virtual sickness won't extend into real life. What if it's the rape and/or killing of a virtual likeness of your own husband/wife/kids some freak is beating off to? I'm sure you won't mind since it's virtual (you as in anyone reading this - not the previous poster specifically). Don't worry, 99.9% of the time their obsession won't extend into real life. Good odds hey? Don't worry, this is a specious argument and all ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not all opinions are equal. Not all science is equal.
The problem is that many people, including parents, politicians, and tech blog readers, have opinions on the ways in which media does (or does not) influence attitudes and aggressive behavior. But, because a parent or lawmaker has an opinion, doesn't mean that he or she has a good understanding of the research literature on the topic, a literature that has both strengths and weaknesses. Some people have opinions that are supported by evidence. Some people have opinions that are supported by principle, coupled unrepresentative anecdotes.
What the Bushman/Anderson analysis demonstrates is that the people supporting one particular conclusion on this issue have more credibility: they've done the research themselves in many cases. As such, they are better positioned than you or I to understand how it informs the basic issues.
Sure, if could very well be the case that these authors reached a conclusion long ago and selectively publish studies that support their case. But that is merely an assumption on Mike's part based on a distrust of the "science industry." I don't see any support for the assumption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Excellent!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does knowing more about a subject qualify you to give an opinion?
When I first started in engineering, there was an enormous debate about education versus the so-called "school of hard knocks", with the implication that experience was superior to an education. To a lesser extent, I saw this in marketing and other fields as well.
Now we are saying people who have studied the problem carefully (as shown by the papers they have contributed) know less than "knee-jerk" reactionists! That is so naive!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
McDonalds has the most commercials therefore they are the most credible.
I fear for the future with the lack of critical thinking displayed by the general public and many scientists.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]