It seems reasonable to me to conclude that if violent media can be shown to have some impact on violent behavior in a small minority, it probably leads to more aggressive behavior in the majority. So you are correct that this research has been politically hijacked/exaggerated to serve specific interests, but that doesn’t mean violent media has no appreciable impact on 98% of the population.
That is why subsequent research on this topic has involved documentation of the rise in narcissism and its relationship to aggressive behavior and violent media exposure.
The reality is that if little Johnny is in a safe, supportive, loving environment, but plays violent video games, he probably isn’t going to go shoot up a school. But he may be more likely to act like an asshole. Ya notice a proliferation of assholes lately? Ever drive in New Jersey?
Really? Studies on kids in youth violence detention centers have no basis in the real world?
I would love to read the arguments in ‘‘Grand Theft Childhood’’ but the link you provided only went up to page 34. I think the chapter you want me to read is ‘‘Science, Nonsense and Common Sense.’’
But let’s try this–and use some common sense to think this through. Are you familiar with the concept of exposure? It’s an extremely effective, well-established behavioral technique that involves exposing people who have certain fears or aversions to the thing they fear or have an aversion to. I have personal experience with the use of this technique and can vouch for its efficacy on both a scientific and personal level. Essentially, if some stimulus causes an averse reaction in an individual, the more frequently one is exposed to that stimulus, the less they have an averse reaction to said stimulus.
Exposure is also referred to as ‘‘desensitization.’’ Someone may have extreme discomfort associated with, say, corpses, but through repeated exposure to pictures of corpses, or perhaps visiting a morgue, or perhaps 10 years of working as an undertaker, they become desensitized to exposure to all things corpse-related.
Why, then, is the concept of desensitization as a result of violent media exposure so difficult to comprehend? Is it really such a logical leap that people who are exposed to constant images and implications of virtually consequence-free violence on a regular basis will become less uncomfortable with the idea of violence, so accustomed to it, that the prospect becomes less horrifying and shocking, and say, even, routine? To me it seems to absolute height of irrationality to suggest that an individual watching a graphic torture scene on an enormous screen while he scarfs down his popcorn, unperturbed, would not have some real word consequences as to his attitude toward fellow humans. This goes doubly for kids, because childrens’ brains are still in a constant state of cognitive and structural development. There is substantial evidence to indicate that one’s moral framework and social values are highly dependent on the immediate social environment you have as a child (See Marc Hauser, Moral Minds.)
The question–which is indeed open to debate–is how much, and to what extent, desensitization to violent media impacts real-world behavior. Does it make people into crazed violent sociopaths? Almost certainly not. Does it make them more likely to participate in road rage? Does it make them more likely to support a war effort? Does it make them more likely to bully other children? Given the evidence we have about general human behavior in the social environment, those are the kinds of questions we really should be asking.
In short, I think it’s ridiculous to exclude violence in the media as a possible environmental factor contributing to human behavior. Everything we know about humans and their environment points to the huge role that environmental factors play, generally, in childhood development. It is absolutely illogical to me to exclude media from this discussion just because I play violent video games and liked Kill Bill and happen to be a a really nice person.
Not a single study I have linked to involves tests on college students getting paid pizza, and they aren’t blasting their friends. They involve young children blasting people they don’t know, in the context of playing a game.
The study you linked to argues (accurately) that the actual significance of statistical significance is contextually debatable, and that effect sizes are a far more accurate measure of real-world implications. Luckily the research I described above specifically identifies the effect sizes in the outcome of the study. In fact, a lot of the issues raised in your study don’t apply to the research in question.
The criticism of publication bias and its impact on meta-analysis is valid. In fact, there are statistical methods of compensating for such bias, but I am uncertain whether they were applied in Bushman’s meta-analysis, and your linked article does not indicate either way.
For the record, I love skepticism, and the article you linked to seems very informative in terms of general research methodology and provides a much-needed scientific rebuttal to this topic. I genuinely appreciate your effort here and do plan to read that study in more detail.