Regarding the Controversy Over Monday's APA Study & Game Violence Article

September 23, 2006 -
On Monday of this week, GP carried an item, No "Direct Causal Link" Between Games & Violence in APA Report.

It sparked a bit of controversy. It was suggested in certain quarters that GP ignored the views of Dr. Brad Bushman (left) of the University of Michigan, a member of the APA committee which issued the August, 2005 resolution.

That's not at all correct. In raising a particular question we turned to the two listed contacts for the APA study, Dr.Elizabeth Carll, committee co-chair and Dr. Dorothy Singer of Yale. There were a total of six committee members involved in the report. Dr. Bushman was among them. Not feeling the need to contact all six, we went to the two that the committee itself suggested.

The question Monday's GP article raised was, in retrospect, perhaps too narrow. But a very damning - and very narrow - interpretation of the APA study has been bandied about in recent times. GP wanted to pin the assertion down and see if it was accurate. We've heard it said or seen it written (and not by Dr. Bushman, by the way) that, "The American Psychological Association last year found a direct causal link between violent video games and teen violence." (emphasis GP's)

While the APA study was indeed very critical in regard to game violence (as we dutifully reported last August), that particular sentence seems to draw a straight line between violent games and real-life violence in the same way that a straight line is drawn between smoking cigarettes and lung cancer. However, as GP - admittedly, a layman - interpreted it, the APA report just didn't seem to say that there was a "direct causal link." In fact, searching the APA resolution, that term does not appear anywhere. Nor do the words "causal" or "causation."

But we're not afraid of industry-critical views here, and we like to think we present the news as factually as possible. To that end, we did indeed reach out for Dr. Bushman for a clarification. He in turn advised GP that he was working out a response between himself and Drs. Carll and Singer. Dr. Carll was kind enough to send that response along on Thursday night. GP promised to reprint it verbatim. Here it is:

"Brad Bushman forwarded to both myself and Dr. Singer the comments you sent to him regarding the content of the APA Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media. I also forwarded to Dr. Bushman your original email to Dorothy Singer and myself, which is below."

"To clarify, the APA Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media stated that there was an increase in aggressive behavior as a result of playing violent video games. The Resolution did not state that there was a direct causal link to an increase in teen violence as a result of playing video games, rather an increase in aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and a decrease in helpful behavior as a result of playing violent video games." (emphasis GP's)

"The statement in your email of 9/19/06 to Dorothy Singer and myself refers to "teen violence" as opposed to aggressive behavior, which is why Dorothy Singer and I responded as we did. While violence is an extreme form of aggression, the body of research of which the resolution speaks is about aggression."

(GP: Yes, "teen violence" was the specific issue asked about, because that's the specific assertion which has been made in certain quarters. And Drs. Singer and Carll are in agreement on their answer, which was accurately reported in Monday's article.)

"In the interest of accuracy for future articles, it would be helpful to state that the APA Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media reported an increase in aggressive behavior as a result of playing video games, rather than only reporting that there was no causal link to teen violence. Reporting that there was no causal link to teen violence without reporting that there was an increase in aggressive behavior, as a result of playing violent video games, may be misleading to the reader."

(GP: Point taken, Dr. Carll, although reading Monday's article clearly shows no intent to mislead. While not outlining the specifics of the aggression angle, GP did note, "The 2005 study was quite critical of interactive violence... Violence in video games appear to have similar negative effects as viewing violence on TV, but may be more harmful because of the interactive nature of video games." Monday's article also linked to the full APA resolution for those readers who wished to learn more about the APA's findings.)

Dr. Carll continues:

"The specific paragraph in the APA Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media states: 'WHEREAS comprehensive analysis of violent interactive video game research suggests such exposure a.) increases aggressive behavior, b.) increases aggressive thoughts, c.) increases angry feelings, d.) decreases helpful behavior, and, e.) increases physiological arousal'"

"Hopefully this has helped clarify an important distinction. Thank you for your interest."

And GP thanks Drs. Carll, Singer and Bushman for investing their time in clarifying this issue.

Bottom line? GP stands by Monday's article.

Comments

hello,
i am a sophmore at mercy cross and i wam doing a resirch paper. it is abouyt video game violence and after reading your articale i was wondering if maby i could interview you. please email me back at tvelez1@yahoo.com
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
E. Zachary KnightThe Daily WTF has a nice run down of some of the impact to software that the US Supreme Court ruling on gay marriage has. http://thedailywtf.com/articles/i-m-not-married-to-the-idea07/02/2015 - 7:45am
MechaCrashGee, how did people ever get the idea Gaters are morons who argue in bad faith? It's such a mystery.07/02/2015 - 7:03am
E. Zachary KnightGoth, again, no one is saying that we shouldn't be writig uncomfortable subject matter. What people are saying is that chances are you are going to write it poorly so it would be better to not have done it at all.07/02/2015 - 7:00am
Goth_Skunkdiscussed or portrayed in an expressive medium. Such an opinion only serves to stifle discussion. And as I said before, the only thing not worth talking about is what shouldn't be talked about.07/02/2015 - 6:50am
Goth_Skunk@Info: The same reason why I would entertain the notion that the Wired article writer could be right: Curiosity. Except in this case, I'm not curious at all. I'm not interested in hearing anyone's opinion on why uncomfortable subject matter shouldn't be07/02/2015 - 6:49am
IvresseI think the problem with the Batmobile is that they made it a core aspect of the game that you have to do continuously. If it was basically a couple of side games that were needed for secret stuff or a couple of times in the main game, it would be fine.07/02/2015 - 5:38am
Infophile@Goth: If you're not willing to entertain the idea you might be wrong, fine. That's your right. But why should anyone else entertain the idea that you might be right? If they go by the same logic, they already know you're wrong, so why listen to you?07/02/2015 - 3:53am
MattsworknameEh, I love the new batmobile personally, it's a blast to mess aroudn with. Plus, the game is set in a situation that mroe or less leaves batman with no choice but to go full force. And even then, it still shows him doing all he can to limit casualties.07/01/2015 - 11:38pm
Andrew EisenAgreed. Luckily, we don't seem to be in danger of that of late. No one's suggesting, for example, that tanks shouldn't be in video games, only that the tank in Arkham Knight is poorly implemented and out of place from a characterization standpoint.07/01/2015 - 11:27pm
MattsworknameConfederate flag, Relgious organizations, etc etc. Andrew isnt[ wrong, just remember not to let that mentality lead to censorship.07/01/2015 - 11:20pm
Mattsworknamefind offensive or disturbing, and that mindset leads to censorship. It's all well and good to say "This would be better IF", just so long as we remember not to let it slide into "This is offensive, REMOVE IT". IE , the current issues surroundign the07/01/2015 - 11:19pm
MattsworknameAndrew and goth both have points, and to that point, I'll say. Saying somethign is improved by changing something isn't a problem, on that I agree with , but at the same time, on of the issues we have in our society is that we want to simply remove things07/01/2015 - 11:18pm
Andrew EisenSee? Suggestions for improvements that involve taking things away do not mean the work is garbage or performing poorly, critically or commercially.07/01/2015 - 9:29pm
Andrew EisenSkyward Sword is spiff-a-rific but it would be an improved experience if the game didn't explain what each item and rupee was every single time you picked them up!07/01/2015 - 9:27pm
Andrew EisenHere's another: De Blob is a ton of fun but it would be improved without motion controls. Incidentally, THQ heard our cries, removed motion controls for the sequel and it was a better game for it!07/01/2015 - 9:24pm
Andrew EisenI'll give you an example: Arkham Knight is a ton of fun but the tank sucks and the game would be even better without it.07/01/2015 - 9:23pm
Goth_SkunkWell clearly we're diametrically opposed about that.07/01/2015 - 9:03pm
Andrew EisenNot even remotely true.07/01/2015 - 8:59pm
Goth_SkunkIt is, if the suggestion involves taking something away from a product in order to make it better.07/01/2015 - 8:49pm
Andrew EisenOffering suggestions for improvement does not mean that the work in question is garbage or not doing fine.07/01/2015 - 8:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician