Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown v. EMA Ruling

July 1, 2011 -

An article penned by Iowa State University researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson tells parents around the country that the Brown v. EMA ruling on Monday shouldn't lead them to believe that there is no evidence that violent videogames have no effect on children's behavior. On the contrary they say, the evidence was there, but the defeat came about because the law was unconstitutional.

While there is some talk about the harmful effects of games, Gentile and Anderson also extol the benefits of games as teaching tools. Before they get into  all that, they say one thing that is extraordinary, showing how much they really understand about how the ESRB and retailers deal with children who want to buy games meant for adult audiences:

"This is a victory for free speech in that children are afforded the freedom to buy any games without requiring their parents to know what they have purchased."

Of course children can't just waltz in to Best Buy, GameStop, or Walmart and buy an "M" rated game without proving their age with an I.D. Instead, the ruling says that the state can't put conditions and a legal impact on retailers. Despite the Supreme Court ruling, retailers and game publishers are still bound by the industry's ratings standard and there are penalties in place to deal with companies that don't disclose the type of content their games contain.

While Gentile and Anderson bend the truth on that front, they do talk at length about how research works in the scientific community; scientists tend not to agree on methodology and results from scientific studies:

"Researchers differ about how large an effect violent games have, and how seriously to take it. But scientists love to disagree about these types of things. One of the best types of studies to resolve these arguments is called a meta-analysis, which is a study of studies. The most comprehensive meta-analysis of violent video games -- including more than 130 studies of more than 130,000 people -- found consistent evidence that violent games increase desensitization, aggressive thoughts, feelings, physiology, and behaviors, and decrease helpful behaviors. Even the few scientists who claim there is nothing to worry about find very similar results in their small-scale meta-analyses."

While the industry probably disagrees with much of what these researchers say, many can agree that  legislating controls on game sales isn't the only answer to whatever problems games might cause:

"What we are surprised about is how much time and energy we as a country keep spending on restricting access to games. This does not seem like a good use of resources. We have ignored other opportunities that are likely to be more fruitful, such as improving the media ratings to be more reliable and valid, and improving public education about why parents should use them. Although there are substantial problems with the existing media ratings, the research also shows that when parents use ratings regularly to help choose what games children may buy/play, they can be a powerful protective factor for children. Perhaps it is time to stop focusing on access restriction, and instead begin focusing on tools that could help parents make good choices concerning their children's media diet."

You can read the entire thing here.


Comments

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

shouldn't lead them to believe that there is no evidence that violent videogames have no effect on children's behavior

That would be a triple negative, James.

Seriously: PROOFREAD BEFORE YOU CLICK THE POST BUTTON.

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

"The most comprehensive meta-analysis of violent video games -- including more than 130 studies of more than 130,000 people -- found consistent evidence that violent games increase desensitization, aggressive thoughts, feelings, physiology, and behaviors, and decrease helpful behaviors."

This isn't wrong, but it's also not the same as claiming that video games with violent content cause players to commit acts of violence. Gentile and Anderson have never made that claim, and in fact, in the book they're holding up in the photo, they criticize legislators for failing to understand media violence research (e.g., aggression is emotion, not behavior.)

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

But they both signed on to Yee's brief making exactly those same claims, so I'm less sympathetic about giving them a pass.  This is something I've noticed among some of these researchers...in their academic writings they do (at least more recently...Anderson used to imply links between violent games and school shootings) tend to avoid mentioning violence, although in public they don't make any effort to correct politicians or other scholars (Huesmann, Strasburger) who do make explicit linkages to violence.

These two scholars (that is Anderson and Gentile, although also Huesmann and Strasburger) have made other extreme statements (implying the magnitude of effects is similar to smoking and lung cancer, failing to adequately cite data that doesn't fit with their views, etc.)  So I'm not sympathetic to the "these guys are just misunderstood" argument.

The California bill was possible because of statements these two researchers made (indeed much of the California and Yee briefs relied on their research).  Had these researchers felt their research was being misused by the state they had an ethical duty to speak up and say something.  Instead they signed the Yee brief, giving explicit consent to comments regarding harm/youth violence/neurological harm, etc.  That's fine for them if they believed that...but to now backpetal and claim they never supported such claims or legislation is disingenious in my opinion.  Don't support the legislation?  Then don't sign an amicus brief supportive of the legislation.

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

"130 studies of more than 130,000 people"

Really?  No, seriously.  Really?  These studies average 1000 people each?  Well, that's funny because I've been paying pretty close attention to this stuff for the last five or six years and it's rare I see a study that looks at more than a few dozen people.

I guess several studies that looked at thousands of people just slipped under my radar. 

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

That's apparently what happens when you blink in this industry, Andrew. :p

_____________________________________________________________________________

"Power means nothing without honor and pride."

http://grifsgamereviews.blogspot.com My video game review site.

Atlanta Video Games Examiner for examiner.com

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

Well those 130 studies, however many are in them, aren't consistent either.  This statment falsely implies consistency where there was none, more than anything else. 

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

These two researchers are SCARED to aim their target at anything other than games. If they had a real argument instead of this "hot button" issue on games they might sound a little more credible. As it stands right now they just look like opportunists with the ear of the fundies.

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

These researchers again simply exaggerate the consistency of the research and present "their" view as truth.  this doesn't add much to the discussion.

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

They also don't mention how the Supreme Court criticized their research (including lightly dinging Anderson specifically, did they not?) 

Re: Researchers Douglas Gentile and Craig Anderson on Brown ...

Just remember: IF cybernatography DOES have an effect on children, there's two things you have to remember:

1. It's not the ONLY thing that does. Movies, television, music, books, and almost every other media can also have the same effect.

2. It's not just CHILDREN that are effected. Adolescents, teens, and even adults, albeit to a lesser extent, can still be influenced by certain media. Advertising, propaganda, and yes, violence.

If the anti-gamers are not willing to accept these two, then, I cannot accept that games are any different.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Target Australia sell the next GTA game upon its release?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
MechaCrashI am reminded of the saying about playing chess with a pigeon.08/01/2015 - 11:13am
Andrew EisenThis is supported by, well, what actually happened, but also the text of the actual leaks. That was Tito's question and what he and a few (four total, I think) were discussing.08/01/2015 - 11:11am
Andrew EisenNo, it's not. What was generally prohibited was not discussion of journalistic ethics or other GamerGate topics, but threads that were, for example, discussing the sex life of an indie developer. THOSE are what were locked and removed.08/01/2015 - 11:10am
Goth_SkunkI don't believe you. Not for a second. Every major site with the exception of the Escapist prohibited discussion of GamerGate in its early stages. That is a fact.08/01/2015 - 11:04am
Andrew EisenNo, that's a fact. Don't believe me, read 'em yourself. No one was trying to censor discussion of GamerGate.08/01/2015 - 11:02am
Goth_Skunk@Andrew: That's your opinion.08/01/2015 - 10:57am
Goth_Skunkfuture? I'd compensate you for your time, of course.08/01/2015 - 10:57am
Goth_Skunk@IronPatriot: Congratulations on a sweeping statement to remove the agency of people supporting GamerGate for their own individual reasons. Since you're so good at painting in such broad strokes, are you free to paint my apartment sometime in the near08/01/2015 - 10:57am
Andrew EisenWhich, as you can tell by actually reading the snippets that were leaked, is a shamefully disingenuous telling of what was actually said.08/01/2015 - 10:56am
Goth_SkunkAdditionally, to quote William Usher, "[s]ome of the members on that list actively used their platform to support and propagate a wide-sweeping media narrative based on lies and factual inaccuracies."08/01/2015 - 10:54am
Goth_Skunkthe forums of The Escapist. Thankfully, they were both unsuccessful.08/01/2015 - 10:53am
Goth_SkunkOf the "Gamers Are Dead" articles specifically, no. But the list was used to try and censor discussion about GamerGate in its early stages. Ben Kuchera and our own James Fudge used it to solicit to Escapist then EiC Greg Tito to prevent discussion on08/01/2015 - 10:53am
IronPatriotCraig, you are right that gamergate is utter hypocrisy. Any story about it which lacks the context of gamergate's harassment origins FAILS ethics in journalism. LOL.08/01/2015 - 10:49am
IronPatriot@Goth_Skunk "citation needed"? Citation provided! Gamergate was created by 4chan harassers and ethics #ISyourShield08/01/2015 - 10:48am
Craig R.IP: Plenty of irony to go around with GG. But really, it's complete hypocrisy.08/01/2015 - 10:48am
Andrew EisenIf that assertion were true, it's nigh unfathomable that that conversation was not one of the ones leaked and published on Breitbart. Plus, as I pointed out earlier, only TWO of the Gamers Are Dead authors were on the Game Journo Pros list anyway.08/01/2015 - 10:48am
Craig R.Looks like he is, Andrew. Tinfoil wonders never cease.08/01/2015 - 10:45am
Non-entityAndrew: that's exactly what GamerGate has been claiming, yes. Private discussion groups apparently equal conspiracy.08/01/2015 - 10:44am
Andrew EisenGoth - Wait, wait, wait. Are you suggesting that the Gamers Are Dead articles are the result of a coordinated effort organized on the Game Journo Pros group?08/01/2015 - 10:38am
IronPatriotGamergate's private "interest" is harassing women. Their public lie is about "ethics"08/01/2015 - 10:36am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician