A Plea for Caution: Violent Video Games, the Supreme Court, and the Role of Science

Abstract

On November 2, 2010, the US Supreme Court heard arguments in the case of Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association, with a ruling expected in 2011. This case addressed whether states have the right to restrict freedom of speech by limiting the sale of violent video games to minors. To date, 8 states have tried to pass legislation to this effect, with all attempts being found unconstitutional by lower courts. In large part, the Supreme Court's decision will be determined by its review and interpretation of the medical and social science literature addressing the effects of violent video games on children. Those on both sides of the violent video game debate claim that the scientific literature supports their opinions. Some involved in the debate have proclaimed that the debate is scientifically settled and that only people holding personal interests and biases oppose these "established truths." We review the historical similarities found in the 1950s comic book debate and studies identified from a PubMed search of the term violent video games showing both the harmful and beneficial effects of these video games. We define factors that physicians need to consider when reading and stating opinions about this literature. Opinions from past court rulings are discussed to provide insight into how judges may approach the application of these social science studies to the current legal issue. Although on the surface the case of Schwarzenegger v Entertainment Merchants Association pertains only to the restriction of violent video games, it may establish principles about how medical and public health testimony can affect fundamental constitutional rights and how much and on what basis the courts will defer to legislators' reliance on unsettled science.

Clinicians’ attitudes toward video games vary as a function of age, gender and negative beliefs about youth: A sociology of media research approach

“…Nonetheless, the results were supportive of those of Van Looy et al in that it is not possible to claim that clinicians have reached a consensus of concern regarding the possible influence of video games on youth violence (H1). This is a particularly important finding as some scholars have observed that claims to the contrary, if discovered to be unfounded, can actually damage the reputation of the field as too alarmist rather than carefully objective (Hall, Day, & Hall, 2011).…”

“…And during periods of moral panic, society may incentivized harm-based conclusions from social scientists that distort initial research results (Gauntlett, 2005). Thus, patience in making conclusive statements about media effects may be key to reducing damage to the reputation of media psychology as a scholarly field (Hall et al, 2011).…”

Electronic Media Use and Addiction among Youth in Psychiatric Clinic versus School Populations

“…This preference for violent games was strongest in youth with externalizing disorders such as ADHD. Although controversial, 64,65 violent video games have been linked to increased aggressive behaviour, and decreased empathy and prosocial behaviour. 23,66 This increased exposure to violent video games in the psychiatric population is concerning, particularly as this is a vulnerable population with independent risk factors for aggression.…”

The Association between Sexist Games and Diminished Empathy Remains Tenuous: Lessons from Gabbiadini et al. (2017) and Gabbiadini et al. (2016) Regarding Sensationalism and Accuracy in Media Research

“…This includes using emotionally evocative labels for games, inflated rhetoric regarding the strength and consistency of effects, exaggerated press releases, and weak research designs (Ferguson 2013b;Hall et al 2011;. The violent video game field also appears to be touched by psychology's replication crisis, with direct replications of older studies ultimately failing to confirm previous results (e.g., Przybylski et al 2014;Nielson 2013, 2014) and suggestions of publication bias in the existing literature (Hilgard et al 2017).…”