Consensus on media violence effects: Comment on Bushman, Gollwitzer, and Cruz (2015).

Anderson, Craig A.; Andrighetto, Luca; Bartholow, Bruce D.; Bègue, Laurent; Boxer, Paul; Brockmyer, Jeanne Funk; Burgess, Melinda C. R.; Calvete, Esther; Cantor, Joanne; Coyne, Sarah M.; Dill‐Shackleford, Karen E.; Donnerstein, Ed; Gabbiadini, Alessandro; Gibson, Bryan; Hasan, Youssef; Lueke, Adam; Orue, Izaskun; Riva, P; Strasburger, Victor C.; Volpato, Chiara; Warburton, Wayne

doi:10.1037/ppm0000063

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The potential effects of violent video game exposure on gamers have received considerable attention in recent years. The published scientific literature generally supports the conclusion that violent video games increase aggressive behavior (Anderson et al, 2010;Greitemeyer & Mugge, 2014), and the majority of researchers agree that this effect is real and well substantiated (Anderson et al, 2015;Bushman, Gollwitzer, & Cruz, 2015). Violent video game effects have been found to increase aggression immediately after playing in a number of different ways using different measures of aggression (Anderson & Dill, 2000;Bartholow & Anderson, 2002;Bartholow, Bushman, & Sestir, 2006;Engelhardt, Bartholow, Kerr, & Bushman, 2011;Fischer, Kastenmuller, & Greitemeyer, 2010;but see McCarthy, Coley, Wagner, Zengel, and Basham, 2016, for a null result in a preregistered setting).…”

Section: Hero Violence In Video Games and Prosocial Behaviormentioning

confidence: 69%

Heroic video game violence and prosocial behavior

Lueke¹,

Hilgard²,

Zimmerman³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Research into violent videogames has yet to investigate how violence used in videogames for prosocial purposes could affect prosocial behavior. We assigned participants to one of three videogame conditions: an antisocial violence game, a prosocial violence game, or a control game. After gameplay, participants were dismissed from the experiment, but a confederate approached them in the hallway and asked them to help the Red Cross with a blood drive. Contrasts found that participants in the hero violence condition were more prosocial than those in the gratuitous violence condition, but these conditions did not differ from the control condition. This finding is discussed in light of several limitations of the study, including the nonnormal distribution of the dependent variable and issues related to the size of the final sample.

show abstract

Section: Hero Violence In Video Games and Prosocial Behaviormentioning

confidence: 69%

Heroic video game violence and prosocial behavior

Lueke¹,

Hilgard²,

Zimmerman³

et al. 2018

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our goal was to obtain samples of researchers with expertise on media effects, which is why we sampled the Media Psychology and Technology division of APA and the Mass Communication division of ICA. In retrospect, we probably should have also included a sample of aggression researchers (e.g., members of the International Society for Research on Aggression, or ISRA), as recommended by Anderson et al (2015). Ivory et al (2015) refer to another survey by van Looy et al (2013) to support their claim that media psychologists and communication scientists do not agree that certain types of violent media can increase aggression in children.…”

Section: Do Our Data Support Claims Of a Consensus Among Stakeholders?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Do Our Data Support Claims Of a Consensus Among Stakeholders?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We appreciate the comments by James D. Ivory and his colleagues (2015) and by Craig A. Anderson and his colleagues (2015) about our consensus article. The comment by Ivory et al was generally critical, whereas the comment by Anderson et al was generally supportive. Thus, this response focuses on the Ivory et al article and the two major criticisms they raise: (a) “.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Agreement across stakeholders is consensus: Response to Ivory et al. (2015).

Bushman

Gollwitzer²,

Cruz³

2015

Psychology of Popular Media Culture

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Ivory et al. (2015) commentary on our consensus article (Bushman, Gollwitzer, & Cruz, 2015). In this response we show that (a) 4 different groups of stakeholders-media psychologists, mass communication scientists, pediatricians, parents-do not strongly differ from each other regarding their average agreement that some types of violent media can increase aggression in children (as indicated by small group-mean differences), (b) the mean level of agreement is positive and significantly different from the response scale's midpoint (i.e., 0) for violent screen media (i.e., Internet sites, movies, TV programs, video games), and (c) the pattern of agreement regarding the aggression-enhancing potential of different types of media is highly correlated among the 4 stakeholder groups (i.e., there is large consensus regarding the differential effects of different media types on aggression). Taken together, these findings indicate that different groups of stakeholders largely agree with each other that violent screen media can increase aggression in children. Contrary to what Ivory et al. ( 2015) claim, we do not deliberately blur the distinction between aggression and violence-we sharpen it. We conclude by highlighting the important difference between research examining the impact of media violence on aggression versus its impact on violence. The former has been studied extensively and is the focus of our consensus article, whereas the latter remains an area of uncertainty. Although the public and policymakers want to know "the" cause of violence, the causes of violence are complex, multiple, and often interactive.

show abstract

“…First, the claim certainly is not true among several relevant groups as shown by a survey by Bushman et al (2015). Figure 1 depicts the main findings (Anderson et al, 2015).…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%