Lessons From Markey et al. (2015) and Bushman et al. (2015): Sensationalism and Integrity in Media Research

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

Gregerson³

et al. 2019

Self Cite

Professional scientific groups such as the American Psychological Association (APA), American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), and American Medical Association often release public statements (collectively called policy statements here) that speak to the current nature of science. Such statements may be intended to provide information for policymakers, inform the general public, inform clinical practice, or simply set the agenda for the group itself. Given that such statements speak to science, they may be assumed to form objective summaries of current science. But given that most such organizations represent particular professions, and that the organizations exist to promote those professions, these organizations may not necessarily be objective, neutral arbiters of scientific fact. Thus, policy statements 811301A MPXXX10.1177/2515245918811301Elson et al.Policy-Statements Review research-article2019

Section: Lack Of Clarity and Transparencymentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: • • Overgeneralization: a Statement Was Consideredmentioning

confidence: 99%

Do Policy Statements on Media Effects Faithfully Represent the Science?

Elson

Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science

Gregerson³

et al. 2019

Self Cite

“…In such cases, research findings from laboratory tests of mild aggression (e.g. delivering annoying bursts of white noise, or putting someone's hand in a bucket of ice water) have been extended to criminal violence or compared to medical public health concerns (see Markey, Males, French & Markey, , for discussion). Although most psychologists do not study criminological issues directly, they may tend to carry a set of assumptions about the influence of modeling in human behavior that may cause them to endorse the notion that automatic modeling from media (whether of positive or negative behaviors) may occur more readily than other fields may believe.…”

Section: A Brief History Of Video Game Debatesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Understanding Why Scholars Hold Different Views on the Influences of Video Games on Public Health

Colwell

2017

J Commun

Despite decades of research, no scholarly consensus has been achieved regarding the potential impact of video games on youth aggression or other public health concerns. In recent years, hypotheses have been raised that scholarly opinions on video games may resemble past moral panics, with attitudes reflective of generational conflicts. These hypotheses are tested in a sample of 175 criminologists, psychologists, and media scholars, examining both overall negative attitudes about video games and perceived linkages with youth assaults specifically. Results reflected continued lack of scholarly consensus on the issue of video game influences with only 15.3% of scholars endorsing the view that violent video games contribute to youth assaults. As hypothesized, older scholars endorsed more negative views of video games generally, although this appeared to be related to experience with games rather than age per se. Scholars with more negative attitudes toward youth themselves were also more negative about games. Criminologists and media scholars were more skeptical of violent video games contributing to youth assaults than were psychologists. These results are discussed in relation to Moral Panic Theory.

“…Understanding the current state of evidence on sexist games is worthwhile. Even if regulating violence in games is considered unconstitutional, attempts to target sexist content could create a new line of legal attack, capitalizing on the Ginsburg v. New York (1968) or Miller v. California (1973 precedent for regulating obscene content. Granted, thus far the courts have been skeptical of this line of reasoning, and precedent already exists for rejecting it [e.g., ESA, VSDA and IRMA v. Blagojevich, Madigan and Devine (2005)].…”

Section: Sexist Video Gamesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Violent Video Games, Sexist Video Games, and the Law: Why Can't We Find Effects?

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

2018

During the early 2000s, several states and municipalities sought to regulate minors’ access to violent video games owing to perceived harms to minors. The resultant case law, culminating in the US Supreme Court case Brown v. EMA (2011), demonstrated court skepticism of the science linking violent games to harm in minors. Such skepticism was increasingly confirmed as numerous newer studies could not link violent games to socially relevant outcomes. In more recent years, there has been a newer focus on sexist games and the harm these might cause. This field appears at risk for repeating some of the problems of the violent game field, including exaggeration of mixed findings, lack of curiosity regarding null findings, and unreliable research designs. By persisting in advancing a narrative of public health crisis, despite evidence to the contrary, social science has risked damaging its reputation in the eyes of the courts.