Game Politics ([info]gamepolitics) wrote,
@ 2006-09-19 07:45:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend!  Next Entry
Entry tags:apa, craig anderson, dorothy singer, elizabeth carll, esa, karen dill

No "Direct Causal Link" Between Games & Violence in APA Report

If you listen closely to the debate over video game violence, you'll hear some misinformation bandied about on both sides of the issue.

One troubling theme we've heard lately involves an incorrect interpretation of a game violence study issued in August, 2005 by the American Psychological Association. The bad information that GP has been hearing lately runs along the lines of:

"The American Psychological Association last year found a direct causal link between violent video games and teen violence."

That's not correct. It's wrong.

In the public policy debate over video game content, it shouldn't be related as fact to legislators. Nor should it be fed to an already game-wary public.

For clarification, GamePolitics went to the source - the American Psychological Association itself.

Yale University's Dr. Dorothy Singer, who co-chaired the study committee, told GP via e-mail that claims of the APA finding a "direct causal link" between games and actual violence are "...wrong and misinterpreting the statement... nowhere do we make such a claim in the resolution, nor does APA... Our studies cited were correlational... there is a difference."

Indeed. Correlation and causation are often confused. Correlation shows a relationship between A and B. Causation means that A caused B. Big difference, especially when applied to a public policy debate like video game violence.

Dr. Elizabeth Carll (left), who chairs the organization's Interactive Media Committee added in an e-mail to GP yesterday, "There was no reference to direct causal link in the APA Resolution on Violence in Video Games and Interactive Media. I scrolled through my email and saw Dorothy Singer's response as well and we are in agreement."

All of that is not to say that the APA report is an endorsement of the video game industry. The 2005 study was quite critical of interactive violence. Dr. Carll said at the time, "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."

Other APA committee members who participated in the preparation of the report include Iowa State University's Dr. Craig Anderson and Dr. Karen Dill of Lenoir-Rhyne College. The APA's full resolution on video game violence is available here.

GP: The debate over video game content is an important political and cultural issue. Research data is a key piece of that debate. So is presenting it accurately.




(Post a new comment)


[info]loopychew
2006-09-19 12:22 pm UTC (link)
I know I'm not going to be the only person to say this, but:

Chew on that, JT.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mcfly0612
2006-09-19 02:39 pm UTC (link)
How long until he says something like "The APA knows there is a causal link. They've been bought out by Rockstar, Take-Two and Blank Rome. APA, do your damn job and admit there is a causal link or else." Any takers on long it'll take for him to say something like this?

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]underthepale, 2006-09-19 08:44 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]dustin1986, 2006-09-19 09:45 pm UTC
Well buddy - [info]yukimurasanada, 2006-09-19 10:23 pm UTC
Re: Well buddy - [info]underthepale, 2006-09-20 09:30 am UTC
Re: Well buddy - [info]chadius, 2006-09-20 12:55 pm UTC

[info]beardoggx
2006-09-19 12:33 pm UTC (link)
The APA just confirms what we've known for a while:

Correlation never equals causation.

Funny, I can hear the Metropolitian Moron of Miami crying from here in Houma.

(Reply to this)

This is not the first time...
[info]soldatlouisfan
2006-09-19 12:46 pm UTC (link)
...that research is seriously misinterpreted.

Remember the statement that "70% (or 85%) of games are violent" ? In fact, such reports don't say that so many games ARE violent, but CONTAIN some violence (no matter the degree of violence, actually). Which is VERY different.

Also, remember the statement that "videogames desensitize" ? In fact, the report (Anderson's one) doesn't say that GAMES desensitize, but that "VIOLENT" videogames desensitize CONTRARY TO "non-violent" ones. And, by "violent" videogames, the report means games whose main characteristic is violence (in theme, gameplay and graphics). The four "violent" games cited by the report are Carmageddon, Duke Nukem, Mortal Kombat and Future Cop.

Here is how research is used to make misinformation "scientifically approved".

(Reply to this)

Dear english language
[info]enmitywithin
2006-09-19 02:11 pm UTC (link)
Due to recent stirups involving wordplay and how words are used in your language to understand thought, I have come to only one conclusion mr english language.

DIE PLZ

(Reply to this)

Well there we have it...
[info]bustermanzero
2006-09-19 02:31 pm UTC (link)
Corellation. That's no where near as concerning as causation. I mean, if it was a cause, then banning games or having government censorship would probably make sense (though I still dislike censorship). But this puts it on the same level as almost any activity where there is the possibility for frustration. Its ranked higher than TV or reading, but probably not quite as as bad as real sports since if you feel like taking out any built-up aggression normal people are right there.

(Reply to this)

As Dr. Jenkins said a few days ago...
[info]jabrwock
2006-09-19 03:35 pm UTC (link)
The news media systematically misreports these studies, trying to imply more than the researchers themselves have found.

(Reply to this)

What took so long? ;)
[info]jabrwock
2006-09-19 03:38 pm UTC (link)
I'm glad they clarified up their statement.

However I think it is partly the responsability of such organizations to at least make a passing effort (and I don't mean "clarify when prodded by a journalist") to correct such misinterpretations, especially when people are going on national television and mirepresenting the results. It affects the reputation of the body as a whole.

On the one side, the information was used to create FUD in Average Joe. Which meant that they actually thought that it was a proven fact, when it wasn't. And on the other side, we have groups like us, who begin to assume the APA is a bunch of hacks, because they can't seem to tell the difference between a correlation & causation study...

So I'm a little disappointed that the APA didn't come out earlier to correct all the falsehoods being spread about their report.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: What took so long? ;)
[info]dustin1986
2006-09-19 04:11 pm UTC (link)
It was mostly Jack throwing that statement about the APA around though right? Did Hillary Clinton use that as evidence? I didn't hear anyone scream about it as much as he did. If their is a story on Joystiq, we might hear his "rebuttal", spoken in the third person of course.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: What took so long? ;) - [info]jabrwock, 2006-09-19 05:47 pm UTC

[info]dboti9k
2006-09-19 04:48 pm UTC (link)
I guess we can add the APA to jack's long list of enemies, now.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]cecil475
2006-09-19 07:52 pm UTC (link)
- I guess we can add the APA to jack's long list of enemies, now.

Yep. he'll say that they are funded by the videogame industry

- Warren Lewis

(Reply to this) (Parent)


[info]thefremen
2006-09-19 05:08 pm UTC (link)
Yarr! It do be good to read not one but two good pieces of news in one day. If that scoundrel JT be bringin' up the same old lie again he should surely be walkin' the plank because of these statements me hearties.

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]mrpat___
2006-09-19 05:55 pm UTC (link)
gyar, tis Talk Like Ye Be a Pirate Day, I nare forgot!

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

(no subject) - [info]terminator44, 2006-09-19 08:07 pm UTC
(no subject) - [info]jdecamp, 2006-09-19 07:11 pm UTC
So editorializing, then?
[info]ace_of_sevens
2006-09-19 06:02 pm UTC (link)
So while she does think violent video games are harmful, this is a hunch or an opinion. It hasn't really been demonstrated by the research so far. This is really something that needs to be studied in more detail to determine what kinds of long-term effects, if any are seen, whether these are universal or only apply to people with certain groups and weigh the results against whatever else people might be doing. Of course, experimental design is difficult, but that's why we have PhDs.

(Reply to this)


[info]jabrwock
2006-09-19 06:19 pm UTC (link)
I wonder if this will change Rep. Hogue's speech when he revives his "games=porn" bill in Utah this week? Will he claim the APA "proves" games are bad? Or will he tone it down and just state that they have some concerns?

(Reply to this) (Thread)


[info]gray17
2006-09-19 10:28 pm UTC (link)
I doubt he'll change it. This little clarification ain't even gonna be on his radar. And even if it was, he'd likely assume that no one that was listening to him would be familar with the actual position of the APA.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Phoenix Wright says
[info]blackmesaman
2006-09-19 06:32 pm UTC (link)
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=1111806

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: von Karma says
[info]trenthowell
2006-09-20 05:13 am UTC (link)
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.php?n=1115891

(Reply to this) (Parent)

The difference between correlation and causation
[info]bluegus
2006-09-19 06:42 pm UTC (link)
is often confused (maybe intentionally) by lawyers. Plaintiff's lawyers are notorious for failing to grasp the not-so-subtle distinction. For instance, the most common pitfall is this: my client was in a car accident on January 1. On January 10 he was diagnosed with [insert unrelated physical or mental ailment here]. Since he didn't have it before, then the accident caused the concussion. Forget the fact that there is no medical evidence to support any such causative relationship.

Anyway, this is a favorite game of unscrupulous lawyers. In fact, this is such an age old logical fallacy that it has latin roots. "Cum hoc ergo propter hoc" -- "with this, therefore because of this" -- correlation implies causation. Example: ice cream sales go up in July. Crime rates also go up in July. (Both of these facts are true, by the way.) Ergo: ice cream consumption causes crime.

Another one: Post hoc ergo propter hoc -- "after this therefore because of this."

My point being that it is no surprise that correlation and causation have intentionally been lumped together by our old, moronic friend. This is the kind of thing that drives me ape-sh!t in my profession. Especially because lawyers who employ these logical fallacies refuse to understand the distinction. It's aggravating.

(Reply to this)

Correlation vs Causation
[info]wolfstar
2006-09-19 07:46 pm UTC (link)
Correlation:
100% of people who commit violent crimes breath oxygen.

Mistaken Causation:
Oxygen must cause violent crimes.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Correlation vs Causation
[info]barfo
2006-09-19 11:49 pm UTC (link)
This is actually a false analogy, because at least in the video game studies most of the time they report a real correlation relative to the control group, whereas in your example the control group (people who do not commit violent crimes) would have the same rate of oxygen breathing and thus there would be no correlational finding in regards to oxygen and violent crimes. Theres plenty of other ways that the studies and the resolution are bogus (eg portraying highly abstract responses such as noise blasts as real world terms like "aggresive behaviour"), but your analysis is a bit over-simplified and misses the point of what scientific 'correlation' is.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Don't get me wrong.
[info]terminator44
2006-09-19 07:53 pm UTC (link)
I'm glad the APA took the time to clarify this. However, I am not happy with the rest of the study. I've read through it, and I could spend weeks tearing it apart. Of course, this study alone will not prove, in the mind of any sensible person, that video games have an effect on violence.

P.S. Didn't the Surgeon General trash this study? I've heard of it but can't find any documentation.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Don't get me wrong.
[info]gamepolitics
2006-09-19 09:40 pm UTC (link)
no, the ESA trashed it...

(see the link to our August 2005 coverage)

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Who keeps quoting this?
[info]majestic_12_x
2006-09-19 10:04 pm UTC (link)
There use to be a poster that kept quoting this "causal link". Agh, if I could only remember his name. He was kind of a regular around here, maybe he got banned...99 times. You guys all know exactly what Mr. "Or Else" is going to say though, right? He's just going to misquote, and rip-off some other study in order to fit his views. Kinda like jamming the square peg into the round hole.

(Reply to this)

I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney
[info]mcfly0612
2006-09-20 12:46 am UTC (link)
Here's what he has to say

"Actually, I have just spoken with Dr. Brad Bushman, who served on that APA Committee. His name is on the report. He tells me that McCauley is utterly wrong, that the APA found causation not correlation. Contact him and confirm it for yourself. You can email him or call him.

I bet you don't have the courage to post this at GamePolitics, do you? Dennis McCauley won't do it. He's just a spinner for the industry.

Jack Thompson"

Well, Jack, I do have the courage to post this. Now what?

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney
[info]mrpat___
2006-09-20 12:59 am UTC (link)
Well actually, it would be up to Jack to prove this, as he's the one making the claim. In order to do that, he'll have to get Mr. Bushman to actually email Dennis, or one of us and say he did find causation.

But we know Jack won't do that, as he's just someone who whores himself out to the nearest politician. That and he lacks balls.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-09-20 01:09 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]mrpat___, 2006-09-20 01:38 am UTC
Re: Well buddy - [info]underthepale, 2006-09-20 09:34 am UTC
Re: Well buddy - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-09-20 10:06 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-09-20 01:10 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]mrpat___, 2006-09-20 01:46 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-09-20 02:00 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]mrpat___, 2006-09-20 02:04 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-09-20 02:15 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]mcfly0612, 2006-09-20 03:12 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]gabrielcelesta, 2006-09-20 05:11 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]markstandridge, 2006-09-20 12:54 pm UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]thefremen, 2006-09-20 09:04 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-09-20 10:08 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]boffo97, 2006-09-20 06:54 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]gamepolitics, 2006-09-20 10:15 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]boffo97, 2006-09-20 11:15 am UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]miang, 2006-09-20 02:40 pm UTC
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney - [info]hemogoblin, 2006-09-21 02:50 pm UTC
Dennis, looks like Rep Houge isn't done yet
[info]yukimurasanada
2006-09-20 12:51 am UTC (link)
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=501303

Looks like Rep Houge is gonna try his failed law again despite all the recent constituional backlash again such bills.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: Dennis, looks like Rep Houge isn't done yet
[info]gamepolitics
2006-09-20 12:55 am UTC (link)
Yuki - we ran a story on this last week, and we'll have more coverage tomorrow morning...

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)

Re: Dennis, looks like Rep Houge isn't done yet - [info]yukimurasanada, 2006-09-20 01:03 am UTC
Of course there's no causal link...
[info]boffo97
2006-09-20 05:31 am UTC (link)
Such a claim fails the common sense test.

During a time where gaming systems, and particularly more violent and realistic games became prevalent, violence rates became lower and lower according to the Department of Justice's own figures.

If violent games CAUSED violence, there's NO WAY this could be the case. NONE.

(Reply to this)

More details on APA position
[info]rpanganiban
2006-09-20 04:12 pm UTC (link)
Elizabeth Carll sent me a link to her testimony in March to the Senate Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights and Property Rights :

http://judiciary.senate.gov/testimony.cfm?id=1824&wit_id=5195

(Reply to this) (Thread)

Re: More details on APA position
[info]gamepolitics
2006-09-20 04:27 pm UTC (link)
Thanks for linking that, Rik...

(Reply to this) (Parent)

Re: More details on APA position - [info]beacon80, 2006-09-20 06:34 pm UTC
Re: More details on APA position - [info]goodrobotus, 2006-09-20 06:48 pm UTC
Dennis...
[info]pyrocy
2006-09-20 07:57 pm UTC (link)
By any chance does the .pdf specifically say there is no casual link? I would look but unfortunately this computer cannot read .pdf's for whatever reason.

(Reply to this)


Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…