![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif?v=91.6){kind=small}
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.
September 19 2006, 12:22:09 UTC 5 years ago
Chew on that, JT.
September 19 2006, 14:39:10 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
September 19 2006, 12:33:19 UTC 5 years ago
Correlation never equals causation.
Funny, I can hear the Metropolitian Moron of Miami crying from here in Houma.
September 19 2006, 12:46:47 UTC 5 years ago
This is not the first time...
...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".
September 19 2006, 14:11:12 UTC 5 years ago
Dear english language
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
September 19 2006, 14:31:47 UTC 5 years ago
Well there we have it...
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.September 19 2006, 15:35:27 UTC 5 years ago
As Dr. Jenkins said a few days ago...
The news media systematically misreports these studies, trying to imply more than the researchers themselves have found.September 19 2006, 15:38:56 UTC 5 years ago
What took so long? ;)
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.
September 19 2006, 16:11:19 UTC 5 years ago
Re: What took so long? ;)
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.5 years ago
September 19 2006, 16:48:21 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2006, 19:52:23 UTC 5 years ago
Yep. he'll say that they are funded by the videogame industry
- Warren Lewis
September 19 2006, 17:08:26 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2006, 17:55:21 UTC 5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
September 19 2006, 18:02:21 UTC 5 years ago
So editorializing, then?
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.September 19 2006, 18:19:23 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2006, 22:28:09 UTC 5 years ago
September 19 2006, 18:32:05 UTC 5 years ago
Phoenix Wright says
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.phSeptember 20 2006, 05:13:22 UTC 5 years ago
Re: von Karma says
http://objection.mrdictionary.net/go.phSeptember 19 2006, 18:42:35 UTC 5 years ago
The difference between correlation and causation
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.
September 19 2006, 19:46:29 UTC 5 years ago
Correlation vs Causation
Correlation:100% of people who commit violent crimes breath oxygen.
Mistaken Causation:
Oxygen must cause violent crimes.
September 19 2006, 23:49:35 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Correlation vs Causation
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.September 19 2006, 19:53:21 UTC 5 years ago
Don't get me wrong.
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.
September 19 2006, 21:40:08 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Don't get me wrong.
no, the ESA trashed it...(see the link to our August 2005 coverage)
September 19 2006, 22:04:25 UTC 5 years ago
Who keeps quoting this?
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.September 20 2006, 00:46:54 UTC 5 years ago
I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney
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?
September 20 2006, 00:59:02 UTC 5 years ago
Re: I got an e-mail from our favorite attorney
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.
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
5 years ago
September 20 2006, 00:51:24 UTC 5 years ago
Dennis, looks like Rep Houge isn't done yet
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=501303Looks like Rep Houge is gonna try his failed law again despite all the recent constituional backlash again such bills.
September 20 2006, 00:55:47 UTC 5 years ago
Re: Dennis, looks like Rep Houge isn't done yet
Yuki - we ran a story on this last week, and we'll have more coverage tomorrow morning...5 years ago
September 20 2006, 05:31:36 UTC 5 years ago
Of course there's no causal 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.
September 20 2006, 16:12:15 UTC 5 years ago
More details on APA position
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.c
September 20 2006, 16:27:19 UTC 5 years ago
Re: More details on APA position
Thanks for linking that, Rik...5 years ago
5 years ago
September 20 2006, 19:57:24 UTC 5 years ago
Dennis...
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.