tainment Merchants Association. American Psychologist, 68, 57-74. doi: 10.1037/ a0030597 Greitemeyer, T., Osswald, S., & Brauer, M. (2010). Playing prosocial video games increases empathy and decreases schadenfreude. Emotion, 10, 796-802. doi: 10.1037/ a0020194 Hoffman, A. J., Espinosa Parker, N., Sanchez, E., & Wallach, J. (2009). Unity through community service activities: Strategies to bridge ethnic and cultural divides. Jefferson, NC: McFarland. Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14, 13-24. doi: 10.1002/ 1098-2337(1988)14:13.0.CO;2-J Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games stimulate aggression. Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 179-181. doi: 10.1037/a0018567 Huesmann, L. R., & Taylor, L. D. (2003). The case against the case against media violence. In D. Gentile (Ed.), Media violence and children (pp. 107-130). Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to August John Hoffman, Department of Psychology, Metropolitan State University, 700 East Seventh Street, Saint Paul, MN 55106. E-mail: august.hoffman@metrostate .edu DOI: 10.1O37/a0035509
Supreme Court Decision on Violent Video Games Was Based on the First Amendment, Not Scientific Evidence Brad J. Bushman The Ohio State University and VU University Amsterdam Deana Pollard-Sacks Texas Southern University We agree with Ferguson (February-March 2013) that the U.S. Supreme Court case involving violent video games offers scientists a unique opportunity to reflect on violent video game research and findings. However, we disagree with many of the points he made. Due to space limits, we focus on five major areas of disagreement. The Supreme Court Decision Was Based on the First Amendment, Not Scientific Evidence It is important to understand the historical background and nature of the Supreme
306
Court's First Amendment analysis in Brown v. Entertainment Merehant's Association (2011). The decision was based on an American commitment to protect all forms of speech that could be classified as "harmful" absent clear proof of a compelling (imminent) danger to society, coupled with no more narrowly tailored speech regulation, and no less speech-restrictive alternatives available. This analysis is known as "strict scrutiny" and has been termed "strict in theory, fatal in fact" in recognition of the fact that so few laws survive strict scrutiny analysis (Fullitove v. Klutznick, 1995). The test is based on sound historical principles but is political in nature, not scientific. By labeling violent video games as "speech," the cards were stacked against California. The First Amendment was adopted primarily to protect speech critical of the government, in stark contrast to the English seditious libel laws that allowed punishment even for true speech derogatory of the government. After some controversial years during which the Supreme Court issued First Amendment decisions now widely accepted as wrong, such as Whitney V. California in 1927 and ChapUrtsky v. New Hampshire in 1942 (both upholding criminal convictions based on political speech, which occupies the highest rung of First Amendment protection), in 1969 the Supreme Court adopted a very stringent test for regulating free speech thought to be dangerous in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Brandenburg "incitement" test for punishing free speech requires proof that the speech poses an "imminent" threat to society and that the speaker intended the threat; otherwise, the First Amendment precludes punishment of the speech. Generally, the Supreme Court has strictly protected creative works as free speech under First Amendment analysis. Since the late 1970s, numerous courts have protected movies, television programs, songs, and video games from criminal and civil punishment, relying on strict scrutiny and/or the Brandenburg incitement test as barriers to speech regulation. In addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly demonstrated suspicion toward social science in setting legal policy, probably at least in part based on criticisms concerning the social science relied upon in Brown v. Board of Education.^ In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), Justice Breyer spent considerable time analyzing the social science involved and concluded. There are many scientific studies that support California's views. Social scientists, for example, have found causal evidence that playing these games results in harm. Longitudinal stud-
ies, which measure changes over time, have found that increased exposure to violent video games causes an increase in aggression over the same period. . . . Experimental studies in laboratories have found that subjects randomly assigned to play a violent video game subsequently displayed more characteristics of aggression than those who played nonviolent garnes. (pp. 68-69)
Yet no other justice supported Justice Breyer's opinion, and the majority opinion rejected the scientific evidence offered in support of California. Comparison of Two Amicus Briefs Submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Ferguson (2013) said our "essay" on the two Supreme Court amicus bdefs "amounted mainly to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority, not to a comprehensive review of data" (p. 61). However, our quantitative analysis compared the Gruel brief—which argues that violent video games can harm children—to the Millett brief—which argues they are not harmful (Pollard-Saeks, Bushman, & Anderson, 2011). According to our analysis, a review of the two briefs, side by side, reveals large differences in expertise. All of the authors and 37% of the signées of the Gruel brief had published at least one scientific study on media violence. In contrast, only 13% of the signées of the Millett brief had published even one study on media violence. Even more telling is where the studies were published. Those who signed the Gruel brief had published over 48 times more studies in top-tier journals (with impact factors of 2.5 or greater) than had those who signed the Millett brief. We argue that the quality and quantity of research matters, particularly when there are differing opinions about the meaning of published research. Ferguson also said that independent authors (Hall, Day, & Hall, 2011) concluded that our analysis "underestimated the expertise of the scholars on the Millet [sic\ brief and otherwise ran counter to proper scientific inquiry" (Ferguson, 2013, p. 61). Hall et al. claimed that our analysis was inappropriate because we used the PsycINFO database to search the literature, which excludes periodicals such as the Mayo Clinic Proceedings. We believe this
' See, for example, J. Alexander Tanford's "The Limits of a Scientific Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court and Psychology" (1990, Indiana Law Journal, 66, 137-173) and Sanjay Mody's "Brown Eootnote Eleven in Historical Context: Social Science and the Supreme Court's Quest for Legitimacy," (2002, Stanford Law Review, 54, 793-829).
April 2014 • American Psychologist
was the appropriate database to use because it includes more than 3 million records from psychology and many related fields (e.g., medicine, forensics, neuroscience). Indeed, Ferguson also used PsycINFO for his own meta-analysis of video game effects (Ferguson, 2007). Some Disagreement in the Field Does Not Mean That the Field Is Evenly Divided Ferguson (2013) stated, "At present we thus have two groups of scholars, approximately equal in number, who disagree vehemently about the data on video game violence effects" (p. 64), but he did not provide any data. We recently collected data from 371 media researchers and found that 66% agreed that violent video games increased aggression in children, 17% disagreed, and 17% were undecided (response rate = 46.3%; Bushman & Cruz, 2013). There is rarely, if ever, complete consensus on violent video game effects or on any other topic in science. However, just because there is some disagreement does not imply that the field is evenly divided. Our survey suggests the vast majority of researchers working in the area (80% of those who have an opinion) believe that violent video games increase aggression.
There are circumstances in which "small" effect sizes warrant serious concern: "When effects accumulate across time, or when large portions of the population are exposed to the risk factor, or when consequences are severe, statistically small effects become much more important .. . All three of these conditions apply to violent video game effects" (Anderson et al., 2010, p. 170). Laboratory Measures of Aggression Are Not Trivial Laboratory aggression paradigms are sometimes faulted for being "artificial" or "unrepresentative" of "real-life" aggression. Two different research teams using meta-analytic techniques have supported the validity of standard laboratory aggression paradigms. One meta-analysis found impressive levels of convergence across a wide range of laboratory aggression measures (Carlson, MarcusNewhall, & Miller, 1989). Another metaanalysis found that "real" and laboratory measures of aggression are infiuenced in similar ways by situational variables (e.g., violent media, alcohol, provocation) and by individual difference variables (e.g., trait aggressiveness, sex. Type A personality) (Anderson & Bushman, 1997). Conclusion
What Constitutes a Trivial Effect? Most meta-analyses of violent media effects, including violent video game effects, find average correlations in the range of. 15 to .30. Ferguson (2013) views these correlations as trivial in size, but that is not the consensus in the scientific community. According to Cohen's (1988) conventional values, a correlation of .1 is "small." A point-biserial correlation of .1 translates into a standardized mean difference of about 0.2, which many researchers do not consider trivial at all, particularly in lab experiments where the participants receive a very small "dose" of the treatment. In video game experiments, participants often play a game for only 15-30 minutes. It is impressive that playing a violent video game for just 15-30 minutes on a single occasion can have significant and measurable effects on human thought and behavior. According to Lipsey's (1990) empirically based conventional values, a correlation of .075 is "small." But "small" is not the same as "trivial." For example, the average correlation obtained from 322 metaanalyses of more than 25,000 social psychology studies involving over 8 million participants was .2 (Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).
April 2014 • American Psychologist
In conclusion, we argue that the divided and controversial U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) informs us of the state of First Amendment jurisprudence, in which violent video games have been labeled "free speech," rendering them nearly impossible to regulate criminally under the prevailing strict scrutiny analysis. The Supreme Court decision, however, is a political opinion and tells us nothing about the scientific validity of violent video game studies or their effects on children.
sion in children. Manuscript submitted for publication. Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A., & Miller, N. (1989). Evidence for a general construct of aggression. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 15. 377-389. doi: 10.1177/ 0146167289153008 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games.
Psychiatric Quarterly, 78. 309-316. doi: 10.1007/sl 1126-007-9056-9 Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. American Psychologist, 68. 57-74. doi: 10.1037/ a0030597 Fulhlove V. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 519 (1980) (Marshall, T., concurring) overruled by Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Hall, R. C. W., Day, T., & Hall, R. C. W. (2011 ). A further plea for caution against medical professionals overstating video game violence effects-In reply-I. (2011). Mayo Clinic Proceedings, S6(8), 821-823. doi:10.4065/mcp .2011.0357 Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pollard-Sacks, D., Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2011). Do violent video games harm children? Comparing the scientific amicus curiae "experts" in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. Northwestern University Law Review. 106, 1-12. Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of
General Psychology, 7, 331-363. doi: t0.1037/1089'-2680.7.4.331 Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Brad J. Bushman, School of Communication, The Ohio State University, 3127 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1339. E-mail: bushman.20@ osu.edu
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of "trivial" experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology. 1, 19-41. doi:10.1037/ 1089-2680.1.1.19 Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173. doi:10.1037/a0018251 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011). Retrieved from http://www .supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf Bushman, B. J., & Cruz, C. (2013). Experts agree—Violent media can increase aggres-
DOI; 10.1037/a()036357
A Way Fonvard for Video Game Violence Research Christopher J. Ferguson Stetson University I thank Hoffman (2014, this issue) and Bushman and Pollard-Sacks (2014, this issue) for their comments on my original article (Ferguson, February-March 2013) on video game violence and the 2011 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) Supreme Court case. I appre-
307
Copyright of American Psychologist is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to August John Hoffman, Department of Psychology, Metropolitan State University, 700 East Seventh Street, Saint Paul, MN 55106. E-mail: august.hoffman@metrostate .edu DOI: 10.1O37/a0035509
Supreme Court Decision on Violent Video Games Was Based on the First Amendment, Not Scientific Evidence Brad J. Bushman The Ohio State University and VU University Amsterdam Deana Pollard-Sacks Texas Southern University We agree with Ferguson (February-March 2013) that the U.S. Supreme Court case involving violent video games offers scientists a unique opportunity to reflect on violent video game research and findings. However, we disagree with many of the points he made. Due to space limits, we focus on five major areas of disagreement. The Supreme Court Decision Was Based on the First Amendment, Not Scientific Evidence It is important to understand the historical background and nature of the Supreme
306
Court's First Amendment analysis in Brown v. Entertainment Merehant's Association (2011). The decision was based on an American commitment to protect all forms of speech that could be classified as "harmful" absent clear proof of a compelling (imminent) danger to society, coupled with no more narrowly tailored speech regulation, and no less speech-restrictive alternatives available. This analysis is known as "strict scrutiny" and has been termed "strict in theory, fatal in fact" in recognition of the fact that so few laws survive strict scrutiny analysis (Fullitove v. Klutznick, 1995). The test is based on sound historical principles but is political in nature, not scientific. By labeling violent video games as "speech," the cards were stacked against California. The First Amendment was adopted primarily to protect speech critical of the government, in stark contrast to the English seditious libel laws that allowed punishment even for true speech derogatory of the government. After some controversial years during which the Supreme Court issued First Amendment decisions now widely accepted as wrong, such as Whitney V. California in 1927 and ChapUrtsky v. New Hampshire in 1942 (both upholding criminal convictions based on political speech, which occupies the highest rung of First Amendment protection), in 1969 the Supreme Court adopted a very stringent test for regulating free speech thought to be dangerous in Brandenburg v. Ohio. The Brandenburg "incitement" test for punishing free speech requires proof that the speech poses an "imminent" threat to society and that the speaker intended the threat; otherwise, the First Amendment precludes punishment of the speech. Generally, the Supreme Court has strictly protected creative works as free speech under First Amendment analysis. Since the late 1970s, numerous courts have protected movies, television programs, songs, and video games from criminal and civil punishment, relying on strict scrutiny and/or the Brandenburg incitement test as barriers to speech regulation. In addition, the Supreme Court has repeatedly demonstrated suspicion toward social science in setting legal policy, probably at least in part based on criticisms concerning the social science relied upon in Brown v. Board of Education.^ In Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011), Justice Breyer spent considerable time analyzing the social science involved and concluded. There are many scientific studies that support California's views. Social scientists, for example, have found causal evidence that playing these games results in harm. Longitudinal stud-
ies, which measure changes over time, have found that increased exposure to violent video games causes an increase in aggression over the same period. . . . Experimental studies in laboratories have found that subjects randomly assigned to play a violent video game subsequently displayed more characteristics of aggression than those who played nonviolent garnes. (pp. 68-69)
Yet no other justice supported Justice Breyer's opinion, and the majority opinion rejected the scientific evidence offered in support of California. Comparison of Two Amicus Briefs Submitted to the U.S. Supreme Court Ferguson (2013) said our "essay" on the two Supreme Court amicus bdefs "amounted mainly to ad hominem attacks and appeals to authority, not to a comprehensive review of data" (p. 61). However, our quantitative analysis compared the Gruel brief—which argues that violent video games can harm children—to the Millett brief—which argues they are not harmful (Pollard-Saeks, Bushman, & Anderson, 2011). According to our analysis, a review of the two briefs, side by side, reveals large differences in expertise. All of the authors and 37% of the signées of the Gruel brief had published at least one scientific study on media violence. In contrast, only 13% of the signées of the Millett brief had published even one study on media violence. Even more telling is where the studies were published. Those who signed the Gruel brief had published over 48 times more studies in top-tier journals (with impact factors of 2.5 or greater) than had those who signed the Millett brief. We argue that the quality and quantity of research matters, particularly when there are differing opinions about the meaning of published research. Ferguson also said that independent authors (Hall, Day, & Hall, 2011) concluded that our analysis "underestimated the expertise of the scholars on the Millet [sic\ brief and otherwise ran counter to proper scientific inquiry" (Ferguson, 2013, p. 61). Hall et al. claimed that our analysis was inappropriate because we used the PsycINFO database to search the literature, which excludes periodicals such as the Mayo Clinic Proceedings. We believe this
' See, for example, J. Alexander Tanford's "The Limits of a Scientific Jurisprudence: The Supreme Court and Psychology" (1990, Indiana Law Journal, 66, 137-173) and Sanjay Mody's "Brown Eootnote Eleven in Historical Context: Social Science and the Supreme Court's Quest for Legitimacy," (2002, Stanford Law Review, 54, 793-829).
April 2014 • American Psychologist
was the appropriate database to use because it includes more than 3 million records from psychology and many related fields (e.g., medicine, forensics, neuroscience). Indeed, Ferguson also used PsycINFO for his own meta-analysis of video game effects (Ferguson, 2007). Some Disagreement in the Field Does Not Mean That the Field Is Evenly Divided Ferguson (2013) stated, "At present we thus have two groups of scholars, approximately equal in number, who disagree vehemently about the data on video game violence effects" (p. 64), but he did not provide any data. We recently collected data from 371 media researchers and found that 66% agreed that violent video games increased aggression in children, 17% disagreed, and 17% were undecided (response rate = 46.3%; Bushman & Cruz, 2013). There is rarely, if ever, complete consensus on violent video game effects or on any other topic in science. However, just because there is some disagreement does not imply that the field is evenly divided. Our survey suggests the vast majority of researchers working in the area (80% of those who have an opinion) believe that violent video games increase aggression.
There are circumstances in which "small" effect sizes warrant serious concern: "When effects accumulate across time, or when large portions of the population are exposed to the risk factor, or when consequences are severe, statistically small effects become much more important .. . All three of these conditions apply to violent video game effects" (Anderson et al., 2010, p. 170). Laboratory Measures of Aggression Are Not Trivial Laboratory aggression paradigms are sometimes faulted for being "artificial" or "unrepresentative" of "real-life" aggression. Two different research teams using meta-analytic techniques have supported the validity of standard laboratory aggression paradigms. One meta-analysis found impressive levels of convergence across a wide range of laboratory aggression measures (Carlson, MarcusNewhall, & Miller, 1989). Another metaanalysis found that "real" and laboratory measures of aggression are infiuenced in similar ways by situational variables (e.g., violent media, alcohol, provocation) and by individual difference variables (e.g., trait aggressiveness, sex. Type A personality) (Anderson & Bushman, 1997). Conclusion
What Constitutes a Trivial Effect? Most meta-analyses of violent media effects, including violent video game effects, find average correlations in the range of. 15 to .30. Ferguson (2013) views these correlations as trivial in size, but that is not the consensus in the scientific community. According to Cohen's (1988) conventional values, a correlation of .1 is "small." A point-biserial correlation of .1 translates into a standardized mean difference of about 0.2, which many researchers do not consider trivial at all, particularly in lab experiments where the participants receive a very small "dose" of the treatment. In video game experiments, participants often play a game for only 15-30 minutes. It is impressive that playing a violent video game for just 15-30 minutes on a single occasion can have significant and measurable effects on human thought and behavior. According to Lipsey's (1990) empirically based conventional values, a correlation of .075 is "small." But "small" is not the same as "trivial." For example, the average correlation obtained from 322 metaanalyses of more than 25,000 social psychology studies involving over 8 million participants was .2 (Richard, Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003).
April 2014 • American Psychologist
In conclusion, we argue that the divided and controversial U.S. Supreme Court opinion in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (2011) informs us of the state of First Amendment jurisprudence, in which violent video games have been labeled "free speech," rendering them nearly impossible to regulate criminally under the prevailing strict scrutiny analysis. The Supreme Court decision, however, is a political opinion and tells us nothing about the scientific validity of violent video game studies or their effects on children.
sion in children. Manuscript submitted for publication. Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A., & Miller, N. (1989). Evidence for a general construct of aggression. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 15. 377-389. doi: 10.1177/ 0146167289153008 Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press. Ferguson, C. J. (2007). The good, the bad and the ugly: A meta-analytic review of positive and negative effects of violent video games.
Psychiatric Quarterly, 78. 309-316. doi: 10.1007/sl 1126-007-9056-9 Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Violent video games and the Supreme Court: Lessons for the scientific community in the wake of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. American Psychologist, 68. 57-74. doi: 10.1037/ a0030597 Fulhlove V. Klutznick, 448 U.S. 448, 519 (1980) (Marshall, T., concurring) overruled by Adarand Constructors, Inc. v. Pena, 515 U.S. 200 (1995). Hall, R. C. W., Day, T., & Hall, R. C. W. (2011 ). A further plea for caution against medical professionals overstating video game violence effects-In reply-I. (2011). Mayo Clinic Proceedings, S6(8), 821-823. doi:10.4065/mcp .2011.0357 Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage. Pollard-Sacks, D., Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2011). Do violent video games harm children? Comparing the scientific amicus curiae "experts" in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. Northwestern University Law Review. 106, 1-12. Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of
General Psychology, 7, 331-363. doi: t0.1037/1089'-2680.7.4.331 Correspondence concerning this comment should be addressed to Brad J. Bushman, School of Communication, The Ohio State University, 3127 Derby Hall, 154 North Oval Mall, Columbus, OH 43210-1339. E-mail: bushman.20@ osu.edu
REFERENCES
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of "trivial" experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology. 1, 19-41. doi:10.1037/ 1089-2680.1.1.19 Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173. doi:10.1037/a0018251 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. 131 S. Ct. 2729 (2011). Retrieved from http://www .supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf Bushman, B. J., & Cruz, C. (2013). Experts agree—Violent media can increase aggres-
DOI; 10.1037/a()036357
A Way Fonvard for Video Game Violence Research Christopher J. Ferguson Stetson University I thank Hoffman (2014, this issue) and Bushman and Pollard-Sacks (2014, this issue) for their comments on my original article (Ferguson, February-March 2013) on video game violence and the 2011 Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA) Supreme Court case. I appre-
307
Copyright of American Psychologist is the property of American Psychological Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.
