Journal of Communication ISSN 0021-9916

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Understanding Why Scholars Hold Different
Views on the Inﬂuences of Video Games on
Public Health
1 Department of Psychology, Stetson University, DeLand, FL 32729, USA
2 Department of Psychology, University of Westminster, London W1B 2UW, UK

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 aretested in a sample of 175 criminologists, psychologists, and media scholars, examining bothoverall 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 viewsof 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 werealso more negative about games. Criminologists and media scholars were more skeptical ofviolent video games contributing to youth assaults than were psychologists. These results
are discussed in relation to Moral Panic Theory.
Keywords: Video Games, Violence, Aggression, Consensus, Public Health, Moral Panic.
doi:10.1111/jcom.12293

In fall 2015 the American Psychological Association (APA) released their new policy
statement on video game violence which acknowledged violent video games cannot
be linked to criminal violence, but which argued they could be linked to milder
aggression. The task force itself had been controversial, often criticized for its lack oftransparency, apparent biases and conflicts of interest of its members, and potential
flaws in the small and selective meta-analysis the task force conducted (see Wofford,2015). Significant concerns about this task force led 238 scholars, including media
scholars, psychologists, and criminologists, to write an open letter to the APA in

Corresponding author: Christopher J. Ferguson; e-mail: CJFerguson1111@aol.com
Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

305

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Christopher J. Ferguson1 & John Colwell2

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

A brief history of video game debates

Researchers have been interested in the potential impact of video games on youthfor decades. Such research has examined for both positive (e.g. Jackson et al., 2012)
and negative (Konijn, Nije Bijvank, & Bushman, 2007) influences of games, witha lion’s share of the attention on negative effects such as aggression and addiction(Ivory, 2013). The video game violence debate particularly has waged for decades, asevidenced by the continued controversy over the American Psychological Association’s 2015 policy statement. However, such debates also raged among scholars as far
back as the 1980s, with concern over “violent” games such as Pac Man, Zaxxon, andCentipede. Then, as now, there were studies that both did (Cooper & Mackie, 1986)and didn’t (Dominick, 1984) find evidence for deleterious effects. Even meta-analyses
don’t agree, with some arguing for the presence of effects on aggression (e.g. Anderson
et al., 2010) and some arguing against such effects (Ferguson, 2015a; Sherry, 2007).
Further, more recent studies that are preregistered have suggested minimal video
game influences on negative outcomes (Ferguson et al., 2015; McCarthy, Coley, Wagner, Zengel, & Basham, 2016; Przybylski, Weinstein, & Murayama, in press). Thus, it
can be difficult to make clear statements about video game influences on aggression.
The value of current studies of video game influences on aggression has also beenquestioned. For instance, laboratory aggression studies may use measures that lackproper standardization and validation and may be open to questionable researcher
practices (Elson, Mohseni, Breuer, Scharkow, & Quandt, 2014). Correlational studies
may focus too much on bivariate correlations without properly noting that these tend
to vanish once other factors such as gender and personality are properly controlled(Kanamori & Doi, 2016). There have likewise been broader concerns about the cultureof video game violence research in which researchers, influenced by politics, may havebeen overeager to find video game influences, resulting in a “self-fulfilling prophesy”
effect. For instance, scholars who misrepresent the aggression field as more consistentthan it is are now known to report higher effect sizes in their research than scholars
who present balanced literature reviews (Ferguson, 2015a).
Similar controversies exist in other areas such as the potential impact of video
games on academics (Adachi & Willoughby, 2013), sexism (Breuer, Kowert, Festl, &Quandt, 2015), addiction (Kowert, Vogelgesang, Festl, & Quandt, 2015), and mental
306

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 20192013, asking them to retire their policy statements on media violence (Consortium ofScholars, 2013). This interchange between the APA and a large group of scholars highlights the continued controversies and disagreements regarding potential influencesof violent video games and what, if anything, should be done to promote a regulatory
policy agenda on the issue. In recent years, some scholars have argued that the social
processes underlying these disagreements are themselves important to understand(Quandt & Kroger, 2013; Quandt et al., 2015; Quintero-Johnson, Banks, Bowman,
Carveth, & Lachlan, 2014). This article seeks to address this issue by examining
disagreements about the impact of video games among criminologists, psychologists,
and media scholars and how these relate to both generation and attitudinal factors.

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

How much agreement is there on video game influences?

Given the perceived stakes in some of these realms, it has not been uncommon
to see groups of scholars advocating for one policy agenda or another, or makeclaims to scholarly consensus to promote such agendas. An argument to consensus
occurs when an advocate for a position claims that position must be true becausea majority of individuals believe it to be true. Although argument to consensus isa logical fallacy with no direct relevance to the factual nature of a particular policy
agenda, such arguments can have powerful emotional appeal. For instance, although
the strength of climate change research rests primarily on an accumulation of dataover decades of research, it is not uncommon to hear arguments that a scientificconsensus has been reached on the issue as incentive to pursue policy on the matter.
Of course, the primary evidence for climate change is empirical in nature, where
evidence appears to be consistent. However, the argument to consensus appears to
be used as a rhetorical device to silence skeptics once that empirical threshold had
been reached.
Granted, on the issue of climate change, evidence for consensus is strong, with over
90% of climate scholars agreeing on at least basic elements such as that climate change
is occurring in recent decades (Lefsrud & Meyer, 2012). On the issue of media violence, evidence for consensus is less clear. Evidence for a consensus among scholars in
the 1980s seemed somewhat clearer than at present. Murray (1984) found strong evidence of agreement among psychologists (90%) and communication scholars (85%)
with a warning about media violence, reported by the National Institute of Mental
Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

307

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019health (Desai, Krishnan-Sarin, Cavallo, & Potenza, 2010). For instance, one group of
26 scholars recently wrote to the World Health Organization, asking them to reconsider their impending video game addiction diagnostic categories (Aarseth et al., inpress). Given that evidence is mixed, scholarly opinions on the impact of video games
are similarly divergent and often strongly held. Communication of these scholarly
opinions have oftentimes been used to attempt to influence policy, call for more grantfunding, or support regulation of games. Most notably, a 2011 Supreme Court case
(Brown v EMA, 2011) considered potential regulation of violent game sales to minors,
and included amicus briefs from competing groups of scholars both supporting andnot supporting the California law at the heart of this case. Ultimately, the Supreme
Court in a 7-2 decision ruled that regulation of violent content was unconstitutional
and that research evidence could not support contentions that violent games posed
an imminent public health concern.
It is worth noting that not all research on video games involves negative influences.
For instance, considerable research has looked at the impact of video games on cognition (Spence & Feng, 2010), intergroup cooperation (Adachi, Hodson, Willoughby,
Blank, & Ha, 2016), and mood management (Rieger, Frischlich, Wulf, Bente, & Kneer,2015). Although, in some areas such as improved intelligence, concerns have beenraised about similar exaggeration of false effects as seen for aggression (Simons et al.,2016).

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell308

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Health, as evidence for a link, as strong as any other factor influencing aggression,
between media violence and societal aggression.
More recent research has not provided any evidence for greater consensus,
and indeed possible bias in sampling needs to be taken into account. For example,
Bushman, Gollwitzer, and Cruz (2015a) used specified groups of scholars (e.g. APA’s
Division 46 Media Psychology and Technology), though other, perhaps arguably
appropriate groups were not included (e.g. Division 10, Psychology of Creativity,
Aesthetics and the Arts). Findings for scholars were 58% agreeing that there was acausal link between media violence and aggression, 35.2% that it contributed to reallife violence. Approximately 66% of scholars agreed that violent video games could
cause aggression, although the type or level of aggression was not specified. However,the finding that most closely matches the measure used by Murray (1984), of 35.2%
for agreement that media violence was a factor in real life violence, is substantiallyless than the 87.5% found by Murray some 30 years ago. This reduction in consensus
occurred despite increases in levels of violence and realism in video games. To further
add controversy, potential problems with the methodology of Bushman et al. and its
claims for consensus were also alleged soon after release. In one response article in thesame journal, Ivory et al. (2015; see Bushman, Gollwitzer, & Cruz, 2015b for reply)
expressed the concern that the sampling methods used by Bushman et al. were biased,some of the analyses incorrectly done, and the ultimate results ultimately illustrative
more of disagreement than consensus. This exchange revealed that scholars wereunable to come to a consensus on what was indicative of a consensus. However, controversies over the original Bushman et al. (2015) paper emerged earlier when the inpress version was released to news media. Two psychological researchers reported thatmajor statistical errors had been found in the manuscript (as reported by Ivory et al.,2015) during the comment/reply process, and Bushman et al. were effectively allowed
to mulligan a new set of analyses for the original paper (Etchells & Chambers, 2014).
This raised concerns regarding the transparency of the editorial process for this article.
In contrast to Bushman et al.’s (2015a) study, a wider sample of media scholars
used by Quandt et al. (2015) found, regarding a statement that the effects on aggression by game violence were a problem for society, only 10.1% agreement. Quandt et al.
suggested that differences in wording of the two surveys could help understand differences in responding. For instance, one might reasonably agree that media violencecauses increase in very mild forms of aggression, but that these do not represent a
problem for society or contribute to youth violence. Results on clinicians by Ferguson(2015b) likewise found that a majority disagreed with linking video game violence
to youth assaults. Figure 1 presents current data on scholarly consensus on media
violence effects. Similar data from Lefsrud and Meyer (2012) are presented to provide a contrast between the scholarly consensus on climate change compared to thatfor media effects. This is useful to compare when considering what one means when
discussing the issue of consensus.
Lack of consensus over the strong claims for research support for a causal link
between video games and aggression were such that around 230 media scholars asked

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Healththe APA, in an open letter (Consortium of Scholars, 2013), to revoke their publicstatements which verified the existence of such a link. However, clearly scholarly
views do differ regarding the causal link, and it is of interest to explore reasons for
those differences.
Understanding debates on video games: A sociology of media research approach

At present, video game research, whether on aggression, addiction or positive
outcomes, consists of a large pool of individual studies comprising some, largely
inconsistent whole. That individuals may look at this pool of research and come todifferent conclusions about its meaning may not be surprising, but that this lackof consensus extends to scholars as well as policy makers and the general public
warrants further consideration. This is particularly important as science does notexist in a vacuum of facts, but influences and is influenced by politics as well as byprevailing social attitudes. For instance, in a recent conversation regarding the World
Health Organization’s (WHO) proposal to include gaming disorder diagnoses in theforthcoming version of the International Compendium of Diseases, one WHO official
acknowledged that “enormous pressure” from political entities in Asian countries waspart of the decision process (Geoffrey Reed, personal communication, August 2016).
Understanding the psychology and sociology of how scholars’ beliefs about video
game effects relate to individual and sociological factors can provide information
for how research evidence and policy positions of professional organizations may be
improved in accuracy.
One theoretical platform for understanding this sociology of media effects
research is to understand the social context of such research through Moral Panic
Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

309

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Figure 1 Scholarly consensus on climate change and media violence effects, a comparison.

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

310

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Theory (MPT; Cohen, 1972). Put simply, MPT states that cultures create “folk devils”
to explain perceived social crises. These folk devils function to create an explanation
for the perceived crisis at which moral repugnance can be directed. Calls to eliminate the folk devil in question create an illusion of control over the crisis and theperception of hope that the crisis can be allayed (Ben-Yahuda, 2009).
Moral panics can take a wide range of forms, although it is well documented thatmedia, particularly that with perceived offensive content, often serves as folk devil
for perceived crises such as violent crime or teen sexual promiscuity (Bowman, 2016;
Gauntlett, 2005; Kutner & Olson, 2008). Moral panics often focus on newer formsof media that may not yet have been embraced by large swaths of society, particularly older adults. As a key element, a negative social narrative forms about this new
media, initially based on moral repugnance, rather than data. Once this occurs, thesocial narrative incentivizes stakeholders including policy makers, news media, andscholars to promote (rather than objectively test or scrutinize) the moral panic. Policy makers may need to be seen as “doing something” about the perceived crisis, news
media receive more subscriptions or “clicks” based on sensational claims of crisis,and scholars achieve better grant funding, news coverage, and professional prestige.
Figure 2 presents the Moral Panic Tsunami, first developed by Gauntlett (2005), that
demonstrates the interchange between policy makers, news media, and scholars, allfiltered through the incentives of a pre-existing social narrative.
The role of scholars in this process is of interest to this article and it is important
to begin with the understanding that scholars are human and, as such, susceptible toboth the biases and incentives that influence the attitudes and decisions of humans ingeneral. One area where this can be witnessed is simply related to the nomenclatureof video games themselves used for research studies. Many studies of both positive
and negative influences of video game use focus on the shooting game genre. Whenthe focus is on positive effects they are often referred to by the relatively innocuous term action games (e.g. Spence & Feng, 2010) but when negative effects suchas aggression are considered the far more morally valanced term violent video gameis used (e.g. Engelhardt, Mazurek, Hilgard, Rouder, & Bartholow, 2015) despite thatthe same shooter genre games are being employed in both sets of studies. This is justone indication that moral terminology is selective employed, whether consciously or
unconsciously, by scholars to suit specific purposes.
This process could be seen on display after the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting in the
United States during which 20-year-old Adam Lanza killed multiple school children
and adults at an elementary school as well as his own mother, before taking his own
life. As the investigation was kept confidential for 11 months, little was known about
Lanza’s video game habits. Ultimately, after the 11-month investigation, it would be
revealed that Lanza preferred playing nonviolent games, particularly Dance, Dance
Revolution, and Super Mario Brothers (State’s Attorney for the Judicial District ofDansbury’s, 2013). In the interim, some politicians, scholars, and news media eagerly
linked the shooting to apocryphal claims about Lanza’s alleged but ultimately false
obsession with violent video games. Criminologists who have studied this issue point

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Healthto it as an example of the “myth” linking violent video games to mass shooting events
that is typical of a media moral panic (Fox & DeLateur, 2014).
The Goldilocks Effect

One observation about media-based moral panics is that they tend to be generationalin nature (Gauntlett, 2005; Kutner & Olson, 2008). That may be because, although
media tends to continually push the boundaries of acceptability, individual tastes inmedia may be “locked in” according the media consumed in one’s early years witha fair degree of continuity in media tastes over time (Himmelweit & Swift, 1976).
Just as boundary pushing during one’s own youth can seem artistically appropriate orserve the purpose of developing autonomy from the more conservative taste of societyelders, so too can the boundary pushing of subsequent generations of youth appear tobe beyond the pale of good taste. This creates what we refer to as the Goldilocks Effectin which each generation believes that its preferred media is “just right” … neither too
Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

311

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Figure 2 The moral panic tsunami.

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Individual level traits

Other, individual-level factors may also play a role in suspiciousness to new media.
These would include various personality or attitudinal factors that make some individuals prone to suspiciousness toward new media. For instance, some prior work
has indicated that trait pacifism may increase concern about new media (Rothmund,
Bender, Nauroth, & Gollwitzer, 2015). In addition, Ferguson (2015b) found that negative attitudes toward youth themselves also predicted negative attitudes toward video
games. However, general personality variables and pacifism did not. Negative attitudes
toward youth may be reflective both of difficulties adjusting to new cultural shifts
indicated by new media. Negative attitudes toward youth may also reflect a tendency
to endorse negative stereotypes of youth such as elevated violence or promiscuity or
reduced respect or work ethic. Sociologist David Finkelhor (2010) has identified thisconcept as “juvenoia”; the tendency of some older adults (though not all, certainly) todisparage youth. Of course, some youth may also hold negative stereotypes of older
adults, but these are less likely to reflect in negative attitudes toward new media. Little
is known about what other intrapersonal variables might predict negative attitudes
toward video games.
One possibility is that sanctimoniousness, the tendency to view oneself, perhaps
self-deceptively, as more moral than others, may predict negative attitudes toward
newer media. A certain degree of sanctimoniousness is a common human failing,but it is also likely that sanctimoniousness can be viewed as a trait, as indicated by atendency to unrealistically present oneself as more moral than a typical person would
be. Although a considerable field of research has examined moral judgment, less isknown about moral judgments that are hostile or aggressive in form. Individuals
312

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019morally restrictive, nor morally extreme. The emotional/moral reactions to offensive
media may be translated to beliefs in the harmfulness of media, with science (particularly nontransparent in nature) being used as a cover for moral regulation (Critcher,2009; Thompson, 2008).
These generational divides can appear in the form of age differences in regards toattitudes toward new media. Among both clinicians (Ferguson, 2015b) and the general public (Przybylski, 2014), age is a strong predictor of negative attitudes about
video games. In fairness, biases may work in both directions with younger people
defensive about their hobby (Kneer, Munko, Glock, & Bente, 2012), just as older people may be reflexively hostile toward it. However, this may have less to do with age,per se, but rather the selective exposure of individuals of different ages to new media.
Older adults, being locked in to their own media preferences through the Goldilocks
Effect, are slower to embrace new media and quick to become suspicious of its potential ill effects. In this sense, age may be a proxy for unfamiliarity with the media inquestion and that unfamiliarity breeding concern. According to one recent study, forinstance, older adults worry little about the impact of an M-rated game they themselves played, but do worry about “violent video games” as an abstract concept (Ferguson, Nielsen, & Maguire, in press).

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Healthhigh in sanctimoniousness may be quicker to negatively judge the activities of others,
particularly activities which they don’t like or value. Particularly, individuals high insanctimoniousness may tend to view themselves as disinclined to appreciate media
that is “offensive” and look down upon those who do. However, this has not yet beentested.
The role of discipline

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

313

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

In previous sections, we have examined the role that both generational culture andindividual level traits may play in the development of negative attitudes toward video
games. These elements may work equally for the general population as for scholars.
Yet, among scholars, other issues may be at play such as discipline specific beliefs,
ideologies, foci, and intellectual products. These can, themselves, result in disciplinelevel differences regarding attitudes toward video games.
As noted in Quandt et al. (2015), the identification of disciplines and emerging
fields that may overlap disciplines can be complex. However, we focus on threebroad categories, namely communication/media scholars (henceforth just “media
scholars”), psychologists, and criminologists. Naturally, the boundaries between
these three fields are not necessarily distinct (indeed one of the authors of this article
has involvements in all three). At the same time, the three fields may possess different
approaches, assumptions, and methodologies that create different attitudes toward
new media such as video games.
Of the three, media scholars arguably may be the most diffuse, potentially
including individuals with degrees in not only communications, but an expanding
array of programs in games studies, digital games research, letters and literatures,etc. Nonetheless, our conceptualization of this field was similar to that of Quandt
et al. (2015), if perhaps not limited specifically to digital games research, but likely
comprisied of scholars who identified with organizations such as the International
Communication Association or European Communication Research and Education
Association (ECREA). Such scholars may have qualifications in multiple areas, but
are unified by selecting media as their primary focus of study. Quandt et al. (2015)
identified this area, particularly the emerging subfield of digital games research,as possessing fairly homogeneous assumptions, particularly related to relatively
optimistic views about the role of media in society. By contrast to both psychologists
and criminologists, media scholars may have a deeper interest in understanding the
medium itself rather than as something done to people and as the catalyst for harmful(or even positive) outcomes.
Alongside media scholars, much of the debate on negative video game influences,
particularly regarding aggression and violence, has been fueled by research frompsychology and even social psychology specifically. 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 tocriminal violence or compared to medical public health concerns (see Markey, Males,
French & Markey, 2015a, for discussion). Although most psychologists do not study

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

The current study

Previous research has indicated that scholars often differ regarding their attitudes
toward video games. However, little information is available about why these scholarly
opinions differ. Nor is much information available about the degree to which concerns
about games may differ between disciplines. The current project seeks to address theseissues using a sample of criminologists, psychologists, and media scholars. The basic
design of this study was based on that of Ferguson (2015b), albeit with a different
sample and several different research questions.
314

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019criminological 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 notionthat automatic modeling from media (whether of positive or negative behaviors)
may occur more readily than other fields may believe. Particularly given that modeling/social learning theory is itself a core product of psychology, psychologists may beparticularly keen to apply this theory to video game influences and even extend this
into criminological issues.
Perhaps surprisingly, much of the debate on video game violence influences has
progressed without consideration of criminological analyses, even when criminological outcomes are considered (although see Markey, Markey & French, 2015b). This is
not to say that criminologists have been inactive in considering media violence effects.
For instance, criminologists have meta-analyzed links between media violence andserious physically aggressive behavior (Savage & Yancey, 2008). Other scholars haveexamined whether genetics could explain links between television viewing and adultcrime (Schwartz & Beaver, 2016) or whether video games could influence copycat
criminal behavior (Surette & Maze, 2015). However, sound criminological input hasoften been lacking from much of this debate.
One possibility is that criminologists are less invested in the video game violenceissue than are psychologists. Although speculative, this may be because media effects
theory is largely a product of social psychology, whereas criminology is concernedwith other matters. Criminologists may also be less inclined to consider the minor
acts of aggression studied in social psychology laboratories as analogous to serious
acts of violence in the real world. Criminologists are also accustomed to multivariate
analyses of risk factors with an interest in studying which factors have the greatest
impact on crime and may have less interest in factors they perceive as having aminor or negligible influence on crime. As such, criminologists may be less inclined
to “buy” the argument raised by some social psychologists (e.g. Anderson, 2011;
Saleem & Anderson, 2012) that video game influences on relevant behaviors are
similar or greater in magnitude compared to abusive parenting or poverty, having
spent more time directly studying the influence of these issues among actual offender
populations.
Taken together, it may be possible that concerns about media may be discipline
specific. This has not yet, to our knowledge, been tested empirically.

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

Several hypotheses were tested. Based on prior research or gaps in the same, it was
hypothesized that:
H1: Older scholars would hold more negative attitudes about video games than younger
scholars.
H2: Scholars who held more negative attitudes toward youth would also hold more negative
attitudes toward video games.

H4: Once prior experience with video games is controlled, age will no longer predict negative
attitudes toward video games.
H5: Criminologists, being more experienced with crime data, would hold more skeptical
attitudes regarding links between violent games and youth assaults specifically (as opposed togeneral negative attitudes toward games) than other scholars.

Methods
ParticipantsParticipants in this study were 175 criminologists, psychologists, media scholars, anda small number of scholars who did not identify with any of those three categories(i.e. pediatric or psychiatric researchers, etc.). The mean age of the sample was 39.81(SD = 12.73).1 Regarding gender, 59.4% were male, with the majority of the sample
identifying as Caucasian (90.6%). Regarding discipline, 26.9% identified as criminologists, 39.4% identified as communication/media scholars and 23.4% identified
as psychologists, with the remainder as “other” scholars. Overall, the sample did not
spend significant weekly time with video games. Mean time spent gaming per week
was 3.63 hours (SD = 0.44), with the mode reply, 0 hours (n = 80; 45.7%).
Materials

All instruments described below used a 5-item Likert scale and demonstrated adequate psychometric properties unless otherwise discussed. All items were embedded
in a larger survey which contained 22 distractor items, as well as two checks for unreliable reporting. One was “Please mark this item as 4,” and the other “Great white sharks
make excellent family pets (answer truthfully not humorously).” Based on responses
to these checks, 22 respondents were removed from a dataset of 196, leaving a sample
of 175.
Negative attitudes towards videogames

Eight scale items were adapted from the Quandt et al. (2015) study (e.g. “The
addiction effect of video games on kids and teens are a problem for society”). The
items chosen covered mental health as well as aggressive behavior (e.g. “Using video
games in health interventions has potential”). Coefficient alpha was 0.75 for thismeasure.
Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

315

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

H3: Sanctimoniousness would be predictive of negative attitudes toward video games.

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Negative attitudes towards youth

A 4-item scale was used from Ferguson (2015b), but one item was removed due topoor reliability with the other three items (“kids and teens today are more narcissistic than they were in previous generations”). The aim was to measure perceptions ofworsening qualities in youth. Coefficient alpha for this measure was 0.77.
Sanctimonious self-deception

Demographics

Participants were also asked about their age, gender, ethnicity, discipline (criminology,
psychology, etc.), and hours spent video gaming in a typical week over the previous
6 months. This final variable demonstrated significant skew given a high frequency(45.7%) of scholars who reported no video game exposure at all in a typical week.
OLS regression is generally robust to non-normal variables (Wilcox, 2012), nonetheless, the analyses involving this variable were run both with and without square-root
transformation to correct the skew.
Procedure

Surveys were put online through SNAP software. Participants were recruited from avariety of sources to attempt maximum representativeness. This included listserves
for scholars including through APA listserves as well as social media pages for psychologists, media scholars, and criminologists. This resulted in a high number ofpsychologist and media scholar respondents. Criminologists (including criminal justice scholars) were further sampled through the PsycINFO data base using the subject
search term (crime OR crimin*). The corresponding authors of the first 200 studies
so identified were solicited via email. Forty-seven criminologists responded giving a
23.5% response rate. This response rate appears to be fairly normative for an external sampling approach, particularly without compensation (Kaplowitz, Hadlock, &Levine, 2004). Given that direct recruiting was not used for media scholars or psychologists, response rate is not known for these groups. The resultant sample is, ofcourse, nonrandom. No compensation was offered for participation.
Despite the nonrandom nature of the sampling procedure, the resultant sample
generally resembled the professional populations from which they were drawn on
key demographics. First, the overall gender and age demographics were similar to
those of a previous sample of media scholars (Quandt et al., 2015, M age = 36.05;
males = 64%). Our sample of criminologists closely matched published membershipdata for the Academy of Criminal Justice Scientists (2015; M age = 40.28 vs. 47.13)
although male gender was higher in our sample (male gender = 74.5 vs. 61.2% for
ACJS members with academic appointments. However, proportion of male ACJS
316

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

This refers to self-perceptions of higher morality than others. The measure used was
the 20 item “impression management” scale from the Balanced Inventory for Desirable Responding (BIDR; Paulhus, 1991). An example question is “I always obey lawseven if I am unlikely to get caught.” Coefficient alpha was 0.77 for this measure.

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public HealthResults
H1, H2, H3, H4

The first four study hypotheses, namely involving the impact of age, negative attitudes
toward youth, sanctimoniousness, and video game experience influences on video
games were examined using hierarchical stepwise regression. A bivariate correlations
table of age, gender video game experience, and negative attitudes toward video games
is presented in Table 1.
An initial model was statistically significant [R = .365, adj R2 = .128, F(1,170) = 26.21, p < .001]. Multicollinearity diagnostics were negative with highest
VIF at 1.121. These results are presented in Table 2. This model included only negative attitudes toward youth (β = .365) as predictor of negative attitudes toward video
games. A second model including age also proved to be significant [R = .414, adj
R2 = .162, F(2, 169) = 17.51, p < .001]. This model retained negative attitudes toward
youth (β = .353) but also included age as a significant predictor of negative attitudes
Table 1 Bivariate Relationships Between Age, Gender, Video Game Experience, andNegative Attitudes Toward Video Games
Variable

1

2

3

4

1. Age2. Gender
3. Video game experience
4. Negative attitudes toward video games

1.00

−.047
1.00

−.307∗
−.024
1.00

.219∗
.063
−.436∗
1.00∗ p < .01.

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

317

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

members with tenured positions was 69.5% similar to our sample). Data on genderamong media scholars were similar for our sample as for the membership of theInternational Communication Association (personal communication with Julie
Randolph, October 2016, 50.7% male vs. 48.2%). However, the ICA did not track
age data. Data for psychologists were similar for male gender as for full membersof the Association for Psychological Science (2016; 61.0 vs. 54.2% of APS members
who reported their gender), as clear demographic information for APA membershipwas not available to the authors at the time of this writing. Age information was
not available from the Association for Psychological Science. Thus, though certainly
few samples are perfect, what data are available suggest that our sample generally
resembled the populations from which they were drawn in regards to demographics.
Data were analyzed using SPSS software. Hierarchical regression with stepwise
analyses was used to assess age, gender, video game experience, attitudes toward
youth, and sanctimoniousness influences on attitudes toward video games. All variables other than video game experience were added on the first step, with video game
experience added on the second step to assess whether this variable would accountfor any age effect. Pairwise deletion was used for all regressions.

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Table 2 Prediction of Negative Attitudes Toward Video Games Among Scholars
Variable

Beta

t-Testp-Value.365(.230, .486)

5.12

<.001

.353
.195

(.216, .476)(.049, .333)

5.02
2.77

<.001
=.006

.309
.086
−.367

(.169, .437)

4.71
1.26
−5.33

<.001
=.210
<.001

(−.232, −.488)

toward video games (β = .195). Neither gender nor sanctimoniousness predicted
negative attitudes toward video games in these models, nor the third. These results
support H1 and H2, but not H3.
In the third model, exposure to video games was added to the equations on asecond hierarchical step. This was done to test the possibility that experience withvideo games rather than age per se may be the defining characteristic regarding negative attitudes toward video games. The resultant model was statistically significant[R = .540, adj R2 = .279, F(3, 168) = 23.05, p < .001]. Both video game experience(β = −.367) and negative attitudes toward youth (β = .309) predicted negative attitudes toward video games. Neither gender nor sanctimoniousness predicted negative
attitudes toward video games nor, with video game experience in the equation, didage (β = .086). This suggests that video game experience, rather than age, is the most
crucial variable of the two, in regards to negative attitudes toward video games. Whenthe results were rerun using the square-root transformation to correct the skew inthe experience variable, results did not significantly change, although the experiencevariable did increase in magnitude (β = −.486). These results support H4.
H5

The final hypothesis related to different scholars’ opinions about whether violent
video games contribute to youth assaults in the real world, examining the specificresponse to this item. Current results reflected general skepticism on this topic, with
only 15.3% of scholars agreeing or strongly agreeing with the potential for links and70.1% disagree or strongly disagreeing. However, a one-way ANOVA was used to
examine whether criminologists were more skeptical than psychologists or media
scholars about links between video games and youth assaults.
Results were significant [F(2, 154) = 3.919, p = .022, r = .158, 95% CI = .010,.299]. Both criminologists (M = 1.979, SD = 0.944) and media scholars (M = 1.971,
SD = 1.248) were more skeptical of violent video game effects than were psychologists (M = 2.561, SD = 1.205). Bonferroni post hoc tests indicated that psychologicalscholars significantly differed from media scholars (p = .031) and criminologists
318

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Model 1
Negative attitude toward youth
Model 2
Negative attitude toward youth
Age
Model 3
Negative attitude toward youth
Age
Video game experience

95% Confidence Interval

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health(p = .058) just above the threshold for significance on attitudes toward video gameviolence, but media scholars and criminologists did not differ (p = 1.00). Thus, H5
was partially supported.
Follow-up exploratory analyses: Profession and video game experience

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

319

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Planned analyses demonstrated relationships between both profession as well as video
game experience and negative attitudes toward youth in predicting negative attitudes
toward video games. One question that arises is whether these are separate processes
or somehow related. For instance, media scholars may hold more positive attitudes
toward video games for disciplinary reasons, or may simply play more video games
than do psychologists. With this in mind, we conducted further, exploratory analyses. To do so, we created dummy codes for each of the professions, media scholars,
criminologists, and psychologists.
First, we examined whether particular disciplines were associated with more negative attitudes toward youth. Bivariate analyses revealed no effect for media scholars(r = .06, p = .425), or criminologists (r = −.122, p = .109). Results for psychologists
just missed the threshold for significance (r = .148, p = .051). All effect sizes were verysmall, suggesting minimal disciplinary relationship with negative attitudes toward
youth. Thus, processes related to discipline and attitudes toward youth will be considered largely distinct.
Related to the matter of experience with video games, however, a clear relationship emerged between media scholars and greater experience playing video games(r = .374, p < .001). By contrast criminologists played fewer video games (r = −.250,
p = .001). Results for psychologists were nonsignificant (r = −.136, p = .072). Thus,
disciplines do clearly differ in relation to their exposure to video games. For media
scholars, greater exposure may not be unexpected. However, these correlations did
not line up with attitudes toward video games, which were worst for psychologists, notcriminologists. This suggests that disciplinary differences cannot be ascribed wholly
to exposure to games, particularly for differences between psychologists and criminologists. Experience with video games was not related to negative attitudes toward
youth (r = −.139, p = .067).
Examining this further, we reran the hierarchical stepwise regression, removing the nonsignificant sanctimonious variable and adding the profession dummycode variables on the second step and hours spent gaming on the third. As before,
negative attitudes toward youth (β = .355, p < .001) and hours gaming (β = −.220,
p = .001) were predictive of negative attitudes toward video games. Of the professions,only media scholars (β = −.394, p < .001) were predictive of attitudes toward video
games. The overall model was significant [R = .650, adj R2 = .409, F(4, 168) = 30.77,
p < .001].
Reanalyzing this regression with video games and youth assaults specifically as
outcome, results indicated that only male gender (β = −.180, p = .016), and psychology profession (β = .165, p = .028). The overall model was significant [R = .292, adj
R2 = .069, F(3, 168) = 5.23, p = .002].

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Discussion

320

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Debate continues among academics regarding the potential negative impact of video
games on youth, including in realms such as violence (Bean & Groth-Marnat, 2016),
addictions (Griffiths et al., in press), as well as positive effects such as educational benefits (Annetta, 2010). Thus, it may be helpful to understand why scholars may look atsimilar groups of data and come to very different conclusions. This study sought toaddress this issue with a sample of 175 scholars, most of whom were criminologists,
psychologists, and media scholars. It is worth noting that our sample was not a gaming sample with almost half the participants (45.7%) reporting no video game playing
experience at all.
In relation to the study hypotheses that age (H1), negative attitudes toward youth(H2), and sanctimoniousness (H3), results supported the first two hypotheses, but
not the third. Scholars who are older and who hold more negative attitudes toward
youth are also more likely to endorse negative views toward video games. This is consistent with previous work with both clinicians (Ferguson, 2015b) and the generalpublic (Przybylski, 2014). The relationship between age and negative attitudes toward
video games is not surprising, as this is consistent with the expectations of MPT andprevious generational struggles over media. The correlation with negative attitudes
toward youth themselves is interesting, however, suggesting that fears of new media
may relate to broader fears about youth and the loss of control over popular culture
perceived by some older adults. This observation is consistent with the concept ofjuvenoia (Finkelhor, 2010) or the fear of youth by some older adults. Finkelhor has
proposed the concept of juvenoia as one aspect that drives technopanic or extreme
alarmist responses to and claims about new media.
The null result for sanctimoniousness perpetuates continued difficulty identifying
personality variables that may influence attitudes toward video games. It’s possiblethat negative attitudes toward video games may have little to do with intrapersonalqualities and may simply be generational or a product of generational struggles. Of
course, it may simply be that intrapersonal variables that predict attitudes toward new
media haven’t been identified yet.
Given that age is a predictor of negative attitudes toward video games, it is possiblethat negative attitudes toward video games may have less to do with age per se, andmore to do with experience gaming. Some prior research (e.g. Ivory & Kalyanaraman, 2009) has indicated that people tend to be more afraid of video games in the
abstract, with fewer concerns once exposed to games. Thus H4 tested whether experience gaming was more crucial than age in predicting attitudes toward video games.
Indeed, results indicated that this is the case. It may be that fears of video games thriveon unfamiliarity. To the extent that older adults’ knowledge of video games is limited
to short but alarming news clips, older adults may not be fully informed of the video
game experience. It’s worth noting that our study only considered scholars’ current
gaming experience. It’s possible some scholars may have had past gaming experienceor children who game and these exposures may also influence attitudes.

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

321

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Results also indicate disciplinary differences in scholars’ perceptions of thevideo game violence debate (H5). Overall, scholars were skeptical that violent video
games contribute to youth assaults with only 15.3% endorsing such views and 70.1%
opposed. Nonetheless, results indicated that psychologists were more inclined toendorse direct links than were either criminologists or media and communication
scholars. One reason for this may be that media effects theories are largely a productof social psychology and psychologists may be more familiar with and supportiveof such beliefs than other scholars. Further, psychologists’ main advocacy organization, the APA, has promoted negative beliefs about violent video games, often to
considerable controversy.
Overall results indicate that scholars disagree widely regarding video game influences and that scholars do not appear to be immune to the types of generational andexperience effects that influence opinions in the general public. These observations
offer cautions that scholarly pronouncements on video games may often reflect generational biases rather than careful and consistent reflections of good data. With thisin mind, it may be unwise for professional advocacy organizations such as the APA totake strong stances one way or another on media effects as beliefs in such effects may
prove to be ephemeral and emotional rather than objective.
These results suggest that the pattern of age and experience related opinions
about new media, often tied toward hostility to youth themselves, are in keepingwith those expected by MPT (Gauntlett, 2005). Scholars appear to be no moreimmune to these patterns than are members of the general public. This is important
to examine further to the degree that scholars may be called upon to provide “studies”
specifically designed to support a pre-existing moral panic. This phenomenon wason vivid display following the 2012 Sandy Hook shooting when politicians such as
Senator Jay Rockefeller called for “studies” of violent video games while specifyingthat such studies would be used to promote antigame regulation (Boleik, 2012),
although it turned out the shooter, Adam Lanza, was more interested in nonviolent
games such as Dance, Dance Revolution than violence (see State’s Attorney for the
Judicial District of Danbury, 2013).
There are numerous possible causal chains that might explain links between
discipline, negative attitudes toward youth, video game experience, and negative
attitudes toward video games. Given that current data are correlational, no causal
attributions can be made. However, we did conduct exploratory analyses to consider
links between predictor variables. Analyses suggest that links between negative
attitudes toward youth and negative attitudes toward video games operated independently of factors related to discipline and video game experience. By contrast,
media scholars did tend to have more video game experience compared to otherprofessions. However, this appears unsatisfactory in explaining concerns about youth
assaults given that criminologists were not avid game players, yet remained skepticalregarding links between video games and youth assaults. By contrast, psychologists
were clearly more inclined to link video games to youth assaults.

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Limitations and concluding thoughts

As with all studies, this study has limitations. Being correlational, causal inferences
cannot be made. Further, the sample is nonrandom, reducing generalizability to thescholarly community at large. Although our sample appeared to generally resemble
the populations of scholars from which they were drawn in regards to demographics,
it is possible that our sampling procedures introduced some unknown biases. For
instance, given our survey was online, it’s possible that we may have under-sampled
older scholars, although a descriptive examination of age indicated no skew. Further,it may have been useful to consider other groups of scholars such as pediatricians.
One past study (Bushman et al., 2015a) did examine pediatricians; however, thissample was limited to a very small and selected group of pediatricians who have been
active in shaping media policy for the American Academy of Pediatrics, anotherprofessional advocacy group with controversial statements on media effects. Thus,
this group of pediatricians is not representative of pediatricians in general andmight have been expected to harbor particularly antimedia views. Further studies
with other groups of scholars would be welcome, as would consideration of how
wording differences may influence survey results. As one consideration, our analysis did not consider differences between countries. Given that moral panics canoften be culturally specific, further studies may wish to engage in a cross-national
comparison of attitudes. Lastly, our study focused on video games or, in relation
to youth violence, violent video games as whole, abstract constructs. It could beinteresting for further research to examine scholarly reactions to specific genres suchas shooter games or massively multiplayer online games that have been particularly
322

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

These disciplinary differences may be related to ways in which each of these disciplines approaches the issue of both video games and youth aggression. It is possiblethat media scholars may innately hold more positive attitudes toward media andmedia influences overall, both consuming more media and viewing media influencesmore optimistically than other disciplines. In some respects, the difference between
criminologist and psychologists is more intriguing as this cannot be explained as due
to experience with games that may be defensive in nature. Part of the issue may bethat beliefs in harmful video game beliefs are themselves a product of psychologicaltheory, which can focus on automatic modeling of even relatively trivial stimuli. By
contrast, although criminologists do sometimes concern themselves with media (e.g.
Savage, 2004; Schwartz & Beaver, 2016) they often view media as being too distal,as compared to family violence, poverty, or even genetics, to influence assaultive
behavior. Although there certainly are experimental criminologists, criminologists
have not been actively involved in laboratory experiments of aggression, and may be
more skeptical than psychologists regarding the applicability of these experiments
to real life aggression and assaults. Thus, disciplines may differ in how they perceive
the power of media, the readiness and innateness of modeling behavior, and thegeneralizability of minor aggressive acts typically studied in laboratory experiments
to serious acts of violence in the real world.

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public HealthNote
1 Due to chance, the mean age of this sample is similar to that of Ferguson (2015). However,
the two samples are independent. The age variable was rechecked and verified.

References
Aarseth, E., Bean, A. M., Boonen, H., Colder-Carras, M., Coulson, M., Das, D., & van Rooij,
A. (in press). Scholars’ open debate paper on the World Health Organization ICD-11
gaming disorder proposal. Journal of Behavioral Addictions.
Adachi, P. C., Hodson, G., Willoughby, T., Blank, C., & Ha, A. (2016). From outgroups toallied forces: Effect of intergroup cooperation in violent and nonviolent video games onboosting favorable outgroup attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,145(3), 259–265. doi:10.1037/xge0000145.
Adachi, P. C., & Willoughby, T. (2013). More than just fun and games: The longitudinal
relationships between strategic video games, self-reported problem solving skills, andacademic grades. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42(7), 1041–1052.
doi:10.1007/s10964-013-9913-9.
American Psychological Association. (2015). APA review confirms link between playing
violent video games and aggression. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/news/press/
releases/2015/08/violent-video-games.aspx
Anderson, C.. (2011). Video game effects on children and adolescents. Retrieved from http://
www.learningtoendabuse.ca/sites/default/files/Craig_Anderson.pdf
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. Psychological Bulletin, 136(2), 151–173.
doi:10.1037/a0018251.
Annetta, L. A. (2010). The ‘I’s’ have it: A framework for serious educational game design.
Review of General Psychology, 14(2), 105–112. doi:10.1037/a0018985.
Bean, A., & Groth-Marnat, G. (2016). Video gamers and personality: A five factor model tounderstand game playing style. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5(1), 27–38.
doi:10.1037/ppm0000025.
Ben-Yahuda, N. (2009). Moral panics – 36 years on. British Journal of Criminology, 49, 1–3.
Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

323

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019stereotyped as being associated with negative outcomes such as aggression andaddiction.
Scholarly consensus on media effects continues to prove difficult to achieve. If theresults of Murray (1984) are accurate, then data seem to suggest that scholarly attitudes toward media effects, at least related to aggression and violence, have become
significantly more skeptical over the past 30 years. Exactly why this is remains unclear,although given that the past 40 years of media violence research have been marked byoften dramatic claims of harm, claims that have seldom materialized (Savage, 2004),
current scholarly skepticism may reflect an inevitable course adjustment. Understanding how and why scholarly opinions change over time can be very valuable in understanding the sociology of media effects beliefs in the scholarly community and how
these influence the general public and public policy.

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell324

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Boleik, B. (2012). Senator Jay Rockefeller: Study video game violence. Politico. Retrieved fromhttp://www.politico.com/story/2012/12/sen-jay-rockefeller-wants-shooter-games-andviolence-studied-85298.html
Bowman, N. D. (2016). The rise (and refinement) of moral panic. In R. Kowert & T. Quandt(Eds.), The video game debate: Unraveling the physical, social, and psychological effects ofdigital games (pp. 22–38). New York: Routledge.
Breuer, J., Kowert, R., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2015). Sexist games = sexist gamers? A
longitudinal study on the relationship between video game use and sexist attitudes.
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 18(4), 197–202.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2014.0492.
Brown v EMA. (2011). Retrieved from: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/081448.pdf
Bushman, B. J., Gollwitzer, M., & Cruz, C. (2015a). There is broad consensus: Media
researchers agree that violent media increase aggression in children, and pediatricians
and parents concur. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(3), 200–214.
doi:10.1037/ppm0000046.
Bushman, B. J., Gollwitzer, M., & Cruz, C. (2015b). Agreement across stakeholders isconsensus: Response to Ivory et al. (2015). Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(3),230–235. doi:10.1037/ppm0000061.
Cohen, S. (1972). Folk devils and moral panics. London: MacGibbon and Kee.
Consortium of Scholars. (2013). Scholars’ open statement to the APA task force on violent
media. Retrieved from http://www.christopherjferguson.com/APA%20Task%20Force%20Comment1.pdf
Cooper, J., & Mackie, D. (1986). Video games and aggression in children. Journal of AppliedSocial Psychology, 16(8), 726–744. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1986.tb01755.x.
Critcher, R. (2009). Widening the focus: Moral panics as moral regulation. British Journal of
Criminology, 49, 17–34.
Desai, R. A., Krishnan-Sarin, S., Cavallo, D., & Potenza, M. N. (2010). Video-gaming amonghigh school students: Health correlates, gender differences, and problematic gaming.
Pediatrics, 126(6), e1414–e1424. doi:10.1542/peds.2009-2706.
Dominick, J. R. (1984). Videogames, television violence, and aggression in teenagers. Journalof Communication, 34, 136–147.
Elson, M., Mohseni, M., Breuer, J., Scharkow, M., & Quandt, T. (2014). Press CRTT tomeasure aggressive behavior: The unstandardized use of the competitive reaction timetask in aggression research. Psychological Assessment, 26(2), 419–432.
doi:10.1037/a0035569.
Engelhardt, C. R., Mazurek, M. O., Hilgard, J., Rouder, J. N., & Bartholow, B. D. (2015).
Effects of violent-video-game exposure on aggressive behavior, aggressive-thought
accessibility, and aggressive affect among adults with and without autism spectrum
disorder. Psychological Science, 26(8), 1187–1200. doi:10.1177/0956797615583038.
Etchells, P., & Chambers, C. (2014). Violent video games research: consensus or confusion?
The Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/head-quarters/2014/
oct/10/violent-video-games-research-consensus-or-confusion
Ferguson, C. J. (2015a). Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video
game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial
behavior and academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 646–666.

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

325

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Ferguson, C. J. (2015b). Clinicians’ attitudes toward video games vary as a function of age,gender and negative beliefs about youth: A sociology of media research approach.
Computers in Human Behavior, 52, 379–386.
Ferguson, C. J., Nielsen, R. K. L., & Maguire, R. (in press). Do older adults hate video games
until they play them? A proof-of-concept study. Current Psychology.
Ferguson, C. J., Trigani, B., Pilato, S., Miller, S., Foley, K., & Barr, H. (2015). Violent video
games don’t increase hostility in teens but they do stress girls out. Psychiatric Quarterly,87(1), 49–56.
Finkelhor, D. (2010). The internet, youth deviance and the problem of ‘juvenoia.’ Presented at
the Justice Studies Colloqium (22 October 2010). Retrieved from http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/mar/15/precognition-studies-curse-failed-replications
Fox, J., & DeLateur, M. (2014). Mass shootings in America: Moving beyond Newtown.
Homicide Studies, 18(1), 125–145. doi:10.1177/1088767913510297.
Gauntlett, D. (2005). Moving experiences: Understanding television’s influences and effects.
Luton, UK: John Libbey.
Griffiths, M. D., Van Rooij, A., Kardefelt-Winther, D., Starcevic, V., Király, O., & Demetrovics,
Z. (in press). Working towards an international consensus on criteria for assessing
Internet Gaming Disorder: A critical commentary on Petry et al (2014). Addiction.
Himmelweit, H., & Swift, B. (1976). Continuities and discontinuities in media usage andtaste: A longitudinal study. Journal of Social Issues, 32(4), 133–156.
doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1976.tb02511.x.
Ivory, J. (2013). Video games as a multifaceted medium: A review of quantitative social
science research on video games and a typology of video game research approaches.
Review of Communication Research, 1(1), 31–68.
Ivory, J., & Kalyanaraman, S. (2009). Video games make people violent – well, maybe notthat game: Effects of content and person abstraction on perceptions of violent video
games’ effects and support of censorship. Communication Reports, 22(1), 1–12.
doi:10.1080/08934210902798536.
Ivory, J. D., Markey, P. M., Elson, M., Colwell, J., Ferguson, C. J., Griffiths, M. D., & Williams,
K. D. (2015). Manufacturing consensus in a diverse field of scholarly opinions: A
comment on Bushman, Gollwitzer, and Cruz (2015). Psychology of Popular Media
Culture, 4(3), 222–229. doi:10.1037/ppm0000056.
Jackson, L. A., Witt, E. A., Games, A., Fitzgerald, H. E., von Eye, A., & Zhao, Y. (2012).
Information technology use and creativity: Findings from the Children and Technology
Project. Computers in Human Behavior, 28(2), 370–376. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2011.10.006.
Kanamori, F., & Doi, S. (2016). Angry birds, angry children and angry meta-analysts.
Perspectives on Psychological Science, 11(3), 408–414.
Kaplowitz, M. D., Hadlock, T. D., & Levine, R. (2004). A comparison of web and mail survey
response rates. Public Opinion Quarterly, 68(1), 94–101. doi:10.1093/poq/nfh006.
Kneer, J., Munko, D., Glock, S., & Bente, G. (2012). Defending the doomed: Implicit
strategies concerning protection of first-person shooter games. Cyberpsychology, Behavior
and Social Networking, 15(5), 251–256. doi:10.1089/cyber.2011.0583.
Konijn, E. A., Nije Bijvank, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). I wish I were a warrior: The role ofwishful identification in the effects of violent video games on aggression in adolescentboys. Developmental Psychology, 43(4), 1038–1044. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.43.4.1038.

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

C. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell326

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

Kowert, R., Vogelgesang, J., Festl, R., & Quandt, T. (2015). Psychosocial causes andconsequences of online video game play. Computers in Human Behavior, 45, 51–58.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.11.074.
Kutner, L., & Olson, C. (2008). Grand theft childhood: The surprising truth about violent video
games and what parents can do. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Lefsrud, L. M., & Meyer, R. E. (2012). Science or science fiction? Professionals’ discursive
construction of climate change. Organization Studies, 33, 1477–1506.
doi:10.1177/0170840612463317.
Markey, P. M., Males, M. A., French, J. E., & Markey, C. N. (2015a). Lessons from Markey
et al. (2015) and Bushman et al. (2015): Sensationalism and integrity in media research.
Human Communication Research, 41(2), 184–203. doi:10.1111/hcre.12057.
Markey, P., Markey, C., & French, J. (2015b). Violent video games and real world violence:
Rhetoric versus data. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(4), 277–295.
doi:10.1037/ppm0000030.
McCarthy, R. J., Coley, S. L., Wagner, M. F., Zengel, B., & Basham, A. (2016). Does playing
video games with violent content temporarily increase aggressive inclinations? A
pre-registered experimental study. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 67, 13–19.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.10.009.
Murray, J. (1984). Results of an informal poll of knowledgeable persons concerning theimpact of television violence. Newsletter of the American Psychological Association
Division of Child, Youth, and Family Services, 7(1), 2.
Paulhus, D. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. Robinson, P. Shaver, & L.
Wrightman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (Vol. 1, pp.
17–60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Przybylski, A. K. (2014). Who believes electronic games cause real world aggression?
Cyberpsychology, Behavior and Social Networking, 17(4), 228–234.
doi:10.1089/cyber.2013.0245.
Przybylski, A., Weinstein, N., & Murayama, K. (in press). Internet gaming disorder:
Investigating the clinical relevance of a new phenomenon. American Journal of Psychiatry.
Quandt, T., & Kroger, S. (2013). Multiplayer: The social aspects of digital gaming. New York:
Routledge.
Quandt, T., van Looy, J., Vogelgesang, J., Elson, M., Ivory, J., Mäyrä, F., & Consalvo, M.
(2015). Digital games research: A survey study on an emerging field and its prevalentdebates. Journal of Communication, 65(6), 975–996. doi:10.1111/jcom.12182.
Quintero-Johnson, J., Banks, J., Bowman, N., Carveth, R., & Lachlan, K.. (2014). Four
respond to 228, responding to the APA: Dissent within the academy regarding media
violence. Symposium presented at the Eastern Communication Association, April, 2014
in Providence, Rhode Island.
Rieger, D., Frischlich, L., Wulf, T., Bente, G., & Kneer, J. (2015). Eating ghosts: The
underlying mechanisms of mood repair via interactive and noninteractive media.
Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(2), 138–154. doi:10.1037/ppm0000018.
Rothmund, T., Bender, J., Nauroth, P., & Gollwitzer, M. (2015). Public concerns about violent
video games are moral concerns—how moral threat can make pacifists susceptible toscientific and political claims against violent video games. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 45(6), 769–783. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2125.
Saleem, M., & Anderson, C. A. (2012). The good, the bad, and the ugly of electronic media. In
J. Dvoskin, J. L. Skeem, R. W. Novaco, & K. S. Douglas (Eds.), Using social science toC. J. Ferguson & J. Colwell

Opinions on Video Game Inﬂuences on Public Health

Journal of Communication 67 (2017) 305–327 © 2017 International Communication Association

327

Downloaded from https://academic.oup.com/joc/article-abstract/67/3/305/4642146 by guest on 14 March 2019

reduce violent offending (pp. 83–101). New York: Oxford University Press. Retrieved fromhttps://public.psych.iastate.edu/caa/abstracts/2010-2014/12SA.pdf.
Savage, J. (2004). Does viewing violent media really cause criminal violence? Amethodological review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 10, 99–128.
Savage, J., & Yancey, C. (2008). The effects of media violence exposure on criminal
aggression: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 1123–1136.
Schwartz, J., & Beaver, K. (2016). Revisiting the association between television viewing inadolescence and contact with the criminal justice system in adulthood. Journal ofInterpersonal Violence, 31(14), 2387–2411. doi:10.1177/0886260515576970.
Sherry, J. (2007). Violent video games and aggression: Why can’t we find links? In R. Preiss,
B. Gayle, N. Burrell, M. Allen, & J. Bryant (Eds.), Mass media effects research: Advances
through meta-analysis (pp. 231–248). Mahwah, NJ: L. Erlbaum.
Simons, D. J., Boot, W. R., Charness, N., Gathercole, S. E., Chabris, C. F., Hambrick, D. Z., &Stine-Morrow, E. L. (2016). Do ‘brain-training’ programs work? Psychological Science in
the Public Interest, 17(3), 103–186. doi:10.1177/1529100616661983.
Spence, I., & Feng, J. (2010). Video games and spatial cognition. Review of General
Psychology, 14(2), 92–104. doi:10.1037/a0019491.
State’s Attorney for the Judicial District of Dansbury. (2013). Report of the State’s Attorney
for the Judicial District of Danbury on the Shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary Schooland 36 Yogananda Street, Newtown, Connecticut on December 14, 2012. Danbury, CT:
Office of the State’s Attorney Judicial District of Danbury.
Surette, R., & Maze, A. (2015). Video game play and copycat crime: An exploratory analysisof an inmate population. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 4(4), 360–374.
doi:10.1037/ppm0000050.
Thompson, K. (2008). The classic moral panic: Mods and rockers. In R. Heiner (Ed.),
Deviance across cultures (pp. 60–68). New York: Oxford University Press.
Wilcox, R. (2012). Modern statistics for the social and behavioral sciences: A practical
introduction. New York: CRC Press.
Wofford, T.. (2015). APA says video games make you violent, but critics cry bias. Retrieved
from http://www.newsweek.com/apa-video-games-violence-364394