This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.

This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Commentaries
Twenty-Five Years of Research
on Violence in Digital Games
and Aggression Revisited
A Reply to Elson and Ferguson (2013)
Brad J. Bushman1,2 and L. Rowell Huesmann3,4
1

School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA,

VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 3Communication Studies, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 4Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, UK

Abstract. In this commentary, we first analyze Elson and Fergusons (2013) attempt to
offer a theory that would explain why exposure to family, community, school, and
media violence could be related to increased aggression, but not cause such aggression.
We conclude that the new theory they offer is not very new. It differs from
dominant social learning theories only in its claim that the relation between exposure
to violence and aggression is almost entirely due to people who are genetically or
biologically predisposed to be aggressive also exposing themselves to more violence.
We show this assertion is strongly contradicted by existing experimental and
longitudinal data. We also show that Elson and Fergusons so-called exhaustive
review of empirical data on the topic is seriously flawed; that their claim that effect
sizes are trivial is not supported by the math; and that their claim that scholars who
believe that violent video games cause aggression are an extreme group in a divided
field is contradicted by surveys that show the vast majority of researchers believe
violent video games increase aggression. We point out that their claim that scholars
who believe in media violence effects are having a moral panic has no theoretical or
empirical support, whereas the contrasting argument that researchers who produce
violent media themselves, or use it extensively, are biased by the force of cognitive
consistency and experience a reactance of regulatory panic does have support from
psychological theory.
Keywords: violent video games, aggression, violence

In their review of 25 years of research on the link between

video games and aggression, Elson and Ferguson (2013)
conclude that much of this research has been undercut
by methodological limitations, and that the evidence linking violent video game play to aggression is, at best,
mixed. We disagree with these conclusions and with many
other points in their article, and we will explain why in this
reply. Before we critique other details of their article, however, we would like to make a more general point that has
long applied to most claims that media violence has no
2013 Hogrefe Publishing

effects. For decades both therapists and researchers have

compiled evidence showing that observing violence
in the home (Cummings & Davies, 1994; Gelles, 2007;
Kitzmann, Gaylord, Hold, & Kenny, 2003), at school or
in the community (Guerra, Huesmann, & Spindler, 2003;
Richters & Martinez, 1993; Schwartz & Proctor, 2000),
and in the culture (Boxer et al., 2013; Cummings et al.,
2010; Henrich & Shahar, 2013) is harmful to children.
How, then, could viewing violence in the mass media not
be harmful to children? What psychological theory would
European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755
DOI: 10.1027/1016-9040/a000164

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

48

Commentaries

explain how observing violence in the home, school, community, or culture would increase the risk of violence but
observing it in the mass media or in video games would
not increase the risk?
Most writers who have denied that media violence has
any effects have avoided this issue and not discussed any theory. To their credit, Elson and Ferguson (2013) finally try to
address this issue by presenting their Catalyst theory,
which proposes that an aggression-prone personality develops mostly through biological and genetic dispositions that
are moderated by environmental aspects. The catalysts
they list are stressors like financial or relationship difficulties,
but also factors like having delinquent peers. In other words,
almost any environmental factor can moderate predispositions. Thus, there is nothing new in their theory, and it cannot
explain the obtained results of most media violence studies.
In fact, Elson and Ferguson have simply summarized the
dominant conclusions of a century of social, developmental,
and personality psychology with one different emphasis
biological and genetic dispositions. Even the term catalyst
is inferior to the term calibration that evolutionary psychologists have used to explain now environmental forces
modify genetic predispositions. Their summary is not a theory or a model, and it is certainly not falsifiable, except for
its predictions about the effects of exposure to violence that
already have been falsified. Nor are most of their assertions
different from the underlying assertions of the theories they
are trying to replace the General Aggression Model (GAM;
e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002), social learning theory
(e.g., Bandura, 1977), cognitive associationistic theory
(e.g., Berkowitz, 1990), social-information-processing theory (e.g., Dodge, 1986), script theory (e.g., Huesmann,
1988), evolutionary theory (e.g., Buss & Shackelford,
1997) except in the degree the emphasis is put on genetic
predispositions. Elson and Ferguson write that the aggression-prone personality develops mostly due to biological
and genetic dispositions. We know of no current aggression
researchers who do not believe there are important biological
predisposing factors (including genetically caused ones) that
make aggression more or less likely. The difference is that
most scholars, looking at decades of research, have concluded that these predisposing factors are not the lone or even
the main cause of aggression, but they strongly interact with
learning (both conditioning and observational learning) to
determine encoded social-cognitive structures that influence
behavior. Situational factors then precipitate aggressive
behaviors by stimulating aggressive emotions and thoughts
(Bandura, 1977; Berkowitz, 1962; Caspi, Taylor, Moffitt,
& Plomin, 2000; Dodge, Bates, Pettit, 1990; Eron, Walder,
& Lefkowitz, 1971; Huesmann & Kirwil, 2007).
Finally, let us consider the two key characteristics
that Elson and Ferguson claim for their theory. First, they
say that it considers individuals (to be) active modelers of their own behavior (p. 4). This is certainly true,
but not new, as every scholar who has studied self-perception theory or observational learning from Bandura
on has concluded. Children observe their own behavior
(as well as others) and draw conclusions from their

European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755

observations that influence future behavior. Their second

claim is that individuals who are prone to aggression
would seek out situations in which aggressive models
can be observed. But, again, this is nothing new. For
example, social-comparison theory posits that aggressive
children would feel less bad about themselves if they
could expose themselves to other aggressive children in
real life or in the mass media (Huesmann, Moise-Titus,
Podolski, & Eron, 2003).
The real question should be: Can Elson and Fergusons
(2013) theorizing explain the obtained experimental and
longitudinal data on relating the observation of violence
to aggression. The answer is that it cannot.
First, how could genetic predispositions explain the
results of experiments when participants are exposed to violent or nonviolent media by random assignment? The only
possible answer would be that only aggressive people are
affected and, by comparing means for groups, the individual differences are obscured. But analysis after analysis has
shown that even nonaggressive people are affected (Eron,
Huesmann, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1972; Huesmann et al.,
2003).
Second, how could genetic predispositions explain the
influence of exposure to violence in childrens lives
(school, family, community, culture, media) on subsequent
aggression? Elson and Ferguson (2013) would have us
believe that both the exposure and the aggression are due
to genetic predispositions. But analysis after analysis with
longitudinal studies has shown that, even when one controls
for earlier aggression, exposure to community violence
(Boxer et al., 2013; Guerra et al., 2003; Henrich & Shahar,
2013), family violence (Milletich, Kelley, Doane, &
Pearwon, 2010; Smith, Ireland, Park, Elwyn, & Thornberry,
2011), and exposure to media violence (Anderson et al.,
2008; Eron et al., 1972; Hopf, Huber, & Wei, 2008;
Huesmann et al., 2003; Moller & Krahe, 2009; Willoughby,
Adachi, & Good, 2012) predicts subsequent aggression, and
predicts it much better than a youths own aggression predicts subsequent exposure to violence. It also follows from
Elson and Fergusons summary, that nonaggressive people
should not play violent games because they would not seek
them out. This is obviously false.
Elson and Ferguson also state that the GAM and other
social-cognitive learning theories for the development of
aggression are not actually used by clinicians and other professionals in the field of pathological aggression. This criticism might or might not be true, but is largely irrelevant.
These theories were developed primarily with researchers
rather than clinicians in mind. Basically, the GAM integrates social learning theory, social-cognitive theory, script
theory, cognitive neo-association theory, and several other
bio-social-cognitive models. The GAM explicitly takes into
account biological, social, and environmental variables. In
the GAM, individuals are active participants in perceiving,
construing, responding to, and affecting the world around
them. The fact that theoretical articles on GAM have garnered over 1500 citations suggests that it is having an
impact on the field.

2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Commentaries

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Arguing by Making Opponents Seem

More Extreme Than They Are
Let us now turn to commenting on some of the rhetorical
techniques Elson and Ferguson (2013) use to make their
arguments seem more plausible and make the opposing
arguments seem less plausible. To begin with, they use
subtle language to attempt to create an impression that
the scientists who report effects of media violence are
extreme. For example, they often mix the distinction
between playing video games in general and playing
violent video games in particular. For example, they write
about the harm position on digital games again
dropping the term violent (p. 2).
They also write that that the claim that the effect size of
media violence on aggression is similar to the effect size of
smoking is extreme. Similarly, they write that only
extremists would claim that a near universal consensus
exists that media violence causes aggression, and they suggest that it is wrong or extreme to consider the credentials or background of authors in evaluating the
credibility of their positions. However, these are not
extreme positions. They are backed up by evidence as we
describe in the next sections of this commentary.

How Do You Know Whom to Believe

on Debatable Scientific Issues?
Elson and Ferguson (2013) argue that it is wrong or
extreme to consider the credentials or background of
authors in evaluating the credibility of their position
(p. 2). We disagree. Glib, excellent, writers can weave a
compelling story that can sound very convincing but be
completely false. Of course, the scientific quality of any
empirical study is key, as is the scientific rigor and consistency of any proposed theory. In science, peer reviewers
evaluate these arguments prior to publication, but published
arguments are also evaluated by the scientific reputation of
the source (journal, press, etc.) in which they appear and by
the credentials of the author. These help particularly when
there are disagreeing opinions about the meaning of published research.
Elson and Ferguson (2013) raise the argument against
considering researchers expertise in the context of the discussion of who wrote and signed the competing briefs that
were filled before the US Supreme Court case about violent
video games (Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA), 2011). In this case, the court ruled that a California law forbidding minors from buying violent video games
themselves was a violation of the First Amendment to the US
Constitution. We find it interesting that, after making the
argument that one should not consider the expertise of people
who offer an opinion, Elson and Ferguson attempt to draw on
the perceived high status of the US Supreme Court to reinforce their claim that media violence has no effects, even
though most justices have no scientific expertise. Elson and
Ferguson write, In this court case, the majority decision of
2013 Hogrefe Publishing

49

the Supreme Court emphasized that the evidence presented

by the state of California in its attempt to ban violent digital
game sales to minors was not compelling. This is a distortion of the facts. The case was decided on the basis of the First
Amendment, not on the basis of scientific evidence
(Bushman & Pollard-Sacks, 2013). The justice who wrote
the majority opinion (Scalia) admits that he did not read
any of the scientific articles offered to support the California
law, but simply quoted from the Entertainment Software
Industrys briefs in support of his argument that the evidence was not compelling that video game violence was
harmful. The one justice who did read the studies (Breyer)
wrote a 19-page dissenting opinion (the majority opinion was
18 pages) that concluded: There are many scientific studies
that support Californias views. Social scientists, for example, have found causal evidence that playing these games
results in harm. Longitudinal studies, 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 games (Brown v.
EMA, 2011, pp. 6869). To support his position, Justice Breyer lists 115 peer-reviewed articles (10 include Bushman and
4 included Huesmann as an author) in Appendix A that find
harmful effects for violent video games, and only 34 studies
(12 include Ferguson and 0 include Elson as an author) in
Appendix B that find no harmful effects for violent video
games. Breyer wisely added a disclaimer that he is not a
scientist and cannot be 100% sure of his evaluation of the
literature. Unfortunately, Scalia expressed no reservations
and simply accepted the industry arguments as fact.
Unlike Elson and Ferguson (2013), we think it is appropriate to compare the expertise of the so-called experts
who wrote and signed the two briefs expressing conflicting
opinions about what the scientific evidence shows. The
Gruel brief, filed in support of California, contained an
Appendix written by 13 media violence experts (including
Bushman) and signed by 102 additional scholars (including
Huesmann) in the field who agree that violent games can
harm children. (Not all signers necessarily agreed with
the California law, but they did agree with the research
showing video game violence can be harmful to children.)
Ferguson and 81 other social scientists, medical scientists
and media effects scholars signed the Millett brief, which
claims violent games cause no harm. Three of the signers of
the Millett brief are actually listed as employees of video
game companies, calling in question their ability to offer
an unbiased opinion on the topic. Other signees also have
potential conflicts of interest (e.g., Freedman, whose book
on media violence was funded by the Motion Pictures Producers Association MPAA), or questionable expertise
(e.g., a graduate student in political science, a journalist,
and professors in disciplines that rarely study violent media
effects, including English, Business, History).
A review of the two briefs, side by side, reveals large
differences in expertise (see Pollard-Sacks, Bushman, &
Anderson, 2011). Every one of the authors and 37% of
the Gruel brief signees has published at least one scientific
European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

50

Commentaries

study on media violence. The signees of the Millett brief

have comparatively little expertise on the subject. Only
13% of those signees claiming violent video games are
harmless have published even one study on media violence.
Even more telling, is where the studies were published.
Those who signed the Gruel brief have published over 48
times more studies in top-tier journals (with impact factors
2.5 or greater) than those who signed the Millett brief.
This happens in other fields as well. In the field of global warming, for example, the scientists who publish the
most research in the highest quality journals are the ones
who are most convinced that global warming is occurring
and that human activity is a significant cause (Doran &
Zimmerman, 2009).
Elson and Ferguson (2013) claim that the Pollard-Sacks
et al.s (2011) quantitative analysis of the two briefs is
faulty on both methodological and theoretical grounds,
primarily because it used the PsycINFO database to search
the literature, which excludes clinical reports (Hall, Day, &
Hall, 2011; Hall & Hall, 2011). In fact, excluding clinical
reports was a positive attribute of the analysis. PsycINFO
includes more than three million records devoted to peerreviewed literature in the behavioral sciences and mental
health, including related disciplines such as medicine,
law, social work, neuroscience, nursing, and forensics.
Indeed, Ferguson and Kilburn (2009) also used PsycINFO
to obtain studies for their meta-analysis on media violence
and aggression.

Is There Really a Scientific Debate

Anymore on Effects of Digital Game
Violence?
Elson and Ferguson (2013) also write that it is extreme to
claim there is a near universal consensus that media violence causes aggression. Of course, there is never complete
consensus among researchers in any field about any topic.
Opposing views can always be found. However, most
media researchers today believe that violent video games
increase aggression in children. In a recent survey involving
371 media researchers from the Media Psychology and
Technology Division (46) of the American Psychological
Association and from the Mass Communication Division
of the International Communication Association, 30%
strongly agreed that violent video games increase aggression in children, 36% agreed, 17% were undecided, 10%
disagreed, and 7% strongly disagreed (Bushman & Cruz,
2013). The survey also included a sample of 92 members
from the Counsel on Communication and Media of the
American Academy of Pediatrics, and 62% of them
strongly agreed that violent video games increase aggression in children, 28% agreed, 6% were undecided, 1% disagreed, and 3% strongly disagreed. Thus, over 95% of the
pediatricians who had a firm opinion were on the agreed
side and 80% of media researchers who had a firm opinion
were on the agreed side. This may not constitute near
European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755

universal opinion, but it certainly means the vast majority

of both populations believe violent video games increase
aggression.

Empirical Evidence
In the empirical evidence section of their article, Elson and
Ferguson (2013) use an informal vote-counting approach to
evaluate the evidence, especially noting the number of
video game studies that found nonsignificant results. It is
well known that vote-counting procedures are the very last
resort for reviewing research evidence (see Bushman &
Wang, 2009). It is also well known that the simplest explanations for a null result are that the study was poorly conducted and therefore had a large error variance, had low
statistical power, or both. Null results are especially problematic when they are not predicted by theory. For example, Elson and Ferguson note that a few studies found
null effects for aggressive emotions, including a study by
Ballard, Hamby, Panee, and Nivens (2006). In this study
14 adolescents played a nonviolent NBA basketball game,
14 played a violent Resident Evil game, and 13 played a
violent Mortal Kombat game, in three separate sessions.
Although none of the effects were statistically significant,
they were far from trivial in size. The effect-size estimates
ranged from d = 0.48 to d = 0.72. The average effect was
d+ = 0.61 (95% confidence interval = 0.49 to 0.73,
p < .0001), which exceeds the conventional value for a
medium-sized effect (i.e., d = 0.50; see Cohen, 1988).
Yet, the statistical power was less than .50 (a coin toss)
for each comparison due to the small sample sizes.
The more important review that Elson and Ferguson
(2013) did not conduct was a meta-analysis to test their
new theory that is, testing whether early predispositions (early aggressive behavior or, even better, one of
the supposed genetic precursors of early aggressive behavior) cause media violence use independently of prior media
violence use. They should also test whether the effect of
early aggression on later media violence use is bigger than
the effect of early media violence use on later aggression.
Of course, finding such effects would not negate the argument that media violence causes aggression, but absent
such effects one cannot make a plausible argument that
genetic predispositions cause the relation between media
violence and aggression.

Validity and Reliability of Laboratory

Aggression Measures
Elson and Ferguson (2013) also challenge the reliability
and validity of measures of aggression used in laboratory
studies in an attempt to discredit the many laboratory experiments that show exposure to violent media causes an
immediate increase in aggression. The primary strength
2013 Hogrefe Publishing

Commentaries

51

Table 1. Meta-analyses on violent video game-related aggression

Source
Anderson et al., (2010)
Ferguson & Kilburn (2009)
Sherry (2001)

Number of research reports

88
14
20

Number of effects
140
15
25

N
68,313
Unknowna
2,722

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Note. N = number of research participants. aFerguson and Kilburns (2009) meta-analysis included 15 video game studies, 7 television
studies, and 5 studies from movies alone or mixed media. The total sample for all studies is 12,436, but the number of participants in
video game studies is unknown. The Anderson et al. (2010) meta-analysis (136 research reports, 381 effects, 130,295 participants)
also examined the effects of violent video games on aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, physiological arousal, helping behavior, and
feelings of empathy, but only the aggressive behavior results are reported in this table.

of the laboratory experiment is that it allows causal inferences to be made; the primary weakness is that the setting
and measures are less realistic than in the real world. For
example, in the real world people aggress against others by
hitting, stabbing, or shooting them. Obviously, researchers
cannot allow participants to engage in such behaviors in
their laboratories. Thus, researchers use aggression measures such the amount of hot sauce given to target (usually
a confederate) who hates spicy food, or the intensity and
duration of unpleasant noise given to a target through headphones. Elson and Ferguson are critical of these laboratory
aggression measures: Naturally, children (and adults)
wishing to be aggressive do not chase after their targets
with jars of hot sauce or headphones with which to administer bursts of white noise (p. 6). Although this is generally
true, there are exceptions. For example, one woman was
found guilty of child abuse for punishing her child with
hot sauce (Hopper, 2011). Loud noise has also been used
to torture others, such as at Guantnamo Bay (Smith, 2008).
There are two types of realism: experimental and mundane (Aronson & Carlsmith, 1968). Experimental realism
refers to whether participants get so caught up in the procedures that they forget they are in an experiment. Mundane
realism refers to whether the setting physically resembles
the real world. Laboratory experiments are generally low
in mundane realism, but they can be high in experimental
realism. Elson and Ferguson (2013) focus on mundane realism. However, experimental realism is more important than
mundane realism in determining whether the results of a
study will generalize to the real world (Berkowitz &
Donnerstein, 1982).
Elson and Ferguson (2013) also criticize laboratory
measures for being unstandardized, especially the competitive reaction time task measure. However, effect-size estimates do not differ for studies that use a variation of the
competitive reaction time task compared to studies that
use other aggression measures (Bushman, Rothstein, &
Anderson, 2010).
Two different research teams using meta-analytic techniques have supported the validity of laboratory aggression
measures. One meta-analysis found impressive levels of
convergence across a wide range of laboratory aggression
measures (Carlson, Marcus-Newhall, & Miller, 1989).
Another meta-analysis found that real and laboratory
measures of aggression are influenced in similar ways by
situational variables (e.g., alcohol, provocation, anonymity)
2013 Hogrefe Publishing

and by individual difference variables (e.g., trait aggressiveness, participant sex, Type A personality) (Anderson &
Bushman, 1997).
Furthermore, several media violence field experiments
have shown similar effects, and they have more external
validity than laboratory experiments (for a summary of
some of them see Anderson et al. 2003). Additionally, randomized field experiments have shown that reducing exposure to media violence or teaching children that they should
not model it reduces aggression (e.g., Moller, Krahe,
Busching, & Krause, 2012).

Meta-Analytic Reviews
Elson and Ferguson (2013) describe the results from three
meta-analytic reviews (i.e., Anderson et al., 2010; Ferguson
& Kilburn, 2009; Sherry, 2001). Although they dismiss the
Anderson et al. (2010) meta-analysis on several grounds
(for a response to these criticisms see Bushman, Rothstein,
& Anderson, 2010 and Huesmann, 2010), it is by far the
most comprehensive meta-analysis on the effects of violent
video games on aggressive behavior (see Table 1).
Elson and Ferguson (2013) also claim that the metaanalytic effect-size estimates are inflated due to publication
bias. However, as Hannah Rothstein, an expert on publication bias in meta-analysis (e.g., Rothstein, Sutton, &
Borenstein, 2005), has repeatedly pointed out Ferguson
misused publication bias procedures in his meta-analytic
reviews (Bushman et al., 2010; Rothstein & Bushman,
2012). Furthermore, the Anderson et al. (2010) metaanalysis included extensive testing for possible publication
bias, and found none. We would argue if anything, the
meta-analytic effects are deflated rather than inflated. In
the experimental studies, there are at least two reasons
why. First, it is unethical for researchers to expose participants to age-inappropriate video games. For example, IRB
committees will not allow researchers to have 12-year-old
children play T games (for teens 13 and older), even
though many 12-year-olds play T- and even M-rated (for
players 17 and older) games outside the laboratory (e.g.,
Kutner & Olson, 2008). Theoretically, the effects should
be larger if children had played more graphic games.
Second, participants in laboratory experiments typically
play games for only 15-30 minutes, even though the

European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

52

Commentaries

average player plays video games about 11 h a week (FactCheck.org, 2013). In many ways it is quite impressive that
playing a violent video game for just 1530 min, on a
single occasion can have significant and measurable effects
on aggressive behavior. For the cross-sectional and longitudinal studies, many of the effect-size estimates are likely
deflated because they are not corrected for attenuation
due to unreliable measures, and because of overcorrection
by partialling out effects of correlated variables (Prot &
Anderson, 2013).
Elson and Ferguson (2013) misrepresent the Anderson
et al. (2010) meta-analysis in other ways too. For example,
they state, Further, the authors included many of their own
unpublished studies and those of close colleagues but they
did not solicit unpublished studies from authors whose work differed in results from their own, thus setting
up selection bias problems. These claims are untrue, as
a careful reading of the methods section reveals. Anderson
et al. (2010) stated, we contacted the authors of reports
that appeared to have additional unpublished data that
could be used to compute effect-size estimates that met
the best practice criteria (emphasis added). In other words,
for any study that met the inclusion criteria but that was
missing statistical information needed to compute an effect
size for the meta-analysis, they contacted the author to get
the additional information. For example, if an article
reported only multiple regression results from a study that
measured both TV and video game violence exposure, they
contacted the author and asked for additional information
that would allow them to compute the relevant effect size
of violent video game exposure (e.g., raw correlations).
There were only a handful of such cases, and the decision
of whether to ask for the additional information was based
on whether or not the original report met the inclusion criteria, but did not include sufficient information to compute
the effect size. It was not based on whether the authors were
critics or not of the link between exposure to violent games
and aggression.
Furthermore, they did not ask anyone for unpublished
studies, did not receive any unsolicited unpublished studies,
and did not include any of their own unpublished studies, as
a review of the articles supplemental materials clearly
shows. Indeed, of the 88 included papers that reported
aggressive behavior, only two were unpublished one from
Japan, and a dissertation. Other unpublished doctoral dissertations were also uncovered in the original search, but
none of them met the inclusion criteria, or had already been
published.

effects in this range to be trivial. Conventional values for

small effect sizes range from .075 (Lipsey, 1990) to .1
(Cohen, 1988). But small is not the same as trivial.
For example, one meta-analysis examined the magnitude
of effects obtained in social psychology studies during the
past century. The average correlation obtained from 322
meta-analyses of more than 25,000 social psychology studies involving over 8 million participants was .20 (Richard,
Bond, & Stokes-Zoota, 2003) the same size of correlation
Anderson et al. (2010) found between exposure to violent
video games and aggression in their meta-analysis.
Rosenthal (1986) has also pointed out that percentage
of variance explained is a bad heuristic to use to evaluate
the social significance of effect sizes. He compellingly
argues that one should look at the binomial effect-size display instead, which asks how much the odds of an aggressive act would increase over chance (50/50) if one knew
that a potential perpetrator had high exposure to media violence and the correlation of media violence on aggression
was .20. The answer is that it would increase to 60/40,
which is hardly a trivial effect.
We have previously asserted that the effect sizes
obtained for the relation between media violence and
aggression are also similar in size to the effects of risk factors for physical health, such as the effects on cancer of cigarette smoking, exposure to secondhand smoke, exposure to
lead, or exposure to asbestos (see Bushman & Huesmann,
2001), We also asserted the effect was similar in size to
other risk factors for violent and aggressive behavior, such
as poverty, substance abuse, low IQ. Elson and Ferguson
(2013) write that such claims are extreme, but the calculations dont lie. For example, we found the correlation
between cigarette smoking and lung cancer in one of the
most widely cited studies was r = .35 (Bushman &
Huesmann, 2001, p. 235). Although this is larger than the
.20 to .30, it hardly makes the media violence effects seem
trivial. In a previous article, Ferguson (2009) argued that
one should not compare media violence effects with effects
reported in medical journals because the latter are biased
low because they only look at effects on individuals who
are high risk (e.g., already sick). However, that argument
has no validity when one is comparing effect sizes for public health threats to the entire population.
Finally, 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).

What Constitutes a Trivial Effect?

Elson and Ferguson (2013) assert that the reported effect
sizes of media violence on aggression are trivial and
comparing them to other public health threats is extreme.
Neither of these statements is true.
Most meta-analyses of violent media effects, including
violent video game effects, find average correlations in
the range of .15 to .30. Very few social scientists consider
European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755

Is Disagreement Due to a Moral

Panic or Cognitive Consistency
and a Regulatory Panic?
Elson and Fergusons (2013) claim that scholars
who believe that media violence causes aggression are
2013 Hogrefe Publishing

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Commentaries

experiencing a moral panic. In fact, there is no evidence

of this, and no evidence that the scholars who are concerned
about media violence have any more rigid moral views than
anyone else. There is also no particular psychological theory to support this argument.
However, psychological theories do support the idea
that the people who are heavy players of violent video
games, heavy viewers of other violent media, or even producers of any form of violent media should have difficulty
accepting that violent media are harmful. Psychologists
have long known that people are motivated to make their
beliefs and attitudes consistent with their behaviors
(Abelson et al., 1968). Inconsistency between behavior
and beliefs or attitudes usually causes one or the other to
change. It is a lot easier to change attitudes and beliefs than
it is to change behavior. If an individual believes that
aggressive behavior is bad, but that individual produces
violent media (or perhaps even writes violent prose, such
as Suicide Kings by Ferguson, 2012), plays violent games,
or consumes large amounts of violent films and television,
that individual is going to have difficulty accepting the fact
that media violence increases aggression. It would be cognitively inconsistent for that person to accept such a view.
Furthermore, if the person perceives that regulation of their
entertainment choices is a logical consequence of accepting
the fact that violent media cause aggression, then, according to reactance theory (Brehm & Brehm, 1981), that person might also experience a regulatory panic that would
motivate him or her to try to make others believe that there
is no harm in media violence.

Conclusion
We conclude that the new theory of Elson and Ferguson
(2013) is not new, and contains many truths that the theories they criticize also contain. It differs from these other
theories mainly in their claim that the relation between
exposure to violence and aggression is entirely due to people who are genetically or biologically predisposed to be
aggressive exposing themselves to more violence and people who are genetically or biologically predisposed to be
nonaggressive exposing themselves to less violence. This
assertion is strongly contradicted by existing experimental
and longitudinal data.
Elson and Ferguson (2013) aimed to give an exhaustive review of results obtained in laboratories and the field
(p. 4). Unfortunately, they used a vote-counting type
approach in which they counted studies that found positive
results, mixed results, and null results. This crude approach
gives the impression that the findings are inconsistent, even
though they are not. It focuses on the statistical significance
of effects rather than on the magnitude of effects. In metaanalytic reviews, no confidence interval even comes close
to including the value zero. For example, in meta-analysis
by Anderson et al. (2010) the average correlation between
exposure to violent video games and aggression was .19,
with a 95% confidence interval ranging from .18 to .20.
2013 Hogrefe Publishing

53

Elson and Ferguson (2013) used a number of rhetorical

techniques to suggest that researchers who think media violence causes aggression are a small, extreme subset of
scholars. This is not true. The field is not, in fact, divided.
The great majority of researchers and pediatricians believe
that media violence causes aggression.
As we have written before it is time to move beyond the
question of whether violent video games and other forms of
media violence increase aggression, to focus instead on why
violent media increase aggression, to focus on what kinds
of media violence have the largest effects, and to focus
on who is most likely to be affected. Exposure to media
violence is not, of course, the only or the most important
risk factor for aggressive behavior, but it is a significant risk
factor.

References
Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M.,
Rosenberg, M. J., & Tannenbaum, R. H. (Eds.). (1968).
Theories of Cognitive Consistency: A sourcebook, Chicago,
IL: Rand-McNally.
Anderson, C. A., Berkowitz, L., Donnerstein, E., Huesmann,
R. L., Johnson, J., Linz, D., . . . Wartella, E. (2003). The
influence of media violence on youth. Psychological Science
in the Public Interest, 4, 81110.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (1997). External validity of
trivial experiments: The case of laboratory aggression.
Review of General Psychology, 1, 1941.
Anderson, A. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human Aggression.
Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 2751. doi: 10.1146/
annurev.psych.53.100901.135231
Anderson, C. A., Sakamoto, A., Gentile, D. A., Ihori, N.,
Shibuya, A., Yukawa, S., . . . Kobayaski, K. (2008).
Longitudinal effects of violent video games on aggression
in Japan and the United States. Pediatrics, 122, 10671072.
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman,
B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . Barlett, C. P. (2010). Violent video
game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior
in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review.
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151173.
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in
social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.),
Handbook of social psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 179).
Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Ballard, M. E., Hamby, R. H., Panee, C. D., & Nivens, E. E.
(2006). Repeated exposure to video game play results in
decreased blood pressure responding. Media Psychology, 8,
323341.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice Hall.
Berkowitz, L. (1962). Aggression: A social psychological
analysis. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger
and aggression: A cognitive-neo-associationistic analysis.
American Psychologist, 45, 494503.
Berkowitz, L., & Donnerstein, E. (1982). External validity
is more than skin deep. American Psychologist, 37,
245257.
Boxer, L. R., Huesmann, L. R., Dubow, E. F., Landau, S.,
Gvirsman, S., Shikaki, K., & Ginges, J. (2013). Exposure to
violence across the social ecosystem and the development of
aggression: A test of ecological theory in the IsraeliPalestinian conflict. Child Development, 84, 163177.

European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

54

Commentaries

Brehm, S. S., & Brehm, J. W. (1981). Psychological reactance:

A theory of freedom and control. New York, NY: Academic
Press.
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. __ ,
131 S.Ct. 2729 (2011).
Bushman, B. J., & Cruz, C. (2013). Researchers, parents, and
pediatricians agree violent media can increase aggression
in children. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised
violence on aggression. In D. G. Singer & J. L. Singer
(Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223254).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bushman, B. J., & Pollard-Sacks, D. (2013). Violent video
games and the Supreme Court: Reply to Ferguson (2013).
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Bushman, B. J., Rothstein, H. R., & Anderson, C. A. (2010).
Much ado about something: Violent video game effects and
a school of red herring. Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn
(2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 182187.
Bushman, B. J., & Wang, M. C. (2009). Vote counting methods
in meta-analysis. In H. M. Cooper, L. V. Hedges, & J. C.
Valentine (Eds.), Handbook of research synthesis (2nd ed.,
pp. 207220). New York, NY: Russell Sage.
Buss, D. M., & Shackelford, T. K. (1997). Human aggression in
evolutionary psychological perspective. Clinical Psychology
Review, 17, 605619. New York, NY: Guilford.
Caspi, A., Taylor, A., Moffitt, T. E., & Plomin, R. (2000).
Neighborhood deprivation affects childrens mental health:
Environmental risks identified in a genetic design. Psychological Science, 11, 338342.
Carlson, M., Marcus-Newhall, A., & Miller, N. (1989).
Evidence for a general construct of aggression. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 15, 377389.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral
sciences (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Academic Press.
Cummings, E. M., & Davies, P. (1994). Children and marital
conflict. New York, NY: Guilford.
Cummings, E. M., Merrilees, C. E., Schermerhorn, A. C.,
Goecke-Morey, M. C., Shirlow, P., & Cairns, E. (2010).
Testing a social ecological model for relations between
political violence and child adjustment in Northern Ireland.
Development and Psychopathology, 22, 405418.
Dodge, K. A. (1986). A social information processing model of
social competence in children. In M. Perlmutter (Ed.),
The Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 18,
pp. 77125). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dodge, K. A., Bates, J. E., & Pettit, G. S. (1990). Mechanisms
in the cycle of violence. Science, 250, 16781683.
Doran, P. T., & Zimmerman, M. K. (2009, January). Examining
the scientific consensus on climate change. Climate Change,
90, 2223.
Elson, M., & Ferguson, C. J. (2013). Twenty-five years of
research on violence in digital games and aggression:
Empirical evidence, perspectives and a debate gone astray.
European Psychologist. Advance online publication.
doi: 10.1027/10169040/a000147
Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder,
L. O. (1972). Does television violence cause aggression?
American Psychologist, 27, 253263.
Eron, L. D., Walder, L. O., & Lefkowitz, M. M. (1971). The
learning of aggression in children. Boston, MA: Little Brown.
FactCheck.org. (2013, February). Paying people to play video
game. Retrieved from http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/
paying-people-to-play-video-games/
Ferguson, C. J. (2009). Media violence effects: Confirmed truth
or just another X-file? Journal of Forensic Psychology
Practice, 9, 103126.
Ferguson, C. J. (2012). Suicide kings. London, TX: L&L
Dreamspell.
European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755

Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of

media violence: A meta-analytic review. The Journal of
Pediatrics, 154, 759763.
Gelles, R. J. (2007). Family violence. In D. J. Glannery, A. T.
Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The Cambridge handbook of violent behavior and aggression (pp. 403417). New
York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Guerra, N. G., Huesmann, L. R., & Spindler, A. (2003).
Community violence exposure, social cognition, and aggression among urban elementary-school children. Child Development, 74, 15071522.
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, 86, 821823.
Hall, R. C. W., & Hall, R. C. W. (2011). A further plea for
caution against medical professionals overstating video game
violence effects. Mayo Clinic Proceedings, 86, 821823.
Henrich, C. C., & Shahar, G. (2013). Effects of exposure to
rocket attacks on adolescent distress and violence A 4-year
longitudinal study. Journal of the Academy of Child and
Adolescent Psychiatry, 52, 619627.
Hopf, W. H., Huber, G. L., & Wei, R. H. (2008). Media
violence and youth violence: A 2-year longitudinal study.
Journal of Media Psychology: Theories, Methods, and
Applications, 20, 7996.
Hopper, J. (2011, August 23). Alaskas hot sauce mom found
guilty of child abuse. ABC News. Retrieved from http://
abcnews.go.com/US/hot-sauce-mom-jessica-beagley-foundguilty-child/story?id = 14366615#.UZAkguBiaa4
Huesmann, L. R. (1988). An information processing model for
the development of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 14,
1324.
Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that
violent video games stimulate aggression: Comment on
Anderson. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 179181.
Huesmann, L. R., & Kirwil, L. (2007). Why observing violence
increases the risk of violent behavior in the observer. In D. J.
Flannery, A. T. Vazsonyi, & I. D. Waldman (Eds.), The
Cambridge Handbook of Violent Behavior and Aggression
(pp. 545570). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise-Titus, J., Podolski, C. L., & Eron,
L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations between childrens
exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent
behavior in young adulthood: 19771992. Developmental
Psychology, 39, 201221.
Kitzmann, K. M., Gaylord, N. K., Hold, A. R., & Kenny, E. D.
(2003). Child witnesses to domestic violence: A metaanalytic review. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 71, 339352.
Kutner, L., & Olson, C. (2008). Grand theft childhood: The
surprising truth about violent video games and what parents
can do. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.
Lipsey, M. W. (1990). Design sensitivity: Statistical power for
experimental research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Milletich, R. J., Kelley, M. L., Doane, A. N., & Pearwon, M. R.
(2010). Exposure to interparental violence and childhood
physical and emotional abuse a related to physical aggression in undergraduate dating relationships. Journal of
Family Violence, 25, 627637.
Moller, I., & Krahe, B. (2009). Exposure to violent video games
and aggression in German adolescents: A longitudinal
analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 7589.
Moller, I., Krahe, B., Busching, R., & Krause, C. (2012).
Efficacy of an intervention to reduce the use of media
violence and aggression: An experimental evaluation with
adolescents in Germany. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
41, 105120.
2013 Hogrefe Publishing

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

Commentaries

Pollard-Sacks, D., Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2011).

Violent video games and children: Comparing the scientific
experts in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association. Northwestern University Law Review, 106, 112.
Prot, S., & Anderson, C. A. (2013). Research methods, design,
and statistics in media psychology. In K. Dill (Ed.), The
Oxford Handbook of Media Psychology (pp 109136).
New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
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, 331363.
Richters, J. E., & Martinez, P. (1993). The NIMH community
violence project: Vol. 1. Children as victims of and
witnesses to violence. Psychiatry, 56, 721.
Rosenthal, R. (1986). Media violence, antisocial behavior, and
the social consequences of small effects. Journal of Social
Issues, 42, 141154.
Rothstein, H. R., & Bushman, B. J. (2012). Publication bias in
psychological science: Comment on Ferguson and Brannick
(2012). Psychological Methods, 17, 129136.
Rothstein, H. R., Sutton, A. J., & Borenstein, M. (2005).
Publication bias in meta-analysis: Prevention, assessment
and adjustments. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Schwartz, D., & Proctor, L. J. (2000). Community violence
exposure and childrens social adjustment in the school peer
group: The mediating roles of emotion regulation and social
cognition. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,
68, 670683.
Sherry, J. L. (2001). The effects of violent video games on
aggression. Human Communication Research, 27, 409431.

2013 Hogrefe Publishing

55

Smith, C. S. (2008, June). Welcome to the disco. The

Guardian. Retrieved from http://www.guardian.co.uk/
world/2008/jun/19/usa.guantanamo
Smith, C. S., Ireland, T. O., Park, A., Elwyn, L., & Thornberry,
T. P. (2011). Intergenerational continuities and discontinuities in intimate partner violence: T two-generational
prospective study. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 26,
37203752.
Willoughby, T., Adachi, P. J. C., & Good, M. (2012). A
longitudinal study of the association between violent video
game play and aggression among adolescents. Developmental Psychology, 48, 10441057.

Published online December 10, 2013

Brad J. Bushman
School of Communication
Ohio State University
3127 Derby Hall
154 North Oval Mall
Columbus, OH 43210-1339
USA
Tel. +1 614 688-8779
Fax +1 614 292-2055
E-mail bushman.20@osu.edu

European Psychologist 2014; Vol. 19(1):4755