Cited by 162Bullying, Victimization, and AggressionDigital Games and MediaMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Overstated evidence for short-term effects of violent games on affect and behavior: A reanalysis of Anderson et al. (2010).

Open access
Hilgard, Joseph, Engelhardt, Christopher R., Rouder, Jeffrey N.·2017·Psychological Bulletin

Abstract

Violent video games are theorized to be a significant cause of aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. Important evidence for this claim comes from a large meta-analysis by Anderson and colleagues (2010), who found effects of violent games in experimental, cross-sectional, and longitudinal research. In that meta-analysis, the authors argued that there is little publication or analytic bias in the literature, an argument supported by their use of the trim-and-fill procedure. In the present manuscript, we reexamine their meta-analysis using a wider array of techniques for detecting bias and adjusting effect sizes. Our conclusions differ from those of Anderson and colleagues in 3 salient ways. First, we detect substantial publication bias in experimental research on the effects of violent games on aggressive affect and aggressive behavior. Second, after adjustment for bias, the effects of violent games on aggressive behavior in experimental research are estimated as being very small, and estimates of effects on aggressive affect are much reduced. In contrast, the cross-sectional literature finds correlations that appear largely unbiased. Third, experiments meeting the original authors' criteria for methodological quality do not yield larger adjusted effects than other experiments, but instead yield larger indications of bias, indicating that perhaps they were selected for significance. We outline future directions for stronger experimental research. The results indicate th…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/bul0000074

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hilgard, J., Engelhardt, C. R., & Rouder, J. N.
Affiliations
  • University of Pennsylvania (US)
  • University of Missouri (US)
Venue
Psychological Bulletin
Published
2017-07
Volume
143
Issue
7
Pages
757-774
ISSN
  • 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1455
OpenAlex
W2633438608
Cited by
162
References
64
Citations by year
2026: 11 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 16 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 2
FWCI
25.90
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Annenberg Public Policy Center
  • National Science Foundation (BCS-1240359 and SES-102408)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Bullying, Victimization, and Aggression
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Digital Games and Media
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
violent video games, aggression, aggressive affect, publication bias, research bias, trim and fill, methodological quality, preregistration, reanalysis
MeSH terms
Aggression, Humans, Violence, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Publication Bias, Video Games

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review