当前位置: X-MOL 学术Journal of Experimental Social Psychology › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Applied to video game violence, maximal positive controls is far from even a minimal demonstration: Comment on (Hilgard, 2021)
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology ( IF 3.2 ) Pub Date : 2022-03-08 , DOI: 10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104200
Brad J. Bushman 1 , Youssef Hasan 2 , Laurent Bègue 3
Affiliation  

In this reply to Hilgard’s 2021 criticisms of the Hasan et al. (2013) study, we show that his use of the Maximal Positive Controls methodology was inappropriately implemented for four main reasons: (1) he had participants watch a film of video gameplay (we had participants actively play video games), (2) his videos were about 2 minutes and 15 seconds whereas our video games were played 20 minutes per day for three days; (3) his protocol involved one-session whereas our protocol involved three sessions, and (4) he relied on a direct process (in our study the process was indirect). Moreover, his study was based on a sample mostly composed of women, lacked controls, used only one video game per condition, and did not include a measure of aggressive behavior. Moreover, Hilgard erroneously suggested that the effect size on Day 3 of the Hasan et al. study was implausible. However, this claim is unwarranted because past media violence studies have reported larger effects than our effect. Moreover, based on theory we expected a large effect on Day 3 because we expected repeated exposure to violent video games to have a cumulative effect over time. Although the Maximal Positive Controls methodology could be an innovative way to assess psychological research, we believe that the specific ways it was applied to the Hasan et al. study was inappropriate in multiple ways. We believe that the gold standard for assessing whether research results are implausible is to conduct an exact replication of the target study.



中文翻译:

应用于电子游戏暴力,最大的积极控制远非最小的演示:评论(Hilgard,2021)

在这篇对希尔加德 2021 年对哈桑等人的批评的回复中。(2013)研究,我们表明他对最大阳性对照方法的使用不恰当,主要有四个原因:(1)他让参与者观看视频游戏(我们让参与者积极玩电子游戏),(2)他的视频大约 2 分 15 秒,而我们的视频游戏每天玩 20 分钟,持续三天;(3)他的协议涉及一个会话,而我们的协议涉及三个会话,并且(4)他依赖于直接过程(在我们的研究中,该过程是间接的)。此外,他的研究基于一个主要由女性组成的样本,缺乏控制,每种情况只使用一个视频游戏,并且不包括对攻击性行为的测量。此外,Hilgard 错误地认为 Hasan 等人在第 3 天的效果大小。研究是不可信的。然而,这种说法是没有根据的,因为过去的媒体暴力研究报告的影响比我们的影响更大。此外,基于理论,我们预计第 3 天会有很大影响,因为我们预计反复接触暴力视频游戏会随着时间的推移产生累积效应。尽管最大阳性对照方法可能是评估心理学研究的一种创新方法,但我们相信它应用于 Hasan 等人的具体方法。研究在多个方面是不合适的。我们认为,评估研究结果是否不可信的黄金标准是对目标研究进行精确复制。根据理论,我们预计第 3 天会有很大影响,因为我们预计反复接触暴力视频游戏会随着时间的推移产生累积效应。尽管最大阳性对照方法可能是评估心理学研究的一种创新方法,但我们相信它应用于 Hasan 等人的具体方法。研究在多个方面是不合适的。我们认为,评估研究结果是否不可信的黄金标准是对目标研究进行精确复制。根据理论,我们预计第 3 天会有很大影响,因为我们预计反复接触暴力视频游戏会随着时间的推移产生累积效应。尽管最大阳性对照方法可能是评估心理学研究的一种创新方法,但我们相信它应用于 Hasan 等人的具体方法。研究在多个方面是不合适的。我们认为,评估研究结果是否不可信的黄金标准是对目标研究进行精确复制。

更新日期:2022-03-08
down
wechat
bug