In this reply to Bushman et al. (2022), I explain why differences in method and sample demographics are not likely to explain why the obvious effect in Hilgard (2021) is smaller than the indirect effect in Hasan et al. (2013). Additionally, Bushman and colleagues claim that the large effects can be explained by accumulation of effects across days. Comparison with longitudinal experimental studies, cross-sectional observational studies, and longitudinal observational studies indicate that this accumulation of effects across three days cannot explain the unparalleled size of effects from Hasan et al. (2013). Accumulation of effects also cannot explain the incredibly large effects observed in single-session studies published by Hasan and colleagues. Better evidence is needed for the claim that other credible studies have reported even larger media violence effects. The data reported in Hasan et al. (2013) are still too good to be true.

在对布什曼等人的回复中。(2022)，我解释了为什么方法和样本人口统计数据的差异不太可能解释为什么 Hilgard (2021) 的明显影响小于 Hasan 等人的间接影响。（2013）。此外，Bushman 及其同事声称，巨大的影响可以通过几天内影响的累积来解释。与纵向实验研究、横断面观察研究和纵向观察研究的比较表明，这种在三天内累积的效应无法解释 Hasan 等人无与伦比的效应规模。（2013）。效应的累积也无法解释单次观测到的令人难以置信的巨大效应- Hasan 及其同事发表的会话研究。需要更好的证据来证明其他可信研究报告了更大的媒体暴力影响。Hasan等人报道的数据。（2013）仍然好得令人难以置信。