Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review
Violent Video Game Effects on Aggression, Empathy, and Prosocial Behavior in Eastern and Western Countries: A Meta-Analytic Review
复制标题
DOI：
10.1037/a0018251
复制
发表时间：
2010-03-01
影响因子：
22.4
通讯作者：
Saleem, Muniba
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Anderson, Craig A.;Shibuya, Akiko;Saleem, Muniba
采用Meta分析方法测试暴力视频游戏对攻击性行为、攻击性认知、攻击性情感、生理唤醒、移情脱敏和亲社会行为的影响。这一元分析综述的独特特点包括：(A)与过去的元分析相比，方法质量纳入标准更加严格；(B)跨文化比较；(C)除生理唤醒外的所有结果的纵向研究；(D)保守的统计控制；(E)多个调节因素分析；以及(F)敏感性分析。日本和西方国家的社会认知模型和文化差异被用来产生基于理论的预测。Meta分析对所有6个结果变量均有显著影响。不同结果和研究设计(实验、横断面、纵向)的结果模式与理论预测很好地吻合。证据有力地表明，接触暴力视频游戏是导致攻击性行为、攻击性认知和攻击性情感增加以及同理心和亲社会行为减少的原因风险因素。主持人分析显示显著的研究设计效应，在易感性和测量效应类型方面的文化差异的微弱证据，以及在易感性上没有性别差异的证据。各种敏感性分析的结果显示，这些影响是稳健的，几乎没有选择(发表)偏见的证据。
Meta-analytic procedures were used to test the effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, empathy/desensitization, and prosocial behavior. Unique features of this meta-analytic review include (a) more restrictive methodological quality inclusion criteria than in past meta-analyses; (b) cross-cultural comparisons; (c) longitudinal studies for all outcomes except physiological arousal; (d) conservative statistical controls; (e) multiple moderator analyses; and (f) sensitivity analyses. Social-cognitive models and cultural differences between Japan and Western countries were used to generate theory-based predictions. Meta-analyses yielded significant effects for all 6 outcome variables. The pattern of results for different outcomes and research designs (experimental, cross-sectional, longitudinal) fit theoretical predictions well. The evidence strongly suggests that exposure to violent video games is a causal risk factor for increased aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, and aggressive affect and for decreased empathy and prosocial behavior. Moderator analyses revealed significant research design effects, weak evidence of cultural differences in susceptibility and type of measurement effects, and no evidence of sex differences in susceptibility. Results of various sensitivity analyses revealed these effects to be robust, with little evidence of selection (publication) bias.