At least 90% of all psychology studies are flawed
a criminal psychologist from Texas A&M International University, has said that at least 90 percent of all psychology studies are scientifically flawed.
"I'll be honest with you, the quality of research in psychology generally is not very good," said Dr. Ferguson during an interview with Gamespot. "Maybe 90 to 95 percent is very bad. The way that we study questions, the way that we support our hypotheses are not very scientific, quite frankly. And social science is kind of an oxymoron, to some extent."
Unlike the UK, where we have a well regulated ratings system which, if not adhered to, can result in hefty fines for retailers, the US doesn't have a solid ratings system for game sales.
It's been a hot topic for years because violent games are constitutionally protected, meaning in some states a six year old could walk into their local game store and purchase GTA IV with no questions asked.
The lack of action from the government has led a number of states to take matters into their own hands and they have attempted to outlaw sales of games to minors based on scientific research conducted by psychologists.
Ferguson's revelation is pretty damning in that respect, but he didn't stop there - he revealed exactly how some of these studies have been carried out. He noted that existing studies have tested a subject's willingness to annoy others with loud bursts of noise after gameplay as an example of aggression - a far cry from the 'copycat' school shootings and other violent outbursts naysayers have tried to pin on violent games.
"The sad answer is it's really hard to measure aggression in the lab. We really don't have any real good measures of aggression," he said. "We can't have kids knifing each other or punching or beating each other up, of course. So we have that ethical constraint on one hand, and is it possible to create an aggression measure that functions well and is valid? I haven't seen one yet."
Even if Ferguson's revelations are true, there's still one question that remains - should minors be able to purchase violent games designed for adults? Tell us in the forums.
Previous Article
23 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyBut in all seriousness who's a little bored with all these studies proving and dis-proving each other?
Guns may be constitutionally protected, but usually a six year old is not going to go to Guns R Us and buy himself a rifle unsupervised. However, there's no problem if mommy or daddy buy him a .22 for shooting tin cans. It's the parents' decision whether or not their kids should have violent computer/video games. Parents should raise children. Not the government.
And what of those parents who aren't responsible enough to raise children? Please don't say "they shouldn't be allowed to have children" - they've already got them.
They should have been raised right themselves in the first place; so it's their parents fault. And the chain goes on and on...
I blame the monkeys and whatever the monkey's monkey is, I blame them too.
So what you're saying is that the nation should allow itself to breed morons? :)
EDIT: Please don't get me wrong with the above statement - I agree with what you're saying in principle, but if the parent doesn't know any better because their parents didn't know any better... and so on... who is supposed to fix that? The tooth fairy?
Who's gonna decide who gets to raise children and who doesn't? Unless there's a case of violence, reckless endangerment or anything else very plainly harmful, I don't believe we should be ceding that authority to government at all. Case in point, the grandparents who were in their 40's and 50's respectively had their custody of their grandchildren taken away from them by the local council because they were 'too old'. TOO OLD?!
Government usually breaks things, it doesn't fix things, and whenever you give them the authority to use their pinky fingers they'll bend the letter of the law so they can use the fist instead. I wouldn't trust them to run a yard sale let alone take care of children.
...
I want to study the psychology of why we're doing that now :)
It really does depend on the parents and I see Tim's point, but it is still in the end the parent's responsibility..
And that Target while seeming foolish to do so, is only doing it to avoid lawsuits..
Would this "supposed expert's" revelation have something to do with the initiative (driven by Joe Baca), also known as "The Video Game Health Labeling Act of 2009" in the states, that might, in the future, mean games, movies and such packages would include: "WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior." Wouldn't be surprised if it did and the esteemed Doc Ferguson was just another pawn chosen to represent "the other view".
It's true, that psychological studies are difficult to arrange, as everything has an impact on the results, starting from the surroundings and the task at hand all the way down what words are used in giving instructions to the test subjects on what they're supposed to do and what is supposedly being studied - supposedly, because you can't get reliable results if the subject knows what is being studied in behaviour related matters. All this is just the very basics I admit, but I'm sure you get the point.
As long as we don't know the details of the studies, and if they indeed are as silly as the "loud noises" example, I'm still remaining as critical as before of all studies linked with aggression.
How ever, pulling numbers like 90-95% out of the magicians hat, without any hint of proof is just stupid and in my mind completely negates any "opinions" that Dr. Ferguson (who, as a criminal psychologist is of questionable authority in the matter to start with) might have. It's not only stupid, it's seriously undermining to his own field of expertise and as others have already pointed out, what he is saying himself. Clearly this is a case of not really considering thoroughly, or not caring and wanting to slam something big and meaty to the table for the shock value. Any other value is questionable.
If he would be saying that most psychological studies involving games (and other media ) in relation to aggressive behavior are flawed, it would sound a lot more plausible. But generalizing, without showing any proof for his statements just makes him another puppet - in my view.
Not only because of what he says alone, but also because the timing is rather convenient.
I would've expected a more critical standpoint for making this actual news, as it isn't exactly in anyone's best interest to further undermine - without good reason - a field of study that, linked with games, is already considered more a joke than anything else.
Well duh Dr. Ferguson. All scientific studies are flawed --bar mathematics, perhaps. It is impossible to do a "perfect" scientific study because our understanding of and reasoning about the subject is flawed, our methods of experimentation, observation and measurement are flawed (hence we talk about "measurement error"), our statistical analysis is flawed (hence we talk about "statistical error"; I mean, we're often dealing with probability intervals. That should tell you something), our interpretations are flawed and above all, our research budget is flawed.
In psychology in particular, research studies are frequently hampered by lack of money, available subjects (whose choice to take part, and knowledge of taking part in a study may influence their behaviour) and particularly research ethics committees. You just can't do a study like Zimbardo or Millgram used to do... :(
Do such flaws invalidate a scientific study? Possibly they limit its interpretations and perhaps even its validity to some extent. On the other hand, the planes still fly --mostly; medication still cures diseases --mostly; my psychology patients still improve --mostly. It's just not a perfect world.
it's natural selection/evolution/monkies and typewriters... scientists write a thousand papers most are nonsense, one is genius... so learn to love the nonsense it's all part of the process..