Angry Birds, Angry Children, and Angry Meta-Analysts

Abstract

Ferguson's (2015a) meta-analysis assessed a very important and controversial topic about children's mental health and video games. In response to the concerns raised by researchers about the appropriateness of the meta-analytical methods used by Ferguson; we decided to reanalyze the data and discuss two major misconceptions about meta-analysis. We argue that partial correlations can (and should) be meta-analyzed instead of zero-order bivariate correlations if the predictors included in the partial correlation represent a similar construct. We also discuss the fallacy by which the conventional meta-analytical model assumes that the studies' effect sizes came into being according to the same random effect construct used by the analysis. Our replication results using partial correlations, standardized (valid and reliable) outcomes, and an improved meta-analytical model (that does not assume a random effect is the mechanism of data generation) confirmed the main results of Ferguson's meta-analysis. There was a significant yet very small effect on aggressive behavior of exposure to both general, rp = 0.062, 95% CI [0.012, 0.112], and violent, rp = 0.055, 95% CI [0.019, 0.091], video games. A very small effect was seen on reduced prosocial behavior, but this was only in the general video game exposure category, rp = 0.072, 95% CI [0.045, 0.100].

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 84 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.