The more participants were habitual VVG players, the more they “distanced” their belief from the claim “VVGs increase aggression”, when exposed to the claim.

And with heavy players (on the right side of the x-axis on the previous post), the finding was quite interesting. Before reading, they believed in a null effect of VVGs.
Then after reading “VVGs increase aggression”, they started believing in a negative effect, i.e., that “VVGs decrease aggression”.

After reading, they updated their belief toward what they read in both conditions:
Those who read that “VVGs increase aggression”, believed in a stronger effect.
Those who read that “VVGs have no effect”, believed in a null effect.

(still all the way to the left of the x-axis)

Main result:
Before reading, non-gamers and non-habitual VVG players believed in a small positive effect of VVGs on aggressiveness.

(all the way to the left of the x-axis)

For each person, a slope would link VVG exposure to Δaggressiveness.
The slope is the belief.
Each participant gets a slope.

Positive slopes = belief that VVGs increase aggression.
Flat slopes = belief that VVGs have no effect on aggression.
Negative slopes = belief that VVGs decrease aggression.

Belief measure:
we used 6 vignette scenarios that involve “a typical video game player” (with randomized levels of pre-play aggressiveness, duration of play, violence level during gaming sessions).

Participants had to estimate the post-play aggressiveness.

We conducted two online experiments (each N = 788). We measured participant belief before and after reading research summaries that say either “VVGs increase aggression” or “no effect”. And we measure long-term VVG exposure.

🚨Just published in PSPB:

When heavy violent video game players read research that say “these games increase aggression”, they often shift their beliefs in the *opposite* direction.

Open Access link: journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/...

Does anyone I know have access to this paper? 🥺 I can't access it from my university.

doi.org/10.1016/B978...

Reviewers who criticize the fact that your paper is ok but doesn't meet *the standards of this specific journal* are the worst. WHY DO THEY CARE?

I just created my first shiny app! 😬

It simulates the difference between a true effect in the population (in Cohen's d), the effect in all studies conducted (which is a function of the sampling distribution) and the effect in published studies.

y45hv1n.shinyapps.io/selective_pu...

I just had the most amazing review to one of my papers ... in an editorial decision to reject my paper 🤣😅

On days like this, I want to leave academia.

"Most replications receive fewer citations than their matched counterfactuals, but a sizable portion, and sometimes even a majority, receive more."

This sentence is a bit confusing, isn't it?

Check out our publication in Social Psychological and Personality Science!

Can studies about violent video games and aggression be biased by demand characteristics?

With two experiments, we show that demand characteristics can lead habitual gamers to respond less aggressively.

Good, I'll keep this profile picture for at least 10 more years.