Many studies write in their conclusions that it is indeed causal effect real-life violence in the long term, not short term aggression, not a correlation. Maybe they're wrong, but hese are peer-reviewed studies and I can't dispute them effecively.

I totally believe what you say, but I'm afraid it's just opinion. If you know how can I dispute so much research without looking extremely biased, I'll take it. I don't think this will do

That is actually a very good food for thought. I agree with most of what you said, but I'll have to look for research to support that first. Thanks for the input.

I don't. I kinda rely on the scientists' word. They said they accounted for other factors, I'll leave it to other scientists to dispute that. I've noted several critics' opinions in the paper, that's all I can do.

I would like to see these studies that you have found. The other thing to consider is that there are also peer reviewed papers that review previous studies, usually pointing out at the experimental flaws or for this kind of topic, misuse of certain words like violence.

Basically any study by Brad Bushman or Craig Anderson. This would be a good example: here. I don't currently have access to my paper (at a diferrent computer),, so I'll get back to you with more.

The second part of what you said is true and has been duly noted.

Edit: Thanks for the info in the post below.

Here are two papers you may be interested in. They are both very recent (published in 2014). The second link leads to an article providing a summary about the study. You can find the actual paper from the March edition of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

Markey et al. (2014): http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/2014-33466-001/

Przybylski & Ryan (2014): http://www.rochester.edu/newscenter/frustration-in-mastering-video-games-linked-to-aggression/

You should consider finding more recent studies. The one you provided me is 15 years ago. I won't be surprised if there is a peer reviewed critique of that study. It's very important to consider more recent studies since now we have a better grasp of this topic, we have refined the experimental methods. So please look up the two studies I mentioned above.

Edit: Don't mention it

It's an interesting subject in that how would you begin to go about attempting to measure such a thing if given the resources? This is why psychology isn't a real science.

Violent crime is going down in the western world. This is unlikely to have anything to do with computer games but might be linked to decreased levels of lead exposure.

I don't know if there are any isolated incidents of violence directly inspired by a video game (A recreation of mortal kombat fatality of a school friend for excample), if so it wouldn't mean much because people can get messages to kill from a Beatles song.

As to its general effect we don't have any effective measure. All we can do it guess.

I'd personally say it could potentially have a small negative impact. Glorification of gang culture can but an issue within some communities. Media like gangsta rap, and the celebs that endorse that lifestyle can be an issue in communities where gang membership is high. Media can act like adverts. I'd say computer games are low on the list of media influence in that regard but they have the potential.

It is true that the studies claiming a causal link to long term real-life violence tend to be older.

However studies saying otherwise are scarce, too. Which is understandable, it is hard to study this, because so many people play videogames. The burden of proof is of course on those who claim the link, but the effects regarding short-term aggression and violent attitudes are more easily identifiable and according to some psychological models, it should translate to long-term violence, too. Concrete evidence remains to be seen, however.