Scientific evidence shows that exposure to video game violence can harm teenagers.
Three researchers analysed the research output of experts who filed a brief in a US Supreme Court case involving violent video games and teenagers.
Their conclusion? Experts who say violent video games are harmful to teenagers have published much more evidence supporting their claims than have experts on the other side of the debate, reports the journal Law Review Colloquy.
"The evidence suggests that those who argue violent video games are harmful have a lot more experience and stronger credentials than those who argue otherwise," said study author Brad Bushman, professor of psychology at Ohio State University.
Bushman conducted the study with Craig Anderson, professor of psychology at Iowa State University, and Deana Pollard Sacks, professor of law at Texas Southern University, according to an Ohio statement.
Their study involved Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, a case before the US Supreme Court that will decide whether the state of California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to children under 18.
In this case, groups supporting and opposing the law have filed what are called briefs of amicus curiae. These are briefs by people or groups who are not involved directly in the case, but want to offer the court their expert opinion on the issues involved.
Researchers analysed the credentials of the 115 people who signed the Gruel brief, who believe video violence is harmful, and the 82 signers of the Millett brief, who believe video violence is not harmful. The briefs are named after the lead attorneys for each side.
For each of the signers of the two briefs, researchers calculated how many articles and books they published on issues relating to violence and aggression in general and on media violence specifically.
The results showed that 60 percent of the Gruel brief signers have published at least one scientific study on aggression or violence in general, compared to only 17 percent of the Millett brief signers.
Moreover, when the researchers looked specifically at the subject of media violence, 37 percent of Gruel brief signers have published at least one study in that area, compared to just 13 percent of the Millett brief signers.
Results showed that signers of the Gruel brief had published over 48 times more studies in top-tier journals than did those who signed the Millett brief.
"That's a staggering difference," Bushman said. "It provides strong support for the argument that video game violence is indeed harmful."