A Meaner, More Callous Digital World for Youth? The Relationship Between Violent Digital Games, Motivation, Bullying and Civic Behavior amongst Children

The relationship between violent digital games and youth behavior remains contested in the scholarly literature. To date considerable scholarship has focused on university students with fewer studies of adolescents or children. The current study examines correlational relationships between violent game exposure and bullying behaviors, antisocial attitudes, civic attitudes and civic behaviors in a sample of 304 children from the United Kingdom (Mean age = 12.81). The paper also considered motivational influences on use of violent digital games. Results indicated that violent game exposure did not correlate meaningfully with either antisocial or civic behaviors or attitudes. These results are discussed in a motivational and developmental context

Lack of Consensus Among Scholars on the Issue of Video Game “Addiction”

Whether pathological video game overuse constitutes a distinct mental disorder remains an issue of controversy among scholars. Both empirical data and scholarly opinions differ regarding the status of pathological gaming and whether “addiction” is the best frame by which to understand video game use. The current study sought to examine the status of scholarly opinions in a survey of 214 scholars to examine their opinion of possible behavioral effects of games. Results indicated a variance of opinions. About 60.8% of scholars agreed pathological gaming could be a mental health problem, whereas 30.4% were skeptical. However, only 49.7% believed the DSM criteria for “internet gaming disorder” were valid, with slightly higher numbers, 56.5%, supporting the World Health Organization “gaming disorder” diagnosis. More scholars worried about both the DSM and WHO criteria over-pathologizing normal youth than weren’t worried about this. Scholars were likewise split over whether the DSM/WHO had precipitated moral panics over video games. Belief in pathological gaming was positively predicted by hostile attitudes toward children and negatively by participants’ experience with games. Overall results indicated continued significant disagreements among scholars related to pathological gaming. Claims of consensus are, at this juncture, likely prematur

Sexualized Video Games, Sexist Attitudes and Empathy Toward Victims of Rape: Correlational Evidence for a Relationship Is Minimal in an Online Study

Background: Continued debate exists regarding whether sexualization in games can influence sexist attitudes and reduced empathy toward women in real life. At present, evidence has been mixed with little clear consensus among scholars. Intervention: The present study examined the relationship between sexualized content in video games and players’ sexist attitudes and empathy. This study tests whether such relationships exist once other factors including gender and trait aggression are controlled. Methods: A correlational design was used with an online sample of 125 participants. Heirarchical multiple regression was employed as well as PROCESS to test for interactions between sexualized game content and trait aggression. Results: Contrary to popular concerns, exposure to sexualized content in video games was associated with neither decreased empathy nor higher sexist attitudes. Sexualized content in games was associated with slightly lower sexist beliefs and increased empathy for those high in trait aggression. No effects were observed for those low in trait aggression. Discussion: The current study provides evidence against beliefs sexist attitudes are cultivated by video games. If anything, exposure to sexist games may be associated with greater empathy and reduced sexism among more aggressive individuals

The Buck Stops Where? A Critique of Vicarious Liability in the Medical Malpractice Context

In Canadian tort law, liability is almost always linked to some notion of fault, save for a few well-established exceptions. By far the most common exception is vicarious liability, i.e. the liability of employers for the torts of their employees. In its 1999 ruling in Bazley v. Curry, the Supreme Court of Canada articulated exactly why this kind of faultless liability exists in Canada, and how it is justified. In medical malpractice cases involving teaching hospitals, there are usually three possible defendants to a negligence action: the attending physician, the treating resident, and the hospital. Due to the legal nature of their employment relationship, if the resident is found liable, so too is her employer, the hospital. This liability is regardless of fault. The attending physician, on the other hand, can only be held liable with fault. This paper proposes that imposing vicarious liability on the hospital or any other party in this type of action is inconsistent with the justifications outlined in Bazley v. Curry. Liability in this particular context, it is argued, should be limited to liability with fault. This paper also briefly explores possible reasons why the courts have demonstrated a general preference to have hospitals, rather than attending physicians, pay judgments to injured plaintiffs. It takes notice of a newly emerging non-delegable duty of care owed by hospitals to patients, and further points out the unique public source of funding for malpractice judgments regardless of who is liable

Manufacturing consensus in a diverse field of scholarly opinions: A comment on Bushman, Gollwitzer, and Cruz (2015).

We appreciate the efforts of Bushman and Cruz to provide new data describing parents’ and professionals’ opinions regarding effects of media violence. Unfortunately, we feel it is necessary to call attention to apparent errors and inaccuracies in the way those data are interpreted and represented in their article. The article overstates the extent to which there is agreement that media violence has meaningful negative societal effects and misrepresents the relevance of the study to an understanding of the effects of media violence on societal violence. In contrast, we call for a climate of research on media violence that better recognizes the diversity of findings and conclusions in an active and growing research agenda and eschews unwarranted insinuations about effects on criminal violence from research focused on aggression-related measures not assessing violent crime