Abstract
In order to improve the understanding of media violence effects, it is crucial to extend knowledge about factors that threaten the validity of such effects in empirical research. Research artifacts can be expected when participants are (a) aware of a scientist’s hypothesis, (b) motivated to confirm or disconfirm the hypothesis, and (c) capable of manipulating their responses in line with their motivation. Based on social identity theory (SIT) and self-categorization theory (SCT), we assumed that identifying with the social group of video game players would provide a motivation to disconfirm the “violent video games increase aggression” hypothesis. We further assumed that the use of nontransparent aggression measures and cover stories would prevent research artifacts. Our results showed that highly identified (compared to lowly identified) players of video games reported less aggression on a transparent aggression measure but not on a nontransparent aggression measure. However, providing participants with a cover story did not prevent hypothesis awareness nor eliminate hypothesis-disconfirming response patterns. These results provide empirical support for the ideas that (a) motivational factors may contribute to a biased estimation of media violence effects, (b) cover stories may not always be effective, and (c) the use of nontransparent aggression measures can provide a valid methodological approach for avoiding biases in media effects research.
Highlights
The goal of the present research was (a) to investigate factors that contribute to the emergence of research artifacts in studies on violent video game effects on aggression and (b) to identify methodological approaches that may be able to eliminate the occurrence of research artifacts in this field of research
We investigated whether the frequent use of cover stories and nontransparent measures in research on violent video game effects can add to the prevention of research artifacts
We agree with Hyman’s notion that “all scientific inquiry is subject to error, and it is far better to be aware of this, to study the sources in an attempt to reduce it, and to estimate the magnitude of such errors in our findings, than to be ignorant of the errors concealed in the data” ([69], p. 4)
Summary
Social scientists who study human behavior are faced with a methodological challenge. If participants in a media violence study are asked to complete an aggression measure after being exposed to a violent movie, they might correctly guess that the scientists’ hypothesis is that violent movies increase aggression. This might alter their subsequent behavior in the experiment, causing a research artifact (i.e., a systematic bias that threatens the internal and external validity of the study [1,2]). We investigated factors that contribute to research artifacts in studies on the effects of video game violence on aggression. Our theoretical assumptions were derived from a framework model that describes the necessary conditions involved in the emergence of research artifacts [1]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
