Angry Birds, Angry Children, and Angry Meta-Analysts: A Reanalysis

Perspectives on Psychological Science

Volumn 11, Issue 3, 2016, Pages 408-414

  Furuya Kanamori, Luis ^a  

^a AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

Author keywords

Aggression; Meta analysis; Partial correlation; Publication bias; Video games

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; ANGER; ANIMAL; BIRD; CHILD; HUMAN; PSYCHOLOGY; VIDEO GAME;

AGGRESSION; ANGER; ANIMALS; BIRDS; CHILD; HUMANS; VIDEO GAMES;

EID: 84971461274     PISSN: 17456916     EISSN: 17456924     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1745691616635599     Document Type: Article

References (20)

1. A.M.Aloe (2014). An empirical investigation of partial effect sizes in meta-analysis of correlational data. The Journal of General Psychology, 141, 47–64.
2. A.M.Aloe (2015). Inaccuracy of regression results in replacing bivariate correlations. Research Synthesis Methods, 6, 21–27.
3. A.M.AloeC.G.Thompson (2013). The synthesis of partial effect sizes. Journal of the Society for Social Work & Research, 4, 390–405.
4. J.J.BarendregtS.A.Doi (2015). MetaXL User Guide version 3.1. p36-37. Retrieved from http://www.epigear.com/index_files/MetaXL%20User%20Guide.pdf
5. P.BoxerC.L.GrovesM.Docherty (2015). Video games do indeed influence children and adolescents’ aggression, prosocial behavior, and academic performance: A clearer reading of Ferguson (2015). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 671–673.
6. R.DersimonianN.Laird (1986). Meta-analysis in clinical trials. Controlled Clinical Trials, 7, 177–188.
7. S.A.DoiJ.J.BarendregtS.KhanL.ThalibG.M.Williams (2015). Advances in the meta-analysis of heterogeneous clinical trials. I: The inverse variance heterogeneity model. Contemporary Clinical Trials, 45, 130–138.
8. C.J.Ferguson (2015a). Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game influences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 646–666.
9. C.J.Ferguson (2015b). Pay no attention to that data behind the curtain: On angry birds, happy children, scholarly squabbles, publication bias, and why betas rule metas. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 683–691.
10. D.A.Gentile (2015). What is a good skeptic to do? The case for skepticism in the media violence discussion. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 674–676.
11. J.S.Hodges (2013). Random effects old and new. In (Ed.), Richly parameterized linear models: Additive, time series, and spatial models using random effects (pp. 285–302). Beaverton, OR: CRC Press.
12. L.Kriston (2013). Dealing with clinical heterogeneity in meta-analysis. Assumptions, methods, interpretation. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 22, 1–15.
13. P.M.Markey (2015). Finding the middle ground in violent video game research: Lessons from Ferguson (2015). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 667–670.
14. H.Noma (2011). Confidence intervals for a random-effects meta-analysis based on Bartlett-type corrections. Statistics in Medicine, 30, 3304–3312.
15. C.PooleS.Greenland (1999). Random-effects meta-analyses are not always conservative. American Journal of Epidemiology, 150, 469–475.
16. T.C.PrattF.T.Cullen (2000). The empirical status of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory of crime: A meta-analysis. Criminology, 38, 931–964.
17. R.D.RileyJ.P.HigginsJ.J.Deeks (2011). Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 342, d549.
18. H.R.RothsteinB.J.Bushman (2015). Methodological and reporting errors in meta-analytic reviews make other meta-analysts angry: A commentary on Ferguson (2015). Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 677–679.
19. J.SavageC.Yancey (2008). The effects of media violence exposure on criminal aggression: A meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 772–791.
20. P.M.Valkenburg (2015). The limited informativeness of meta-analyses of media effects. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 680–682.