By far, the most comprehensive (and, actually, quite readable) reference to which I could refer you is the monograph lead authored by Craig Anderson and published in the periodical, “Psychological Science in the Public Interest.” This is the policy-oriented outlet of the Association for Psychological Science (formerly American Psychological Society). I am almost certain that Craig has a copy of this posted on his website through the Psychology Department at Iowa State University. Excellent reviews and meta-analytic works also have been authored by Brad Bushman and Rowell Huesmann, both from my group at the University of Michigan. Brad posts his articles on-line too.

These works will lend credence for you to the idea of “you are what you watch.” It is true that choices drive consumption, but over time that effect washes out in comparison to the effect of the consumption per se. For example, in Rowell Huesmann’s 2003 paper which appeared in Developmental Psychology, early TV violence viewing predicted later aggression but early aggression did not predict later TV violence viewing.

As to the press release, mine was written by our PR office and I know this is the case at least for the University of Michigan as well. The headlines and leads are designed to be attention grabbers, I’m sure, which is partly why they include links and citations for the full studies.

Thank you for commenting. I am pleased you did. I have two points and two questions.

Points:
- Unfortunately, and somewhat disturbingly, to read many journal articles a person must either be a member or subscriber. I hope this changes in the future. Just as precision is essential to the scientific endeavor (readers of this blog know that one of my pet peeves is that precision should be extended to the use of language) so too is transparency. It doesn’t make sense to me, beyond financial considerations, that scientific journals make it difficult to “look inside” a study.

- Upon re-reading my post, I see I may have undersold the current state of evidence for the influence of violent media on behavior. It is my tendency to err on the side of tentativeness. This, I think, both reflects the reality of science and best models a scientific attitude. I strive to make my tentativeness inversely proportional to the weight (and quality) of evidence.

Questions:
- On that note, could you point me to the best, recent studies conducted on the topic? I may have missed something.

- Who writes the news releases for your work? Is it generally the job of the institution’s “public relations” department and/or science journalists?

It seems to me a problem with the communication and consumption of science is that risks for populations are frequently interpreted as risks for individuals.

A case in point would be the statement “You are what you watch.” Whether or not an individual is or becomes what they watch will likely be determined by whether they choose what they watch, their personality/temperament, whether they identify with the protagonist or antagonist, etc.

Again, thank you for commenting.

What we show in the new study is a link between actual violent behavior and violent media preferences, controlling statistically for other risk factors implicated in the development of antisocial behavior. These two facets of the investigation are novel contributions and need to be replicated and extended. Happy to discuss this further with you.