(I can't say too much lest my true identity ever be discovered and I'd have to forever abandon the name "dan theman" across the internets, but I'll share what I can)
I've seen a handful of studies that propose to show a causal link, but methodology has often been an issue with those that have actually been able to draw the conclusion. Those aren't weak objections, they're just not sexy enough to make you sound terribly interesting on a panel discussion so I'd keep clear of them without verifiable ammunition to chase down the errors.
Also, imho meta studies suck. Yeah, they're work/life-savers for correlative studies, but when you try to draw too much from them then you're looking at the proverbial weak link in a chain issue.
Anyway, I believe a more effective way to deal with such a theory would be to focus on the children at risk of aggressive behavior and the causal reasons behind that. Account for environment, but explain that environment is not isolated by what video game happens to be playing at the moment. There's a decision making threshhold (Kass, 2000
I think - you'll find him at Bloomsburg University, nowadays, and no I'm not him) that is naturally reached when a factor becomes so inherently bad that no amount of gain from going through with the considered action could possibly make it acceptable (think of the "Would you take a million dollars in exchange for one person you know dying" hypothetical question). That threshhold is different for all of us, but it is very real and can also be extended to the root of violent decision making behavior.
How does playing a violent video game change a person's theshhold, or does it? I would argue not much. Morality/ethics/"how we deal with people" is taught through interpersonal relationships and experiences. The only argument that I can see with -any- video games causing negative behavior would be due to the reduction of time spent with interpersonal relationships (the normative force). As the preponderance of an individual's time is shifted toward interacting in a fictional, violent world, you may see learned coping behaviors start to carry over a little bit (did you ever use the reflexes you honed in some driving simulator while on the REAL road? I know I once did and it saved my neck
) but that still wouldn't explain violence as it wouldn't shift that threshhold. What I'd argue would occur is due to the lower normative force: internal psychological pressures would gain relative power and the chance of anti-social behavior would therefore increase.
If you look at a cross section of any community, there will be a segment predisposed to antisocial behavior. Of the overall population (N), a portion will enact antisocial behavior regardless of playing video games or not. I would argue that smaller population (n1) would be drawn to violent video games due to many factors, the more visceral the better, giving the skewing of data showing the correlation between violent video games and real life violence.
The other population (n2) in that segment would be the "at risk" individuals: those who may or may not enage in antisocial behavior (AKA - "the rest of us"). Those are the people who are of interest in this debate. If a consistent normative force is applied to their lives and personalities, even if they may be predisposed to antisocial behavior because of chemical imbalances and/or personal trauma, the influence of any video game to shift them in another direction would likely be zeroed out. That's why you or I could play Grand Theft Auto for hours and then not go and commit crimes - we've had enough of that normative influence and our decision threshhold is right bout where it belongs. One could question accepting an invitation to sit on a panel, but ...
Then you have to look at another aspect: not everybody has enough of that primary normative force. Those without it will be more likely to play violent and ALSO M-rated games due to a lack of household structure and supervision. Instead of more traditional manners in which to spend their time such as playing sports, joining clubs, hanging out, etc., playing video games have risen to a more prominent role in modern society. Unfortunately they usually won't allow secondary normative forces (highly social interactions with friends, teachers, coaches, even other parents) to reach the same footing once held in our youth.
Out of that highly at risk group that lacks primary or secondary normative influences, some will have the predisposition to behave antisocially and may therefore lack the inhibition to curb such tendancies. Therefore you'll naturally see an ADDED correlation between increased violence and Mature rated games as opposed to participants in other more social activities, creating an unusual spike in our gamer spectrum of behaviors.
Again, it's not truly causal, but it does illustrate the risks children share in our society and explains the correlation between M-rated/violent video games and violent behavior and also suggests a common-sense solution: limit the role of video games in order to allow more influences into a child's life, but don't ban or universally restrict them. Entertainment has significant value, and the fact that most video games are entertaining is indisputable.
Sadly, a lot of this is supposition, but then again I'm not the one who said I'd sit in on a discussion panel.
PS - if someone read all of this, respond one more time than everyone else who says "tl/dr" to receive your free post count padding as a reward
