As with past moral panics regarding rock music, comic books, or Dungeons & Dragons, it is increasingly clear that video games play little role in violent crime or even prank-level aggressive behaviors. As various studies show, there is no long-term association between aggressive video games and violent crime. If anything, studies suggest that playing popular violent games like Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto is associated with reduced crime in society.

Examinations of this issue by the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. School Safety Commission, as well as reviews by the governments of Australia, Sweden, and the U.K., all come to the same conclusions: evidence for even mild aggression are inconsistent at best.

The lonesome holdouts still complaining about games are professional guilds, particularly the American Psychological Association (APA). This group — full disclosure: I am a fellow of the APA, but speak only for myself — stubbornly holds onto its 2015 resolution that, though games are not related to violent crime, they do cause “aggression,” which the group confusingly leaves undefined. This resolution suggests both that the evidence for aggression effects is consistent and, in some real-world way, worth worrying about despite considerable evidence to the contrary. Why does the APA hold onto such a scientifically inaccurate resolution?

I suspect the answer is complex, but largely comes down to confirmation bias: in general, humans are poor at changing their minds, even in the face of evidence that contradicts their worldviews. Add in generational issues — most individuals making these decisions are older, not unlike previous generations of older adults who railed against rock music — along with the APA’s purpose of marketing psychology and the sunk costs of staking out a bad public position, and it looks like the APA got itself into a trap with no easy escape.

In 2013, the APA announced it was putting together a task force to update its existing policies on aggressive video games. Scholars were concerned. Video game research had been contentious for decades and the APA had a history of overstating the evidence for effects. Although the APA ostensibly wanted open-minded scholars, a majority of task force members had already staked out public positions demonizing games. Despite the APA’s apparent intention to appear neutral, one member had previously published studies critiquing games, of which the task force chair appeared unaware. No task force members had publicly defended games prior to this appointment.

Given how many APA members had never taken a position on games, a task force this clearly biased was statistically implausible as a random outcome. In response, 230 scholars wrote an open letter in 2013 calling on the APA to refrain from releasing declarative statements on how games affect aggression. The APA task force didn’t even acknowledge this letter in their final report.

A group of scholars within the APA interested in media psychology, the Society for Media Psychology and Technology (of which I am also a member), wrote their own statement on aggressive games in 2017, asking policy makers and reporters to stop linking games to violent crime since there’s no evidence for it. This put the APA somewhat at odds with their own semi-autonomous group of experts on the topic (the APA did not consult with the Society for Media Psychology either in 2015 or its subsequent review).

In 2019, the APA reviewed more recent evidence on aggressive games. Despite a plethora of new studies, often conducted under more rigorous conditions, that found no effects of violent games on even mild aggression, the APA review stuck to its guns. Weirdly, the new review acknowledged that significant debates existed in the field, but seemed uninterested in honestly informing the public of these debates and inconsistencies in the evidence. The new review, like the 2015 resolution, ignored widely-recognized methodological flaws in many of the studies, or the possibility of publication bias (where studies that support a belief are easier to publish than those that question it, distorting the scholarly record). One of my own studies is cited by the 2019 review as supporting the APA’s position when, in fact, it does not.

One member of the review committee, an outside non-psychologist, opposed maintaining the 2015 APA resolution, citing “concerns about the quality of the studies, the magnitude of the effect, and the policy implications of a resolution.” It’s possible that, as a non-psychologist from the general public, she had greater outside clarity — or, perhaps, less investment — than the psychologists.

The Society for Media Psychology and Technology responded quickly. In an open letter to the APA leadership, they expressed concern that the APA is continuing to misinform the public about the nature of the scholarship on aggressive games. This includes failing to honestly inform the public about the inconsistent evidence and the methodological shortcomings of many studies, and failing to even define “aggression.”

In fairness, the APA Council did vote to add a statement to its resolution on games clarifying there is no relationship between games and violent crime. That’s great, but their statements on milder aggression continue to be misleading and confusing.

Why is the APA so bad at this?

I had the opportunity to sit on the APA’s Council of Representatives for three years and saw how the organization makes decisions. Trying to describe it fully in this space would be impossible, but, put simply, it’s a mess.

Older adults are vastly over-represented on the Council, the 2015 task force, and 2019 review. This is non-trivial for video games, since evidence shows that age biases opinions about games among both clinicians and scholars. Older adults — and, interestingly, adults who don’t like kids — are more willing to believe video games are bad. Put bluntly, the APA is providing a platform for the biases of older generations against the hobbies of younger generations and pretending this is “science.”

Additionally, the APA skews heavily liberal. For example, the Association has released many public statements opposing various Trump administration policies. While I have no affection for the Trump administration, and personally agree with many of these statements, I sometimes joke that Trump couldn’t fart without the APA releasing a critical public statement. In my three years on Council, I witnessed the APA release several other biased public statements distorting the scientific record, such as on whether spanking causes aggression, or whether “traditional masculinity” is harmful.

In most cases, we Council members were asked to vote on matters of science we honestly knew little more about than the general public. This gave considerable leverage to APA staff members — who, unlike us, worked for the APA — and to members with political or ideological agendas to shape APA policy, often in ways that misrepresented messy social science. Remember, this is the organization that just a few years ago erupted into controversy over troublesome decisions allowing psychologists to participate in harsh interrogations (i.e., torture) at Guantanamo Bay. And the APA currently faces a lawsuit alleging that the Association essentially threw them under the bus without due process to try to dodge the scandal. Why should we trust the APA to be honest about science?

To be fair, many of the people on the Council are there in good faith, trying to do their best. Even folks with agendas are just doing what humans do. But the process is dysfunctional. The APA decision-making hierarchy lacks a culture of proper skepticism and appropriate scientific rigor. Thus, the APA keeps producing rubbish “science” policies that are mainly wishful thinking, or perhaps akin to industry marketing a flawed product.

It’s hard to understand how the APA, in their latest review, could admit the field of video games and aggression is rife with debate, yet find it ethical not to inform the public of that debate. In 2018, psychologist John Grohol wrote about the APA’s torture scandal: “after years of lying to its members, the public, and other professionals, the American Psychological Association (APA) finds itself in the awkward position of being a professional organization that no longer has a moral or ethical leg to stand on.” Unfortunately, these harsh words appear apt not just for the torture scandal, nor even just for video games, but for the APA’s public communications on science more broadly.

Unfortunately, the APA does not appear up to the task of reporting on science honestly or cautiously. Until they demonstrate the ability to do so, their public statements should not be mistaken for science and should not be used to inform policy. Nor should they be mistaken for the hard work many rigorous social scientists do to bring good evidence to bear on pressing social issues.

I can only hope that, one day, the APA will make the ethical and scientific reforms necessary to be taken seriously as a science organization.