Reexamining the Findings of the APA’s 2015 Task Force on Violent Media

1. Controversial APA Task Force Report: In this article, Ferguson, Copenhaver, and Markey’s (2020) APA Task Committee technical report on video game violence is reviewed. The study and resolution statement connected aggressive video games to aggression, not violent crime.
2. Reevaluation Difficulties: The study analyzes the 2015 APA video-game violence task force technical report (Ferguson et al., 2020). The study and resolution statement linked violent games to hate, not crime.
3. Methodological Concerns: Academic difficulties with violent gaming language and task force composition and methodology exist. Christopher J. Ferguson, Allen Copenhaver, and Patrick Markey criticized the 2015 APA Task Force on Violent Media methodology and outcomes. Selection biases and unclear inclusion criteria hinder meta-analysis. A violent video game aggressiveness study is researched after the task force and APA’s findings.
4. 4. Findings of Reevaluation: Researchers discovered no link between violent video games and violence or compassion. After careful consideration, Ferguson, Copenhaver, and Markey questioned the APA task panel’s findings. Desensitization was most linked, violent thoughts and emotions less. Violent video games increase aggression and contradict the APA in other ways.
5. Caution in Interpretation: They suggest rejecting the APA’s technical report and resolution. Ferguson, Copenhaver, and Markey recommended examining how violent video games affect aggression after their reevaluation. Suboptimal techniques and researcher-expectancy effects increase experiment impact sizes. This warning highlights the need for thorough research on violent media and aggression.

Most Interesting

Neutrality and thoroughness help the writer grasp violent video game disputes. Chris Ferguson, Allen Copenhaver, and Patrick Markey (2020) assessed the 2015 APA violent video game task group report. Research selection biases, ambiguous inclusion requirements, and methodological difficulties are covered. Examining violent video game effects on aggressiveness is difficult, casting doubt on the APA’s findings. Moderators, publication bias, and standardized regression coefficients complicate reevaluation. Their detailed procedure shows their scientific approach, rigorous study, and correction of original research flaws. The article covers open science and violent video game research. Remove and archive the 2015 video game violence resolution and reconsider the APA proposal. The essay raises this problematic issue and violent video game implications.

Early Adolescent Delinquency: The Role of Parents and Best Friends

Main Points

1. Objective of the Study: De Kemp et al. (2006) investigated the complicated links between parenting practices, delinquent peers, and early adolescent delinquency. The study examined preteen and early teenage socialization patterns using a three-wave longitudinal survey with 433 participants. The purpose was to understand better how parental and peer influences affect criminal conduct at this critical developmental age.
2. Parental and Delinquency: This study examined how parental factors, including behavioral control, psychological control, and support, affect juvenile delinquency. Teenage delinquency decreased significantly with perceived parental support and supervision. Teens with psychological control were more delinquent.
3. Challenging Peer Influence: Contrary to the peers’ role in juvenile criminality, the study’s main finding negated the latter. The fact that a person’s delinquent behavior is not directly affected by the criminal activities of those close to them has been supported by some research (De Kemp et al., 2006). This challenges the idea of whether peers are the ones responsible for teen deviations or not. Research shows that peer influences, social skills, and misbehavior among young teenagers require deeper insight.
4. Comprehensive Longitudinal Approaches: The study stressed that the longitudinal approach is the best way to investigate the complex association between parenting, peer influences, and delinquency of teens. The researchers collected data over time with a longitudinal survey in three waves. Examining the wide range of factors that form a basis for early adolescent misconduct is very effective in better understanding the mechanisms.

Most Interesting

Studies show that close friends’ illicit activity does not predict future crime, disproving the idea that peer networks significantly impact adolescents. This comprehensive study on peer pressure and juvenile delinquency enhances our knowledge of teenage socialization. Parental gender influences early puberty misbehavior (De Kemp et al., 2006). Male delinquency and mental control may be more significant. Thus, we must explore how gender, upbringing, and early adolescence affect criminality. Comprehensive longitudinal techniques may evaluate complicated processes across time, as demonstrated in this research. This technique helps us study the long-term effects of parental and peer influences to avoid adolescent delinquency.

Adolescent Brain Science and Juvenile Justice Policy Making

Main Points

1. Transformation in Legal Approach: Steinberg (2017) claims that the US Supreme Court’s use of developmental science, particularly developmental neuroscience, has changed the American legal system’s view of juvenile criminal liability over the past twelve years.
2. Influence of Neuroscience in Legal Decisions: Between 2005 and 2016, essential judgments like Roper v. Simmons used neurobiology in juvenile responsibility decisions. To make this transformation, we must concentrate on neurobiology rather than behavior, especially in psychological research on teenagers’ executive function immaturity.
3. Nuanced Approach to Juvenile Justice: The Court tests whether harsh juvenile penalties violate the Eighth Amendment. Using proportionality, this evaluation examines the offense’s gravity and the offender’s culpability (Steinberg, 2017). The study shows that late 20th-century punitive views must be replaced by ones that recognize adolescents’ unique qualities in criminal law
4. Role of Scientific Insights: Brain maturation research lets the Court recognize the physical and functional distinctions between adults’ and teens’ brains. Neuroscience influences discussions of adolescent responsibility by highlighting extrinsic factors that cause immaturity.
5. Ongoing Reforms and Future Directions: Despite continuous reforms, the paper offers further research and policy analysis, such as developmental gaps and the financial impacts of alternatives to conventional juvenile justice systems.

Most Interesting

Examining how neuroscience and judicial judgments interact is very intriguing. Instead of stressing behavioral distinctions between adults and adolescents, Steinberg (2017) claims that neuroscience illuminates their reasons. Neuroscience has proven that adult brains are physically and functionally different from teenage brains, indicating that external stimuli may cause immaturity. This nuanced approach stresses the transient character of adolescents’ immaturity rather than its biological base, supporting the claim that they are less mature than adults. The article proposes a comprehensive juvenile justice policy model emphasizing continuing research on developmental variations, policy results, and benefit-cost evaluations (Steinberg, 2017). A three-pronged strategy that uses behavioral and brain research to examine the impact of juvenile criminal responses and highlights the cost-effectiveness of realistic policies are proposed to address juvenile justice’s complicated issues.

References

Christopher J. Ferguson, C.J., Copenhaver, A., & Markey, P. (2020). Reexamining the Findings of the American Psychological Association’s 2015 Task Force on Violent Media

De Kemp, R. A., Scholte, R. H., Overbeek, G., & Engels, R. C. (2006). Early adolescent delinquency: The role of parents and best friends. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 33(4), 488-510.

Steinberg. L. (2017) Adolescent Brain Science and Juvenile Justice Policy Making. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 23(4), 410–420.