Here are some links to recent media interviews about violent video games and their potential connection to real-world violence:

• New Hampshire Public Radio, January 10
• C-SPAN, January 19
• WBUR (NPR Boston), January 24
• WNYC (NPR) New Tech City, January 28
• CNN Anderson Cooper 360, January 31
• PBS NewsHour, February 19

• • On the Joan Ganz Cooney Center website: my views on the need for additional research on video games, especially concerning juvenile offenders and young people with mental heath problems.
  • I was asked by the website Gamasutra for a jargon-free assessment of the state of video game violence research.

They surprised me with an award for my “exceptional contribution” to research, as well as international outreach to journalists to counter myths about video games and youth.

Click here for a summary of the ideas I presented on media competence (aka media literacy).

I just did an interview on CNN’s Headline News, where the focus was a story that’s kicked around for several years: a 2006 video game sold in Japan, called RapeLay, that allows players to grope (with a disembodied hand) and attack cartoon females. (No genitals are shown.) It goes without saying that this is a disgusting concept. The game was never sold in this country…but the idea of it has struck a chord with pundits convinced that video games are debasing our youth. Over the past few years, stories mentioning “rape games” have popped up repeatedly in U.S. news media. Parents may be reassured to know that – in contrast to R-rated movies – there are very few electronic games with nudity or sexual content. All of them can be found on the ESRB web site by searching for AO-rated games.

My goal during the Headline News interview was to move away from the “ain’t it awful!” premise, and provide parents with context and specific, useful information.

There’s a link to the interview on GamePolitics.

Also see my article on how the media sometimes bungles research findings: Through the looking glass: What happens when media coverage distorts science?

episode 1. Losing Your Dread of Media Interviews (5:10)

I do believe he truly wants to help. And it’s clear as plastic wrap that cheap, over-processed food is setting up many of these children for premature death. But although Jamie’s food may be fresh, his “I know best” paternalistic attitude is a counterproductive retread. Here are several of his behavior-change blind spots:

Other people should like what I like.

In part of the program, Jamie provided a family with a week’s worth of healthy meal recipes and ingredients, including an array of unfamiliar herbs. He seemed perturbed that, at the end of the week, most of the exotic ingredients sat wilting in the back of their fridge. Why not instead ask the family about their favorite dishes, and provide recipes that take those preferences into account, but nudge them in a healthier direction?

None of us likes to make drastic changes. And if one meal turns out subpar, it’s easy to reject the new approach wholesale. This is especially true for children, who are not only picky about strange textures and smells, but are often more sensitive to bitter tastes. You may need to offer a new food a dozen times or more before a child will try it.

Other people have the same priorities I do.

Jamie was appalled when, after blending and straining a chicken carcass into beige glop, kids were willing to eat the glop if breaded and fried into patties. When he did this demonstration for kids in the U.K., they always backed away.

I had two thoughts: First, hasn’t he ever watched those gross-out kids’ shows (e.g., Nickelodeon’s famous slime), or seen the deliberately disgusting candy some kids like? He doesn’t seem to know a lot about normal child development.

Second, when he asked the kids why they would eat that fried glop, they simply said, “Because I’m hungry.” A not-insignificant number of these kids probably come from food-insecure homes, where they’d better eat while they can in case the cupboard’s bare tomorrow.

If they’re too dumb to get it, add some cartoons.

In a desperate effort to make vegetables appealing, Jamie parades through the school in a peapod costume. This reminds me of “math-made-easy” books that stuff in cartoons and jokes in lieu of a better instructional approach. Kids are smart. If vegetables are so great, why the hard sell?

Scare ‘em straight.

After failing to get the family to cook healthier meals, Jamie shepherds them to a pediatrician. A physical exam and tests reveal that the son is on a fast track to Type 2 diabetes. Everyone is understandably and appropriately upset.

But what are they supposed to do about it? Research shows that unless a “fear appeal” is strongly linked to specific actions that will reduce risk, people will “cope” through denial. They also need the ability and know-how to take action, and belief in their own power to change.

To his credit, Jamie spends some time cooking with the son, showing him how to whip up a healthy chicken stir-fry.  But that’s a small step on a long journey.

The other day, I heard an NPR health podcast titled “Bad Habits Die Hard–Will We Die With Them?” It includes an interview with Charlotte Schoenborn, a CDC statistician, who notes ruefully that after years of health education campaigns, there’s relatively little to show for these efforts: “It’s amazing how hard it is to change these personal health behaviors.”

One problem is disagreement about what should be changed. For example, the NPR report noted with disapproval that more educated people are more likely to drink alcohol, with the unstated assumption that all drinking is bad. A slew of health reports suggest that for most adults over 30, the benefits of a drink a day may outweigh the risks. There is also concern about New York City’s campaign to reduce salt intake across the board, which some view as tantamount to an uncontrolled experiment with the public’s health.

One area of agreement is that children’s eating habits are decidedly subpar. Experts talk of an epidemic of high blood pressure, Type 2 diabetes, sleep apnea and even knee problems in increasingly heavy kids and teens. To cut these risks, the NPR podcast mentioned the idea of an “in your face” campaign to reduce obesity, akin to past antismoking campaigns.

Wait a minute. I’ve done work in both smoking prevention/cessation and weight loss, and I worry that this attitude and approach could do more harm than good.

First, there’s zero evidence that shaming fat people helps them lose weight, whereas there’s lots of evidence that stress promotes weight gain (even without overeating), and that accepting obesity as shameful legitimizes weight discrimination – which appears to harm health as well as undermine access to good medical care.

Second, you can quit smoking, but you can’t quit eating. Sure, smoking is a complex and multifaceted behavior (involving environmental cues, genetic factors, pricing, etc.), but it’s nothing compared to eating.

I’m a fan of starting with low-risk, low-hassle, pretty-good-payoff interventions. On the issue of healthy eating, we can take a lesson from financial psychology. We know that employees save more with opt-out company retirement plans–ones that automatically set aside part of your monthly paycheck, unless you actively stop it. Economists sing the praises of setting up smart default options, then letting inertia work on the side of the angels.

There are already efforts underway to put healthy food choices in front of kids’ faces at school. We can also work to change the defaults in our kitchens at home. Leave healthy snacks (but only things your kids like, such as bananas) right up front on the counter. Position those little cups of fruit in juice, or some not-overly-sugary yogurt, so it hits your child’s eye first when she opens the fridge. Make inertia your friend.

For a contrarian perspective on food, read my article on stress and sugar cravings on the Brainlink website.

As we examined the situation, I pointed out that they were looking at the wrong metrics. Here’s why:

The ideal situation for this foundation—that is, the most efficient way for them to award their scholarships—would be for only 35 extremely qualified students to apply for the 35 awards. That’s incredibly unlikely, perhaps even impossible, of course. The worst situation would be to have a very large number of unqualified students apply for the scholarships, resulting in extra work for no benefit.

In other words, the total number of applicants is not a good measure of the foundation’s outreach efforts. It’s more sensible to look at the number of highly qualified applicants within that larger pool. If, for example, the number of strong applicants grew year to year from 45 to 55, then the foundation’s outreach was probably effective even if the total number of applicants went down. (I say “probably” because we don’t yet know the causal link between the increase in strong applicants and the promotion.)

But if the number of strong applicants went down from 45 to 40, it wouldn’t matter if the total number of applicants had doubled, or even tripled. That’s a sign that the outreach was either ineffective or counterproductive. Unfortunately, it’s all too common for organizations to focus on the “gross numbers” instead of figuring out whether that’s the right metric for measuring success.

So, before you either worry or celebrate, ask yourself if you’re measuring the right things.