Scathing Review of Grand Theft Childhood Appears, Then Disappears

When Professors Cheryl Olson and Lawrence Kutner released their study, Grand Theft Childhood, they no doubt understood they would receive strong criticisms from some in the mental health field. After all, their failure to find violent video games a “bane to civilized society” certainly contrasted with many other researchers who sought to categorize these games as such.

Dr. Kutner, in fact, welcomes such dissent and noted as much in one of conversations. “I have no problem with anything I do being criticized,” stated Kutner, “even being torn to shreds.”

But the Harvard professor also indicated that in welcoming intellectual discourse, he expects critiques to be based in facts. So when PyschCentral.com, a site that bills itself as the Internet’s largest and oldest independent mental health social network, posted a scathing review of Grand Theft Childhood that was factually deficient, the Harvard Professor asked the site editor to take a closer look at the editorial.

Within the matter of 18 hours of the request, the respected site pulled the editorial written by Joanne Cantor, Ph.D. Before taking the bold action of dropping the article, the editor of the website apparently called in a couple of outside reviewers to take a look at Cantor’s assertions. When the reviewers had completed their task, the site acknowledged that the editorial “was not up to the usual standards we look for in our editorial content. There were also questions about specific assertions and accusations….”

The Cantor Article
An outside reader of the Cantor review would have trouble finding issue with the writer’s credentials. Cantor is “Professor Emerita and Director of the Center for Communication Research at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, where she was on the faculty from 1974 to 2000. She taught courses on research methods, media effects, and media violence and has published more than 90 scholarly articles on the psychological impact of the media. She has published a parenting book, Mommy, I’m Scared: How TV and Movies Frighten Children and What We Can Do to Protect Them, and a children’s book, Teddy’s TV Troubles.”

But when Cantor took exception to the Grant Theft Childhood study at virtually every turn one had to wonder if something was amiss. By the second sentence, the retired professor of communications had taken issue with the research method utilized, questioned the integrity of the study itself and found fault with the professor’s interpretation of the data that was collected.

In Cantor’s own words: “The authors’ professed lack of bias is called into question by their research design and how they interpret their own data.”

Cantor added later, “The authors acknowledge the help of a congressman in connecting them with the Justice Department (p. 3). This leads me to suspect that their grant was an ‘earmark’ and not competitively reviewed. Having served as a reviewer for proposals for the National Institute of Mental Health and the National Science Foundation, my opinion is that the design of their research would not have passed muster in competition.”

And yet again, “In interviews, they have assured the public that they receive no remuneration from video game companies. It does seem more than coincidental that a book named Grand Theft Childhood telling parents not to worry about violent video games should be launched in the same month as a game titled Grant Theft Auto IV. Maybe there was no collusion; maybe it just seemed like a good marketing idea to the publisher. It’s a misleading title anyway, because it seems to imply criticism of the games rather than criticism of researchers whose findings suggest harm to kids.”

Respected Researchers, Respected Research
Calling into question the research design as well as the data interpretation certainly was far-fetched. Kutner and Olson are the authors of numerous articles and their work has appeared in such highly respected journals as the Psychiatric Times, the Journal of Adolescent Health, the Journal of Adolescent Research, Child & Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, and Academic Psychiatry.

When asked about the review, the authors of Grand Theft Childhood had little interest in a point-by-point discussion of the Cantor commentary. However, Professor Kutner did provide a few pieces of information that clearly demonstrates why independent reviewers suggested the article was beneath the editorial standards of PsychCentral.

As for the insinuation that the grant was an earmark, Kutner noted the governmental terminology regarding such funding was outside the scope of his expertise.

“I really don’t know which criterion our funding met,” stated Kutner, “so she may be correct that it was technically an earmark. She was absolutely right that the DOJ process for awarding these funds was not the same as that used by the NSF or NIH in awarding most of their competitive research grants.”

But the professor could address the insinuation that there was self-interest or manipulation on the part of a congressman in pushing for the program.

“There was no involvement by or interference from anyone in the government at any stage of the research,” he stated. “And there was no financial or political benefit to the congressman who made the request for the research.”

The professor went on to explain how the entire process played out. It seems that a congressman from Virginia contacted a senior psychiatrist at Harvard Medical School to find out what research might be done to explore this topic. Eventually the topic was communicated by e-mail among faculty for comments and recommendations. Professor Olson was one of several faculty members who responded with interest.

“Based on her review of the literature and proposed research design, the chair suggested that she take on the project,” explained Kutner. “She then wrote up the proposal, research design and budget, and was referred to the congressman, who connected her with the Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Programs at the Department of Justice.

“None of the money for this research was spent in the congressman’s state,” stated Kutner. “He had no influence on the research design or execution. We had one telephone conference call to introduce ourselves, and have never met him.”

As to possible collusion with the gaming industry, video gamers know full well that allegation, specifically the timing of the release of Grand Theft Childhood with that of GTA IV, to be patently false. Grand Theft Auto IV had an original release date of October, 2007, but that release was scuttled by Take Two Interactive, the game’s publisher, with relatively vague predictions of an early 2008 release.

In our discussions with Dr. Kutner, we learned the publication date listed in Simon & Schuster’s catalog for Grand Theft Childhood was set well before the actual re-scheduled release of GTA IV.

“The book was scheduled for publication on April 15th, 2008 by the publisher approximately a year in advance, as is standard in the industry,” noted Kutner. “That allowed them to promote it to bookstores in their catalog.”

As for the book’s title, Professor Kutner also revealed the decision-making process by the publisher. “The title of our book in the original proposal to publishers was Killing Time,” stated Kutner. “Simon & Schuster, which controls the title, liked Grand Theft Childhood, which was the title of one of our chapters in the proposal.

“We asked that the publisher put a question mark after the title, just as it is in Chapter 4. The editor said that question marks don’t work well on book titles, and asked that we come up with a subtitle that included something about parents, which she saw as the primary audience.”

Scathing Review Disappears
With little factual basis to back her scathing review, it is easy to see why Olson and Kutner asked PsychCentral to take a second look at Cantor’s article. One could spend time criticizing PsychCentral as it is rare to see such a trustworthy site post a review that did not meet such editorial standards. Instead, Professor Kutner was praiseworthy of the site for taking a second look at the material.

“To me, what’s interesting here,” stated Kutner, “isn’t what she said.” What is interesting “is that mainstream media such as PsychCentral.com are no longer accepting these types of rants in an unquestioning way. When I pointed out to the editor that her (Cantor’s) critique was not based in facts, he took another look, called in two outside reviewers, and then tossed her writing out.

“I don’t know if that would have happened a year or two ago,” he added. “It’s a sign that the conversation is moving to a new level. The mainstream media are no longer talking about simplistic relationships like how watching Poltergeist or It leads to a lifelong fear of clowns, which is the level at which some of the earlier media violence pundits were presenting their case.”

Grand Theft Childhood Contradicts Many Beliefs
We noted in our very first article regarding the Grand Theft Childhood book that it contrasted with our prior viewpoints regarding violent video games. We also explained, in depth, why the work of Kutner and Olson caused us to rethink some of our longstanding beliefs.

The book no doubt contradicts the viewpoint of many others who believe violent video games to be the “bane of our civilized society.” However, the recent PsychCentral episode should somewhat renew readers faith in mainstream media.

At least one site has demonstrated it will not allow false assertions be used as a basis to suggest a dismissal of opposing research.