This linked response discusses several problems with this meta-analysis, and the fact that most other meta-analyses have found no effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.n

This linked response discusses several problems with this meta-analysis, and the fact that most other meta-analyses have found no effect: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20192554 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20192554 "Several recent meta-analyses, examining outcome measures most closely related to serious aggressive acts, found little evidence for a relationship between violent video games and aggression or violence. In a new meta-analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. (2010) questioned these findings. However, their analysis has several methodological issues that limit the interpretability of their results. In their analysis, C. A. Anderson et al. included many studies that do not relate well to serious aggression, an apparently biased sample of unpublished studies, and a "best practices" analysis that appears unreliable and does not consider the impact of unstandardized aggression measures on the inflation of effect size estimates. They also focused on bivariate correlations rather than better controlled estimates of effects. Despite a number of methodological flaws that all appear likely to inflate effect size estimates, the final estimate of r = .15 is still indicative of only weak effects." Meta-analyses are usually either a cheap way to get a well-cited publication or a way to impose one's biases on other people's research. They're rarely as useful as some people would like to think, and the issue a meta-analysis reviews is rarely as simple as some would like to think. That said, I've got an almost 8 year old, and I obviously don't let him play videos games or watch TV shows with explicit violence (blood, gore, realistic violence, etc.). So for example Mario Kart is okay, but Family Guy is not (they often show bloody violence).