#GamerGate Analyzing Sarkeesian & McIntosh's "scientific proof" - Part 1

---

Sexual Priming, Gender Stereotyping, and Likelihood to Sexually Harass: Examining the Cognitive Effects of Playing a Sexually-Explicit Video Game

74 male participants, ages 18-47 took part in the study
24 played Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude
25 played The Sims II
25 played PacMan II

*Play time: 25 minutes*

Post-activity, a lexical decision task was administered, follow by a Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) test.

Lexical decision task: Words pop up on the screen. The person must press a predetermined key to answer whether that person feels the word on screen matches whatever parameters set by the test. In this case, two sets of words were used: 1) neutral words and sexual words, 2) words describing women as sexual objects and words that are non-objectifying. Test coordinators are looking to assess reaction times and word choice.

LSH: Developed in 1987, this test has a Cronbach's alpha of 0.90. Most psychometric tests score between 0.75 and 0.83. The higher the score, the more valid the test. The LSH gives a person 10 scenarios in which to answer questions from. An actual example from the LSH test asks, "If you were an owner of a restaurant and an attractive young waitress purposefully undercharged her friends, what would you do? Would you: A) let her keep her job, B) let her keep her job in exchange for sexual favors, C) ask her to meet you after work for dinner so you could discuss the problem." I say again, this is an actual example from the LSH test. I say once more for clarity, THIS IS AN ACTUAL EXAMPLE FROM THE LSH TEST.

Results of the study:

- Lexical Decision Task Response Times
- - Sexual Words
- - - 24 men who played Leisure Suit Larry: 561.71 ms
- - - 25 men who played The Sims II: 663.29 ms
- - - 25 men who played PacMan II: 645.98 ms
- - Non-Sexual Words
- - - Researchers determined "no significant difference" in response times
- - Sexually Objectifying Descriptions of Women
- - - 24 men who played Leisure Suit Larry: 571.42 ms
- - - 25 men who played The Sims II: 655.56 ms
- - - 25 men who played PacMan II: 651.39 ms
- - Non-objectifying Descriptions of Women
- - - Researchers determined "no significant difference" in response times

- LSH Test Results
- - "Individuals who played a sexually-charged video game with female characters as sex objects would display an increased self-reported tendency to sexually harass."
- - - 24 men who played Leisure Suit Larry: 105.37
- - - 25 men who played The Sims II: 22.50
- - - 25 men who played PacMan II: 14.30

Methodological Problems
- The general sample size (74 men) is far too small.
- The sample size of players for a sexually explicit game (24) is far too small, both in relation to the sample size of players of non-sexually explicit games (50) and in and of itself (24).
- The study of sexual harassment has advanced greatly since the creation of the LSH test in 1987 and there was only ever one attempt to ascertain the Cronbach's alpha of the LSH test (1995). It is not a stretch to say that the LSH test is in need of revision.
- In regards to personality traits and the LSH test: "only a few investigations have been conducted regarding the relation between personality dimensions and LSH." The latest information I could dig up on the matter was from 2003, with the latest studies being from 2001. Traits such as "Agreeableness" and "Openness to Experience" ranked high on what determines a score on the LSH test, yet no such personality traits were mentioned by the study in question.
- The 74 participants of the study were not tested prior to the study. As such, ascertaining change of the preexisting state of the participants would be impossible.
- The study and its included activities were only executed once. <-- Huge scientific no-no. Essentially, the 50 players who did not play Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude served only as an uneven sample size against the 24 players who did play the game. No attempt was made to ascertain whether or not the 50 players who did not play Leisure Suit Larry would have similar results on the lexical decision task and LSH test as the 24 players who did play it.

Conclusion
- Sarkeesian & McIntosh cited this study for "Women as Background Decoration: Part 1"
- Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude was not mentioned in "Women as Background Decoration: Part 1" (or Part 2)
- ^ That's a big problem ^
- Because 24 men responded ~100 milliseconds faster than 50 men with a test executed only once, the study coordinators decided this was "proof" of their various hypotheses.
- The LSH test does not test for misogyny. The LSH test looks to ascertain the readiness to sexually exploit. One does not have to be a misogynist (misogyny defined as a, "dislike of, contempt for, or ingrained prejudice against women") to exhibit sexually exploitative behaviors.
- With all of this in mind, remember that Sarkeesian & McIntosh would have you believe that gamers are being turned into sexists and misogynistic bigots, yet the very sources they cite as "scientific proof" of their claims are irrelevant to the narrative they're trying to push given the context in which they present their material.
- If our corrupt games press (http://www.press.gamergate.me/dossier/) would stop signal boosting this fallacious and disingenuous rhetoric, we would really appreciate it.

Sources
- (Sarkeesian and McIntosh's citation) http://download.springer.com/static/pdf/268/art%253A10.1007%252Fs11199-009-9695-4.pdf?auth66=1416394601_754d3974849b7c10e9d4c42ad3b9285a&ext=.pdf
- http://books.google.com/books?id=EFPs55zfAKcC&pg=PA295&lpg=PA295&dq=lsh+scale&source=bl&ots=QA8wHZbUbG&sig=2Wi4uyDyzM14IfbP5R3rfz6eutE&hl=en&sa=X&ei=hmFsVPbPEIuegwTtyYCYCw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=lsh%20scale&f=false
- http://business.highbeam.com/435388/article-1G1-104634718/personality-and-likelihood-sexually-harass

Reply · Report Post