Analytical Robustness and Competing Interpretations in Violent Video Game Research: A Response to Teng and Bushman's (2026) Reanalysis of Lacko et al. (2024).

Recent debates on violent video game (VVG) effects highlight the importance of analytical robustness and transparency in longitudinal research. Teng and Bushman reanalyzed our prior study, identifying several methodological concerns and arguing that our conclusions were unwarranted. In this response, we examine their reanalysis and assess whether their conclusions hold across alternative analytical specifications and operational decisions. Through comprehensive robustness checks available on OSF, we address concerns regarding model specification, missing data, measurement decisions, and time constraints. We further examine the unexpected empathy-aggression association and alternative VVG operationalizations. While some inconsistencies emerge across different specifications, the results do not consistently support General Aggression Model (GAM) interpretations in this dataset. We further identify inconsistencies and incomplete reporting in Teng and Bushman's presentation of results, data processing procedures, and interpretation of effect sizes. Finally, we argue that the current debate reveals a fundamental theoretical problem: without precise specifications of mechanisms, developmental patterns, and falsifiable predictions, GAM risks unfalsifiability when contradictory findings can all be accommodated as supporting evidence. We advocate for formal modeling approaches to enhance theoretical rigor and predictive specificity in violent media research.