Analytical Robustness or Theoretical Preservation? A Response to Teng and Bushman’s (2026) Re-Analysis 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 (2026) reanalyzed our prior study (Lacko et al., 2024), identifying several methodological concerns and arguing that our conclusions were unwarranted. In this response, we critically evaluate their reanalysis and demonstrate that their conclusions rely on a narrow set of analytical decisions that do not adequately capture the complexity of the data. We show that many of their criticisms are either unsupported or reflect analytic preferences rather than validity threats. 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, none consistently support General Aggression Model (GAM) interpretations, confirming our original conclusion that evidence for GAM processes in this dataset is weak. We identify transparency issues in Teng and Bushman's findings reporting, data processing and inconsistent interpretation of effect sizes. We also 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.