I'm extremely cautious of their statistical methods, as I'm not sufficiently au fait with hierarchical linear regression to pass comment. They didn't graph any of their results, which is very irritating.
They used the ESRB rating as a proxy to determine whether content is actually sexist and they used a self reporting tool to see if the participants considered content to be sexist. I can see a few problems with that approach.
That being said; the factual claim that they are making is that male players of "sexist" games have a correlation with males with "benevolent sexism"
Benevolent sexism, is this:
Examples of benevolently sexist attitudes include the reverence of women in wife, mother, and child caretaker roles, the romanticizing of women as objects of heterosexual affection, and the belief that men have a duty to protect women.[3] While benevolent sexism may not appear to be harmful to women on the surface, these beliefs are extremely caustic to gender equity and restrict women's personal, professional, political, and social opportunities. This is because these seemingly positive evaluations imply that (a) women are weak and need to be protected, (b) women should not deviate from traditional gender roles as mothers and caretakers, and (c) women should be idolized by men for their sexual purity and availability.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ambivalent_sexism#Measurement:_the_Ambivalent_Sexism_Inventory
The idea that thinking highly of women as wives, mothers, caretakers of children, heterosexually desirable, worthy of protection is "causitic to gender equity" is rather entertaining. Where is the nuance of realising that women bear children and are physically weaker due to basic biology? Where is the understanding that women are people, who have free will to decide to want to enter "traditional gender roles" because that is what they want? Where is the analysis of what effect media really have on us, beyond "there is a pervasive force that changes what women do". Where is the detail and nuance? The picture that this "theoretical framework" paints is that we are slaves to culture and the media, it ignores any and all other contributing elements to behaviour and gender.
I leave it to you, dear reader, to examine whether you think that this complex topic can be boiled down to:
"But that isn't the only way culture influences us. More often than not, media can introduce and reinforce skewed, negative attitudes toward various groups, women chief among them. Anita Sarkeesian's series Tropes vs. Women in Video Games - the one which resulted in the horrifying threats leveled at her body and life - has provided countless examples of how, from a young age, gamers are taught to regard women as helpless damsels or scantily-clad eye candy. If that isn't rigorous enough for you, a 2012 study by Oklahoma State University faculty demonstrated a correlation between sexist games and the sexist attitudes held by their male players."
But my favourite claim from the article is this gem from the discussion:
Men who rated their most frequently played games as sexist were higher in benevolent sexism. This indicates that when it comes to predicting sexist attitudes, quality of video game exposure is more influential than quantity of exposure (Bandura, 2001).
Ahahahahahahah :-)
Here's an alternative explanation: The participants in the study were all students who were enrolled in an "introductory psychology course" from the department of psychology at the University where the study was taking place. So immediately you have an incredible selection bias. You have enrolled men who are interested in psychology in an American University. These men were then asked whether they though "Grand Theft Auto" was a sexist game. These same men also scored highly on the benevolent sexism scale. So, guys who think GTA is totally sexist and demeaning to women, also think women are wonderful and should be defended.
Congratulations authors! You just described, with some degree of scientific rigor, something that in internet jargon is called:
Slow Clapping begins