Agression Flashcards
Computer games a01- barthalow and Anderson
-one way to study grresion is experiments
- they studied the short term effects
- lab study
-students to lay a violent game for 10 min (mortal combat)
-another played non violent game ( pga tournament golf)
-after they were told to administer a white noise sound to an apponent of their chosen volume
- those who play violent gave significantly louder blasts 6.0 compared to 4.6
-this suggests a link between violent games and aggression
Computer games a01 delisi et al
-correlational study
- on 227 juvenile offenders all with histories of serious aggressive behaviours such as hitting a teacher, parent or gang fighting
Used structured interviews and gathered data on several measures of aggression and violent computer game playing
-found that offenders agressive behaviours such was significantly correlated with how often they played violent comuter games and how much they enjoyed the
-argued the ink is so well established that agression should be considered a public health issue
Comuter games ao1 - Craig Anderson
- performed a meta analysis of 136 students which included all types of metholodgy
- he found that exposure to violent computer games was associated in agressive behaviours, thoughts and feelings
- his findings were true to both male and females cross collectivist nd individualist cultures
- researchers claim that the effect of violent comuter game playing on agressive behaviours such is greater than the effect of second hand smoke on cancer
Computer games a03- limitation
-correlations, we cannot dawn cause and effect
- no variables are manipulated or controlled and there was no random allocation of ps to violent or non violent media conditions
- a positive correlation between violent computer games and agression can be explained by socialisation ( violent games cause peole to be agressive) or selection ( violent ppl chose violent game)
- the direction of causality cannot be settled by correlation studies so the findings do not help us choose between two hypothesises so leaving open the question of exactly how computer games influence agression
Computer games a03- low mundane realism
- this is due to the artificial tastes and highly controlled conditions of a lab
- for example there’s no risk of retaliation in such environments ps may behave more agressively than they usually would resulting in a systematic error
- also the assessment methods of agression are unlike to be accurate such as the “white blasts”used by Craig and barthalow due to The artificial nature reducing the ecological validity of the findings
Computer games ao3 strength control over variables
-high degree of control over variables as conducted in a lab study
- this means the research is conducted in a controlled setting of a lab which allows extraneous variables to be controlled, for e,g the type of violent video game played
- this is a t=stergth as the research has high internal validity and there’s for its more likely we can make a cause and effect conclusion ie to say that playing the playing of an agressive game has led to agressive behaviour
Media influences a01 desetnitisation
- consequence o repeated exposure to violent or agressive acts particularly in the media
-causes ppl to be less empathetic towards victims and increasingly accept agression as the ‘social norm’ with reduced physiologcal responses from the sympathetic nervous system - this in true suggests that people particularly children who have large exposure to violent media show less emotion in response to agression in real life
Media influences a01 disinhibition
- describes the process whereby our restraints towards violence and agression are lowered - children are taught that agressive behaviour will receive punishment and taught the agressive behaviour through operant conditioning or indirect learning during the process of social learning
- if children continue to interact with violent media especially if they perceive that the agression was rewarded and not punished their usual moral restraints are loosened
Media influence - a01 cognitive priming
According to huesmann our life experiences help to write our schema or script about violent situations which is stored in our memory ready to play out when we encounter such situations in the future
- if people have had large amounts exposure to violent media including violent video games music etc
- they show more of a readiness to act aggressively
-they are primed for agression which means they may be ;triggered’ by cues that they perceive to be more agressive than others
Media influence weakness cognitive ignore bio
- blaming agression on media may ignore the role biological factors play
- for eg its possible the aressive behaviour may be in part genetic
- burner discivered a defective MAOA gene in a Dutch family with a history of male violence
- futhermore testosterone has been shown to play an important role in determining some agressive behaviour
- this suggests media infulence explanations of agression may be limited in the amount of agressive behaviour they can successfully explain 0n their own and other approaches may be needed to explain all cases of agression
Media infulence strength- desensitisation - support
-support from Krahe et al
-found that o[ps who reported regularly viewed violent media showed lower levels of arousal (sweating) when shows=n violent film clips than non reg viewers
- lower arousal is correlated with unprovoked agression in a noise blast task
- supports the view that regulate exposure to violent media agression does serve to desetnitise the viewer but also that this desentitsation is linked to higher levels of unprovoked agression
Media infulence support disinhibition support
-support ones rom berkowitz
-found that ps who watched a film depicting agression as vengeance gave more fake electric shocks of longer duration possibly beacuse vengeance is seen as a strong justification for violence and therefore more socially acceptable
Deindividuation A01- factors
- is a psyciolgical state when people lose their sense of personal identity and take on the identity of the group
-become deindividuated when they lose their identity as a result of being part of a crowd or in a uniform or crowd therefore engage in antisocial behaviour - shown by le Bon who claimed in a crowd people are more likely to engage in antisocial behaviour as a collective mindset os created
- in group. People are not constrained by social norms that preven them from acting in the same way when they are alone
Deindividuation A01- self awareness
Deindividuation is affected bu uniform, size of the group and drugs and alcohol
-these reduce private self awareness ( regard of paying attention to our own thoughts and feelings and behaviour something we monitor when on our own) which leads to people going against their morals and values as we focus more outwardly than inwardly meaning were more perceptive of environmental factors like mood of the crowd and absorb that energy e.g agression
-public self awareness makes people want to be accepted by the group it concerns how much we care about other peoples judgement and opinion
-we believe that others would be less likely to identify us for our actions and so the consequences seem less likely meaning we are more likely to behave agressively and not feel accountable
Deindividuation A03 - strength Dodd
- he asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes ‘ if you could do anything humanly possible with complete assurance that you would not be detected or help accountable what would you do “
- student knew their reponese were anonymous
- three independent writers who didn’t know their hypothesis were asked to decide which categories of antisocial behaviour the responses belonged
- 36% of responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour
- 26% were criminal acts most common woth ‘rob a bank’
-few opted for murder rape and assassination of. Political figure
-only 9 % of responses were pro social behaviour
-this study demonstrates a link between anonymity Deindividuation and agressive behaviour
