Media & Violence

Question 1

Name 2 mechanism where media reduce aggression?

Answer 1

Catharsis

Inhibiton (frightening)

Question 2

Name 3 mechanism: where media increases aggression?

Answer 2

Priming of aggressive thoughts and feelings
Acquisition of new responses
Short-term increase in arousal
Long-term habituation to violence
Normative acceptance of aggression
Hostile attribution bias (change of world view)

Question 3

4 methods of assessing

Answer 3

Lab, Field, Natural, Surveys and observational

Question 4

Social learning theory: who? what?

Answer 4

1. Bandura 1973, media provides models from whom individuals learn aggressive behavior through observation.
2. applies to all behaviours, including aggression
3. Models: not only demonstrate new behaviours, but also indicate social norms (i.e., behaviour is acceptable), esp. high-status models

Question 5

Bundle: Lab

Answer 5

Bandura 1963, Libert & Baron 1972, Kirsch & Mount 2007

Common criticism:

1. Indirect aggression
2. Duration of effect
3. Context/Stimuli diet

Eval:
Seemingly strong evidence but not very informative if we are mostly interested in the relationship between media & violence in the real world

Question 6

Bandura 1963

Answer 6

1. Mallet doll - mimic & create - punishment & reinforcement
2. limitations: stimuli, matching situations, aggression
3. Eval: Not credible

Question 7

Libert & Baron 1972

Answer 7

1. 5-9 yo, girls and boys, help or hurt buttons, control for arousal
2. Measurement of aggression
3. Arousal matching
4. Eval: Maybe good for cyberbullying

Question 8

Kirsch & Mount 2007

Answer 8

1. Video game, morphed face, in turn provoke aggressive behavior
2. Eval: Too indirect to be considered

Question 9

Leyens et al 1975

Answer 9

1. Field exp, movie night for a week with violent/non-violent movies, 2 cottages/condition, record actual behavior 2 times/day; aggression increase (evening/lunch but lunch weaker), return to baseline next week -> short term
2. Crit: analysis using ANOVA
3. Eval: valid: only short term/arousal; but Stats problem may have even inflated the short term result reported.

Question 10

Feshbach & Singer 1971

Answer 10

1. 2h TV daily/week, carehome catharsis vs private school non-violence decrease aggression
2. Libert & Sprafkin 1988: non-violent: increase could be due to resentment; gave in to pressure could encourage bolshy behavior.
3. Eval: But nonetheless catharsis seems right in carehome
4. Further: carehome vs private school?

Question 11

Bundle: Field

Answer 11

Leyens et al 1975, Feshbach & Singer 1971

Good:
- Participants engaging with material in more realistic way; aggression is more realistic too.

Crit:

• Still short term exposure, still highly controlled diet.
• people watching together then participants are no longer independent, but many studies still treat participants as if they are independent in stats analysis

Eval:
Very much mixed evidence

Question 12

Phillips 1983

Answer 12

1. Homicide rates increased in US on the third day after televised heavy weight boxing
2. Crit: Day-of-week variation
3. Eval: not credible

Question 13

Hennigan et al 1982

Answer 13

1. 1949-52, Having TV did not correlate with increase in violence but did with theft
2. Eval: neat study questionning rela between media and violence

Question 14

Bundle: field

Answer 14

Phillip et al, Hennigan et al

Eval: Good study questions lab results

Question 15

Huesmann & Miller 1994

Answer 15

1. Longitudinal study , measure aggressiveness and media exposure 8, 18, 30
2. Cross-section effect at 8, dropped out 18; In some cases TV can predict raggression and sometimes the other way round but no consistent longitudinal effect, complex interaction
3. Link crime
4. Causal
5. Eval: no consistent effect so relationship could be only indirect

Question 16

Bushman & Huesman 2006

Answer 16

1. 264 studies; aggression behavior, attitudes and helping behavior, etc; children are more influenced in the long term while adults are more influenced in the short term
2. <0.2 aggrssive behavior and thoughts, only -0.08 helpful behavior. Larger correlation for physiological arousal/anger
3. Short term long term diff by age
4. Eval: small effect size, also shows age can be a factor

Question 17

Ferguson & Kilburn 2009

Answer 17

1. 25 studies, sample sizse 14000+, correction for publication bias. 0.08/0.14. Largest effect size in lab.
2. Anderson complains: small size (1998-2008, only pub studies), pub studies only. Response: misled/small size is problem but can be fixed now.
3. Eval: credible study showing small effect size

Question 18

Anderson et al 2010

Answer 18

1. 140 studies, both Jap and West, r = 0.19
2. Large effect size but exclusion criteria problematic
3. (if there is space): cross culture problem
4. Eval: not credible.

Question 19

Bundle: metastudy

Answer 19

Ferguson & Kilburn, Anderson et al, Bushman & Huesman

Writing:
1. Ferguson & Kilburn -> Anderson’s crit and response; Anderson’s own -> Crit -> Not credible; So Eval: Evidence suggest small effect size.

Question 20

Bundle: Summary & Coda

Answer 20

Summary:
1. Lab strongest, move away from lab weaker, why this is a problem.

Coda:

1. why weaker? Implications for controlling violence
2. Moral assumption that aggression is always bad