MEDIA VIOLENCE

Introduction to media
• The media have become an integral part of our lives.
• By 1971, more than 95% of all households in the United States and Canada had
televisions.
• In 2009, the average adolescent lived in a household with 3.8 television sets and 2.8
DVD or VCR players; in other words, there are more television sets in an average
household than people are living in that average household.
• You can now watch TV on your cell phone, while pumping gas for your car, or while
riding an elevator.
• The last decade has witnessed profound changes in how adolescents use the media.
• The average time spent with various media by adolescents (ages 8 to 18) in 2009 was
7 hours and 38 minutes per day.
• This represents an increase of over an hour from 1999 (6 hours and 19 minutes).
• But even more dramatic is the increase in the total amount of media these adolescents
are exposed to each day—an astounding 10 hours and 45 minutes.
• This represents a 44% increase from the amount of media adolescents were exposed to
in 1999 (7 hours and 29 minutes).
• Using multiple media simultaneously—or multitasking— is becoming more prevalent.
• In 2009, adolescents spent 29% of their time with the media using at least two different
types of media—up from just 16% of the time in 1999.
• Multitasking is made easier by how easily teens can access myriad different media
technologies.
• In 2015, approximately 99% of teenagers in the United States had access to one or more
of the following media technologies: game console, smart or cell phone, desktop or
laptop computer, or tablet.
• Another change is how people access the media.
• Historically, when talking about using the “media,” it meant watching TV programs
when they were broadcast, going to movies, and reading newspapers.
• The media include so much more than that today, and people’s ways of accessing the
media have expanded dramatically.
• For example, the amount of time adolescents spend watching a TV program when it is
broadcast actually declined by 26 minutes from 3 hours and 5 minutes per day in 1999
to 2 hours and 39 minutes per day in 2009.
• Yet, total time watching TV increased from 3 hours and 47 minutes per day in 1999 to
4 hours and 29 minutes per day in 2009.
• This shift from watching live TV to watching time-shifted TV has continued.
• Today’s adolescents can watch a TV program whenever they want using DVRs, Video
or Television on Demand, and DVDs.
• And, they can watch a TV program on the Internet, their cell phones, or MP3 players.
• Clearly, profound changes are occurring in people’s media use.
• But these changes have been occurring over the last century.
• One hundred years ago, newspapers were the primary media outlet, and movies were
just beginning to become popular.
 • Radio did not really take off until the 1920s, and while television stations first appeared
in the United States in the 1940s, it was the 1950s when television became popular.
How Does Media Violence Affect Us?
• How difficult is it to turn on a TV for an entire evening and not watch some type of
physical violence?
• Based on studies of media violence on TV programming in the United States, it is
extremely difficult.
• Focusing only on intentional physical violence, 58% of all TV programs during the
1994–1995 season contained some type of physical violence or a credible threat of
physical violence.
• If you are watching premium channels, such as HBO and Showtime, an astonishing
85% of the shows contain violence.
• If that is not bad enough, of those shows that contain violence, two-thirds contain four
or more violent interactions.
• Of course, just because a TV program contains violence does not mean that it is
promoting violence.
• Perhaps the message of the program is actually one of anti-violence.
• Maybe some of these TV shows include violence to focus on the harmful effects of the
violence for the victim and the victim’s family and friends.
• Although such shows do exist, they are rare.
• Only 4% of the shows during the three seasons from 1994 to 1997 had antiviolence
themes.
• This means that TV shows are 15 times more likely to either contain violent messages,
or at best, be neutral toward violence than to contain anti-violence themes.
• Unfortunately, the level of violence found on television programming has remained
fairly steady for decades.
• Clearly, dramas (75%) and movies (90%) contained a lot of violence.
• In addition, notice the increase in violence in both comedies and music videos over the
3-year period.
• However, the most disturbing aspect in the figure is the percentage of children’s TV
shows that contain violence.
• The fact that approximately two-thirds of all children’s shows contain violence, and
that most of these shows contain multiple acts of violence (just think of the number of
acts of violence in one episode of The Simpsons or South Park), is distressing.
• The recent proliferation of video games increases the amount of media violence that
children are exposed to on a daily basis.
• The typical child will witness more than 8,000 murders and 100,000 acts of violence
on network TV alone before reaching 18 years of age.

The Consequences of Viewing Media Violence

• When you were growing up, your parents may have stopped you from watching certain
TV shows because they were too violent.
• Very violent or bloody movies are rated PG-13 or R so that younger children are not
exposed to this kind of violent content.
• A common belief is that only violent people, or people with certain traits, watch violent
TV programs.
• However, a longitudinal study that followed children from the beginning of
elementary school into their early 20s found that violent people are no more likely to
watch violent TV programs than nonviolent people.
• Another common belief is that violent TV programs and movies help people release
stress and aggressive feelings, so they might actually reduce violence.
• This idea is called the cathartic effect of watching violent media.
• Unfortunately, most research studies do not support the idea that TV violence has a
cathartic effect.
• There is a very large amount of social science research on media violence.
• Hundreds of studies, including quasi-experiments, longitudinal studies, and laboratory
experiments, have examined how TV violence affects aggressive behavior.
• Across all of these studies, the results consistently show that TV violence increases
aggressive behavior.
• In fact, Potter (2003) identified more than 30 different effects of watching TV violence,
including increased imitation of violence, short-term and long-term increases in
aggressive behavior, increased fear, reduced sensitivity to violence (desensitization),
and greater acceptance of violence.
• One type of research on TV violence is the quasi-experiment.
• Quasi-experiments use naturally occurring changes in TV exposure to study its effect
on aggression.
• When looking at the results of quasi-experimental studies, it is important to remember
that they usually study general exposure to TV, not specifically exposure to violent TV
content.
• For example, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) stopped giving TV broadcast
licenses from 1949 to 1952 to study how to regulate this new technology.
• The FTC’s action created a quasi-experiment with two groups: cities that had TV
stations before 1950 and cities that received TV stations in 1952 or later.
• Hennigan and colleagues (1982) used this situation to examine violent crime rates in
these two types of cities.
• If TV increases violence, then violent crime rates should have increased earlier in cities
that got TV before 1950 compared to cities that got TV in 1952 or later.
• Crime rates did increase earlier in cities where TV was introduced first.
• However, in the early years of TV, violent crimes did not increase; instead, nonviolent
theft (excluding car theft) increased in cities with TV stations.
• It seems that TV commercials may have made people more aware of things they did
not own, increasing their desire to steal.
• Although this quasi-experiment did not show that general TV exposure increased
violence, other quasi-experiments did find such evidence.
• Another quasi-experiment happened in Canada in 1973 when a small town called
“Notel” (meaning no television) received TV for the first time.
• There were three groups in this study: a town with no TV (“Notel”), a town with one
TV station (“Unitel”), and a town with multiple TV stations (“Multitel”).
• Rates of physical violence in Notel were compared with Unitel and Multitel before and
two years after TV was introduced in Notel.
• Before 1973, Unitel and Multitel were similar to Notel in levels of violence.
• The aggression levels of children in Unitel and Multitel did not change during the two
years after 1973.
• However, both physical and verbal aggression increased sharply in children in Notel
after TV was introduced.
• Perhaps the strongest quasi-experiment on TV violence was conducted by Centerwall
(1989), who analyzed homicide rates after TV was introduced in the United States,
Canada, and South Africa.
• TV was introduced in the United States and Canada in the early 1950s, but the South
African government banned TV until 1975.
• After TV was introduced in each of these countries, homicide rates stayed fairly stable
for about 10 to 12 years, but then doubled by the 15th year.
• Because homicide rates doubled about 15 years after TV was introduced in each
country, Centerwall concluded that TV violence may be responsible for about half of
violent homicides in these countries.
• However, if TV was the cause, why did it take 15 years for homicide rates to increase?
The most likely explanation is that children are most affected by TV violence.
• The increase in violent homicides may have been delayed until children who were 3 or
4 years old when TV was introduced grew up and became teenagers or young adults,
about 15 years later, when they were old enough to commit violent crimes.
• Clearly, Centerwall’s estimate that TV violence causes half of the homicides in these
countries is probably too high.
• As is common in quasi-experiments, Centerwall could not control many other factors,
such as violent social movements happening at the same time (the civil rights and
antiwar movements in the United States, and the antiapartheid movement in South
Africa). However, the data still suggest a link between TV and violence.
• Longitudinal studies have also shown that TV violence increases violent behavior.
• For example, in 1977 about 600 first- and third-grade children from the Chicago area
were interviewed about their TV viewing habits.
• About two thirds of them were interviewed again between 1992 and 1995, when they
were 21 to 23 years old.
• The amount of violent TV they watched in 1977 predicted their level of violence 15
years later better than their childhood aggression levels did.
• This relationship remained strong even after controlling for other factors such as
parents’ aggression levels, socioeconomic status, and intelligence.
• Experimental studies are the best method for proving cause-and-effect relationships.
• Many experiments have shown a clear link between TV violence and aggressive
behavior.
• A meta-analysis of 230 experimental studies involving more than 100,000 participants
found that exposure to media violence consistently increased various forms of
aggressive behavior.
• However, most experiments were done in laboratories, and the aggressive acts
measured were less severe than real-world violence.
• For example, some studies involved giving another person an electric shock or a loud
unpleasant sound.
• These behaviors are unpleasant but not as serious as physical assault or homicide.
• One limitation of research on media violence is that it has mainly focused on TV and
movies.
• Video games are more complex because players do not just watch violence; they
actively participate in it.
• Early critics were especially concerned about video games because players are actively
involved in violent actions.
• Research shows that playing or even watching violent video games can have similar
effects to watching violent TV.
• This research area is very controversial, with some researchers arguing that video
games do not affect aggressive behavior.
• Much video game research has been overly simple in how it understands gaming.
• One limitation is that studies have mostly focused on solo game play.
• This focus may be due to early video games being designed mainly for solo players.
• Today, most video games, especially violent ones, offer multiplayer and cooperative
options.
• Surveys show that most players prefer cooperative play against the game or other
players.
• An important question is whether cooperative play has the same effects as competitive
or solo violent play, and research suggests it does not.
• Cooperative play reduces the impact of violent content, so players who play alone or
competitively show more aggression than those who play cooperatively.
• Some studies show that cooperative players do not become more aggressive than people
who did not play video games at all.
• Cooperative play can also increase cooperative behavior after the game.
• Research also shows that games promoting prosocial actions, such as helping others or
cleaning the environment, increase prosocial behavior in adolescents.
• Players often can choose whether to act aggressively or prosocially in games.
• Some researchers argue that focusing only on game content ignores the role of the
player.
• Oswald, Prorock, and Murphy (2014) suggest that to understand the link between video
games and violence, researchers must also study players’ personal experiences.
• They conducted a qualitative study to understand how players find meaning in video
game play.
• The goal was to add deeper insight to the mostly numerical (quantitative) research on
video games.
• Participants were recruited from a university and online message boards.
• They were asked to write about their most recent video game experience.
• The researchers used content analysis to group similar ideas into themes.
• Content analysis organizes written descriptions into meaningful categories to better
understand an experience.
• Six main themes were identified.
• The most common theme was emotional responses.
• Players described positive emotions such as excitement and humor.
• Some mentioned negative emotions like frustration, but these were less common.
• Players also described video gaming as a social experience.
• They played with friends and interacted with strangers online.
• Even violent games often included cooperation and social interaction.
• Goal achievement was another important theme.
• Players described working toward specific goals, alone or with others.
• Even when describing violent games, participants focused on positive emotions, social
interaction, and goal achievement rather than aggression.
• These findings suggest that traditional research may overlook important aspects of
gaming.
 • People may play violent video games for reasons that are not always considered in
quantitative studies.
• This may explain why research results linking video games to aggression are sometimes
inconsistent.
• Finally, aggression is overdetermined, meaning it has many causes.
• A behavior is overdetermined when multiple factors contribute to it.
• Many different factors can lead someone to act aggressively.
• For example, males tend to be more aggressive than females.
• Some people have aggressive personality traits that increase their chances of acting
aggressively.
• Other factors that influence aggression include frustration, anger, stress, arousal, high
temperature, loud noise, and childhood abuse.
• Culture also plays an important role in aggression.
• Rates of violence are higher in the United States than in Canada, even though TV
programming is similar in both countries.
• This difference exists because the United States has a more aggressive culture.

Imitation of Violence

On March 9, 2001, Lionel Tate was found guilty of murdering Tiffany Eunick. She was 6 years
old when she died. In causing Tiffany’s death, Lionel used wrestling moves he had seen
performed by one of his favorite TV wrestling stars. Tiffany’s injuries from the wrestling moves
were similar to injuries from falling from a three-story building. Lionel was 14 years old when
he was convicted of murder and sentenced to life in prison.

• You may have heard about some early studies on copying TV violence where children
watched a short film of a child hitting a bobo doll.
• A bobo doll is a large inflatable doll, often shaped like a clown, and used as a punching
toy.
• Later, when the children were allowed to play, they copied the child in the film and also
hit the bobo doll.
• In one experiment studying imitated violence (David Hicks, 1965), children watched
an 8-minute film of a person hitting a bobo doll.
• The person was either an adult man, an adult woman, a boy their age, or a girl their age.
The person hit the bobo doll with a bat, hit it with a mallet, threw balls at it, and sat on
it while punching it.
• A final control group of children did not watch any film.
• The children were then placed in a room with toys that included a bobo doll, a bat, a
mallet, and balls.
• The researcher observed how much the children copied the violence they had seen in
the film.
• After six months, the children returned to the laboratory to play again in the same room
with the same toys.
• Once again, the researcher observed how much the children copied the violence they
had seen in the film six months earlier.
• The design of this experiment was a 2 (age: adult or child model) × 2 (sex: male or
female model) × 2 (time of imitation: immediately or six months later) with a control
group.
 • Children who watched either children or adults behave aggressively toward a bobo doll
copied that violence when given a chance to play immediately after watching the film
and also six months later when they returned to the lab.
• Remember that a control group of children did not watch anyone hit the bobo doll.
• Their data are not shown in the figure because they did not behave aggressively at all
either the first time they played with the toys or six months later.
• People often criticize these studies, saying that children naturally hit the bobo doll
because that is what people usually do with a bobo doll (although the control children
did not hit it).
• The research is much more detailed than this simple criticism suggests.
• When children see another child behave aggressively in a movie and that aggressive
child is either rewarded or punished, the children are more likely to act aggressively
later when the aggressive child was rewarded rather than punished.
• Many studies have shown that people are more likely to perform behaviors for which
they are rewarded.
• However, Bandura showed in the bobo doll experiments that even watching someone
else being rewarded for a behavior increases the chance that the observer will perform
that behavior.
• Performing a behavior because you see someone else being rewarded for it is called
vicarious learning.
• Vicarious learning is the base of Bandura’s social cognitive theory of mass
communication.

How We Learn to Imitate Violence

• Bandura argued that much of what you learn is learned indirectly through the media.
• According to his social cognitive theory, four processes must occur for vicarious
learning to happen.
• The first process is attention. To learn by watching, people must pay attention to what
is being modeled.
• Factors that affect attention include how noticeable and attractive the behavior is.
• Media violence is very common, exciting, and attention-grabbing, so it easily attracts
viewers.
• The second process is the representational process, which involves remembering the
modeled behavior. People cannot copy a behavior they do not remember.
• This process also includes mentally practicing the behavior, which increases the chance
that it will be remembered later.
• Many young children act out violent scenes they saw on TV.
• Through pretend play, they are mentally practicing the behavior.
• The third process is the behavioral production process, which focuses on learning how
to perform the observed behavior.
• This includes learning how to apply the behavior to new but similar situations.
• For example, a child may see a Bobo Doll being hit with a mallet and later apply that
behavior by hitting a sibling with a similar object, or by hitting the Bobo Doll with a
different object like a baseball bat.
• The final part of Bandura’s model is the motivational process.
• People do not copy every behavior they see. They copy behaviors they are motivated
to perform.
 • This explains why children copy rewarded behavior but not punished behavior. The
reward provides indirect motivation to perform the behavior.
• According to social cognitive theory, viewers are more likely to act aggressively if they
watch media violence, remember it, learn how to perform it, practice it, and are
motivated to perform it.
• Much research on Bandura’s social cognitive theory of mass media has focused on the
motivational process.
• One factor that increases motivation and the likelihood of violent behavior is seeing
violent behavior rewarded.
• A second factor that increases motivation is when viewers see the violent behavior as
justified.
• Examples of justified violence include self-defense, revenge, or violence against a very
unpleasant person.
• A third factor is when viewers see the violence as realistic.
• A final factor is when viewers identify with or like the person committing the violence.
• If a child identifies with mixed martial arts fighters like Anderson Silva, that child is
more likely to copy the fighting moves seen in the Ultimate Fighting Championship
events or other mixed martial arts competitions.
• Another important factor in motivating violent behavior is desensitization.
• People may learn aggressive behaviors indirectly, but moral beliefs and social rules
usually stop them from acting violently.
• However, if people become desensitized to violence, they are less likely to see violence
as morally wrong.
• Unfortunately, TV and video game violence can desensitize people to violence.
• People who watch a lot of violent TV or have just watched a violent program show
lower physical reactions to media or real violence.
• An experiment by Drabman and Thomas (1974) showed that children desensitized by
violent TV were less likely to help other children who were being hurt.
• In their study, 22 boys and 22 girls came to the lab and either watched a clip from a
violent cowboy film or watched nothing.
• Then they were asked to watch two younger children on a video monitor while the
experimenter left briefly.
• The children were actually watching a film clip of two children becoming increasingly
aggressive toward each other.
• This experiment had a 2 (exposure: violent film or no film) × 2 (sex: boys or girls)
design.
• As predicted by the desensitization idea, boys and girls who had watched the violent
film took much longer to tell an adult about the fight than those who had not watched
the film.
• Research also shows that playing violent video games can cause desensitization.
• Desensitization increases tolerance for violence and reduces the motivation to avoid
aggression, increasing the likelihood of violent behavior.

Countering the Effects of Media Violence

• Concern for children and society suggests that action should be taken to reduce the
effects of violent TV.
• Currently, rating systems indicate whether programs contain violence and whether they
are suitable for children.
 • Social psychological theory suggests that rating systems may backfire and increase
children’s and adolescents’ desire to watch violent programs.
• When people are told they cannot do something, they often want to do it even more.
• This reaction is called psychological reactance.
• “Forbidden fruit” often seems more attractive. Research shows that rating systems
identifying programs as inappropriate actually increase adolescents’—especially
boys’—desire to watch them.
• However, other research based on Bandura’s social cognitive theory suggests a way to
reduce the effects of violent TV.
• Watching rewarded violence increases aggressive behavior, but if children see violence
as not rewarding, they may be indirectly conditioned not to act violently.
• One way to reduce the reward value of violence is to encourage children to think from
the victim’s point of view.
• To test this idea, Amy Nathanson and Joanne Cantor (2000) conducted an experiment
in which two groups of boys and two groups of girls watched a Woody Woodpecker
cartoon containing violence.
• One group simply watched the cartoon.
• A second group was told to think about how the victim of Woody Woodpecker’s actions
felt. A third group did not watch TV.
• The design was a 2 (empathy: just watch or watch and think about the victim) × 2 (sex:
girls or boys) with a separate control group (no TV).
• Nathanson and Cantor found that children who were told to think about the victim’s
feelings enjoyed the violence less than children who simply watched.
• Aggression was measured by asking children about their attitudes toward aggressive
actions, such as “If another kid tried to take something that was mine, I might push or
hit that kid.”
• Boys who thought about the victim’s feelings expressed less aggressive attitudes than
boys who simply watched the cartoon.
• The empathy instruction had no effect on girls’ aggression.
• However, females are generally less influenced by media violence than boys.
• This finding suggests that parents and teachers should talk with children about how
victims of violence and their families feel.
• In other words, we should increase children’s sensitivity to violence.

Media Violence and Aggressive Thoughts

• Imagine that you are sitting at a traffic light, and it turns green.
• The driver of the pickup truck in front of you is not paying attention and stays still
instead of driving forward.
• Would you be more likely to honk your horn if there were a gun in a gun rack in the
back of the pickup than if the gun rack were empty?
• Even if you do not actually honk, according to Leonard Berkowitz’s (1984)
neoassociationistic model of media priming, the presence of the gun would increase the
chance that you would have aggressive thoughts.
• Of course, having more aggressive thoughts increases the likelihood that you will
behave aggressively and honk your horn—and that could be dangerous if the person in
the pickup has a gun.
 • The neoassociationistic model of priming is based on research in cognitive psychology
and social psychology.
• Priming refers to the influence of a previous stimulus or event on how we respond to a
later stimulus.
• Priming methods were first used in cognitive psychology to study how information is
organized and stored in memory using network models of memory.
• Network models of memory assume that information is stored in memory as nodes, and
each node represents a concept (for example, there is a “gun” node in memory).
• These nodes are connected to other related nodes through associative links (for
example, “gun” is connected to “crime,” but not to “cornflakes”).
• Another assumption of network memory models is that each node has an activation
threshold.
• If the level of activation of a node goes above its threshold, the node becomes active
(or “fires”).
• When a node becomes active, it can increase the activation of other related nodes.
• For example, if the gun node becomes active, activation spreads from the gun node to
related nodes such as the crime node.
• As a result, the related node now needs less extra activation to become active.
• A common behavioral result of spreading activation is that a judgment (for example,
deciding that a crime is happening) is made more quickly when it has been primed by
a related concept (gun) than when it has been primed by an unrelated concept
(cornflakes).
• In a slightly different version of the earlier example, you would be more likely to
interpret an unclear action (such as someone bumping into you) as hostile if you had
just seen a pickup truck with a gun in the gun rack rather than one with an empty gun
rack.
• A final assumption of network memory models is that the activation of a node fades
over time, meaning it is a short-term effect.
• Priming of aggressive thoughts is a short-term effect of TV violence.
• You are not going to think about crime for the rest of the day just because you saw a
gun in a gun rack in the back of a pickup truck.
• However, it is important to remember that other effects of TV violence, such as a higher
likelihood of copying violent behavior and increased fear, may last for many years.
Media Violence and Fear
• How many times has a movie made you feel afraid?
• Clearly, the Mercury Theatre broadcast of The War of the Worlds frightened many
people.
• However, the fear caused by that broadcast did not last very long.
• Has watching a movie or TV show ever made you afraid for a long time?
• During the 1970s, the movie Jaws had that kind of long-lasting effect on many people.
• The movie showed a great white shark attacking swimmers and boaters near a small
town in New England.
 • Many people (including one of the authors of this chapter) said that they refused to
swim in the ocean for years after watching Jaws.
• In a questionnaire study, Kristin Harrison and Joanne Cantor (1999) found that more
than one-quarter of the college students they studied had watched a movie or TV show
before the age of 11 that was still affecting them eight or more years later.
• Students reported that they still had nightmares related to their frightening viewing
experiences or still avoided certain places, such as beaches, because of those
experiences.
• Imagine still feeling fear from a TV program you watched eight years ago.
• But think about this: If one program can have such a strong effect, what happens when
people watch thousands of hours of TV shows and movies that contain violence and
other frightening events like tornadoes?
Fright Reactions in Children
• Most research on fear reactions to media has focused on children.
• More than 90% of children are seriously frightened by media at some time during their
early lives.
• These fear reactions can be very strong.
• Children who are frightened by media may experience nightmares, trouble sleeping,
high levels of stress, and even depression.
• The things that scare children change as they grow older.
• Up to about six years of age, children are frightened by things that look scary, even if
those things are not truly dangerous.
• For example, young children may be afraid of the Incredible Hulk because he looks
frightening, even though he helps good people.
• After nine or ten years of age, events that could really happen are more frightening than
things that just look scary.
• More abstract dangers are more frightening to adolescents.
• The movie The Day After showed the effects of a nuclear war in the United States.
• A survey study found that younger children were less frightened by the movie than
children over 12 years old.
Coping With Fear
• The way children deal with frightening media also changes as they grow older.
• Younger children are more likely to use behavioral coping methods, such as holding a
favorite toy or covering their eyes.
• Older children use more cognitive coping methods, such as reminding themselves that
what they are seeing is not real and reducing the seriousness of the threat.
 • Do you remember watching a scary movie and telling yourself that it was not real?
Cultivation Theory and Fear
• Cultivation theory studies the effects of watching a lot of TV (more than four hours per
day).
• Cultivation theory states that TV acts as the main source of social learning in today’s
world; in other words, TV is where people learn about society and culture.
• TV shapes heavy viewers’ ideas about social reality.
• Research has consistently found that TV influences heavy viewers’ perceptions of the
world.
• For example, men appear on TV shows about twice as often as women (2:1 ratio).
• Women on TV are also shown in more stereotypical ways.
• As a result, surveys show that heavy TV viewers tend to hold more sexist attitudes
toward women.
• Commercials for many products promote materialistic values.
• Surveys in both the United States and Korea show that people who watch more TV and
more commercials are more materialistic.
• According to cultivation theory, one result of media violence is that people begin to see
the world as more dangerous and more “mean”.
• Considering how much violence appears on TV, what kind of world are viewers
learning about?
• Cultivation theory suggests that heavy TV viewers should see the world as more violent
and hostile than light viewers.
• Research shows that heavy TV viewers do see the world as more dangerous and hostile
than light viewers.
• Much research on cultivation theory is based on correlations between how much TV a
person watches and how hostile they think the world is.
• However, a correlation does not show which variable causes the other, or whether there
is a true cause-and-effect relationship.
• It could be argued that people who already see the world as dangerous may stay home
more and therefore watch more TV.
• However, experimental research has shown that watching violent shows in which
criminals are not punished increases anxiety.
• In this study, participants watched five hours of recorded TV shows once a week for six
weeks.
• After the six weeks, their anxiety levels were measured.
 • Some participants watched violent shows where the criminals were not punished.
• Other participants watched violent shows where the criminals were caught and
punished.
• The researchers showed that watching violent programs in which criminals are not
punished increases anxiety.
• Just as TV shows can frighten children, watching a lot of TV can also frighten adults.
• Cultivation theory focuses on overall TV viewing rather than specific types of
programs.
• However, among all types of shows, which ones contain the most realistic violence?
• The evening news likely contains the highest amount of realistic violence.
• The local news may be especially frightening because the violence happens near where
viewers live.
• In surveys, parents reported that their children are frightened by the local news.
• About 25% of children in fourth to sixth grade said during interviews that the local
news was frightening.
• More than half of the children in one study could name specific news stories that had
scared them.
• Younger children (first to third grade) said they were more frightened by news stories
about natural disasters.
• Older children were more frightened by stories about violence and crime.
• Children who watched more evening news estimated that more murders occurred in a
nearby city.
• The local news creates a frightening view of the world for these children.
• Survey research with adults also shows that heavy viewers of local news are more likely
to feel afraid and worry about crime in their community than light viewers.
What Happens When We Watch Pornography?
• The first question is: what does pornography mean?
• Pornography is any sexually explicit material found offline (magazines, DVDs, peep
shows) or online (text, audio, or video).
• Sexually explicit material shows sexual activities clearly, often with close-up views of
genitals and oral, anal, or vaginal penetration.
• The main purpose of pornography is to sexually arouse the viewer.
• Pornography is different from simulated sex shown in regular movies or TV.
• Even if movie sex scenes look real, we know they are acted and not real.
 • These acted sexual scenes are called embedded sexual material.
• Embedded sexual material is strongly sexual content placed inside a larger story, and it
is not the main focus of the story.
• Embedded sexual material is often found in R or NC-17 rated movies and TV-14 or TV-
MA television programs.
• Sometimes embedded material is nonviolent.
• Sometimes embedded material includes violence.
Types of Pornography
Scholars usually study three types of pornography:
1. Erotica
• Erotica shows non-aggressive sexual activity between willing, caring partners.
• Both partners share decisions and take part equally.
• The partners are shown as sensitive and respectful toward each other.
2. Nonviolent Pornography
• Nonviolent pornography shows explicit sexual activity without physical aggression.
• The people involved are often casual acquaintances.
• The partners are not shown as caring or compassionate.
• Participants are mainly shown as wanting to satisfy sexual desires, especially the men’s
desires.
3. Violent Pornography
• Violent pornography includes violence or force along with explicit sexual activity.
• It usually shows themes of dominance and control.
• It often shows extreme male dominance and female submission.
• Women are often degraded and treated as objects.
• Women are shown as sexual objects to be used and discarded.
• Violent pornography includes sadomasochism and snuff films where women are
sexually tortured and killed.
Embedded Violent Sexual Material
• Embedded violent sexual material is different from violent pornography.
• It is found in R-rated films where sexual scenes are followed by graphic violence.
• These films are often called slasher films or women-in-danger films.
• These movies often show young women running from violent killers.
 • The difference between violent pornography and embedded violent sexual material is
important.
• Young teenagers may be able to watch embedded violent sexual material more easily
than violent pornography.
• Because teenagers can easily access these films, many experiments study embedded
violent sexual material.
• It is hoped that teenagers have more difficulty accessing violent pornography, although
internet access is making this easier.
Purpose of Research
• Research in this area studies whether watching pornography or embedded violent
sexual material causes harmful effects.
• Harmful effects may include becoming more callous toward women.
• If exposure causes harm, society may consider limiting access or educating people
about the effects.
• Most researchers prefer education rather than restriction.
Correlational Studies
• One way to study harmful effects is to examine the relationship between the availability
of pornography and sex-related crimes such as rape, exhibitionism, and voyeurism.
• These studies examine general exposure to pornography, not specific types.
• Some research has studied what happened after pornography laws were relaxed in
Denmark.
• Other research has examined the number of sex shops, adult theaters, and explicit
magazines and compared them with sex crime rates in the United States and other
countries.
• The results of these studies are unclear.
• Some studies find a relationship between pornography availability and sex crimes.
• Other studies do not find such a relationship.
• Other outside factors may explain any relationships found.
• For example, greater availability of pornography may be linked to more relaxed
attitudes toward sexuality.
• More relaxed attitudes may also lead to less reporting of sex crimes.
Experimental Research
• Experimental research gives clearer information about cause and effect.
• In these experiments, participants (usually males) watch a sexual film or video clip.
 • The film may show erotica, nonviolent pornography, or embedded violent sexual
material.
• Some experiments include a control group that watches nonsexual and nonviolent films.
• Participants are often told that watching the film and answering questionnaires are two
separate studies.
• This is done so that they do not connect the film to the questions.

Researchers study different possible effects, such as:

• Becoming less sensitive to female victims in films or rape victims.
• Accepting rape myths, such as believing that most rape victims are promiscuous or that
women can always resist rape if they really try.
• Showing callous attitudes toward women.
• Making judgments about rape trials, such as deciding guilt or prison sentences.
• Showing aggressive behavior, such as giving what they think are electric shocks to a
female participant (although no real shock is given).
Two situations have shown possible harmful effects:
• Long-term exposure to nonviolent pornography.
• Any exposure to embedded violent sexual material (R-rated violent films).

• There is very little research on the effects of erotica, except that it increases sexual
arousal.
• Some suggest erotica may help in sex therapy, but research results are inconsistent.
• One consistent finding is that erotica increases the likelihood of masturbation.
• Short-term exposure (less than one hour) to nonviolent pornography shows mixed
results.
• Sometimes it increases callousness toward women, and sometimes it does not.
• Some research suggests the effects are subtle.
• Men who briefly watched nonviolent pornography were more dominant and less
anxious when solving a task with a female partner.
• These men may not have been openly callous, but they showed more subtle dominance.
• There is little research on violent pornography because of ethical concerns.
• However, it is likely that violent pornography has similar effects to embedded violent
sexual material because both show sexual violence.
Effects of Long-Term Exposure to Nonviolent Pornography
• During the 1980s, the U.S. government formed a commission to study the effects of
erotica and nonviolent pornography.
• In 1986, the U.S. Department of Justice released a report called the Attorney General’s
Commission on Pornography Final Report.
• The report concluded that substantial exposure to nonviolent pornography is causally
related to increases in sexual violence and sexual coercion.
• Long-term or substantial exposure means watching about five hours of material over a
six-week period.
• This amount of exposure is less than many people might expect.
• The commission could not agree about whether erotica is harmful.
• However, it concluded that erotica does not have a causal relationship with acts of
sexual violence.
• At that time, research results were more mixed than the government report suggested.
• Most experimental research focused on attitudes and beliefs rather than actual physical
violence.
• This was done because of ethical concerns.
• It was also done because attitudes and beliefs influence behavior.
• Some early studies found:
o More lenient judgments toward rapists in rape cases.
o Increased sexual callousness.
• Other studies did not find these effects.
• Researchers found several reasons for these mixed results.
• Participants were usually told that watching films and answering questionnaires were
two separate studies.
• If participants believed the films were related to the questionnaires, the link between
pornography and beliefs was less likely to appear.
• Participants may have tried to “fake good” to avoid looking influenced by pornography.
• Also, when rape trial situations were made more realistic, the films were less likely to
affect participants.
• Newer research gives clearer results, especially about attitudes and beliefs.
• This research uses meta-analysis.
• Meta-analysis is a statistical method that combines results from many different studies.
• Two meta-analyses (with male participants only) found a small but consistent
relationship between exposure to nonviolent pornography and negative attitudes toward
women.
• One meta-analysis measured how much pornography adult men consumed.
• It also measured how strongly they held negative attitudes toward women.
• The relationship was small but statistically significant.
• The relationship was positive.
• This means the more pornography a man consumed, the more likely he was to hold
negative attitudes toward women.
• However, this does not prove that pornography causes negative attitudes.
• It could be the opposite.
• Men who already have negative attitudes may choose to consume more pornography.
• Recent research suggests that negative attitudes may come before pornography
consumption.
• This pattern appears in both adult men and adolescent boys.
• To determine causation, experiments are needed.
• In experiments, one group watches nonviolent pornography.
• Another group (control group) does not.
• Attitudes toward women are measured after exposure.
• If attitudes are more negative in the pornography group, it suggests pornography causes
negative attitudes.
• A meta-analysis of experimental studies found this effect.
• Men exposed to nonviolent pornography showed more negative attitudes toward
women than men in the control group.
• The effect was much stronger for men who already had anger problems or hostility
toward women.
• This means men who are already hostile toward women may become even more hostile
after watching pornography.
• Therefore, men who already have hostility toward women should avoid both nonviolent
and violent pornography.
• Long-term exposure to nonviolent pornography also affects attitudes about family
values.
• Family values include commitment to family and caring for children.
• Nonviolent pornography shows the opposite.
 • It presents short-term relationships focused on sexual pleasure without emotional
involvement.
• This creates a conflict between family values and pornography values.
• Research shows this conflict does matter.
• Both correlational and experimental research support this conclusion.
• In one experiment, 70 men and 70 women participated.
• One group watched nonviolent pornography rented from adult video stores.
• The other group watched nonsexual, nonviolent videos.
• Participants watched six one-hour videos over six weeks.
• About one week after the final viewing, they participated in what they believed was an
unrelated study about the American family and personal happiness.
Participants who watched nonviolent pornography:
• Were less sexually satisfied.
• Were more accepting of myths about health risks of sexual repression.
• Were more accepting of nonexclusive sexual relationships.
• Were more accepting of premarital and extramarital sex.
• Thought being faithful was less important.
• Wanted fewer children.
These findings were considered surprising and significant.
• Another study tested whether long-term exposure increases interest in other types of
pornography.
• 80 men and 80 women were randomly assigned to two groups.
• Group 1 watched one hour of comedy each week for six weeks.
• Group 2 watched one hour of commonly available pornography each week for six
weeks.
• Two weeks after the final session, participants returned to the lab.
• The experimenter said there would be a 15-minute delay.
• Participants were told they could watch any of six videotapes while waiting.
• They were assured they would not be interrupted.
The six videotapes included:
• A G-rated movie.
• An R-rated movie.
 • A nonviolent pornography movie.
• Three violent pornography movies (bondage, sadomasochism, and bestiality).
• Participants who had watched six hours of nonviolent pornography were more likely to
choose the violent pornography tapes.
• They showed more interest in less common sexual practices such as bondage,
sadomasochism, and bestiality.
• Participants who had watched nonsexual videos were less likely to choose these tapes.
Effects of Exposure to Embedded Violent Sexual Material
• The combination of sex and violence has especially disturbing effects on people’s
thoughts, intentions, and behaviors.
• Research reviews show that even a few minutes of exposure to embedded violent sexual
material can cause many harmful effects.
• This is different from nonviolent pornography, which usually shows effects after longer
exposure.
• Most research participants in these studies are men.
• Therefore, the conclusions mainly apply to men.
Research shows the following effects on men:
• Increase in sexual arousal.
• Increase in rape fantasies.
• Decrease in sensitivity to violent sexual acts shown in the material.
• Increase in acceptance of rape myths.
• Increase in acceptance of violence toward women.
• Increase in tolerance toward rapists.
• In simple terms, normal males (who do not normally show a tendency to rape) develop
lower opinions of women and become more accepting of violence toward women after
viewing embedded sexual violence.
• Some men report that they would rape if they could get away with it.
• After watching embedded violent sexual acts, these men:
o Show more aggression toward women in laboratory settings.
o Show more callous attitudes about rape.
o Believe more strongly in rape myths.
o Show higher sexual arousal to rape scenes.
• These effects are stronger compared to men who report a lower likelihood of raping.
 • The effects of embedded violent sexual material have been studied extensively in
laboratory settings.
• However, there is no evidence that watching embedded violent sexual material or
violent pornography directly causes rape or assaults against women.
• There are strong ethical limits in studying the causes of rape experimentally.
• To directly test this, researchers would have to show violent pornography to men
(possibly men already prone to violence) and then wait to see if they commit rape.
• This would be unethical and harmful.
• Researchers do not want to cause harm.
• Instead, they aim to prevent violence against women.
• That is why researchers focus on understanding the effects of violent sexual portrayals.
• Their goal is to find ways to reduce or lessen the harmful effects of both embedded and
explicit violent sexual material.

Reducing the Harmful Effects of Exposure to Violent Sexual Material

• There are four general ways to reduce or eliminate the harmful effects of exposure to
violent sexual material (both embedded and explicit).
• One way is to legally ban the distribution and sale of these materials.
• If you think about this seriously, you can see that this is not practical except for extreme
forms of these materials, such as snuff films.
• To ban all violent sexual materials would mean that many R-rated films—the slasher
type—would also be banned.
• In the United States, any law to ban these materials would likely violate the First
Amendment, which protects freedom of speech. Many other countries have similar
rights.
• A second way to reduce the harmful effects is to teach critical viewing skills.
• These skills help people become more careful and thoughtful consumers of media.
• Although there are no studies directly about viewing violent pornography, other studies
have shown strong reductions in violent behavior in children after critical viewing
training.
• The study by Leonard Eron and L. Rowell Huesmann (1983) involved children who
regularly watched violent TV shows.
• Half of the children received critical viewing training that focused on violent TV shows
(training group), and the other half discussed nonviolent TV shows (control group).
• The training stressed that the behaviors shown in violent TV programs do not represent
how most people act (that is, they are not normal behavior), that the aggressive acts
were illusions created by camera angles and special effects, and that the average person
uses other ways to solve problems like those shown in the programs.
• In other words, the children were taught to see the violence as unrealistic.
• When they were tested two years later, these children were less aggressive than children
in the control group.
• The training had a positive effect on their lives, and the effect lasted a long time.
• It would be very interesting to see whether the benefits of critical viewing skills also
apply to sexualized violence shown in R-rated slasher films.
• A third way to reduce the effects is to debrief people after they view violent sexual
material.
• The debriefing is similar to the training described in Huesmann and colleagues’ (1983)
study, but it is much shorter.
• The debriefing usually involves telling participants about the likely negative effects of
exposure to violent sexual material, including information that challenges rape myths.
• All studies that use embedded violent sexual material include some type of debriefing.
It would be unethical not to do so.
• Researchers try to undo any possible harm caused by their experiments.
• To answer the question of whether debriefings actually work, a meta-analysis was
conducted that examined all studies measuring the effectiveness of debriefings by
comparing rape myth scores after debriefing with either scores before debriefing or
scores from a control group.
• The researchers found that debriefing was effective in reversing the negative effects of
exposure to this material. In all the studies reviewed, educational debriefings canceled
out the impact of exposure to embedded violent sexual material.
• One clear problem with debriefings, however, is that it would probably be unrealistic
to add a debriefing to all, or even most, commercially available media.
• Many producers would likely not include debriefings unless they were legally required
to do so. Even if producers added them, would viewers stay after a movie to watch one?
Probably not.
• A fourth (and better) way to reduce the harmful effects of exposure is to inform people
about the effects before they are exposed to the material.
• This would protect them against the effects ahead of time.
• These prebriefings are mainly educational. One type involves clearly warning people
about the possible effects of exposure to violent embedded or explicit sexual material,
especially the desensitization and emotional coldness that may occur.
• Another type includes sex education programs that focus on similarities and
differences between female and male sexual responses, including differences in what
each sex considers to be sexual signals, communication skills, and consideration for
one’s partner.
• This kind of education is meant to make people less vulnerable to myths presented in
the media. Another version includes movies, DVDs, or YouTube videos made for large
audiences that aim to raise awareness and understanding about rape (for example, A
Scream from Silence; Behind Closed Doors) and violent pornography (The Price of
Pleasure).
• As with debriefings, the question is whether these prebriefings reduce the negative
effects of exposure to violent sexual material. The answer is yes. In the meta-analysis
by Allen and colleagues (1996), prebriefings were found to be even more effective than
debriefings.
• In summary, there are three types of pornography: erotica, nonviolent pornography, and
violent pornography; they differ from embedded sexual material because they show sex
explicitly and are mainly intended to sexually arouse the viewer.
• There is little research on erotica except that it arouses both men and women.
• Heavy exposure to nonviolent pornography mainly affects attitudes about family
values, happiness, and views about women.
 • In contrast, even brief exposure to violent sexual material, including R-rated slasher
films, increases callousness and acceptance of violence toward women. Fortunately,
educational programs that emphasize respect for others, especially one’s partner, reduce
these negative effects.

How the Media Influence Our Thoughts

• During the 1950s and 1960s, social scientists started to argue that the media have little
or no influence on how people see the world.
• During the late 1980s, the American public became increasingly concerned about illegal
drug use.
• In November 1985, no one in a national political survey listed drugs as the most
important problem facing the United States.
• However, by November 1989—just four years later—more than 50% of respondents
said drugs were the country’s number one problem.
• This increase happened even though objective measures suggested that the drug
problem was actually decreasing.
• For example, deaths related to drugs went down during this time.
• Clearly, no single reason explains why Americans became more concerned.
• One important factor was the media’s strong focus on drugs.
• Several studies showed that heavy news coverage of drugs during the mid- to late 1980s
increased public concern about the issue.
• For example, coverage in The Washington Post increased before public concern
increased.
• Soon after the number of news articles about drugs rose, the number of people saying
drugs were the country’s biggest problem also rose.
• Later, when people saw drugs as less important, the media reduced coverage of the
issue.
• The idea that the media can shape which issues we think about or see as important is
called agenda setting.
• When the media set the agenda, they are not telling people what to think; instead, they
are influencing what people think about.
• The media did not change whether people believed drug use was wrong or whether
unfair sentencing was the real issue.
• Rather, media coverage made people think the drug issue was important.
• Hundreds of studies in the United States and Europe show that the media do set the
public’s agenda.
• Media coverage can even make people more concerned about an issue when real-world
evidence suggests the problem is actually decreasing.
• When discussing agenda setting, it is important to understand that there are three types
of agendas.
• The public agenda includes the issues the public thinks are important.
• The policy agenda includes the issues government officials think are important.
• The media agenda includes the issues the media cover extensively.
• Research suggests that the media often set the public agenda, and the public then
influences the policy agenda.
• However, the policy agenda can also influence the media agenda.
• Research on the 2005 Virginia governor’s race showed that both Tim Kaine and Jerry
Kilgore were influenced by the media’s agenda, but they also influenced what the media
covered.
• Their press releases affected what issues Virginia’s major newspapers reported.
• The reason the media can influence the public agenda is that heavy media coverage
makes an issue more noticeable, or salient.
• The availability heuristic, explained by Amos Tversky and Daniel Kahneman (1974),
suggests that people judge importance based on how easily examples come to mind.
• For example, if someone asks you what the biggest problem in the country is, you will
likely mention the issue that first comes to mind.
• Therefore, anything that makes an issue more noticeable increases the chance you will
remember it and call it important.
• Front-page headlines about a drought in another country make the issue more
noticeable.
• Graphic pictures of starving children increase its impact.
• If many news outlets cover the issue, you are more likely to see repeated stories, which
increases its importance in your mind.
• If coverage continues for weeks or months, the issue becomes even more noticeable.
• All these aspects of media coverage make people believe the issue is important.
• Although there are many strong examples of agenda setting, the media do not always
set the agenda.
• Research shows that the media are less likely to set the agenda for local issues.
• This makes sense. If an issue directly affects your life, you do not need the media to tell
you it is important.
• For example, if someone loses their job during a recession, they do not need media
coverage to know that the economy is a major issue.
• Another issue to consider is whether the Internet weakens the agenda-setting role of the
media.
• People can customize online news so they receive stories about topics they already care
about, instead of letting media organizations decide what is most important.
• Surveys show that more people now rely on the Internet for political news.
• A key question is whether the ability to personalize news weakens the media’s power
to set the agenda.
• Many online news sites also let popularity determine story placement, meaning stories
that get more clicks appear more prominently.
• In this way, the media agenda can reflect the public agenda more directly.
• A newer research area called agenda melding studies the interaction between traditional
media and newer online media.
• However, research still finds that traditional media have stronger agenda-setting effects
than online media.
• This may be because many online news sites simply repost stories from traditional
media.
• Reducing traditional media’s agenda-setting power likely requires online news sites that
produce original reporting.
 • Another important area of research is political priming.
• Political priming is the idea that the issues covered by the media influence the
information people use to judge the president and other politicians.
• In 1991, George H. W. Bush had very high approval ratings.
• Many experts believed the Democratic Party would struggle to find a candidate who
could defeat him in the 1992 election.
• However, Bush lost the 1992 election to a young Democrat from Arkansas, Bill Clinton.
• Many factors influenced the 1992 election.
• Research suggests that heavy media focus on domestic issues in late 1991 and 1992
played a role in Bush’s declining popularity.
• When judging the president’s performance, people can consider many factors: the
economy, civil rights, foreign policy, or even personal characteristics.
• Political priming focuses on how the media influence which of these factors people use.
• The media do not directly change what you believe; instead, they influence which
information you use when judging the president.
• The term “priming” may be confusing because it sounds similar to earlier research on
media priming of violence. However, they are different.
• Media priming of violence usually fades quickly, while political priming can last for
weeks.
• According to political priming research, if the media focus on international affairs,
people will use the president’s performance in international affairs to judge overall
performance.
• If the media focus on domestic issues, people will use domestic performance to judge
overall performance.
• People generally viewed President Bush positively in international affairs but
negatively in domestic affairs.
• Research combining surveys and analysis of news coverage showed that during the first
Iraq War, when the media focused on international issues, people with positive views
of Bush’s foreign policy rated his overall performance highly, even though they were
unhappy with the economy.
• Later, when media attention shifted to domestic issues, people used their negative views
of Bush’s domestic performance to judge him overall.
• As a result, Bush’s approval ratings dropped sharply, even though people still believed
he handled international affairs well.
• In other words, the media agenda likely influenced the outcome of the 1992 election
because the media primed the standards people used to judge Bush’s performance.
AGGRESSION
• Aggression is the act of harming others in some way—the modern, connected world we
live in offers new ways to accomplish this goal.
• In the past, aggression involved face-to-face assaults against others (either verbal or
physical) or indirect efforts to harm them through such tactics as spreading malicious
rumors about them.
• But now, there are many new—and deadly—ways to harm others.
 • Sexting can be one of them, but so, too, can using the Web to spread embarrassing
photos with other kinds of content and “smear campaigns,” designed to harm the
targets’ reputations.
• In one college course offered at Indiana University, the professor Googles students prior
to the first day of class—and then reports to them embarrassing postings this process
has uncovered.
• Not surprisingly, there are always a few posts the students wish would disappear—for
example, photos of them posing half-naked or engaging in actions they now find
embarrassing and wish had never happened.
• Overall, many people believe that we are now living in an age when humiliating others
is viewed as more acceptable than it was in the past.
• Do you ever watch American Idol?
• Then you know what happens to performers who are dismissed early on: often, they are
ridiculed harshly before millions of viewers.
• And special websites designed to demean strangers now exist (e.g.,
[Link], which shows photos of shoppers at Walmart in very unattractive
poses and clothing).
• So yes, we do live in a new age, but the age-old desire to harm others can find many
new forms of expression.
• And, of course, more “traditional” forms of aggression—from terrorism through serial
killings and genocide—are still very much with us and remain an unsettling part of the
human story.
• Given the pervasiveness of aggression and violence (and its human costs), it is not
surprising that social psychologists have sought to obtain a greater understanding of the
roots of aggression—to gain insights into its nature and causes.
• The ultimate goal of such research is to use this increased knowledge to develop
improved techniques for reducing aggression in many different contexts.
Perspectives on Aggression
If so, you know that, although the system is operating better than in the past, getting through
airport security can still sometimes take a long time, and be somewhat stressful. In fact, on a
recent trip, one of us had his very small over night bag pulled off the line and carefully
searched. What was the problem? A water bottle he had forgotten to empty before getting on
line. The inspector took it away, and that was the end of the process . . . but it was not pleasant.
In the past, this kind of intense inspection—including full body scans—was not part of flying,
so why do we have it now? You almost certainly know the answer: because of acts of aggression
against innocent victims known as terrorism. The tragic events of 9/11 were a “wake up” call
for Americans—and the citizens of every other country—reminding them that there were people
out there who were perfectly willing to kill and injure other people they didn’t know and who
had done them no harm. This, of course, raises a very basic question: Why do human beings
aggress against others in such savage and frightening ways? Social psychologists—along with
many other thoughtful people—have pondered these questions for centuries and offered many
explanations.
The Role of Biological Factors
• The oldest and probably most famous explanation for human aggression attributed it to
biological factors, our basic nature as a species.
• The most famous supporter of this theory was Sigmund Freud, who held that aggression
stems mainly from a powerful death wish (thanatos) we all possess.
• According to Freud, this instinct is initially aimed at self-destruction, but is soon
redirected outward, toward others.
• A related view was proposed by Konrad Lorenz, a Nobel Prize–winning ethologist, who
suggested that aggression springs mainly from an inherited fighting instinct, which
ensures that only the strongest males will obtain mates and pass their genes on to the
next generation.
• Until recently, most social psychologists rejected such ideas.
• Among the many reasons they did were these: (1) human beings aggress against others
in many different ways—everything from excluding them from social groups to
performing overt acts of violence against them. How can such a huge range of behaviors
all be determined by genetic factors? (2) The frequency of aggressive actions varies
tremendously across human societies, so that is much more likely to occur in some than
in others.
• If that’s so, social psychologists wonder, “How can aggressive behavior be determined
by genetic factors?”
• With the growth of the evolutionary perspective in psychology, however, the situation
has changed.
• While most social psychologists continue to reject the view that human aggression
stems largely from innate (i.e., genetic) factors, some now accept the possibility that
genetic factors may indeed play some role in human aggression.
• In the evolutionary past (and even at present to some extent), males seeking desirable
mates found it necessary to compete with other males.
• One way of eliminating such competition is through successful aggression, which
drives such rivals away.
• Since males who were adept at such behavior may have been more successful in
securing mates and in transmitting their genes to offspring, this may have led to the
development of a genetically influenced tendency for males to aggress against other
males.
• In contrast, males would not be expected to possess a similar tendency to aggress
against females; in fact, development of such tendencies might be discouraged because
females would tend to reject as mates males who are aggressive toward them or even
ones who are aggressive in public, thus exposing themselves and their mates to
unnecessary danger.
• As a result, males may have weaker tendencies to aggress against females than against
other males.
• In contrast, females might aggress equally against males and females, or even more
frequently against males than other females.
• Some research findings are consistent with this reasoning.
• For instance, males tend to be more aggressive toward other males than toward females
(although, of course, domestic violence is often perpetrated by males against females).
• In contrast, similar differences do not exist (or are weaker) among females.
 • In addition, recent research by Griskevicius and colleagues (2009) indicates that when
men’s mating motivation is activated (by reading a story about meeting a very attractive
woman)—they do indeed become more aggressive toward other men, which is
consistent with their goal of driving off potential rivals.
• Moreover, this is especially likely to occur when only other males can observe their
behavior; if females are present, they do not become more aggressive, thus avoiding
the possibility of turning off these potential mates (many women find men who are
aggressive in public to be frightening rather than attractive).
• Findings such as these have led some social psychologists to conclude that biological
or genetic factors do indeed play a role in human aggression because such behavior is
closely linked to certain forms of status, which in turn is related to success in obtaining
attractive mates, however, the fact that a given form of behavior is influenced by genetic
factors does not mean that such behavior must occur or is an essential part of “human
nature.”
• It simply means that a potential for engaging in such behavior exists, and is generated,
at least in part, by biological factors.
• Testosterone, the male sex hormone, may also play a role.
• Flinn, Ponzi, and Muehlenbein (2012) studied soccer players. They found that
testosterone levels increased after victories against strangers. Testosterone did not
increase after losses or after games against friends.
• This suggests that defeating rivals may increase testosterone. Higher testosterone may
then increase motivation to compete for mates.
• Research also shows that when men’s mating motives are activated—for example, by
reading about meeting an attractive woman—they become more aggressive toward
other men.
• However, this effect depends on who is watching.
Men become more aggressive when only other men are present.
When women are present, they do not increase aggression. Women often find public
aggression unattractive or frightening.

Drive Theories
• When social psychologists rejected the instinct views of aggression proposed by Freud
and Lorenz, they countered with an alternative of their own: the view that aggression
stems mainly from an externally elicited drive to harm others.
• This approach is reflected in several different drive theories of aggression.
• These theories propose that external conditions—especially frustration— arouse a
strong motive to harm others.
• This aggressive drive, in turn, leads to overt acts of aggression.
• It can be initiated by several factors (e.g., provocations from others), or even by the
presence of a weapon in the room.
• By far the most famous of these theories is the well-known frustration-aggression
hypothesis.
• Here, we just want to note that this theory suggests that frustration— anything that
prevents us from reaching goals we are seeking—leads to the arousal of a drive whose
primary goal is that of harming some person or object—primarily the perceived cause
of frustration.
 • Furthermore, the theory suggests that frustration is the strongest, or perhaps the only,
cause of aggression.
• Social psychologists now realize that this theory is somewhat misleading, but it still
enjoys widespread acceptance outside our field, and you may sometimes hear your
friends refer to it in such statements as, “He was so frustrated that he finally blew up”
or “She was feeling frustrated, so she took it out on her roommate.”
Modern Theories of Aggression
• Model Unlike earlier views, modern theories of aggression not focus on a single factor
(instincts, drives, frustration) as the primary cause of aggression.
• Rather, they draw on advances in many areas of psychology in order to gain added
insight into the factors that play a role in the occurrence of such behavior.
• One such theory, known as the social learning perspective, begins with a very
reasonable idea: Human beings are not born with a large array of aggressive responses
at their disposal.
• Rather, they must acquire these in the much the same way that they acquire other
complex forms of social behavior: through direct experience or by observing the
behavior of others (i.e., social models—live people or characters on television, in
movies, or even in video games who behave aggressively.
• Thus, depending on their past experience and the cultures in which they live, individuals
learn (1) various ways of seeking to harm others, (2) which people or groups are
appropriate targets for aggression, (3) what actions by others justify retaliation or
vengeance on their part, and (4) what situations or contexts are ones in which aggression
is permitted or even approved.
• In short, the social learning perspective suggests that whether a specific person will
aggress in a given situation depends on many factors, including the person’s past
experience, the current rewards associated with past or present aggression, and attitudes
and values that shape this person’s thoughts concerning the appropriateness and
potential effects of such behavior.
• Building on the social learning perspective, a newer framework known as the general
aggression model (GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002) provides an even more
complete account of the foundations of human aggression.
• According to this theory, a chain of events that may ultimately lead to overt aggression
can be initiated by two major types of input variables: (1) factors relating to the current
situation (situational factors) and (2) factors relating to the people involved (person
factors).
• Variables falling into the first category include frustration, some kind of provocation
from another person (e.g., an insult), exposure to other people behaving aggressively
(aggressive models, real or in the media), and virtually anything that causes individuals
to experience discomfort—everything from uncomfortably high temperatures to a
dentist’s drill or even an extremely dull lecture.
• Variables in the second category (individual differences across people) include traits
that predispose some individuals toward aggression (e.g., high irritability), certain
attitudes and beliefs about violence (e.g., believing that it is acceptable and
appropriate), a tendency to perceive hostile intentions in others’ behavior, and specific
skills related to aggression (e.g., knowing how to fight or how to use various weapons).
 • According to the general aggression model (GAM), these situational and individual
(personal) variables lead to overt aggression through their impact on basic processes:
arousal—they may increase physiological arousal or excitement; affective states—they
can arouse hostile feelings and outward signs of these (e.g., angry facial expressions);
and cognitions—they can induce individuals to think hostile thoughts or can bring
beliefs and attitudes about aggression to mind.
• Depending on individuals’ inter pretations (appraisals) of the current situation and
restraining factors (e.g., the presence of police or the threatening nature of the intended
target person), they then engage either in thoughtful action, which might involve
restraining their anger, or impulsive action, which can lead to overt aggressive actions.
• Bushman and Anderson (2002) have expanded this theory to explain why individuals
who are exposed to high levels of aggression—either directly, in the actions of others,
or in films and video games— may tend to become increasingly aggressive themselves.
• Repeated exposure to such stimuli serves to strengthen knowledge structures related to
aggression— beliefs, attitudes, schemas, and scripts relevant to aggression.
• The GAM is certainly more complex than earlier theories of aggression.
• In addition, because it fully reflects recent progress in the field—growing
understanding of the fact that what people think is crucial in deter mining in what they
actually do—it seems much more likely to provide an accurate view of the nature of
human aggression than these earlier theories—and that, of course, is what scientific
progress is all about.
• Excitation transfer theory explains how arousal from one situation can increase
aggression in a later, unrelated situation.
• According to excitation transfer theory, when a person experiences physiological
arousal (such as increased heart rate, adrenaline, or emotional excitement), that arousal
does not disappear immediately.
• Instead, it can remain in the body for a short period of time.
• If another event occurs during that time, the leftover arousal can be transferred to the
new situation.
• The person may misinterpret this leftover arousal as being caused by the second event.
• As a result, their emotional reaction to the second event becomes stronger than it
normally would be.
• In terms of aggression: If someone becomes physiologically aroused (for example,
through exercise, fear, excitement, or even watching an intense movie), and then
experiences a provocation shortly afterward, the leftover arousal can intensify their
anger. This makes aggressive behavior more likely.
Causes of Human Aggression (Determinants)
Here’s an actual incident that occurred not very long ago in a bar. Charles Barkley, a
professional basketball player, entered a local bar at the same time as another man. (Barkley
stands 6’ 6” and weighs 252 pounds.) Both stepped up to the bar and Barkley ordered a drink.
Seemingly, without provocation, the other fellow picked up a glass of water and hurled the
contents at Barkley. What should Barkley do? Water is harmless and will dry very quickly; the
two men are strangers who will probably never see each other again. In addition, Barkley is a
stranger in town and it is possible that the water-throwing offender has many friends standing
by, ready to help him; in other words, it could be a setup for Barkley—something professional
athletes sometimes encounter from fans of rival teams. Rationally, therefore, Barkley should
just look the other way and avoid trouble, right? What do you think he actually did? Without
hesitation, he simply picked up the offender and threw him through the front window of the bar.
What would you do in a similar situation? Would you, too, lose your temper and react strongly?
Or would you follow a less dangerous course of action, such as leaving the scene? This would
probably depend on many factors: Are you as tall and powerful as Barkley, so that you easily
handle people like this stranger who annoyed you? Have you already had several drinks or
none? Who else is present—friends, strangers, perhaps undercover police officers? Are you in
a good mood or a bad one? Is it pleasant in the bar, or hot, steamy, and uncomfortable? What
explanations for this stranger’s provocation pass through your mind?
Research by social psychologists has shown that all of these factors—and many others, too—
can play a role. In other words, aggression doesn’t stem from one primary factor or just a few;
rather, as modern theories of aggression suggest, it is influenced by a wide range of social,
cultural, personal, and situational conditions. We now review some of the most important of
these factors—conditions that increase the likelihood that people will engage in some form of
aggression.
Basic Sources of Aggression
Aggression, like other forms of social behavior, is often a response to something in the social
world around us. In other words, it often occurs in response to something other people have
said or done. Here are several ways in which this can—and often does—occur.
FRUSTRATION
• Suppose that you asked 20 people you know to name the single most important cause
of aggression. What would they say? The chances are good that most would reply
frustration.
• And if you asked them to define frustration, many would state: “The way I feel when
something—or someone— prevents me from getting what I want or expect to get in
some situation.”
• This widespread belief in the importance of frustration as a cause of aggression stems,
at least in part, from the famous frustration-aggression hypothesis mentioned in our
discussion of drive theories of aggression.
• In its original form, this hypothesis made two sweeping assertions: (1) Frustration
always leads to some form of aggression and (2) aggression always stems from
frustration.
• In short, the theory held that frustrated people always engage in some type of aggression
and that all acts of aggression, in turn, result from frustration.
• Bold statements like these are appealing, but it does not mean that they are necessarily
accurate.
• In fact, existing evidence suggests that both portions of the frustration-aggression
hypothesis assign far too much importance to frustration as a determinant of human
aggression.
• When frustrated, individuals do not always respond with aggression.
 • On the contrary, they show many different reactions, ranging from sadness, despair, and
depression on the one hand, to direct attempts to overcome the source of their frustration
on the other.
• In short, aggression is definitely not an automatic response to frustration.
• Second, it is equally clear that not all aggression stems from frustration.
• In view of these basic facts, few social psychologists now accept the idea that frustration
is the only, or even the most important, cause of aggression.
• Instead, most believe that it is simply one of many factors that can potentially lead to
aggression.
• We should add that frustration can serve as a powerful determinant of aggression under
certain conditions—especially when it is viewed as illegitimate or unjustified.
• For instance, if a student believes that she deserves a good grade on a term paper but
then receives a poor one, with no explanation, she may conclude that she has been
treated very unfairly—that her legitimate needs have been thwarted.
• The result: She may have hostile thoughts, experience intense anger, and seek revenge
against the perceived source of such frustration—in this case, her professor.
DIRECT PROVOCATION
• Major world religions often suggest that when provoked by another person, we should
“turn the other cheek”—in other words, the most appropriate way to respond to being
annoyed or irritated by another person is to do our best to ignore this treatment.
• In fact, however, research findings indicate that this is easier to say than to do, and that
physical or verbal provocation from others is one of the strongest causes of human
aggression.
• When we are on the receiving end of some form of provocation from others—criticism
we consider unfair, sarcastic remarks, or physical assaults, we tend to reciprocate,
returning as much aggression as we have received, or perhaps even more, especially if
we are certain that the other person meant to harm us.
• Existing evidence suggests that condescension—expressions of arrogance or disdain on
the part of others—is very powerful.
• Harsh and unjustified criticism, especially criti cism that attacks us rather than our
behavior, is another powerful form of provocation, and when exposed to it, most people
find it very difficult to avoid getting angry and retal iating in some manner, either
immediately or later on.
• Still another form of provocation to which many people respond with annoyance is
teasing— provoking statements that call attention to an individual’s flaws and
imperfections, but can be, at the same time, somewhat playful in nature.
• Teasing can range from mild, humorous remarks (e.g., “Hey—you look like your hair
just went through an elec tric mixer!”) through nicknames or comments that truly seem
designed to hurt.
• Research findings indicate that the more individuals attribute teasing to hostile
motives—a desire to embarrass or annoy them—the more likely they are to respond
aggressively.
• In addition, research findings indicate that actions by others that somehow threaten our
status or public image are important triggers of aggression.
 • For instance, in one revealing study, participants (male and female college students)
were asked to describe the primary reason why they had performed the most recent act
of direct aggression against another person.
Social Causes of Aggression: Social Exclusion and Exposure to Media Violence
• What does it feel like to be excluded or rejected by others?
• It is clearly an unpleasant experience, and most of us would want to avoid it.
• Exclusion means we cannot enjoy the benefits of social relationships with others.
• It also harms our self-image.
• If other people do not want us around, it may seem like we have undesirable qualities
instead of desirable ones.
• Does rejection by others increase our chances of behaving aggressively toward them?
• Acting aggressively might feel like a way to “even the score.”
• However, aggressive people are often excluded or rejected because they are aggressive.
• Even so, research shows that social rejection is often a strong trigger for aggression.
• Being rejected or excluded often leads people to behave more aggressively toward those
who excluded them.
• This aggression can then lead to even more rejection.
• This creates a negative cycle that continues over time.
• One possible reason is that emotional pain caused by rejection leads people to “lash
out.”
• This sounds reasonable.
• However, studies testing this idea have not supported it.
• Negative emotions do not explain why rejection leads to aggression.
• Emotional distress does not act as the link between rejection and aggression.
• Another explanation is that rejection creates a hostile way of thinking.
• It activates mental structures that make us see unclear or neutral actions as hostile.
• It also makes us think aggression is common in social interactions.
• It makes aggression seem like an acceptable response.
• Evolutionary theory also supports this idea.
• In the past, humans needed others and group cooperation to survive.
• Being excluded from the group was very serious and threatening.
• Therefore, exclusion would likely be seen as a hostile act.
• To test whether hostile thinking explains the link between exclusion and aggression,
researchers conducted several studies.
• Some participants were told their partner refused to work with them.
• Others were told the partner could not work with them due to another appointment.
• Both groups were asked to complete word fragments.
• The fragments could form either aggressive or non-aggressive words.
• It was predicted that rejected participants would choose more aggressive words.
• The results supported this prediction.
• Rejected participants completed more words in aggressive ways.

• In a follow-up study participants completed a personality test.

• They were told either:
o They would spend their future alone and be rejected, or
o They would have close and meaningful relationships.
• Then they read a story where another person behaved in unclear ways.
• After reading the story, they rated whether the person seemed:
o Angry
o Hostile
o Dislikable
o Unfriendly
• It was predicted that those expecting future rejection would see the stranger’s behavior
as more hostile.
• The results confirmed this prediction.

• Finally, to determine if this hostile bias increased aggression, participants in both

groups were given an opportunity to aggress against the stranger in the story; they were
told that this person was seeking a position as a research assistant, which they needed
badly, and were asked evaluate the stranger’s suitability for the position.
• They were asked to evaluate the person’s suitability for the job.
• Giving negative ratings would prevent the person from getting the job.
• It was predicted that participants expecting future rejection would give lower ratings.
• The results again supported this prediction.
 • The results of these studies, and others, show that social exclusion works by creating a
hostile way of thinking.
• Rejection by others is a strong cause of aggression.
• It leads people to see others’ actions as having hostile intentions.
• It makes them believe others want to harm them.
• Rejection does cause emotional pain and distress.
• However, it is mainly the change in thinking—not the emotional pain—that causes
increased aggression.
• Excluded people often become highly aggressive.
• Their aggression is directed not only at those who rejected them, but also at other
people.
Media Violence
• What was the last movie you watched in a theater?
• Did it include aggression or violence?
• How often did characters attack or try to hurt other characters?
• For example, think about the very popular movie Avatar.
• It was exciting in many ways, but it also contained a very large amount of violence.
• In fact, a large part of what happened on the screen involved violent action.
• Careful studies of recent movies, television programs, and other forms of media show
that violence appears very often in popular mass media.
• This fact leads to an important question that social psychologists have studied for many
years.
• Does watching violent material increase aggression in children or adults?
• Hundreds of studies have been carried out to test this idea. The results are clear.
• Exposure to media violence may be one factor that contributes to high levels of violence
in countries where many people watch such material.
• Experts who have carefully reviewed the research have reached several main
conclusions.
1. Research on exposure to violent television, movies, video games, and music
shows that such material significantly increases the likelihood that people who
are exposed to it will behave aggressively.
2. These effects can occur in the short term and also in the long term.
3. The size of these effects is large, and at least as large as important medical
effects, such as the effect of aspirin on reducing heart attacks.
• In other words, leading experts in social psychology agree that the effects of media
violence are real, long-lasting, and strong.
• These effects have important consequences for society and for the safety and well-being
of millions of people who become victims of aggressive behavior each year.
• Many different kinds of research support these conclusions.
• In short-term laboratory experiments, children or adults who are exposed to violent
films and television programs show more aggression than those who watch nonviolent
films or programs.
• The earliest research of this kind was conducted by Albert Bandura and his colleagues
in the early 1960s.
• At that time, social psychology was still a relatively new and rapidly developing field.
• To study this question, Bandura and his team created their own television programs
instead of using real ones.
• In these programs, an adult model was shown behaving aggressively toward a large
inflatable toy clown called a Bobo doll.
• The adult sat on the doll, punched it repeatedly in the nose, hit it on the head with a toy
mallet, and kicked it around the room.
• In another version of the program, the adult did not behave aggressively and did not
attack the doll.
• Nursery school children watched either the aggressive version or the nonaggressive
version.
• After watching one of the two programs, the children were placed in a room with many
toys, including some that had been used by the adult model.
• The children were allowed to play freely for 20 minutes.
• During this time, their behavior was carefully observed to see whether they would copy
the aggressive actions shown in the program. The results were clear.
• Young children who had watched the aggressive adult strongly tended to imitate the
aggressive behaviors.
• In contrast, children who had watched the nonaggressive adult did not show similar
aggressive actions.
• Bandura and his colleagues concluded that the children had learned new ways of
behaving aggressively from the program they watched.
• They also concluded that children could learn new ways of aggressing against others,
and learn that aggression is acceptable behavior by watching television shows and
movies.
• Other research has used long-term methods in which the same participants were studied
over many years.
• These studies also show clear results.
• The more violent television programs or movies participants watched as children, the
higher their levels of aggression were as teenagers or adults.
• For example, they were more likely to have been arrested for violent crimes.
• These findings have been repeated in many different countries, including Australia,
Finland, Israel, Poland, and South Africa.
• This shows that the effects appear across different cultures.
• The effects are not limited to fictional programs or movies.
• They also occur with violence shown in news programs, violent lyrics in popular music,
and violent video games.

• Violent video games have recently become the focus of intense research.
• These games are very popular and are played for many hours each day by millions of
people around the world.
• Many studies have examined whether playing violent video games produces effects
similar to watching violent films or television programs.
• The results are consistent and concerning.
• Playing violent video games increases aggressive thoughts, aggressive feelings such as
anger and hostility, and aggressive behavior.
• It also reduces empathy for others and reduces the tendency to act in helpful and
prosocial ways.
• These effects occur in both Eastern countries, such as Asian nations, and Western
countries, such as Europe and North America.
• The effects can last for a relatively long time.
• They are found in short-term laboratory studies as well as in long-term studies that
follow participants for months or years.
• Researchers conclude that video games are not naturally good or bad.
• However, people learn from what they experience.
• When the content they learn is aggressive, it is likely to have serious and widespread
negative effects on society.
• Another important question is why so many people enjoy playing violent video games.
• An early explanation was that people find violent content exciting and enjoyable,
especially because it occurs in the safe setting of a video game.
• This explanation has generally been accepted as the reason for the great popularity of
violent games.
 • However, research suggests that this explanation may not be correct.
• According to cognitive evaluation theory, the appeal of violent games may not come
mainly from the violence itself.
• Instead, the appeal may come from the sense of autonomy and competence that the
games provide.
• In other words, people may enjoy violent video games because the games give them a
feeling of being in control and acting independently.
• The games also give players opportunities to feel skilled and capable by using their
abilities successfully.
• In research studies, members of an online gaming forum reported their feelings of
freedom and mastery while playing different games.
• They also rated how much they enjoyed the games, how absorbed they felt while
playing, and whether they would buy a sequel.
• Independent raters also evaluated how violent each game was, ranging from games with
no violence to games with realistic violence.
• The results showed that enjoyment, absorption, and interest in buying a sequel were
related to feelings of autonomy and competence.
• These outcomes were not strongly related to how violent the games were.
• In additional studies, researchers examined whether people who are naturally high in
aggressiveness prefer violent games.
• Participants played either a violent or nonviolent game and then rated their preference
for future play.
• People high in trait aggressiveness preferred violent games.
• People low in trait aggressiveness preferred nonviolent games.
• However, when feelings of mastery and competence were kept equal, this difference
disappeared.
• This suggests that violent content itself is not the main reason these games are
appealing, even for highly aggressive individuals.
The Effects of Media Violence
• By now, you may be asking a very basic question.
• Why does exposure to media violence, in many different forms, increase aggression in
the people who are exposed to it?
• A strong explanation has been provided by Brad Bushman and Craig Anderson.
• They suggest that the effects of media violence can be clearly understood using the
General Aggression Model (GAM).
 • The model explains that both personal factors and situational factors influence a
person’s internal state.
• Internal states include:
o Feelings
o Thoughts
o Physical arousal
• These internal states then influence how a person understands or interprets a situation.
• They also influence the decision about how to behave in that situation.
• A person may decide to behave aggressively or nonaggressively.
• Repeated exposure to media violence can strongly influence thoughts related to
aggression.
• Over time, this repeated exposure gradually creates a hostile expectation bias.
• A hostile expectation bias means having a strong expectation that other people will
behave aggressively.
• Because of this bias, individuals begin to interpret many actions by others as
provocations.
• They may see hostility even when it is not actually present.
• As a result, they are more likely to respond aggressively.
• Studies designed to test this explanation have produced results that support it.
• The findings suggest that the General Aggression Model and the processes it describes
play an important role in explaining the effects of media violence.
THE EFFECTS OF MEDIA VIOLENCE
• Another important factor explaining the effects of media violence is desensitization to
violence.
• Desensitization means that after repeated exposure to violent content in television
programs, films, and video games, individuals become less sensitive to violence and its
harmful consequences.
• Research by Craig A. Anderson and colleagues (2003) suggests that desensitization
does occur as a result of exposure to media violence.
• Desensitization contributes to increased aggression among individuals exposed to
violent media.
• A study by Barbara Krahé and colleagues (2011) measured skin conductance, which is
an indicator of physiological arousal.
• Participants were divided into:
 o Individuals who frequently watched violent media (films and violent games).
o Individuals who rarely watched violent media.
• Participants viewed either:
o A violent film, or
o A sad film.
• Results showed that individuals who frequently watched violent media displayed less
physiological arousal while viewing the violent film compared to those who were rarely
exposed.
• This indicates that repeated exposure to violent content reduces emotional reactions,
even to scenes of extreme violence.
• Stronger evidence for desensitization comes from research using a social neuroscience
perspective.
• A study by Bruce D. Bartholow, Brad J. Bushman, and Sestir (2006) provides a clear
example.
• In this study:
o Participants reported how often they had previously played violent and
nonviolent video games.
o They then took part in a competitive reaction time task.
• In the competitive task:
o Participants believed they were competing with another person.
o They could decide the loudness of unpleasant sounds delivered to the opponent
when the opponent lost.
o The opponent did not actually exist.
• Before this task, participants viewed:
o Neutral images (e.g., a man riding a bicycle).
o Violent images (e.g., a person holding a gun to another person’s head).
• While viewing the images, participants’ brain activity was recorded.
• Researchers focused on P300 activity, which is a type of event-related brain potential
(ERP).
• Event-related brain potentials are changes in brain activity that occur when certain types
of information are being processed.
• P300 activity reflects how strongly emotionally provoking stimuli are processed and
categorized.
• Researchers predicted that:
 o If participants were desensitized due to frequent violent game exposure,
o Their P300 responses to violent images would be smaller.
• The results supported this prediction.
• Individuals who frequently played violent video games showed smaller P300 reactions
when viewing violent images compared to those who mainly played nonviolent games.
• This demonstrates that exposure to media violence leads to desensitization at the
neurological level.
• Additional findings from Bartholow et al. (2006) showed that:
o The degree of desensitization predicted the likelihood of aggressive behavior.
o Participants who were more desensitized were more likely to behave
aggressively in the competitive task.
Exposure to media violence increases aggression in several ways:
• It reduces emotional reactions to violent events.
• Violent events begin to seem normal or “nothing out of the ordinary.”
• It strengthens beliefs, expectations, and cognitive processes related to aggression.
• Individuals develop strong knowledge structures related to aggression.
• These knowledge structures include:
o Aggressive beliefs
o Expectations
o Schemas
o Scripts
• When these knowledge structures are activated by certain situations, individuals are
more likely to:
o Feel aggressively
o Think aggressively
o Act aggressively
• Aggressive behavior becomes something that has been learned and internalized.
• More than 40 years of research shows that exposure to media violence can have harmful
effects on society.
• Despite this evidence, violent content remains widespread in television, films, and
video games.
• The primary reason is that violence sells.
 • Many people find violent content exciting and entertaining.
• Advertisers assume that violent content attracts viewers.
• As noted by Brad J. Bushman (1998), advertisers “put their money where the action
is.”
• Economic motives often take precedence over social concerns.
• If society truly wants to reduce violence, reducing exposure to media violence would
be necessary.
• However, as long as people continue to pay for violent entertainment, major reductions
in media violence are unlikely.
• Nevertheless, there is still room for optimism and hope for change.
Personality, Gender, and Aggression
• Are some people more likely to aggress than others? Informal observation suggests that
this is so.
• While some individuals rarely lose their tempers or engage in aggressive actions, others
seem to be forever “losing it,” with potentially serious consequences.
• And in fact, recent evidence by Justin M. Carré, McCormick, and Mondloch (2009)
indicates that we can even accurately estimate others’ aggressiveness from the
appearance of their faces.
• In this surprising research, participants looked at the photos of male strangers and then
estimated how aggressive they were likely to be.
• When aggression by these individuals was actually measured in a special laboratory
game involving the choice between taking points away from or giving them to an
opponent, their predictions of the stranger’s aggressiveness were found to be accurate.
• The width-to-height ratio of strangers’ faces (i.e., the wider they are relative to how
high they are).
• The larger this ratio, the more aggressive the strangers were predicted to be.
• And indeed, width-to-height ratios were significantly related to actual aggression.
• Perhaps, as an evolutionary perspective suggests, people with a large width-to-height
ratio appear more fierce and so are better able to drive away potential rivals for mates.
• Whatever the reason, even facial appearance can be a predictor of actual aggression, so
clearly, characteristics possessed by individuals are related to the occurrence of this
dangerous form of behavior.
The TASS Model: Traits as Sensitivities to Various Situations
• In everyday speech, we often talk about people as possessing discrete traits.
• For instance, we say, “She is very friendly,” “He is lazy,” or “She is really smart.”
• We often go further, assuming that others’ traits and characteristics largely determine
their behavior.
• Social psychologists, in contrast, hold a somewhat different view.
• They note that situations are important too, and that social behavior often derives from
a complex interaction between situational factors and personal traits or other
characteristics.
• One theory that takes careful account of this fact is known as the TASS model—the
traits as situational sensitivities model.
• This model suggests that many aspects of personality function in a threshold-like
manner: Only when situational factors are strong enough to trigger them do they
influence behavior.
• In contrast, a more traditional model of how personality factors influence behavior
suggests that such factors are most likely to exert strong or clear effects in ambiguous
or “weak” situations—ones that don’t require people to behave in certain ways.
• When applied to aggression, the TASS model makes the following prediction: The
tendency to behave aggressively (sometimes known as trait aggressiveness) will only
influence overt behavior when situational factors are strong enough to activate it.
• For people high in this trait, even weak provocations will stimulate an aggressive
reaction; for people low in this trait, in contrast, much stronger levels of provocation
are required to trigger aggression.
• Evidence for this view has recently been reported by Marshall and Brown (2006).
• They first measured the trait aggressiveness of a large number of students, and then
placed them in a situation where they were exposed to either no provocation from
another person, moderate provocation, or strong provocation.
• Then, participants in all three groups were given an opportunity to aggress against this
other person (by setting the intensity of bursts of noise this person would receive if she
lost on a competitive reaction time task).
• The researchers predicted that for people high in trait aggressiveness, even a moderate
level of provocation would trigger intense aggressive reactions; for people low in trait
aggressiveness, however, a moderate provocation would trigger little or no aggression.
• Only a strong provocation would result in overt aggression.
• This is precisely what happened.
• People high in the tendency to aggress (high in trait aggressiveness) literally “exploded”
when they received even a mild provocation from another person (a mildly negative
evaluation of an essay they wrote).
• In contrast, people low in trait aggressiveness showed little or no reaction to a mild
provocation, but they did respond with strong aggression when they received a very
 powerful provocation (an unfairly negative evaluation of their work, describing it as
“the worst I’ve ever read”).
The Type A Behavior Pattern
• Do you know anyone you could describe as (1) extremely competitive, (2) always in a
hurry, and (3) especially irritable and aggressive?
• If so, this person shows the characteristics of what psychologists term the Type A
behavior pattern.
• At the opposite end of the continuum are people who do not show these
characteristics—individuals who are not highly competitive, who are more relaxed and
not always fighting the clock, and who do remain calm even in the face of strong
provocation; such people are described as showing the Type B behavior pattern.
• Given the characteristics mentioned above, it seems only reasonable to expect that Type
As would tend to be more aggressive than Type Bs in many situations.
• In fact, the results of several experiments indicate that this is actually the case.
• Additional findings indicate that Type As are truly hostile people; they don’t merely
aggress against others because this is a useful means for reaching other goals, such as
winning athletic contests or furthering their own careers.
• Rather, they are more likely than Type Bs to engage in what is known as hostile
aggression—aggression in which the prime objective is inflicting some kind of harm
on the victim.
• In view of this fact, it is not surprising to learn that Type As are more likely than Type
Bs to engage in such actions as child abuse or spousal abuse.
• In contrast, Type As are not more likely than Type Bs to engage in instrumental
aggression—aggression performed primarily to attain other goals aside from harming
the victim, goals such as control of valued resources or praise from others for behaving
in a “tough” manner.
Narcissism, Ego-Threat, and Aggression: On the Dangers of Wanting to Be Superior
• Do you know the story of Narcissus?
• He was a character in Greek mythology who fell in love with his own reflection in the
water and drowned trying to reach it.
• His name has now become a synonym for excessive self-love—for holding an
overinflated view of one’s own virtues or accomplishments—and research findings
indicate that this trait may be linked to aggression in important ways.
• Specifically, research findings indicate that people high in narcissism (ones who agree
with items such as “If I ruled the world it would be a much better place” and “I am more
capable than other people”) react with exceptionally high levels of aggression when
their egos are threatened—when other people say or do something that puts their
inflated self-image in danger.
 • These findings raise important questions concerning the strategy, now used in many
schools, of attempting to boost students’ egos in various ways.
• In fact, it seems possible that raising students’ self-esteem to unrealistic levels might
increase their sensitivity to events that threaten their excessive egos.
• For instance, narcissistic people may react strongly to even mild provocations because
they believe that they are so much better than other people, and as a result, perceive
even very mild critical comments from others as strong slurs on their inflated self-
image.
• This latter possibility was investigated by McCullough, Fincham, and Tsang (2003).
• These researchers reasoned that narcissistic people, because of their inflated self-image,
perceive themselves as the victims of transgressions more often than nonnarcissistic
people.
• To test this prediction, they asked college students to complete a measure of narcissism,
and then to keep a diary for 14 days in which they recorded the number of times other
people offended them in some way.
• As expected, the higher participants scored in narcissism score of the participants, the
greater the number of transgressions by others they reported.
• This was especially true for one aspect of narcissism relating to exploiting others or
being entitled to wonderful treatment by them (e.g., strong agreement with statements
such as “I insist on getting the respect that is due me”).
• More recent studies have carried this work one step further, demonstrating that
activities that help restore threatened egos reduce aggression by narcissistic people.
Gender Differences in Aggression
• Are males more aggressive than females?
• Folklore suggests that they are, and research findings suggest that in this case, informal
observation is correct: when asked whether they have ever engaged in any of a wide
range of aggressive actions, males report a higher incidence of many aggressive
behaviors than do females.
• On close examination, however, the picture regarding gender differences in the
tendency to aggress becomes more complex.
• On the one hand, males are generally more likely than females both to perform
aggressive actions and to serve as the target for such behavior.
• Furthermore, this difference seems to persist throughout the lifespan, occurring even
among people in their 70s and 80s.
• On the other hand, the size of these differences appears to vary greatly across situations.
1. Role of Provocation
 • First, gender differences in aggression are much larger in the absence of provocation
than in its presence.
• In other words, males are significantly more likely than females to aggress against
others when they have not been provoked in any manner.
• In situations where provocation is present, and especially when it is intense, such
differences tend to disappear.
2. Type of Aggression
• Second, the size—and even direction—of gender differences in aggression seems to
vary greatly with the type of aggression in question.
• Research findings indicate that men are more likely than women to engage in various
forms of direct aggression—actions aimed directly at the target that clearly stem from
the aggressor (e.g., physical assaults, pushing, shoving, throwing something at another
person, shouting, making insulting remarks)
• Interestingly, though, the size of such differences appears to be decreasing and rates of
direct aggression—including violent behavior—are increasing among women.
• Similarly, although it was once widely believed that large gender differences exist with
respect to various forms of indirect aggression—actions that allow the aggressor to
conceal his or her identity from the victim, and that, in some cases, make it difficult for
the victim to know that they have been the target of intentional harm-doing—such
differences, too, appear to be decreasing and may in fact have vanished.
• Indirect forms of aggression include spreading vicious rumors about the target person,
gossiping behind this person’s back, telling others not to associate with the intended
victim, making up stories to get them in trouble, and so on.
• Research findings indicate that while gender differences with respect to indirect
aggression are present among children, they may not persist into adulthood.
3. The “Bright Side” of Aggression
• Third, recent findings indicate that for women as well as men, being aggressive can be
a social “plus,” conferring high status and appeal on the people who demonstrate it.
• This is especially true for individuals who combine aggression with high levels of
relationship-enhancing actions (e.g., high social skills, high levels of extraversion).
• Such people combine high levels of aggression with prosocial, relationship-boosting
actions, which seems to reflect their overall high levels of extraversion.
• As a result, they are often very successful in gaining access to valued rewards (e.g.,
high status, approval from others) and become very popular with their peers.
• This pattern—which Hawley and her colleagues describe as “the bright side of bad
behavior”—is equally frequent among females and males.
• This fact suggests, too, that gender differences in aggression have been overstated in
the past.
Situational determinants of aggression
• Aggression is influenced not only by social factors and personality traits but also by
situational or contextual factors such as high temperature and alcohol consumption.
Temperature and Aggression
• Many common expressions such as “boiling mad,” “hot-tempered,” and “white-hot
rage” suggest a possible connection between heat and aggression.
• Many people report feeling more irritable and short-tempered on hot and humid days.
• Social psychologists have studied the relationship between heat and aggression for
more than three decades, and research methods have become increasingly sophisticated
over time.
• Early experimental studies, such as those conducted by Robert A. Baron (1972), were
carried out in controlled laboratory settings.
• In these experiments, temperature was manipulated as the independent variable.
• Participants were exposed either to comfortably pleasant temperatures (70–72°F) or to
uncomfortably hot temperatures (94–98°F).
• After exposure to these temperatures, participants were given opportunities to aggress
against another person, although they only believed they could harm the person since
ethical guidelines prevented actual harm.
• Surprisingly, results showed that high temperatures reduced aggression in both
provoked and unprovoked participants.
• The initial explanation was that extremely high temperatures were so uncomfortable
that participants focused on escaping the heat rather than retaliating against others.
• Researchers suggested that aggression might prolong unpleasant interactions, thereby
increasing discomfort, so participants chose to reduce aggression.
• When people feel extremely hot, they may become lethargic and concentrate on
reducing their discomfort instead of “evening the score” with others.
• These early studies had important limitations.
• Participants were exposed to high temperatures only for a few minutes, which does not
accurately represent real-life situations where heat exposure lasts much longer.
• Therefore, it was difficult to determine whether the findings truly reflected real-world
patterns.
• Later studies, including those by Craig A. Anderson (1989; 1996) used long-term
temperature records and police crime records instead of laboratory experiments.
• These researchers examined whether rates of aggressive crimes increased as
temperatures rose.
• A major study conducted by Craig A. Anderson, Brad J. Bushman, and Ralph Groom
(1997) analyzed average annual temperatures in 50 cities in the United States over a
45-year period (1950–1995).
• They also examined rates of violent crimes such as aggravated assault and homicide,
property crimes such as burglary and car theft, and rape.
• The results showed that hotter years were associated with higher rates of violent crimes.
• However, higher temperatures did not increase property crimes or rape.
• These findings remained significant even after controlling for other variables such as
poverty levels and age distribution of the population.
• These results strongly suggest that heat is linked specifically to violent aggression.
• Researchers questioned whether aggression increases indefinitely with temperature or
only up to a certain point.
• Earlier laboratory findings suggested a curvilinear relationship, meaning aggression
increases with heat up to a point and then declines when heat becomes extreme.
• Additional research by James Rotton and Ellen G. Cohn examined this issue carefully.
• They proposed that if people try to reduce discomfort when temperatures become
extremely high, aggression might decrease at peak heat levels.
• They predicted that the heat–aggression relationship would be stronger during evening
hours than at midday because evening temperatures are lower than peak midday
temperatures.
• Their findings supported this prediction.
• During the day, the relationship between heat and aggression followed a curvilinear
pattern.
• At night, the relationship was more linear, meaning aggression increased steadily as
temperature rose.
• Research by Richard P. Larrick and colleagues (2011) analyzed 57,293 major league
baseball games.
• They found that batters were more likely to be hit by pitched balls as the temperature
increased.
• This effect was especially strong when pitchers’ teammates had previously been hit,
showing that provocation combined with high temperature increased aggression.
• Research strongly suggests that heat increases irritability and the likelihood of
aggression, especially when individuals are provoked.
• However, when exposure to heat becomes extreme and prolonged, people may become
too lethargic to act aggressively.
• Therefore, the relationship between heat and aggression has limits.
 • The phrase “heat of anger” contains substantial truth, as rising temperatures can also
lead to rising tempers.
• This issue has important social implications, especially in the context of global
warming, where people may increasingly be exposed to high temperatures.
Alcohol and Aggression
• It is widely believed that people become more aggressive when they consume alcohol.
• This belief is supported by the observation that bars and nightclubs are often scenes of
violence.
• However, although alcohol is consumed in these settings, other factors such as
competition for desirable partners, crowding, and cigarette smoke (where smoking is
legal) may also contribute to the fights and violent incidents that occur.
• Despite these alternative explanations, systematic research generally confirms that
there is a link between alcohol and aggression.
• In several experiments, participants who consumed substantial amounts of alcohol—
enough to make them legally intoxicated—behaved more aggressively and responded
more strongly to provocations than participants who did not consume alcohol.
• In a study conducted by Peter R. Giancola and colleagues (2009), male and female
participants consumed either alcoholic drinks (one gram per kilogram of body weight
for men and 0.90 grams per kilogram for women) or non-alcoholic drinks (with a few
drops of alcohol floated on top to equalize the smell).
• After consuming the drinks, participants played a reaction-time competition game
against what they believed was another participant.
• Both participants set electric shock levels for each other, believing they would receive
the shock if they lost a trial.
• In reality, there was no opponent, and the shocks were controlled by the experimenters.
• Initially, the “opponent” set very weak shocks, which participants received after giving
consent.
• Later, the “opponent” began setting extremely high shock levels.
• The researchers observed how participants responded to this provocation.
• Men were generally more aggressive than women in terms of the intensity of shocks
they selected.
• However, for both men and women, extreme aggression (selecting the strongest
possible shock) increased after alcohol consumption.
• The effect of alcohol on aggression was stronger for men than for women, but it was
present for both genders.
Researchers have proposed several explanations:
 • Alcohol may reduce inhibitions, making individuals more likely to act impulsively and
engage in risky or aggressive behavior.
• Alcohol may increase sensitivity to provocation, making people more likely to interpret
actions as hostile and respond aggressively.
• Alcohol may lower the threshold for responding aggressively to provocation.
• While all of these explanations are plausible and supported by some evidence, recent
research suggests that alcohol’s effects on aggression may also stem from reduced
cognitive functioning.
• Research by Bruce D. Bartholow and colleagues (2003) indicates that alcohol impairs
higher-order cognitive processes such as the evaluation of stimuli and memory.
• Alcohol consumption may make it more difficult for individuals to accurately judge
others’ intentions as hostile or non-hostile.
• Alcohol may also impair individuals’ ability to consider the possible consequences of
their own aggressive actions.
• Individuals who consume alcohol show reduced ability to process positive information
about someone they initially dislike.
• For example, if a person who has consumed alcohol is provoked and then receives an
apology, they may be less able to process the apology carefully.
• As a result, they may remain aggressive despite the apology.
• Although some of these explanations are still speculative, they are consistent with other
research findings about alcohol’s impact on cognition and behavior.
The Prevention and Control of Aggression
• Aggression is not an inevitable or unchangeable behavior.
• Aggression results from a complex interaction between cognitions, situational factors,
and personal characteristics.
• Because aggression has multiple causes, it can be prevented or reduced.
• Several techniques, when used appropriately, can effectively reduce the frequency or
intensity of human aggression.
Punishment as a Major Social Technique
• In most societies, punishment—the delivery of aversive consequences—is a major
method used to reduce aggression.
• Individuals who engage in aggressive behavior may receive fines, imprisonment,
solitary confinement, or physical punishment.
• In extreme cases such as mass murder, punishment may involve capital punishment
(legal execution).
• Societies punish aggressive acts for two major reasons.
First Reason: Just Deserts (Retribution)
• There is a widespread belief that individuals who commit aggressive acts deserve
punishment.
• Aggressors have inflicted harm on others and on society, and they should suffer to
compensate for that harm.
• This perspective suggests that punishment should match the magnitude of harm caused.
• For example, breaking someone’s arm should result in less punishment than
permanently injuring or killing someone.
• The severity of punishment should also consider extenuating circumstances.
• For instance, aggressive acts committed in self-defense or in defense of one’s family
may be judged differently.
Second Reason: Deterrence
• The second reason for punishment is deterrence, which means preventing the offender
or others from committing aggressive acts in the future.
• From this perspective, the likelihood of detecting the crime is important.
• If aggressive acts are difficult to detect, they may need to be punished more severely to
discourage others.
• Public punishment may deter future crimes more effectively than private punishment,
especially in cultures where public shame is highly negative.
• Research by Kevin M. Carlsmith, John M. Darley, and Paul H. Robinson (2002)
suggests that most people favor the “just deserts” perspective over deterrence.
• Across many contexts, people generally believe that “the punishment should fit the
crime.”

• Another rationale for punishment is incapacitation, which means removing dangerous

individuals from society.
• Placing aggressive individuals in prison prevents them from harming new victims in
society.
• Statistics show that individuals who commit violent crimes are likely to repeat such
crimes.
• Therefore, removing them from society can prevent additional acts of aggression
against others.
• This rationale often supports long prison sentences, although it is not always explicitly
stated in court decisions.
• Research shows that punishment can reduce aggression, but only if it meets four basic
conditions:
 1. Promptness – Punishment must follow aggressive behavior as quickly as
possible.
2. Certainty – The probability that punishment will occur must be very high.
3. Strength – The punishment must be strong enough to be highly unpleasant.
4. Perceived Justification – The punishment must be viewed as justified or
deserved by the person receiving it.
• In many societies, punishment is delayed for months or years after the aggressive act.
• Many offenders avoid arrest or conviction, which reduces the certainty of punishment.
• The severity of punishment varies across cities, states, and courtrooms.
• Punishment is often harsher for minority group members.
• In many cases, punishment does not appear to fit the crime.
• When punishment seems unjustified or unfair, offenders may perceive it as aggression
against them.
• Since provocation strongly triggers aggression, unjust punishment may actually
increase aggression.
• Severe punishment alone does not appear to effectively deter violent crime.
• The necessary conditions for effective punishment are often not met in real-world legal
systems.
• Because these conditions are difficult to consistently achieve, the belief that severe
punishment alone will reduce aggression is overly optimistic and inaccurate.
• Other techniques for reducing aggression, including those based on principles of social
cognition, may be more effective than punishment alone.
Self-Regulation
• From an evolutionary perspective, aggression can be considered adaptive behavior in
certain situations.
• For example, competition for desirable mates is often intense, and aggression against
rivals may help individuals “win” such contests.
• Especially for males, strong aggressive tendencies may produce beneficial outcomes in
evolutionary terms.
• However, living in human society requires the restraint of aggressive impulses.
• Responding to every provocation with aggression is not adaptive and can seriously
disrupt social relationships.
• Humans possess internal mechanisms that help restrain anger and overt aggression.
• These mechanisms are referred to as self-regulation or self-control.
• Self-regulation refers to our capacity to regulate many aspects of our behavior,
including aggressive impulses.
• Self-regulation requires considerable cognitive effort.
• One reason aggressive behavior occurs is that individuals may not have sufficient
cognitive resources available for self-control.
• When people invest substantial cognitive effort in other demanding tasks, fewer
resources remain for controlling aggression.
• Research indicates that self-control functions like a limited resource and can become
depleted.
• For example, participants who resisted eating an appealing donut (thereby using self-
control) later behaved more aggressively than those who had not depleted their self-
control.
• This suggests that when self-control resources are used up, individuals are more prone
to aggression.
• Encouraging research suggests that self-control of aggressive impulses does not always
require significant cognitive effort.
• Studies by Iris B. Mauss; Christine Evers; Frank H. Wilhelm; and James J. Gross (2006)
indicate that individuals with positive implicit attitudes toward emotion regulation can
restrain aggression more effortlessly.
• When individuals value emotional control, they may regulate aggressive impulses
almost automatically.
• One method individuals use to avoid aggression is thinking prosocial thoughts.
• Prosocial thoughts involve focusing on helping others, caring for them, and acting in
socially constructive ways.
• Research by Brian P. Meier; Michael D. Robinson; and Brandon M. Wilkowski (2006)
shows that individuals who can easily bring prosocial thoughts to mind when provoked
are less likely to behave aggressively.
• The easier it is to activate prosocial thinking in provoking situations, the lower the
likelihood of aggressive responses.
• Research suggests that strengthening internal mechanisms of self-regulation may be
one of the most effective ways to reduce aggression.
• Since all individuals possess internal restraint mechanisms, the goal is to make them
stronger and prevent them from being overwhelmed by competing cognitive demands.
• Internal restraints against aggression can be strengthened in several ways.
• Exposure to nonaggressive role models who demonstrate restraint even when strongly
provoked may help.
 • Training programs designed to strengthen emotional regulation and self-control may
also be beneficial.
• Individuals can be taught to recognize situations in which their cognitive resources are
stretched, because these are the moments when inappropriate aggression is most likely
to occur.
Catharsis
• The catharsis hypothesis suggests that expressing anger and hostility in harmless ways
reduces the likelihood of engaging in more harmful aggression.
• This view was proposed by John Dollard and colleagues (1939).
• According to this idea, “letting it out” rather than keeping anger bottled up is believed
to be psychologically healthy.
• Many people strongly believe in catharsis.
• Advice columns (such as “Dear Abby”) often encourage people to express aggressive
emotions and thoughts as a way of reducing them.
• This belief has led to the creation of toys and activities designed to help people “vent”
aggressive impulses.
• Systematic research by social psychologists casts serious doubt on the effectiveness of
catharsis.
• Studies suggest that venting activities such as:
o Watching aggressive scenes,
o Reading about violence,
o Imagining revenge,
o Engaging in “play” aggression (e.g., punching a punching bag),
are more likely to increase aggression than to reduce it.
• Research by Brad J. Bushman (2001) and Brad J. Bushman, Roy F. Baumeister, and
Angela D. Stack (1999) supports this conclusion.
• Research conducted by Craig A. Anderson and colleagues (2003) tested whether
catharsis actually works.
• The researchers reasoned that if catharsis works, listening to songs with violent lyrics
should allow people to vent aggressive thoughts and feelings.
• As a result, participants should show lower hostility and fewer aggressive thoughts.
• However, based on previous findings, the researchers predicted that exposure to violent
lyrics would increase aggression instead.
• In the studies, participants listened to either violent or nonviolent songs.
• Afterward, they completed measures assessing:
 o Current feelings (hostile or friendly),
o Aggressive cognitions (e.g., perceived similarity between aggressive and
ambiguous words such as “alley” or “police”),
o Speed of recognizing aggressive versus nonaggressive words on a computer
screen.
• Results consistently showed that participants who listened to violent lyrics experienced:
o Increased hostile feelings,
o Increased aggressive thoughts.
• These findings clearly indicated that catharsis did not occur.
Several explanations help clarify why “letting it out” does not reduce aggression:
• Thinking about wrongs suffered and imagining revenge may actually increase anger.
• Watching or imagining aggressive acts can activate additional aggressive thoughts and
feelings.
• Activated aggressive thoughts may influence social perception.
• Ambiguous actions by others may be interpreted as hostile.
• This interpretation bias increases the likelihood of aggressive responses.
• Research on violent video games supports the idea that exposure to aggression
strengthens aggressive thinking patterns.
• Even if catharsis temporarily reduced anger, the effect would likely be short-lived.
• The original cause of anger may reoccur, limiting any long-term benefit.
• Venting anger may produce short-term emotional relief.
• For example, shouting at drivers who cannot hear you or punching a pillow may make
a person feel temporarily better.
• However, research shows that such activities do not reduce long-term aggressive
tendencies.
• Because reduced tension feels pleasant, venting may actually reinforce aggressive
impulses over time.
• Thus, rather than weakening aggression, catharsis may strengthen it.
Reducing Aggression by Thinking Nonaggressive Thoughts
• When one person angers another through insults or condescending behavior, the
recipient often responds in a similar manner.
• As a result, anger and aggression can escalate upward in a spiral.
• This escalation can become dangerous if not interrupted.
• Research suggests that one effective way to prevent or stop this spiral is by inducing
thoughts and feelings that are incompatible with anger and aggression.
• Incompatible responses are thoughts or feelings that conflict with anger and aggressive
intentions.
• These responses shift the individual “off track,” reducing the likelihood of aggressive
behavior.
• Several types of incompatible reactions have been found effective:
o Certain types of humor
o Feelings of empathy toward potential victims
o Mild sexual arousal
• Because these feelings are inconsistent with anger and harm, they reduce the tendency
to aggress.
• The expression “Count to 10 before losing your temper” reflects a simple cognitive
strategy.
• Counting shifts attention away from anger.
• This temporary change in focus may be sufficient to reduce anger before it escalates
into overt aggression.
• Shifting the topic during a heated conversation is another example of using
incompatible responses to reduce aggression.
• In an unusual study conducted by Robert A. Baron (1976), researchers measured mild
aggression in a real-world setting.
• A researcher’s assistant stopped at a red light and then failed to move when the light
turned green.
• The number of seconds before the driver behind honked the horn was recorded.
• Horn honking was considered a mild form of aggression.
• While the light was still red, another assistant crossed between the two cars under four
different conditions:
1. Humor Condition – She wore a clown mask to induce humor.
2. Sexual Arousal Condition – She wore a somewhat revealing outfit to induce
mild sexual interest among male drivers.
3. Empathy Condition – She wore a cast on her leg and used crutches to induce
empathy.
4. Control Condition – She crossed the street normally.
• It was predicted that humor, sexual arousal, and empathy would produce incompatible
feelings and increase the time before drivers honked.
• Results strongly supported this prediction.
• Drivers exposed to humor, empathy, or mild sexual arousal waited longer before
honking compared to the control condition.
• These findings, along with laboratory research, show that inducing incompatible
feelings reduces aggressive responses.
• Even mild aggressive behaviors, such as shouting angrily at someone who cannot hear
you, do not reduce future aggression.
• Such venting may produce temporary relief.
• However, because the reduction in tension feels rewarding, it may strengthen the link
between anger and aggression over time.
• Taking a long walk when angry shifts thoughts away from the source of anger.
• Engaging in an activity such as dancing can redirect emotional energy.
• These activities function by replacing anger with incompatible thoughts or feelings.