Psychology Aggression 🧠

Role of the Limbic System

• Limbic system (incl. Hypothalamus and Amygdala) tends to act as an alarm system triggering an aggressive response to certain types of threats

• RESEARCH- giving testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when given testosterone as adults. however, control females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way.

  • suggesting that testosterone masculinizes androgen-sensitive neural circuits underlying aggression in the brain

limbic system AO3

• when amygdala is stimulated electrically, animals show aggressive behavior.

• research in Greece found that removing the amygdala reduced aggressive incidents by between 33% and 100%, although sample was small- 13 patients

• the phineas gage study provides evidence that brain damage may have an effect on personality including aggression

  • Phineas Gage was a railroad worker who survived a severe brain injury in 1848 when an iron rod penetrated his skull, damaging his frontal lobe, particularly the prefrontal cortex. This incident led to significant changes in his personality and behavior, notably an increase in aggression and impulsivity.

Serotonin research

• The PET-1 Gene is linked to the production of the hormone serotonin, which inhibits aggression. Damage to the gene in mice raises aggression. (Deneris, 2003)

• Drugs increasing serotonin production lead to reduced levels of aggression, suggesting that low levels of serotonin are linked to increased aggression (Delville et al., 1997)

• Low levels of serotonin result in reduced self-control and increased aggression. The serotonin deficiency hypothesis states that decreased serotonin disturbs the OFC and, therefore, reduces the inhibitory effect (of normal serotonin levels) with the consequence that individuals are less able to control impulsive and aggressive behavior.

• Research shows a relationship between low levels of serotonin and violent behaviors, suggesting that a lack of serotonin is linked to aggression (Linnoila & Virkunen, 1992)

• Lidberg et al. (1985) compared the serotonin levels of violent criminals with non-violent controls, finding the lowest levels of serotonin among violent criminals.

Serotonin research

(-) Most evidence linking low levels of serotonin and aggression is only correlational and does not indicate causality. risks oversimplifying the true mechanisms involved as other factors are overlooked – The neural and hormonal regulation of aggression is almost certainly more complex than our current understanding.

(+) Research support for the role of serotonin – Berman et al. found that participants given a serotonin-enhancing drug gave fewer and less intense electric shocks to a confederate than people in a placebo group – This gives evidence of a link that goes beyond correlational findings.

(-) unethical to give drugs to humans to alleviate aggression as it could lead to social control – This could be treated more ethically through diet and exercise which acts on neural mechanisms.

(-) Biological reductionism – We cannot consider that such a complex phenomenon can be explained by the levels of biochemical, we must consider genetic factors and the contribution of environmental factors such as the role of learning – Peoples’s actions can be blamed on the mechanisms which is immoral as they should be taking responsibility for their own actions.

Testosterone research

•Giving testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when given testosterone as adults.

However, control females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way, suggesting that testosterone masculinizes androgen-sensitive neural circuits underlying aggression in the brain (Edwards,1968).

• Testosterone affects certain types of aggression in animals, such as intermale aggression as a defense response to intruders, while predatory aggression is not affected (Bermond et al., 1982).

• Van Goozen (1997) conducted a natural experiment on trans-gender sex-change patients. This is one of the few cases where research was actually carried out on humans.

Findings revealed testosterone levels governed aggression. Males receiving testosterone suppressants became less aggressive. Females receiving testosterone became more aggressive.

• Aggressive Boys, violent criminals, and military offenders all had high levels of testosterone (Dabbs, 1996)

Testosterone AO3

(-) Individuals with elevated testosterone levels exhibit signs of aggression but rarely commit aggressive acts, suggesting that social and cognitive factors play a mediating role (Higley et al., 1996).

(-) Dabbs and Morris (1990) “Blocked pathways to success” study: When a rich boy with high testosterone came home from the army, he was less likely to get into trouble, but when a poor boy with high testosterone came home, he was more likely to get into trouble.

• suggests testosterone doesn’t simply cause aggression, but it makes aggression more likely as a response to frustration.

Cortisol Research

• The fearlessness Theory: Stress, caused by the hormone cortisol, may inhibit aggression through fear. So individuals with lower levels of cortisol are less inhibited, more inclined to take risks, and act impulsively (Raine, 2002).

•Low cortisol leads to Sensation seeking behavior, especially in males (Zuckerman, 2010).

•Low levels of Cortisol in delinquent teenagers with conduct disorder (Fairchild, 2008)

General Criticisms of Neural and Hormonal Research

(-) Much of the evidence is only correlational and may not prove causation. It isn’t clear whether hormones promote aggression or aggressive behavior stimulates hormone production.

(-) generalizability; much of the work on hormones and neurotransmitters have been done on animals and may not apply to humans so easily.

(-) Reductionist: Sees only biological factors, overlooking social issues such as de-individuation

(-) Heredity / Environment: Biological theories tend to overlook the effects of socialization and other environmental issues, such as environmental stressors.

(-) Deterministic: Assumes humans have no choice and will follow primitive behavior patterns

Genetic influences on aggression

Genes alone do not control aggression. Rather, they affect the production of hormones and neurotransmitters, which in turn affects aggression.

• Animal studies show instinctive patterns of behavior, including aggressive behavior. If a whole species has a similar level of aggression, then it must have a genetic basis.

• Twin studies have shown that twins have similar levels of aggression.

Using old Danish police records, Christiansen (1977) demonstrated that levels of criminality showed a stronger correlation between identical twins – with the same genes than between dizygotic twins.

AO3- however criminality is not always the same as aggression

Genetical research on serotonin

• PET-1 Gene is linked to serotonin production, which inhibits aggression. Damage to the gene in so-called “knockout mice” raises aggression. Mutations in humans can have the same effect (Deneris, 2003).

• Acts of impulsive aggression, such as domestic violence, have a genetic link to the serotonergic system, suggesting that many genes may be involved in aggression (New et al., 2003).

genetical research on MAOa- the warrior gene

• The MAOA gene codes for the production of the enzyme MAOA, involved in breaking down neurotransmitters in the synapse, especially serotonin. Aggressive people with variants of this gene produce lower levels of the enzyme (MAOa-L), causing certain neurotransmitters to remain longer in the synapse, causing brain dysfunction.

• When researchers found the MAOA gene present in 56% of New Zealand Maori men, it was nicknamed “The Warrior Gene.” Poa {2006] criticized this term as unethical – i.e., racist.

•It was later found that the gene is present in 58% of African American men and 36% of European men, so it is actually a mainstream genetic variation with adaptive advantages associated with risk-taking.

MAOa AO3

(+) research support- Brunner (1993) looked at a very large Dutch family with 28 males who had a history of rape, violence, and impulsive aggression associated with low levels of the MAOA gene.

(-) Deterministic – Argues that our aggression is pre-programmed and ignores the human characteristic of free will – Can have serious implications on the justice system as people may not take responsibility for their actions and blame it on their biology.

(-) Genetic and environmental factors are impossible to isolate – McDermott et al. found that people with the low activity MAOA gene behaved aggressively in a lab-based game but only when provoked – We should study aggression using a more interactionist approach

(+) Caspi et al. (2002): Interaction of MAOA problem AND abusive childhood led to aggression. If boys with the MAOa gene suffered abuse in childhood, they were 3 times more likely to be aggressive when they reached adulthood.

(+) If we know that a person’s genes can predispose them to aggressive behavior, then genetic engineering can be used to remove the gene and reduce this risk; more extreme measures like chemical castration can be used but can pose serious ethical questions as individuals are labeled as dangerous based on their genes.

genetical research on testosterone

• Bogaert et al. (2008) established that variations in male testosterone levels are inherited – and, therefore, genetic.

• Giving testosterone to newborn female mice made them act like males with increased aggression when later given testosterone as adults. Females given testosterone as adults did not react in this way, suggesting that testosterone masculinizes aggression systems in the brain at birth. It’s not just an environmental issue (Edwards, 1968).

• Rissman et al. (2006) investigated Sry, a gene leading to the development of testes and high androgen levels in males. Male and female mice with and without the gene were tested. The Sry gene was associated with high levels of aggression, suggesting that genes and hormones interact and that sex chromosome genes also have a role.

Gender + Aggression

• Rissman et al. (2006) investigated Sry, a gene leading to the development of testes and high androgen levels in males. Male and female mice with and without the gene were tested. The Sry gene was associated with high levels of aggression, suggesting that genes and hormones interact and that sex chromosome genes also have a role.

• The Super-Male hypothesis (Sandberg, 1961) suggested the XYY Gene led to aggression. Later research by Alice Theilgard [1984] did show that 16 men out of 30,000 sampled had the XYY gene and that these were slightly more aggressive and slightly less intelligent, but this is such a rare mutation that it does not explain aggression in the general population

Criticisms of genetic research in general

(-) Comparative – much of the work on genes has been done on animals and may not apply to humans so easily. However, the experiments which have been done on mice relate to chemicals and genes which are very similar.

(-) Reductionist: Danger of seeing only biological and overlooking social psychology issues such as de-individuation. Tends to overlook the effects of socialization and other environmental issues, such as environmental stressors. Genetic factors do not work in isolation but interact with environmental factors as well.

(-) Deterministic: Assumes that humans have no choice and will follow quite primitive behavior patterns.

Ethological explanations of aggression

• ethology is learning abt human psychology from studying other animals

• Lorenz believed that aggression was an innate adaptive response

• To see off predators

• To get resources: competing for territory or sexual partners

  • but some animals are so fierce they could easily damage each other when fighting for dominance

• This would be maladaptive. Therefore they fight until one backs down, not to the death, just to establish who is stronger and who is weaker. Lorenz observed that most intra-species aggression consisted mainly of ritualistic signaling (e.g., displaying teeth) and rarely became physical.

Fixed Action Patterns [FAP]

This innate aggression creates a society in which each individual knows their place. They have evolved ways of warning others to back off: Dogs bark and snarl, cats hiss, apes beat their chest, or wave sticks about.- FAPs

FAPs AO1

Lea [1984] analyzed FAPs and identified five features:

1. Stereotyped: behavior follows a certain pattern each time.

2. Universal: all the animals in that species use the same type of threat.

3. Innate: all the animals in that species seem to be born with it and don’t have to learn it.

4. Ballistic: Once it starts, it cannot simply be stopped.

5. Specific triggers seem to set it off.

FAPs AO3

(+) Tinbergen presented male sticklebacks with a series of wooden models of different shapes. The red on the competing males’ underbelly is the stimulus that triggers the IRM that, in turn, leads to the aggressive FAP.

He found that if the model had a red underside, the stickleback would aggressively display and attack it, but no red meant no aggression. Once triggered, the FAP always ran its course to completion without any further stimulus.

(-) Fixed action patterns are not that fixed – Hunt points out that sequences of behaviors that appear to be fixed and unchanging are greatly influenced by environmental factors and learning experiences – Lowers the validity of the theory as it suggests aggressive behaviors are affected by environmental influences.

(+) Eibesfeldt (1972) tried to identify human FAPS, such as smiling, to show non-aggression. However, he found that our culture changes so quickly that cultural differences in signs can change more quickly than evolutionary patterns. Rude words and hand signs can change, so not evolutionary. Humans are certainly capable of developing new ways of expressing aggression – such as cyber bullying!

Innate releasing mechanisms IRM AO1

• creatures have evolved an instinctive response to certain signs, like bulls and red flags

• e.g. male sticklebacks responding to red underbelly of rival male

IRM AO3

(-) cannot be generalised to humans- humans can act upon free will unlike animals- human aggression is very destructive but we seem to have an element of control

• aggression cannot be truly measured in animals as intent is not known- may be an act of survival, not aggression

The hydraulic model of instinctive behavior (Lorenz)

• all creatures build up a resevoiur of action specific energy, when the innate releasing mechanisms trigger the fixed action pattern, all aggression is fired off

• once it’s out of the system, the animal is less aggressive again till the level of action specific has built up again

hydraulic model AO3

(-) confounding research- Holst [1954] found that instead of getting it out of the system, aggressive action could feed back to make the person angrier and increasingly more aggressive.

(-) confounding research- Arms et al. [1979] found that watching violent sports did not flush aggression out of the system but tended to increase it.

(-) incomplete explanation- This theory fails to explain premeditated aggression and bearing grudges.

Evolutionary Explanations of Human Aggression

• explains aggression through natural selection- aggression is an adaptive feature

Evolutionary expls.- Aggression is adaptive

David Buss identified 7 adaptations of aggression in humans:

• Self Defence

• Reputation to ward off future aggression

• To achieve status – more allies, fewer enemies

• Get and keep a better share of resources. Pinker (1997) states aggression evolved in men to compete for women. This may have been the MAIN reason for aggression, as there was no other property worth fighting over as we evolved.

• Deny own resources to children of rivals

• To prevent other males from sharing the prime females

• Prevent a partner from being unfaithful. For example, sexual jealousy may have evolved to ensure that men pass on their own genes rather than allowing other males access to their mate.

Evolutionary expls.- Inter-group aggression

This is between different groups, such as warfare and gangs.

• Buss states human males have evolved cognitive bias towards organized aggression: E.g.

• Cognitive bias to expect an attack

• Cultivating a tough reputation

• Use of vengeance as a deterrent

• Strategies for planning and timing an attack

• Deception and the ability to detect deception

• Cosmides and Tooby, the Military Contract: Men will only fight if those who share the rewards also share the danger. Other animals are not bright enough to work this out.

Evolutionary expls.- Intra-group aggression

• within a single group, linked to rivalry + sexual jealousy

• Daly and Wilson: Male – Male aggression among young men is common in all human cultures – suggesting it is evolutionary.

• Pinker (1997) suggests aggression evolved in men to compete for women. This may have been the MAIN reason for aggression, as there was no other property worth fighting over as we evolved. Throughout most of evolution, there was no money, and no real property, so women were the only target of aggression.

• Potts and Hayden (2008): War and aggression aimed to control women’s mating habits since the development of farming made the inheritance of land important. Jealousy has evolved as a male response to the threat of infidelity. Jealous males are determined to pass on their OWN genes.

• Daley and Wilson (1988): Men may use jealousy and violence to control partners’ sexual behavior Violence is not intended to kill but may have that result. E.g., Fertile young women 10 times at risk of domestic violence.

Evolutionary resarch AO3

Ethics: Waller says: Violence, Xenophobia, and even genocide are adaptive, but this is very deterministic and unethical.

Ethics and Gender: Critics feel this theory could be used to justify violence against women. Buss himself always points out that we are not controlled by our genes; we have inherited the ability to learn and to choose.

Reductionist: Is this an over-simplification? Are there other issues that promote aggression, such as cultural or individual differences in testosterone and cortisol?

Heredity & Environment: Are environmental factors a greater cause of aggression?

• Environmental stressors, heat, noise, etc

• Cortisol levels in pregnant mother

• Childhood abuse and neglect

Deterministic: Evolutionary explanations may seem to suggest that aggression is natural, but Figuerdo [1995] suggests jealousy and domestic violence are context-specific, not inherent. Women are less likely to be victims of domestic violence if they have several brothers in town, so aggression can be controlled.

Socially sensitive – suggests that aggression is somewhat excusable and out of the control of the individual– This has important consequences within the legal system – Brings into question the credibility of the theory and makes it imperative that such socially sensitive research is not released into the public domain

Social-Psychological Explanations of Aggression: SLT

In 60s, SLT, seen as a challenge to behaviorists, suggested children learn things even without doing them through observational learning and modeling.

• Behaviorists believe learning occurs through experience followed by either punishment or reward. “Social Learning Theory” challenges that approach.

• The central idea of social learning theory is that people do not need rewards to learn aggression, they may copy the behavior of others, but this is less likely if they see the other people being punished.

Bandura states children learn by imitation and are more likely to copy depending on the following:

• The actual behavior of the role model

• The status of the person copied

• The closeness/immediacy of the person

• How well we understand what is happening

Bobo doll experiment (Bandura)

Children copied adults

Contributory factors:

• Similarity: boys will copy boys, family links and groups, etc.

• Presentation: How close, live, and immediate the violence was

• Warmth: If the model was more friendly toward the subject

• Prestige: If the model had high status

• Appropriateness: If the behavior was “appropriate.

• Vicarious reinforcement: (i) Adult was rewarded, children were slightly more likely to copy; (ii) adult was punished, children were much less likely to copy.

• Disinhibition: People are more willing to do things if they see that others are already doing them.

• Bandura’s conclusions: Aggression is not inevitable. Children observe aggressive behavior in others, but how they act may depend on what the consequences of aggression are, particularly for those they use as role models.

SLT AO3

Positive Criticisms of Bandura

Huge implications for society -provides the key to understanding the causes of good and bad behavior.

Based on clear research in the lab and followed up by many studies into TV violence, video games, etc.

Negative Criticisms of Bandura

The experiment was in a lab – which may lack ecological validity.

Children may have known that the Bobo Doll was designed for punching and, therefore, more open to suggestion. Also, they may have been aware of the experiment from other children in the group.

These are both examples of demand characteristics.

Media Implications

Viewing violence may cause children to develop cognitive scripts which involve violence in dealing with situations.

A danger is that media violence makes children more desensitized and more hardened to acts of violence in real life.

Social Theory: De-Individuation AO1

• The central idea of this theory is that humans have a natural tendency to be aggressive if they think they can get away with it. Being disguised or part of a crowd will therefore lead to increased aggression.

• Festinger (1952) invented the term “ Deindividuation,” defined by Fraser and Burchell (2001) as “A process whereby normal constraints on behavior are weakened as persons lose their sense of individuality.”

• LeBon suggested that when in a crowd, the combination of anonymity, suggestibility, and contagion (likelihood of a behavior being copied) mean that a ‘collective mind’ take control of the individual.

• Contagion Theory : Starting point for deindividuation

• Le Bon 1896: People in groups become infected with a kind of group hysteria and act in ways they would not do on their own.

• Blumer 1939: Circular reaction where the people add to the crowd, and the crowd fires up the people.

Social Theory- Deindividuation AO3

(-) Gergen: Deindividuated persons in dark areas became more affectionate. Therefore de-individuation need not always lead to aggression

(-) Postmes & Spears: Deindividuated people are not necessarily aggressive – Crowds may be happy and good-natured – as at pop festivals

(+) Research support for anonymity – Zimbardo found that when asking females to elicit electric shocks to each other, more severe shocks were given in the deindividuated condition (participants wore hoods that hid their faces) than in the controlled condition (participants were introduced to each other and wore nametags) – There is support for anonymity as a factor of de-individuation, causing aggression.

(+) Research support- Deiner et al. Studied 1300 American children “trick or treating” on Halloween. Children in disguise or in a large group behaved worse. Supports deindividuation theory.

Deindividuation AO3: Emergent Norm Theory & convergence theory

These ideas can be criticisms of de-individuation.

They suggest that groups or sub-cultures come together because they have some sort of similarity (convergence) and then establish their own norms (emergent norms).

Often one person or a few people will behave in a certain way that others like – so they copy. This argues against de-individuation and the faceless crowd. It does not imply aggression will result. A very good example would be the hippy culture of the 1960s.

The frustration-aggression hypothesis AO1

• Aggression is a result of frustration

• When people are frustrated, they experience a drive (links to the psychodynamic approach) to be aggressive towards the object of their frustration, but this is often impossible or inappropriate, so the source of their aggression is displaced on something or someone else. (The cause may be abstract, too powerful, or unavailable.)

• Displaced Aggression [Dollard 1939] ‘You can’t kick the boss, so you kick the cat.’ Like Lornez, Dollard thought that getting aggressive cleared the mind of frustrations [a Catharsis], and life could then go on as normal.

• Berkowitz (1989 ) updated version is known as “Negative – affect theory.” Frustration is just one factor. Others may include feeling uncomfortable [eg. Heat, Reifmann [1991]] – but could also be noise or loud music. Certain cues may increase the tendency towards aggression, such as seeing a weapon on the table – Berkowitz used a baseball bat in experiments. Also, if the problem is unexpected, the individual is less likely to control their aggression.

• So, the level of aggression will depend on the following:

• How much you really want to achieve the goal

• Whether you understand that there is a good reason for the problem

• How expected / unexpected the frustration was

frustration-aggression hypothesis AO3

(+) Real-world application to explain mass killings – Staub suggests that mass killings are often rooted in the frustration caused by social and economic difficulties within a society, leading to aggression against this group

(+) Harris (1974) Found that people at the front of a cue were less aggressive if someone pushed in, whereas people at the back of a long cue felt a greater sense of frustration and, therefore, made a bigger fuss.

(+) Mallick and McCandles found that people were much less aggressive when given a reason for their frustration. Doob and Sears [1939]: people felt angry when a bus went by without stopping. But people were less angry if the bus had a sign saying out of service

(-) justifies deviant behavior: Plenty of people suffer injustice or unfairness and do not turn to violence. Therefore there must be some additional factor, such as a biological dimension, to explain why some people turn to violence or aggression when faced with problems and others don’t.

(-) Contradictory evidence – Bushman found that participants who vented their anger using a punch bag actually became more angry and aggressive, and doing nothing was actually more effective in reducing aggression

(-) Cause and effect – Berkowitz argued that frustration is just one of many stimuli that cause negative feelings. Furthermore, the outcome of frustration can be a range of responses, e.g., anxiety, and may not always be aggression – The theory is inadequate. However, Berkowitz addressed these inadequacies by developing his negative affect theory.

Institutional theories of aggression: 2 approaches

Situational approach: prisons make ppl aggressive, the situation is to blame

Dispositional approach: prisoners are aggressive people who make the prison aggressive

The situational approach AO1: Sykes Deprivation model

• institutions tend to have harsh living conditions like prisons and refugee camps

  • not an issue if the deprivation is for a good reason e.g. yacht trip or mountaineering trip, positive attitudes keep you going

• some institutions deprive ppl of things they want, reinforcing feelings of rejection from society, causing them to become more aggressive e.g. liberty, goods and services and sexual relationships

• this deprivation causes stress and frustration, which leads to an aggressive sub-culture- only applies to places with harsh conditions

• effects: general environment becomes dangerous and aggressive

• some people hide, others compete to get what they want

• tough reputation is important to get respect + not be a victim

Situational model AO3

(+) McCorkle found in a study of US prisons; overcrowding and poor facilities influences levels of violence

(+) real world application; major improvements were done to Her Majesty’s Prison Woodhill including less noise, better ventilation, attractive views and especially less crowding- led to a massive improvement in behavior in the 1990s

(-) Harer and Steffensmeir found that age, race and criminal background were the only variables that affected levels of aggression. This strongly argues for the importation model, not the deprivation model.

The Situational approach: Dysfunctional Institutions AO1

• another situational argument is that the prisons themselves are dysfunctional

• milgram believed that people are loyal to the hierarchy of the organization, but sometimes the hierarchy encourages cruel behaviour

• stanford prison experiment supports situational approach

features of dysfunctional power systems (zimbardo)

• isolated from the outside world

• own set of values

• cohesive group; guards don’t question orders

• under pressure to act quickly

• difficult situation to manage

• out-group seen as troublemakers

Dispositional explanation: the importation model

• focuses on characteristics of individual

• Irwin and Cressey argue that the prisoners import their aggressive tendencies into prison with them, this is why violence rate is high

• prison is violent bc aggressive ppl there, aggressive attitudes become part of their nature, dispositional approach bc everything depends on attitude of prisoners

• prisoners are often gang members so these loyalties and relationships are continued in the prison environment

• have learned certain patterns of behaviour e.g. code of the streets

Irwin and cressy/importation model AO3- support

• research support; violence before the prison was the best indicator of violence inside the prison

• segregating gang members inside prison so they didn’t get into conflicts led to a 50% reduction in assaults

• men who were gang members before prison are more likely to be involved in violent offences inside prison

importation model AO3- limitations

• delisi found that gang members were NOT more violent than other prisoners, however weak research as it doesn’t allow for the fact that those gang members had already been segregated away from other gang members

• model doesn’t explain why some organisations act aggressively when made up of good people who should act sensibly like police officers.

Media influences on aggression

Computer games 1. Learning Theory- Skinner

• computer games compared to skinner’s box

• the human is conditioned to think in patterns that have been pre-programmed into the machine

• basic ideas taught at basic levels, and behaviour is constantly shaped to conform to the rules of the game. every act is instantly rewarded by the computer’s response and mistakes are instantly punished

Computer games 2. Learning theory Bandura

• attention, retention, production, motivation

• individuals model aggressive acts in the game

• some characters more likely to be copied bc they’re seen as attractive and appropriate

• no sense of real punishment for making mistakes, just restarting game

  • creates disinhibition and individuals unconsciously feel that if they commit aggression they won’t be punished

3. cognitive priming

• includes certain mechanisms which explain why we learn and copy behaviour

• schemas

• normative beliefs: social rules and explanations

• cognitive priming: what connects to what in the brain

• cognitive scripts: a pattern of behaviour we have ready to deal with certain situations

4. The general aggression model

This model brings together elements of Social learning and Cognitive Priming Theory and suggests that if we live in a violent environment – such as a war zone, we will adapt to it; our thoughts, feelings, and actions will be based around violence, and that is how we will survive. But could over-exposure to gaming have the same effects?

Evidence for General Aggression Model: Meta-Analysis Findings: Anderson et al. [2004] 35 studies examined
Found that video game violence exposure is related to increases in aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior
increases in physiological arousal; decreases in helping behavior.

5. Neurological Effects

Ritterfield and Mathiak

• ppts were subjected to a functional magnetic resonance imaging scan whilst playing a violent video game

• it suggested that emotional areas of the cortex are to some extent “switched off” during the game, perhaps an adaptive mechanism that permits an animal to focus on survival. This is the same as what happens when engaged in real acts of violence

Computer games AO3