social explanations of aggression including institutions, media

Question 1

what’s the frustration-aggression hypothesis

Answer 1

Donallard et al (1939)
frustration always leads to aggression + aggression is always result of frustration.
-Based on psychodynamic concept of catharsis + views aggression as a psychological drive akin to biological drives like hunger.
-if our attempt to achieve goal is blocked by external factors we experience frustration = creates an aggressive drive - leading to aggressive behaviour. e.g. violence fantasy, verbal outburst, physical violence.
This is cathartic because aggression created by the frustration is satisfied thereby reducing the drive + making further aggression less likely. we feel better for getting it off our chest

Question 2

the hypothesis recognises that aggression is not always expressed directly against the source of frustration for 3 reasons.
List them
(frustration aggression h)

Answer 2

-the cause may be abstract,
e.g. economic situation the government or music industry.

-the cause may be too powerful and we risk punishment by aggressing against it
e.g the teacher who gave you a lower grade than you expected.

-the cause may be unavailable at the time
e.g. perhaps the teacher left before you realised what grade you got.

so aggression is deflected onto an alternative- one that is not abstract, is weaker + is available.

Question 3

who conducted the research into fustration-aggression

Answer 3

Russell Green 1968

Question 4

what was Greens research into fustration-aggression

Answer 4

Green
procedure:
male university students were given the task of completing jigsaw. their aggression was manipulated in 3 ways.
-some puzzle was impossible to solve
-some ran out of time because confederate P kept interfering.
-confederate insulting the P as they failed to solve the puzzle.
Next part of the study involved the participant giving electric shocks to the confederate when they made a mistake on another task.
FINDINGS: insulted Ps gave the strongest shocks on average followed by interfered group, then the impossible task Ps. All 3 groups gave more intense shocks then control group (didn’t experience frustration)

Question 5

(Fustration T) what does environmental cues do for aggressive behaviour

Answer 5

Berkowitz (1989), frustration creates a readiness for aggression.
But the presence of environmental cues make acting upon this more likely. TF, cues are an additional element of the fusrtration-aggression hypothesis.
This demonstrated in famous study

Question 6

what was the study into the role of environmental cues
(frustration-aggression hypothesis)

Answer 6

Berkowitz + Lepage

PROCEDURE: arranged for student participants to be given electric shocks in lab situation, creating anger + frustration. The individual who gave the shocks was a confederate of the researchers. The participants then had the opportunity to turn the table + give electric shocks to the confederate.

FINDINGS: the number of shocks given depended on the presence or absence of weapons in the lab. IN one condition, two guns whew present on the table next to the shock machine. Average number of shocks given in this condition was 6.07. When no guns were present, average number of shocks was at 4.67.

This so-called weapon effect supports Berkowitz contention that the presence of aggression environmental cues stimulates aggression.

Question 7

Evaluation of frustration-aggression hypothesis

Answer 7

• RESEARCH SUPPORT
  Marcus-Newhall et al (2000) conducted meta analysis of 49 studies of displaced aggression. These studies investigated situations in which aggressive behaviour had to be directed against a target other than the cause of frustration.
  Conclusions: displaced aggression is a reliable phenomenon. P who were provoked but unable to retaliate directly against the source of their frustration were significantly more likely to aggress against an innocent party than people who were not provoked. This is exactly the outcome predicted by the frustration-aggression hypothesis.

-Is aggression Cathartic?
BUSHMAN (2002) found Ps who vented their anger by repeatedly hitting a punchbag actually became more angry + aggressive rather than less. In fact, doing nothing was more effective at reducing aggression than venting anger. B argues using venting to reduce anger is like using petrol to put out a fire. But this is the advice therapist give to clients. The outcome go this study is very different from that predicted by the frustration-aggression hypothesis. This cast doubt on the validity of a central assumption of the hypothesis.

-Berkowitz reformulation: negative affect theory
became clear from research that frustration doesn’t always lead to aggression + aggression can occur without frustration. so Leonard Berkowitz reformed the hypothesis - argued that frustration is just one of many adverse stimuli that creates negative feelings; jealousy, pain, loneliness. So aggressive beh is triggered by negative feeling generally rather than frustration specifically. The outcome of fustration can be a range of responses, only one of which is aggression. e.g. the frustration someone receives from a low grade might not necessarily lead to aggression but to despair, anxiety, hopelessness or determination. This demonstrates the original hypothesis was inadequate as it could only explain how aggression arises in some situations but not others.

PRACTICAL APPLICATION:
Berkowitz argument that ‘the trigger can pull the finger’ has featured in the gun control debate in the US. some states allow ‘open carry’, where a gun does not have to be concealed. There is more concern, bolstered by many research studies, that open presence of a weapon can act as a cue to aggression, making its use more likely.

Question 8

(SLT)
direct and indirect learning

Answer 8

-Bandura acknowledged that aggression can be learnt directly through operant conditioning involving positive + negative reinforcement + punishment.
E.g. a child who angrily snatches a toy off another child is likely to learn that aggressive behaviour brings results.
-This direct reinforcement makes it more likely that the child will do this again in similar situation.
-However, bandura also realised that aggressive behaviour often cannot be explained by direct forms of learning especially in humans. So he argued that an indirect mechanism- observation learning- accounts for social learning of most aggressive behaviours.

Question 9

(SLT)
observational learning and vicarious reinforcement

Answer 9

-children acquire specific aggressive behaviours from observing aggressive models. e.g. parents, peers, characters in the media.
child works out how an aggressive behaviour is performed.

-children also observe the consequences of their behaviour.
-If models aggressive behaviour is rewarded = child learns that aggression can get what they want = vicarious reinforcement.
= Makes more likely that the observing child will imitate the models aggressive behaviour.
-parallel between from vicarious punishment. -if models use of aggression to achieve a goal is punished = observing child is less likely to imitate that specific behaviour.

Question 10

(SLT) cog control of aggressive beh.

what are the 4 cognitive conditions that are needed to take place

Answer 10

1. ATTENTION: basic cognitive requirement is that the observer may pay attention to the models aggressive actions.

2.RETENTION: the observer also needs to be able to remember the models aggressive actions, to form a symbolic mental representation of how the behaviour is performed.

3. REPRODUCTION: the individual must be able transform the mental representation of the aggressive behaviour into actual physical action. This involves the individual mentally appraising his or her ability to do this.
4. MOTIVATION: the individual needs reason to intimate the behaviour which will depend on his or her expectations that behaving aggressively in a specific way in a specific situation will be rewarding.

Question 11

(SLT)
explain self-efficacy

Answer 11

is the extent to which we believe our actions will achieve a desired goal.
-a Childs confidence in their ability to be aggressive grows as they learn that aggression can bring rewards.
-e.g. a child regularly hits other children to get hold of a toy. They learn that they have the motor skills necessary to force another child to hand over the toy + this ability come easily to them. The Childs sense of self-efficiency develops with each successful outcome.
-He or she is confident because their aggression has been effective in the past it will continue to be so in the future. = they will learn that aggression works and they are good at it.

Question 12

what’s the research into social learning theory of aggression

Answer 12

Bandura et al (1961) Bobo Doll study

Question 13

explain the Bobo Doll study in relation to aggression

Answer 13

PROCEDURE:
children indivdiaully observed an adult model assaulting an inflatable plastic toy called ‘bobo doll’. The aggressive behaviours included; throwing, kicking, hitting a mallet. Accompanied with verbal outbursts ‘sock him in the nose!’.
-this accompanied with period children weren’t allowed to play with attractive toys - creating frustration.
-they were then taken to another room where there was a Bobo Doll plus other toys.

FINDINGS:
without being instructed, many of these children imitated the behaviour they had seen performed by the model, physically + verbally. The closeness of the imitation remarkable in some cases, direct copy of what they observed. Included use of specific objects, verbal phrases. There was also another group of children who has observed an adult interacting non-aggressively. aggressive behaviour was almost non-existent.

Question 14

evaluation of SLT explanation of aggression

Answer 14

SUPPORTING RESEARCH:
-Poulin + Boivin applied Social learning analysis to aggressive behaviour in boys aged 9-12. Found: most aggressive boys formed friendships with other aggressive boys. Researches described such cliques as ‘training grounds’ for antisocial behaviour. These friendships were lasting, stable + mutually reinforcing aggression. Boys used their alliances with each other to gain resources through aggressive behaviour usually successful.
-Meant that they were exposed frequently to models of physical aggression + to the positive consequences of it. They also gained reinforcement from rewarding approval from the ‘gang’.
-these are precisely the conditions under which SLT predicts.

CANNOT EXPLAIN ALL AGGRESSION:
-Two broad categories of aggression recognised by researchers: reactive (hot-blooded, angry) and proactive (cold-blooded, calculated).
-children who are experienced using proactive have high levels of self-efficacy- they use aggression as a way of getting benefits. This behaviour is explained by SLT.
-however, reactively aggressive children habitually use aggression to retaliate in heat of the moment. tend to be hostile, suspicious of other + do not use aggression to achieve anything expect retribution.
-This behaviour is less explicable from SLT + may be better explained by Berkowitz negative effect theory.

BENEFITS OF NON-AGGRESSIVE MODELS:
practical applications of SLT. people not passive recipients of reinforcement but active influences of their own environments. People shape their own aggressive behaviour by selecting + creating their surroundings.(reciprocal determinism)
Also practical benefit to understanding this aspect of SLT. one way to reduce aggression is to break the cycle. encouraging aggressive children to form friendships with non aggressive children gives them more opportunities to model non-aggressive behaviour.

REAL-LIFE APPLICATION:
Huesmann + Eron (2013) argue that media portrayals of aggressive behaviour can be powerful influences on children.
especially true if character is rewarded for being aggressive + if the child identifies with the character.
under these conditions VR experience by children observing violent beh in media may be just as influential in encouraging imitation as it is in real life.

Question 15

what’s De-Individuation and who created it

Answer 15

is a concept used by Le Bon (1895) to explain the behaviour of individuals in crowds.

Question 16

explain crowd behaviour
(De-Ind)

Answer 16

usually we are easily identified by others, our behaviour set by social norms + society deems aggressive behaviour negatively.
But when in crowd - we lose restraint + have freedom to behave in ways we wouldn’t otherwise.
we lose our sense of individual self-identity + responsibility for our behaviour + have greater disregard for norms + laws.
we experience less personal guilt at harmful aggression directed at others.

Question 17

who distinguished between individual and de-individualted behaviour

Answer 17

Philip Zimbardo 1969

Question 18

what happens in an individuated state

Answer 18

our behaviour is generally rational and normative (i.e conforms to social norms)

Question 19

what happens in a de-individualted state

Answer 19

behaviours are emotional, impulsive and irrational.
most importantly they are anti-normative + disinhibited.
we lose self awareness, we stop monitoring and regulating our own behaviour, we ignore social norms and ‘live for the moment’ failing to form longer term plans.

Question 20

what did John Dixon + Desi Mahendran find in relation to De-individuation leading to aggression

Answer 20

conditions for de-individuation which promote aggression include; darkness, drugs, alcohol, uniforms, masks and disguises.
‘anonymity shapes crowd behaviour’. we have less fear of retribution because we are small + unidentifiable part of faceless crowd; the bigger the crowd, more anonymous we are. also provides fewer opportunities for other to judge us negatively.

Question 21

what’s the role of self-awareness and which psychologists
(de-indivdualisation)

Answer 21

the experience of de-individuation as part of faceless crowd creates a greater likelihood of aggression.
according to Steven prentice-Dunn + Ronald rogers 1982, this is not due to anonymity directly but consequences of anonymity.
this explained by Private self awareness and Public self awareness.

Question 22

What’s Public self-awareness
(de-individuation)

Answer 22

how much we care about what other people think of our own behaviour + this is reduced in crowds. we realise we are just one individual amongst many; were anonymous + behaviour is less likely to be judged. no longer care how others see us, we become less accountable for our aggressive + destructive actions.

Question 23

what’s private self-awareness
(de-individuation)

Answer 23

concerns how we pay attention to our own feelings + behaviour. This is reduced when we are apart of a crowd. Our attention becomes focused outwardly to the events around us, so we pay less attention to our own beliefs + feelings. Were less self-critical, less thoughtful + less evaluative all foster a de-individuated state.

Question 24

who conducted research into de-individuation

Answer 24

David Dodd 1985 psychology teacher who developed classroom exercise to illustrate De-Individuation.

Question 25

outline Research into de-individuation

Answer 25

DODD

PROCEDURE:
-asked 229 undergraduate psychology students in 13 classes this question: ‘if you could do anything humanly possible, what would you do?’
-Responses anonymous.
-3 independent raters who did not know the hypothesis decided which categories of antisocial behaviour the respondents belonged to

FINDINGS:
D found 36% of the responses involved some form of antisocial behaviour
26% were criminal acts, most common ‘rob a bank’. few murder, rape, assassination of political figure.
9% were prosocial behaviours (helping people)
In terms of how people imagine they behave this study demonstrates a link between anonymity, de-individuation + aggressive behaviour.

Question 26

Evaluation of De-individuation

Answer 26

RESEARCH SUPPORT:
Douglas + McGarthy 2001 aggressive online behaviour in chatrooms + uses of instant messaging. Found strong correlation between anonymity + ‘flaming’ sending threatening + hostile messages. Most aggressive messages were sent by those who chose to hide their real identity.
Suggest: existence of link between anonymity, de-individuation + aggressive behaviour in context has greater relevance today. because the explosion in social media use, the activities of online ‘trolls’.

LACK OF SUPPORT:
some research shows that de I doesn’t always lead to aggression. ‘deviance in the dark’ study Gergen et al 1973.
-selected 8 Ps all strangers to each other.
-placed in completed dark room for 1 hour + told to do whatever they want.
-didnt take long for them to stop talking + start kissing + touching each other intimately. study was repeated but instead told after hour of darkness they would meet each other after. Unsurprisingly amount of kissing declined dramatically. Aggression was not present in this study.

DE-INDIVIDUATION + PROSOCIAL BEHAVIOUR
Johnson + Downing 1979 conducted study: female participants had to give (fake) electric shocks to confederate. IN -1 condition Ps were dressed as Ku Klux Klan type outfits with masks.
-another condition dressed as nurses.
-control group dressed in own clothes
found: most intense and more shocks in KKK group. Nurses gave fewer + lower levels and was more compassionate to victim.
= seems that aggression + prosocial behaviour are potential outcomes of de-individuation and normative cues in the situation determine which is most likely to occur.

REAL-LIFE APPLICATION
Helps us to understand aggressive behaviour in gaming e.g. Xbox. promotes de-individuation, reduction of personal identity players use ‘handles’ and there is presence of ‘crowd’ in form of audience.

Question 27

what’s a dispositional explanation for institutional aggression

Answer 27

THE IMPORTATION MODEL

Question 28

(Institution aggression: prisons)
Dispositional explanations:

what did Irwin and Cressely say about the importation model (intro)

Answer 28

Irwin + Cressely 1962
it argues that prisons are not completely insulated from happens of everyday life in ‘real world’.
its the real world which innametes come + bring with them a subculture typical of criminality. includes beliefs, values, norms, attitudes + history of learning experiences. As well as other characteristics like gender, race, class.

Question 29

What did Thomas and McManimon say about the importation model

(institution aggression)
dispositional explanations

Answer 29

The willingness of inmates to use violence inside prisons to settle disputes reflects their lives before they were imprisoned.
‘people who prey on others on the streets also prey on others in prison’.
-Inmates import behaviours as a means of negotiating their way thru unfamiliar + frightening prison environment in which inmates use aggression to establish power, status, influence, access to resources.

Question 30

what’s the conclusions drawn from the importation model

(institutional aggression prisons)
dispositional explanations

Answer 30

TF: aggression is the product of individual characteristics of inmates + not of the prison environment. So it follow inmates predisposed to using violence would be likely to do so in any setting + were experienced in doing so outside prison.

Question 31

what’s the research into Dispositional explanations

(institutional prisons)

Answer 31

PROCEDURE:
DesLisi + his colleagues 2011
-studied 813 juvenile delinquents confined in California.
-these inmates who brought into confinement serval negative dispositional features such as experiences of childhood trauma, high levels of anger + irritability, history of substance abuse and history of violence behaviour.

FINDINGS:
these inmates were more likely to engage in suicidal activity + sexual misconduct and committed more acts of physical violence that were brought ti the attention of the parole broad (compared with control group of inmates with fewer negative dispositioonal features)

Question 32

Evaluation of dispositional explanations

(institutional aggression in context prisons)

Answer 32

RESEARCH SUPPORT:
Camp + Goes 2005
-studied 561 male inmates with similar criminal histories + predispositions to aggression.
-half were placed in low-security Californian prisons. other half in 2nd highest categories prisons.
-33% in low + 36% in high were involved in aggressive misconduct in first 2 years a difference that was not statically significant. The researchers concluded: features of prison environment are significantly less important predictors of aggressive behaviours that characteristics on inmates.
Strong evidence- field experiment, random allocation allowing more valid conclusions than other experiments.

ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS:
Dilution 1991 claims importation is inadequate explanation of aggressive behaviour because it ignores roles of prison officials + factors relating to running of prisons.
-proposed administrative control model. states- poorly managed prisons are more likely to experience most serious inmate violence, e.g. homocides, rioting.
poor management: characterised several factors: weak + indecisive leadership, thriving culture of informal + unofficial rules, distant staff, few opportunities for education.
Argues these factors are more influential in determining aggression than inmate characteristics.

Question 33

what’s the Situational explanation

Answer 33

THE DEPRIVATION MODEL

Question 34

What’s the deprivation model
Clemmer 1958

(institutional aggression prison)

Answer 34

clemmers depriavtion model places cause of institutional aggression within the prison environment itself, i.e. situational explanation.
Harsh prison conditions are stressful for inmates, cope by resorting to aggressive + often violent behaviour.
Conditions include: deprivation freedom, independence, goods, services, safety, heterosexual intimacy.
-deprivaton goods especially important- increases competition amongst inmates to acquire them + accompanied by corresponding increase in aggression.

Question 35

Deprivation model
explain prison regimen in relation to aggressive behaviour

(institution)

Answer 35

if its unpredictable and regular uses lock ups to control behaviour this creates frustration, reduces stimulation by barring other more interesting activities + reduces even further access to ‘goods’.
This is recipe for violence which becomes adaptive solution to the problem of deprivation.

Question 36

What’s the research into the deprivation model
(institutions)

Answer 36

PROCEDURE:
Steiner investigated the factors that predicted inmate aggression in 512 prisons in the US.
FINDINGS:
found that inmate-on-inmate violence was more common in prisons where there were higher proportions of females staff, African American inmates, Hispanic inmates and inmates in protective custody for their own safety. These are all prison-level factors because they are independent of the individual characteristics of prisoners. IN this study the factors reliably predicted aggressive behaviour in line with the deprivation model.

Question 37

who conducted research into the deprivation model
(institutions)

Answer 37

Steiner 2009

Question 38

evaluation of institutional aggression in context of prisons

SITUATIONAL EXPLANATIONS

Answer 38

SUPPORT FROM RESEARCH:
individual factors are reliable predictors of aggression independent of environment. research show situational variables are also influential. Cunningham et al 2010 analysed 35 inmate homicides Texas prisons + found motivations were linked to some of the deprivations identified by clemmer. Important: arguments over drugs, homosexual relationships + personal possessions.
-predicted by model
-support its validity
CONTRADICTORY RESEARCH:
-predicts lack of freedom + heterosexual intimacy leads to aggression
-Hensley et al disagrees
-studied 256 male + female inmates in 2 prisons in Mississippi USA
-allows conjugal visits
-there was no link between these visits + reduced aggressive behaviour
-shows that situational factors don’t affect prison violence.

Question 39

Media influences of aggression: what are the 4 types of studies do they use for research into video games

Answer 39

-experimental
-correlational
-longitudinal
-meta-analyses

Question 40

what experimental study was done for effects of computer games on aggression

Answer 40

lab-based study: Bruce bartholow + Craig Anderson 2002

-students played violent videos games (mortal combat) or non violent games (PGA tournament golf) for 10mins.
-then carried out Taylor competitive reaction task game (TCRTT)
-standard lab measure of aggression which students delivered blasts go white noise at chosen volumes to punish (non-existent) opponent.
-violent games S selected significantly higher noise levels than non-violent Players
-5.97 and 4.60 decibels

Question 41

what was the correlational study for effects of computer games on aggression

Answer 41

DeLisi et al 2013
-studied 227 juvenile offenders with history of serious aggressive behaviour.
e.g. hitting parent, teachers or gang fighting
-used structured interviews gathered data on several measures of aggression + violent computer games.
found: offenders with aggressive beh correlated with how often they play violent computer games + how much they enjoyed them.
-Researchers argued: link so well established that aggression should be considered public health issue + computer game violence a significant risk factor.

Question 42

what longitudinal study was done for effect of video games on aggression

Answer 42

Roberson et al 2013
-aim: find link between ‘excessive’ tv viewing in childhood + aggressive beh in adulthood.
-studied 1037 people born in New Zealand 1972 + 73
-measured their TV viewing hours at regular intervals up to age of 26
-found: time spent watching TV was reliable predictor of aggressive beh in adulthood - measured by convictions for violent crimes.
-watched more tv more likely to be diagnosed with antisocial personality disorder.
-shows: most important media related factor in aggression may be amount of TV watched rather than whether it has violent content or not.

Question 43

what was the meta-analyes for effect of computer games on aggression

Answer 43

Anderson et al 2010
-136 studies 3 types of methodology
-found association with aggressive beh and exposure to violent video games.
-findings true in both male + females across collectivist + individualist cultures.
-higher quality studies in analysis showed even greater significant effect.
-researcher claim the effect pf violent game playing on aggressive behaviour is greater effect of 2nd hand smoke on cancer.
-analysis also showed no indication that publication bias influenced the results.

Question 44

Evaluation of the effects of computer games on aggression

Answer 44

Experimental Studies:
+ allow us to establish casual link between media aggression + aggressive beh.
-lab studies = artificial + unrealistic situations
Taylor competitive reaction time task: unrealistic.
also don’t involve any fear if retaliation unlike the real world.
Correlational studies:
-limitation inability to draw cause-and-effect conclusions. no variables are manipulated or controlled + no random allocation.
Longitudinal studies:
-can study long term changes in aggressive behaviour over time and media influences.
-also views people as active consumers rather than passive which is more realistic of how people interact with media.
-however longitudinal vulnerable to confounding variables.
-many other sources interact with media influences e.g. role models.
-becomes difficult to separate them all

Question 45

(media influences)
what is Desensitisation

Answer 45

-when children in particular view aggression on TV or computer games become habituated to its effects.
so stimulus usually aversive has diminishing impact = results in reduction of anxiety + psychological arousal on repeated viewing or playing.
-is psychological + physiological
-repeated viewing teaches aggression is method of resolving conflict is socially acceptable.
-Funk et al: negative attitudes towards violence weaken, less empathy is felt for victims + their injuries are minimised and dismissed.

Question 46

what was the study into desensitisation
(media influences)

Answer 46

Lab study: Weisz + Earls 1995.
-showed: their Ps film straw Dogs, contained graphic scenes of rape.
-Ps then watched re-enacted rape trial
- compared with those watched non-sexually violent film.
-male views of straw dogs showed greater acceptance of rape myths + sexual aggression.
-also expressed less sympathy towards victim in trial, less likely to find defendant guilty.
-no such effect of film type on female Ps.

Question 47

what is disinhibition
(media influences)

Answer 47

Powerful social + psychological inhibitions against using aggression to resolve interpersonal conflicts.
-learned directly + indirectly by SLT.
-these usual restraints are loosened after exposure to violent media.
-aggresive beh often made to appear normative + socially sanctioned in such media especially if portrayals minimise effects of violence on its victims + suggest its justified.
-not unusual for video games to show violence being rewarded + consequences minimised or ignored.
=created new social norms in the viewer.

Question 48

what is cognitive priming
(media influences)

Answer 48

repeated viewing of aggressive media esp games provide us with ‘script’ about how violent situation may ‘play out’.
Huesmann 1998 script stored in memory so we become ready or primed to be aggressive.
-process automatic - directs our behaviour without being aware.
-script triggered by cues that we perceive as aggressive.

Question 49

what was the study into cognitive priming
(media influences)

Answer 49

Fischer + Greitemeyer 2006
-looked at priming of aggressive scripts in memory by investigating neglected form of media violence- song lyrics.
-male Ps listened to aggressively derogatory lyrics about women.
-compared to when they listened to neutral lyrics.
-Ps subsequently recalled more negative qualities about women + behaved more aggressively to female confederate.
-THis was replicated with female Ps using ‘men-hating’ song lyrics got similar results.

Question 50

evaluation of Desensitisation, disinhibition and cognitive priming

Answer 50

Research support for desensitisation:
Krahé et al 2011
showed Ps violent + non violent film clips while measuring physiological arousal using skin conductive.
Ps with habitual viewers of violent media lower levels of arousal.
-alos reported higher levels of pleasure + lower levels of anxiety
-lower levels of anxious arousal was correlated with unprovoked aggression in ‘noise blast task’.
Findings: confirmed hypothesis of desensitisation

Research support for disinhibition:
Berkowitz + Alioro 1973
found Ps who saw film depicting aggression as vengeance gave more (fake) electric shocks w longer duration to confederate.
Suggests: media violence may disinhibit aggressive beh when it’s presented as justified. = violence more likely to been seen as socially accepted.
Adds validity to disabled connected, because demonstrates link between removal of social constraints + subsequent aggressive beh.

Practical application of cognitive priming:
potential life-saving benefits to understanding cognitive priming influences aggression in real-life situations.
-Depends on how participants interpret environmental cues + depend on cognitive scripts have been stored in memory.
Bushman + Anderson 2002
someone who watches violent media store aggressive scripts more readily.
-means: more likely to interpret cues as aggressive resort to violent solution + fail to consider alternatives.
-effective intervention could potentially reduce aggressive behaviour by changeling hostile cognitive biases + encouraging habitual violent media users to consider alternatives to aggression e.g. humour or negotiation.