Violent Video Games and Hostile Expectations: A Test of the General

To view this page ensure that Adobe Flash Player version 9.0.124 or greater is installed.

Please login or register to make a comment!

...Description...... more. less.

revealed that by 1975 the scientific evidence was sufficienttoclaimthatmediaviolenceexposurewaspos- itively linked to significant violent behaviors and that even short-term exposure was sufficient to cause increases in aggressive behaviors (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Since then, the research base for such claims has grown considerably stronger (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Unfortunately, during this same time span news reports on the link between media violence and aggres- sion have moved in the opposite direction (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). Research on media violence has consistently yielded links to aggressive behavior in three types of studies (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a; Bushman & Huesmann, 2001). Experimental studies in lab and field settings have shown that the effects are causal. Cross-sectional correlationalstudieshaveshownthatexposuretomedia violenceislinkedtoawidearrayofaggressiveandviolent behaviors. Longitudinal studies have linked early repeated violent television exposure to later aggressive and criminal behavior. The U.S. Surgeon General (Sur- geonGeneral 9sScientificAdvisoryCommitteeonTelevi- sion and Social Behavior, 1972) and six national health organizations1 have publicly proclaimed that the issues of whether exposure to violent media causes increased aggression and warrants public concern have been resolved by the research literature with a resounding cyes. d The most recent type of media violence to come under the research microscope is the violent video game. Despite the recency of this genre and the rela- tively small size of the research literature, there is suffi- cientresearchtoconcludethatviolentvideogameexpo- sure can cause increases in aggressive behavior and that repeated exposure to violent video games is linked to serious forms of aggression and violence (Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Anderson & Dill, 2000). Considerably less research has addressed the psycho- logical mechanisms through which exposure to violent 1679 Authors 9 Note: Both authors contributed equally to this article. Corre- spondence concerning this article should be addressed to Brad J. BushmanorCraigA.Anderson,DepartmentofPsychology,IowaState University, W112 Lagomarcino Hall, Ames, IA 50011-3180; e-mail: bushman@iastate.edu or caa@iastate.edu. PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 12, December 2002 1679-1686 DOI: 10.1177/014616702237649 © 2002 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc. media produces both its short- and long-term effects on aggressivebehavior.WehavebeenworkingonaGeneral Aggression Model designed to provide a useful theoreti - calframeworkforintegratingrecentadvancesinaggres - sion theory and research with earlier models. The cur- rent version of the model (Anderson & Bushman, 2002b;Anderson&Huesmann,inpress)isbasedonsev- eralearliermodelsofhumanaggression(e.g.,Anderson, Deuser, & DeNeve, 1995; Anderson & Dill, 2000; Bandura, 1973, 1983; Berkowitz, 1990, 1993; Crick & Dodge, 1994; Geen, 2001; Huesmann, 1986, 1998; Lindsay & Anderson, 2000; Zillmann, 1983). It provides a useful framework for understanding violent media effectsandguidedthedesignofthepresentresearchon the priming effect of violent video games on hostile biases. According to this model, aggression is largely based on the activation and application of aggression-related knowledge structures stored in memory (e.g., scripts, schemas). Of particular relevance to this article is the finding from several research groups that aggressive peopletendtointerpretambiguoussocialeventsinarel- ativelyhostileway.Themostwidelyresearchedversionof this phenomenon is the hostile attribution bias fre- quently observed in aggressive children (e.g., Crick & Dodge, 1994). The hostile attribution bias is the ten- dency to perceive harmful actions by others as inten- tional rather than accidental. Similar hostile perception and hostile expectation biases have been observed in aggressive college students (Dill, Anderson, Anderson, & Deuser, 1997). The hostile perception bias is the ten- dencytoperceivesocialinteractionsasbeingaggressive. The hostile expectation bias is the tendency to expect otherstoreacttopotentialconflictswithaggression.The key question addressed in the present study is whether a short-term experimental manipulation 4exposure to violent video games 4can temporarily produce a hostile expectation bias similar to that observed among highly aggressive individuals. If so, it becomes reasonable to suggestthatrepeatedexposuretoviolentmediacontrib- utes to the development of an aggressive personality by makingsuchhostileexpectationschronicallyaccessible. THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL Figure1displaysasimplifiedversionofthesingleepi- sode portion of the General Aggression Model. It sug - gests that recent exposure to violent media can cause short-termincreasesinaggressionthroughitsimpacton a person 9s present internal state, represented by cogni - tive, affective, and arousal variables. Playing a violent video game may prime aggressive cognitions (including aggressive scripts and aggressive perceptual schemata), increasearousal,andcreateanaggressiveaffective(e.g., angry) state. The General Aggression Model also specifies that social knowledge structures develop over time via learn- ing processes, such as learning how to perceive, inter- pret, judge, and respond to events in the physical and social environment. Each violent media episode, as out- lined in Figure 1, is essentially one more trial to learn that the world is a dangerous place, that aggression is an appropriatewaytodealwithconflictandanger,andthat aggression works. With repeated exposure, such hostile knowledgestructuresbecomemorecomplex,differenti- ated, and difficult to change. In this way, repeated expo- sure to violence can make hostile knowledge structures chronically accessible, essentially creating an aggressive personality. Figure 2 illustrates this process and identi- fies five types of relevant knowledge structures. Figure 2 also shows that short-term effects of violent media on aggressive cognition are especially important. Four of the five types of variables identified as contributing to the long-term increase in aggressive personality involve aggressive cognitions. THE PRESENT STUDY Thepresentstudywasdesignedtoseewhetherabrief exposure to media violence, in the form of video games, can temporarily create hostile expectation biases. Prior workhaslinkedindividualdifferencesinhostilebiasesto aggressive behavior, as outlined earlier. Recent work has shownthatbriefexposuretoviolentvideogames(asitu - ational input in Figure 1) can automatically prime aggressive thoughts (present internal state). For exam - ple,AndersonandDill(2000)randomlyassignedyoung adults to play a violent or a nonviolent video game and 1680 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Person Situation Inputs Routes Outcomes Thoughtful action Impulsive action Present internal state: Affect Arousal Cognition Appraisal & decision processes Social encounter Figure 1 Single episode general aggression model. SOURCE:AndersonandBushman(2002b),withpermissionfromthe Annual Review of Psychology , Volume 53 ©2002 by Annual Reviews , www.annualreviews.org. then measured the time it took them to recognize and begin pronouncing aggressive words. The results showed that aggressive thoughts were significantly more accessibletothosewhohadjustfinishedplayingaviolent video game. The General Aggression Model further predicts that such brief exposure can temporarily create a hostile expectation bias at the cOutcomes d level of processing, as shown in Figure 1. To test that prediction, we ran- domly assigned college student participants to play one offourviolentorfournonviolentvideogamesforabrief period of time. Afterward, they were given ambiguous storystemsaboutpotentialinterpersonalconflicts.They were asked what the main character will do, say, think, andfeelasthestorycontinues.Weexpectedthatpeople who played a violent video game would describe the main character as behaving more aggressively, thinking more aggressive thoughts, and feeling more aggressive thanwouldpeoplewhoplayedanonviolentvideogame. METHOD Participants Participants were 224 undergraduate students (112 men and 112 women) enrolled in introductory psychol- ogycourses.Studentsreceivedcoursecreditinexchange for their voluntary participation. Procedure Participants were tested individually. They were told that they would complete a number of different tasks that would help the researchers select stimuli for future studies.Aftergivingtheirconsent,participantswereran- domly assigned to play either a violent or a nonviolent video game for 20 mins. We used four violent video games ( Carmageddon , Duke Nukem , Mortal Kombat , Future Cop )andfournonviolentvideogames( GliderPro , 3DPin- ball , Austin Powers , Tetra Madness ) to make the findings more generalizable (Wells & Windschitl, 1999). Next, participants completed three ambiguous story stems (see the appendix). These story stems have been successfully used in previous research (Dill et al., 1997; Rule, Taylor, & Dobbs, 1987). Each story stem ended with the question cWhat happens next? d Participants indicate what the main character will do or say, think, and feel as the story continues. Three separate columns are provided for participants to list what the main char- acter will do or say, think, and feel. Participants were asked to list a total of 20 unique possibilities. A full debriefing (with probe for suspicion) followed. None of the participants reported a suspicion that the study was about effects of video game violence on aggressive con- tent in the story completion task. RESULTS Stimulus Sampling For each type of video game (i.e., violent, nonvio- lent), we tested whether the four different games pro- duceddifferenteffectsonthethreedependentvariables (i.e., expectations about the main character 9s aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and feelings in the three stories). No significant differences were found between the four different violent video games (i.e., Carmageddon , Duke Nukem , Mortal Kombat , Future Cop ) on any of the depend- ent variables, for either men or women, F s < 1, p s > .5. Similarly,nosignificantdifferenceswerefoundbetween the four different nonviolent video games (i.e., Glider Pro , 3DPinball , AustinPowers , TetraMadness )onanyofthe dependentvariables,foreithermenorwomen, F s<1, p s> .5.Therandom-effectsvarianceestimatesforvideogame exemplar were also quite small, ranging from 0.000 to 0.032( M =0.0053).Noneoftherandom-effectsvariance estimatessignificantlydifferedfromzero, p s>.05.Thus, wecombinedthefourviolentvideogameexemplarsand wecombinedthefournonviolentvideogameexemplars for subsequent fixed-effects analyses. Reliability of Dependent Measures Two independent raters, blind to experimental con- ditions, tabulated the number of aggressive behaviors, Bushman, Anderson / VIOLENT GAMES AND HOSTILITY 1681 Personological variables e.g., Aggressive personality Situational variables e.g., Social situations New peer group Repeated violent game playing: Learning, rehearsal, & reinforcement of aggression-related knowledge structures Aggressive expectation schemata Increase in aggressive personality Aggressive perceptual schemata Aggressive behavior scripts Aggression desensitization Aggressive beliefs & attitudes General Aggression Model, as in Figure 1 Figure 2 Multiple episode general aggression model: Long-term ef- fects of video game violence. SOURCE:AndersonandBushman(2002b),withpermissionfromthe Annual Review of Psychology , Volume 53 ©2002 by Annual Reviews , www.annualreviews.org. thoughts,andfeelingsparticipantslistedwhencomplet - ing the story stems. The intraclass correlation coeffi - cients were .87, .74, and .85 for aggressive behaviors, thoughts, and feelings, respectively (Shrout & Fleiss, 1979). Because the intraclass correlation coefficients werehigh,thescoresfromthetworaterswereaveraged. Dependent Measures To complete the story stems, participants listed what they thought the main character would do or say, think, and feel next. To increase reliability, responses from the three story stems were combined in the analyses. Thealphacoefficientswere.86,.88,and.87foraggres- sive behaviors, thoughts, and feelings, respectively. These alpha coefficients are very high, especially because there were only three story stems for each dependent measure. Statistical Assumptions The distributions for the three dependent variables were each positively skewed and the variances in the vio- lent and nonviolent video game conditions were not equal. A square root transformation successfully reducedtheskewnessandstabilizedthevariances.Skew- nesswasreducedfrom9.4to3.5foraggressivebehaviors, from10.5to4.9foraggressivethoughts,andfrom10.5to 4.7 for aggressive feelings. The ratio of variances in the violent and nonviolent video game conditions was reduced from 31.4 to 2.7 for aggressive behaviors, from 75.3 to 4.1 for aggressive thoughts, and from 28.2 to 3.9 for aggressive feelings. Although the transformed data were used in all analyses, the transformed means were transformedbacktotheoriginalscaleforallfiguresand reported means for ease of exposition. Main Analyses Multivariate analysis of variance was used to deter - minewhetherthetypeofvideogameandparticipantsex influenced expectations about how the main character wouldrespondinthesituation.A2(videogame:violent, nonviolent) × 2 (participant sex: men vs. women) × 3 (dependent measure: aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, aggressive feelings) factorial design was used. The video game and participant sex factors were between-subjects, whereas the type of dependent mea - sure was within-subjects. As expected, people who played violent video games expectedmoreaggressiveresponsesfromthemainchar - actersinthestoriesthandidpeoplewhoplayedthenon- violentvideogames, F (1,220)=7.40, p <.007(seeFigure 3). People who played a violent video game were more likely to expect the main characters to say or do some- thing aggressive, F (1, 220) = 8.14, p < .005, d = 0.38. For example, one person who played a violent video game expected the main character in the ccar accident d story to cshoot or stab the other driver. d People who played a violent video game were more likely to expect the main characters to have aggressive thoughts and ideas, although the effect was not quite significant, F (1, 220) = 3.69, p < .06, d = 0.26. For example, one person who playedaviolentvideogameexpectedthemaincharacter in the cgoing to a restaurant d story to think about cset- ting thetablecloth on fire. dPeoplewho playedaviolent video game also were more likely to expect the main characters to feel angry and aggressive, F (1, 220) = 6.17, p < .02, d = 0.33. For example, one person who played a violent video game expected the main character in the cpersuading a friend d story to feel cvery pissed off. d The appendix contains some other aggressive comments made by people who played the violent video game. These aggressive comments were made by many partici- pants,notjustafewselectindividuals.Foreachscenario, there is only one comment per person per dependent measure. The magnitude of the video game effect did not depend on the sex of participants or on the type of dependent measure. The Video Game × Sex, Video Game × Dependent Measure, and Video Game × Sex × Dependent Measure interactions were all nonsignificant, F (2, 220) = 0.12, p > .7, F (2, 219) = 1.32, p > .2, F (2, 219) = 0.18, p > .8. Other effects, less central to the main hypotheses being tested, also were found. There was a significant main effect of type of dependent measure, F (2, 219) = 187.51, p < .0001. As can be seen in Figure 3, aggressive feelings were listed most frequently, followed respec- tively by aggressive behaviors and aggressive thoughts, M s = 6.14, 3.79, and 2.00. There also was a significant 1682 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Aggressive Responses Do/Say Think Feel Dependent Measure Violent video game Nonviolent video game Figure 3 Number of aggressive responses for each dependent mea- sure as a function of type of video game. interaction between participant sex and type ofdepend- entmeasure, F (2,219)=4.98, p <.008.Menexpectedthe main characters to behave more aggressively than did women, M s = 4.50 and 3.13, F (1, 220) = 4.79, p < .03, d = 0.30. Men and women did not differ in their expecta- tionsofwhatthemaincharacterswouldthinkorfeel, M s= 2.19and1.83, F (1,220)=0.78, p >0.3, d =0.12,and M s= 6.03 and 6.25, F (1, 220) = 0.09, p > .7, d = 30.04, respec - tively. The main effect for participant sex, however, was nonsignificant, F (1, 220) = 1.23, p > .2. Supplemental Analyses One common problem with experimental research on media violence concerns potential differences between the specific violent and nonviolent stimuli on theoretically irrelevant dimensions. When only one vio- lent and one nonviolent exemplar are used, there is the possibility that some idiosyncratic difference between thestimuliotherthantheirdifferenceinviolentcontent mighthavecreatedtheobservedresults.Thisproblemis notuniquetomediaviolenceresearch,ofcourse(Clark, 1973; Wells & Windschitl, 1999). We used four violent and four nonviolent games to reduce this potential problem. If idiosyncratic differ- enceswithineachtypeofgame(violentandnonviolent) were influencing responses on our measures, then we should see these differences in the results. As noted ear- lier, the random effects analyses revealed strong evi- denceagainstanyclaimthatourresultswereduetoidio- syncratic characteristics of the eight games used. In otherwords,weareinamuchstrongerpositiontogener- alize our results to other violent and nonviolent games than is true in the typical experimental study that uses one exemplar of each independent variable level. Another way to address the generalizability question concerns the extent to which the violent content of the games is uniquely associated with the aggressive responses. In another experimental study, we had 319 participantsplayoneofthesesameeightgamesandrate how enjoyable, boring, and violent they thought the game was. We used the mean ratings for each game as covariatesinthreemultivariateanalysesofcovarianceon the aggressive responses of participants in the present study. The results for the enjoyable and boring analyses were essentially the same as the main analyses reported earlier.Participantswhoplayedviolentvideogamesgen- erated significantly more aggressive responses than did participants who played the nonviolent video games, F s(1,219)>5.80, p s<.02.Thesamepatternofmeans,the same main effect of type of measure, and the same Dependent Measure × Sex interactions also were signifi- cantandwereverysimilartotheresultsreportedearlier. Furthermore, when the violence ratings were used as a covariate, the effect of type of video game (violent vs. nonviolent) on aggressive responses disappeared, F (1, 219)=0.26, p >.60.Thisisexactlywhatonewouldexpect if violent content is what distinguished the violent and nonviolent video games used in the present research. If violent ratings are used in place of type of type video game, the results are the same as those reported in the main analyses section. The more violent the video game was rated to be, the more people expected the main characters to behave aggressively, have aggressive thoughts and ideas, and feel angry and aggressive, F (1, 220) = 9.19, p < .005, r = 20, F (1, 220) = 4.42, p < .05, r = 0.14, and F (1, 220) = 7.19, p < .01, r = 0.18, respectively. DISCUSSION Summary and Implications As predicted by the General Aggression Model, play- ingaviolentvideogameforjust20minsproducedsignif- icantincreasesinexpectationsthatpotentialconflictsit- uations would be handled aggressively. Violent video game participants expected more aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behaviors from the main characters in the stories.Thisoccurredeventhoughparticipantswerenot provoked or annoyed in any way. Only one published study has tested the hypothesis that brief exposure to violent video games can increase aggressive expectations. Kirsh (1998) randomly assignedthird-andfourth-gradechildrentoplayeithera violent video game ( Mortal Kombat ) or a nonviolent game ( NBA Jam ). They then listened to five ambiguous provocation stories. In each, they were told to imagine that they were the story character to whom a negative event happened, apparently caused by a same-sex peer. They then answered six questions about each story. Three of the questions assessed future expectations 4 about their next action, punishment of the perpetrator, andemotionalreactionoftheperpetrator.Onlythefirst of these three expectation questions yielded a statisti - callyreliableresult.Childrenwhohadjustplayed Mortal Kombat expectedtobehavemoreaggressivelythanthose who had played NBA Jam . 2 In addition to providing further support of predic- tions based on the General Aggression Model, the pres - ent experiment goes beyond Kirsh 9s experiment in sev - eralways.First,weassessedthreetypesofexpectations 4 thoughts, feelings, and behaviors 4and found increases in the aggressive content of all three. Second, we assessed expectations about how people in general would react rather than hypothetical self-expectations. Third, we used a different participant population (adult) and a very different set of ambiguous hypotheti- calstories.Fourth,byusingfourdifferentgamesofeach type, the present study more clearly pinpoints the key factor producing these shifts in aggressive expectations Bushman, Anderson / VIOLENT GAMES AND HOSTILITY 1683 as the violent content of the games. Finally, the fact that controlling for the rated enjoyability and boringness of the games did not eliminate the violent game effect, whereas controlling for rated violence did eliminate the effect, further supports the hypothesis that violent con - tent in video games can temporarily create a hostile expectation bias. In sum, the present study supports the General Aggression Model 3based prediction that expo - sure to violent media can influence the amount of aggressive expectations that people conjure up in response to potential conflict situations. Future Directions There are many theoretical, empirical, and public policy issues involving violent video games, media vio- lence in general, and the General Aggression Model in need of additional research. For example, are the vari- ous hostile biases that have been identified by various research groups closely related to each other? Do such biasesincreasesocialconflicts?Dotheyplayamediation roleinlong-termeffectsofmediaviolenceonaggressive and violent behaviors? Are there effective interventions that can be used by parents, schools, and counselors to reduce or eliminate hostile biases? Research shows that reducing exposure to violent media (e.g., Robinson, Wilde, Navracruz, Haydel, & Varady, 2001) and that changing children 9s attitudes about and understanding of media violence (e.g., Huesmann, 1983) significantly reduces aggression. Are such approaches effective because they reduce hostility biases or because of some othermechanism?TheGeneralAggressionModelorga- nizestherelevantresearchinasimplewayandcanserve as a guide for future research designed to answer these crucial questions. APPENDIX THE CAR ACCIDENT Todd was on his way home from work one evening when he hadtobrakequicklyforayellowlight.Thepersoninthecarbe- hind him must have thought Todd was going to run the light becausehecrashedintothebackofTodd 9scar,causingalotof damage to both vehicles. Fortunately, there were no injuries. Todd got out of his car and surveyed the damage. He then walked over to the other car. What happens next? List 20 things that Todd will do or say, think, and feel as the story continues. Some aggressive responses from people who played a vio- lent video game are as follows: Do/Say " Say cshit, d then call the guy an cidiot. d " cWhat the hell were you thinking? d " Kick the other driver 9s car. " Kick the other guy 9s butt. " cThink!!!! You 9re paying for this! d " cAre you smokin 9 crack? d " Todd starts throwing punches. " Start yelling and swearing at the guy. " cAre you blind? d " cWhat the hell is wrong with you? d " cI can 9t believe you have a license. d " Kick out a window. " Beat his head in. " Todd shot or stabbed the other driver. Think: " cThis guy 9s dead meat! d " cThis guy is dead. d " cI 9m gonna kill him. d " cWhat a dumbass! d " cWhat an asshole! d " cWhere did this idiot learn how to drive? d " cWhat the hell? d " cThat bastard! d " cI really want to punch this driver 9s lights out! d " cStupid! Idiot! Moron! d " cI should drive a knife through your eye! d " cIf I had a hammer I 9d beat him with it! d Feel: " Irritated " Furious " Vicious " Cruel " Pissed off! " Ready to hit him! " Aggressive " Hate for that guy " Angry " Violent " Like kicking the guy 9s ass who hit him. " Angry because he didn 9t get hurt! PERSUADING A FRIEND Janet had worked all summer long, and now, a couple of weeksbeforeschoolstarted,shefeltshedeservedaholiday.Af - ter a bit of thought, she decided on a vacation to the coast wouldbeideal.Afterall,whatcouldbebetterthansuntanning andswimmingintheocean?Theproblemwasthatshedidnot wanttogoalone.SheknewherbestfriendShannonwouldgoif she could but Shannon had been saving her money to buy a newstereo.JanetdecidedtogoovertoShannon 9splaceandtry to convince her to come to the coast. What happens next? List 20 things that Janet will do or say, think, and feel as the story continues. Some aggressive responses from people who played a vio- lent video game are as follows: Do/Say: " Janet takes Shannon 9s boyfriend. " cYou don 9t want to go? Fuck you then bitch! d 1684 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN " cI 9ll just go ask Jen to go with me instead. d " cDon 9t wimp out on me! d " Speak to her with contempt if she disagrees. " Tell her how dumb the stereo is. " Yell at Shannon for thinking of herself. " Give her guilt trips. " They get into a fist fight. " cFine. Just sit here in your hole and rot! d " Theystartarguinganddecidenottobefriendsanymore. " Janet gets into her car, puts the car in drive, and rolls through Shannon 9s house. Think: " cShe 9s so dumb. d " cMaybe I should threaten her. d " cWho needs her, anyway. d " cShe 9s not gonna go. I hate her! d " cShe better see it my way. d " Janet thinks Shannon is a loser. " cWhy was I ever friends with her? d " cWhat else can I do to piss her off? d " cShe better say yes. d " cWhat 9s her problem? d " cShe shouldn 9t be such a stick in the mud. d " cShe need to quit being so 9tight. c d Feel: " Mad " Betrayed " Furious " Vicious " Angry " Annoyed " Bitter " Irritated " Cruel " Aggressive " Cranky " Very pissed off GOING TO A RESTAURANT Jane had worked hard all day long cleaning her apartment. She was tired but decided to reward herself with a meal in one of the restaurants down the street. Upon entering the restau - rant, Jane decided upon a Caesar salad, French onion soup, andfiletmignon.Some15minuteslater,awaitercamearound totakeherorder.TimeslowlypassedandJanewasgettinghun- grier and hungrier. Finally, about 45 minutes after her order had been taken, Jane was about to leave when she saw the waiter approaching with her food. What happens next? List 20 things that Jane will do or say, think, and feel as the story continues. Some aggressive responses from people who played a vio- lent video game are as follows: Do/Say: " Eat and refuse to pay. " Punch the waiter. " cI hope this isn 9t your real job! d " cWhat did you have to do, butcher a cow? d " Steal the silverware. " cKeep the food. I 9m gone! d " Dump the food on the waiter 9s head. " Swear at the manager. " cI wish I had him as my waiter d (points to another waiter)! " cDidyouhavetogotoFrancetogettheFrenchonion? d " I was contemplating whether this floral centerpiece was edible. " Shecallstherestaurantandordersfoursteakstopickup by a different name. Think: " cDamn this service is shitty. d " Hit the waiter. " cThis guy needs to be fired. d " cWHAT IDIOTS!!! d " cI hate this waiter! d " cThis place sucks! d " cNo tip here. d " cThey better not charge me for this food. d " cWhat took so damn long? d " cI should set this table cloth on fire! d " cI 9m going to tell everyone how lousy it is here. d " cI should write to the newspaper about this place. d Feel: " Mad " Hostile " Offended " Irritated " Pissed off " Cranky " Frustrated with the service " Angry " Cruel " Cranky " Pushed to the limit " Bitchy NOTES 1. Joint Statement on the Impact of Entertainment Violence on Children, Congressional Public Health Summit, July 26, 2000. Signed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, American Psychological Asso- ciation, American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, Ameri- canMedicalAssociation,AmericanAcademyofFamilyPhysicians,and American Psychiatric Association. 2.Twooftheotherthreequestions 4oneinvolvingtheperpetrator 9s intent, the other involving the perpetrator 9s liking for the victim 4also yielded the predicted significant violent versus nonviolent game effects. REFERENCES Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive Bushman, Anderson / VIOLENT GAMES AND HOSTILITY 1685 affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-ana - lyticreviewofthescientificliterature. PsychologicalScience , 12 ,353- 359. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002a). The effects of media vio - lence on society. Science , 295 , 2377-2378. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002b). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology , 53 , 27-51. Anderson, C. A., Deuser, W. E., & DeNeve, K. (1995). Hot tempera - tures, hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: Tests of a gen - eral model of affective aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 21 , 434-448. Anderson, C. A., & Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games and aggressive thoughts,feelings,andbehaviorinthelaboratoryandinlife. Jour - nal of Personality and Social Psychology , 78 , 772-790. Anderson,C.A.,&Huesmann,L.R.(inpress).Humanaggression:A social-cognitiveview.ChaptertoappearinM.A.Hogg&J.Cooper (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology . London: Sage. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning analysis . Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bandura, A. (1983). Psychological mechanism of aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. I. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empiri- cal reviews (Vol. 1, pp. 1-40). New York: Academic Press. Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psy- chologist , 45 , 494-503. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control . New York: McGraw-Hill. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and the American public: Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist , 56 , 477-489. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2001). Effects of televised vio- lence on aggression. In D. Singer & J. Singer (Eds.), Handbook of children and the media (pp. 223-254). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Clark,H.H.(1973).Thelanguage-as-fixed-effectfallacy:Acritiqueof language statistics in psychological research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal-Behavior , 12 , 335-359. Crick, N. R., & Dodge, K. A. (1994). A review and reformulation of social information-processing mechanisms in children 9s social adjustment. Psychological Bulletin , 115 , 74-101. Dill, K. E., Anderson, C. A., Anderson, K. B., & Deuser, W. E. (1997). Effects of aggressive personality on social expectations and social perceptions. Journal of Research in Personality , 31 , 272-292. Geen, R. G. (2001). Human aggression (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: Open University Press. Huesmann, L. R. (1983). Mitigating the imitation of aggressive behaviors by changing children 9s attitudes about media violence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 44 , 899-910. Huesmann,L.R.(1986).Psychologicalprocessespromotingtherela- tionbetweenexposuretomediaviolenceandaggressivebehavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues , 42 , 125-139. Huesmann, L. R. (1998). The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of habitualaggressivebehavior.InR.Geen&E.Donnerstein(Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research and implications for policy (pp. 73- 109). New York: Academic Press. Kirsh, S. J. (1998). Seeing the world through Mortal Kombat-colored glasses: Violent video games and the development of a short-term hostile attribution bias. Childhood , 5 , 177-184. Lindsay, J. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2000). From antecedent conditions toviolentactions:Ageneralaffectiveaggressionmodel. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 26 , 533-547. Robinson, T. N., Wilde, M. L., Navracruz, L. C., Haydel, K. F., & Varady, A. (2001). Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine , 155 , 17-23. Rule, B. G., Taylor, B. R., & Dobbs, A. R. (1987). Priming effects of heat on aggressive thoughts. Social Cognition , 5 , 131-143. Shrout, P. E., & Fleiss, J. L. (1979). Intraclass correlations: Uses in assessing rater reliability. Psychological Bulletin , 86 , 420-428. Surgeon General 9s Scientific Advisory Committee on Television and SocialBehavior.(1972). Television and growing up: The impact of tele- visedviolence .Washington,DC:U.S.GovernmentPrintingOffice. Wells, G. L., & Windschitl, P. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin , 25 , 1115-1125. Zillmann, D. (1983). Cognition-excitation interdependencies in aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior , 14 , 51-64. Received December 20, 2001 Revision accepted April 23, 2002 1686 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN

less