GENERAL AGGRESSOI N MODEL - Iowa State University · GENERAL AGGRESSOI N MODEL General aggression model (GAM; ... and behavioral script theory. ... heart rate increases following

rights treaty, among other stipulations CEDAWrequires that states modify sociocultural practices toeliminate prejudices based on the supposed superior-ity, inferiority, or stereotyped roles of women andmen. Although the United States signed CEDAW onJuly 17, 1980, it has not ratified or acceded to theconvention and therefore is not legally bound to itsprovisions.

Melinda A. Lemke

See also Advertising, Influence on Society; AfricanAmericans in Media, Character Depictions and SocialRepresentation of; Asians in Media, CharacterDepictions and Social Representation of; Latinos inMedia, Character Depictions and SocialRepresentation of; Media as a Reflection of Society;Sex in Media, Effects on Society; Social LearningFrom Media; Stereotyping in Violent Content

Further ReadingsBastow, S. (1992). Gender: Stereotypes and roles. Pacific

Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Beauvoir, S. (1949). The second sex (Le deuxienIe sexe).

C. Borde 8c S. Maloyany-Chevallier (Trans.). New York,NY: Knopf.

Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873).Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the

subversion of identity. New York, NY: Routledge.Cook, R. J., 8c Cusack, S. (2010). Gender stereotyping:

Transnational legal perspectives. Philadelphia: Universityof Pennsylvania Press.

Dines, G., Humez, J. M. (Eds.). (1995). Gender, race,and class in media: A text-reader. Thousand Oaks,CA: Sage.

Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war againstAmerican women. New York, NY: Anchor Books;Doubleday.

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate CrimesPrevention Act, 18 U.S.C. S 249 (2009).

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875).Ortner, S. B., 8c Whitehead, W. L. (Eds.). (1981). Sexual

meanings: The cultural construction of sexuality.New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Riley, D. (1988). Am I that name: Feminism and thecategory of "women" in history. New York, NY:Macmillan.

Sloop, J. M. (2004). Disciplining gender: Rhetorics of sexidentity in contemporary U.S. culture. Boston:University of Massachusetts Press.

United Nations Convention on the Elimination ofDiscrimination Against Women (1979). UNGA AlRES/34/180.

Wittig, M. (1992). The straight mind and other essays.Boston: Beacon Press.

GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL

General aggression model (GAM; AndersonBushman 2002) is a comprehensive and integrativetheoretical framework within which multiple social,cognitive, and developmental theories are incor-porated to aid comprehension of and research onhuman aggressive behavior. Some of the more prom-inent (but not the only) theories that GAM incor-porates include cognitive neoassociation theory,social learning theory, and behavioral script theory.Each theory offers crucial insight into understand-ing the reasons why people behave aggressively. Thisentry outlines the processes of GAM, especially withregard to media effects, and discusses the extensionsof GAM to other research topics.

ProcessesGeneral aggression model can be broadly brokendown into two sets of related processes. Proximateprocesses are those that are immediately related toaggressive behavior. Distal processes are those thatinfluence short-term processes through long-termaggressive behavioral tendencies.

Proximal Processes

Proximal processes can best be understood byexamining a single-cycle episode of GAM (seelower portion of Figure 1). A single episode beginswith two forms of input_ The first of these forms isthe situation, factors within the present event thatcan influence social behavior. The second of theseforms of input involves lltrapersonal factors. Theseare individual differences—person factors—thatmay directly influence behavior, such as mood ortrait aggressiveness, or may moderate the effects ofsituational factors.

In the next stage of GAiM's single-cycle episode,proximate processes influence internal states. Theprimary internal states of interest concern affect,cognitions, and physiological arousal, each of whichinteracts with the others (e.g., heart rate increasesfollowing frustration). General aggression modeldoes not state which of these internal states areaffected by which input variables; that is the taskof more specific research. Instead, GAM specifies

rights treaty, among other stipulations CEDAW requires that states modify sociocultural practices to eliminate prejudices based on the supposed superior- ity, inferiority, or stereotyped roles of women and men. Although the United States signed CEDAW on July 17, 1980, it has not ratified or acceded to the convention and therefore is not legally bound to its provisions,

Melinda A. Lemke

See also Advertising, Influence on Society; African Americans in Media, Character Depictions and Social Representation of; Asians in Media, Character Depictions and Social Representation of; Latinos in Media, Character Depictions and Social Representation of; Media as a Reflection of Society; Sex in Media, Effekts on Society; Social Learning From Media; Stereotyping in Violent Content

Further Readings

Bastow, S. (1992). Gender: Stereotypes and roles. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Beauvoir, S. (1949). The second sex (Le deuxiime sexe). C. Borde & S. Maloyany-Chevallier (Trans,). New York, NY: Knopf.

Bradwell v. State of Illinois, 83 U.S. 130 (1873). Butler, J. (1999). Gender trouble: Feminism and the

subversion o f identity. New York, NY: Routledge. Cook, R. J., & Cusack, S. (2010). Gender stereotyping:

Transnational legal perspectives. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Dines, G., & Humez, J. M. (Eds.). (1995). Gender, race, and class in media: A text-reader. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Faludi, S. (1991). Backlash: The undeclared war against American women. New York, NY: Anchor Books; Doubleday.

Matthew Shepard and James Byrd, Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act, 18 U.S.C. $ 249 (2009).

Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. 162 (1875). Ortner, S. B., & Whitehead, W. L. (Eds.). (1981). Sexual

meanings: The cultural construction of sexuality. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Riley, D. (1988). Am I that name: Feminism and the category o f "women" in history. New York, NY: Macmillan.

Sloop, J. M. (2004). Disciplining gender: Rhetorics o f sex identity in contemporary U.S. culture. Boston: University of Massachusetts Press.

United Nations Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (1979). UNGA A/ RES/34/180.

Wittig, M. (1992). The straight h d and other essays. Boston: Beacon Press.

General aggression model (GAM; Anderson & Bushman 2002) is a comprehensive and integrative theoretical framework within which multiple social, cognitive, and developmental theories are incor- porated to aid comprehension of and research on human aggressive behavior. Some of the more prom- inent (but not the only) theories that GAM incor- porates include cognitive neoassociation theory, social learning theory, and behavioral script theory. Each theory offers crucial insight into understand- ing the reasons why people behave aggressively. This entry outlines the processes of GAM, especially with regard to media effects, and discusses the extensions of GAM to other research topics.

Processes General aggression model can be broadly broken down into two sets of related processes. Proximate processes are those that are immediately related to aggressive behavior. Distal processes are those that influence short-term processes through long-term aggressive behavioral tendencies.

Proximal Processes

Proximal processes can best be understood by examining a single-cycle episode of GAM (see lower portion of Figure 1). A single episode begins with two forms of input. The first of these forms is the situation, factors within the present event that can influence social behavior. The second of these forms of input involves intrapersonal factors. These are individual differences-person factors-that may directly influence behavior, such as mood or trait aggressiveness, or may moderate the effects of situational factors.

In the next stage of GAM's single-cycle episode, proximate processes influence internal states. The primary internal states of interest concern affect, cognitions, and physiological arousal, each of which interacts with the others (e.g., heart rate increases following frustration). General aggression model does not state which of these internal states are affected by which i n p ~ t variables; that is the task of more specific research. Instead, GAM specifies

Anderson, C. A., & Groves, C. (2013). General aggression model. In M. S. Eastin (Ed.) Encyclopedia of Media Violence (pp. 182-187). Los Angeles: Sage.

DistalCauses andProcesses

ProximateCauses andProcesses

BiologicalModifiers

V

EnvironmentalModifiers

Personality

Figure I The General Aggression Model: Single-Cycle

and Distal ProcessesSource: Anderson, C. A. Carnagey, N. L. (2004) Violentevil and the general aggression model. Chapter in A. Miller(Ed.) The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (p. 183).New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Copyright GuilfordPress. Reprinted with permission of The Guilford Press.

that factors that ultimately influence the likelihoodof aggressive behavior do so through at least oneof these three types of internal states. For example,research has demonstrated that the short-term effectsof media violence on aggressive behavior are medi-ated primarily by aggressive cognitions. However,aggressive affect and physiological arousal also playa part in some cases.

The single-cycle episode of GAM continues withdecision and appraisal processes (Figure 2). It positsthat the contents of an individual's internal state bothinfluence and are influenced by these decision andappraisal processes. Research regarding individuals'attributions (e.g., Anderson, Krull, Weiner, 1996)has shown that after a significant event occurs, anindividual will immediately attempt to determine whyit occurred. This initial appraisal can occur withoutconscious awareness. Furthermore, the appraisal mayinclude behavioral response options. For example,if someone believes he or she has been provoked, aretaliatory response may occur as an immediate reac-tion. If an individual does not have the time, motiva-tion, or cognitive resources to further evaluate his orher initial attribution, then an impulsive, reactionary

ImmediateAppraisal

Resourcessufficient?

Present Internal StateA

Yes

No

Reappraisal

Yest

Outcome importantand unsatisfying?

Appraisal and Decision Processes

No

ThoughtfulAction

ImpulsiveAction

Figure 2 Appraisal and Decision Processes Within the

General Aggression Model: Expanded ViewSource: Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Humanaggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

decision will occur. However, if time, motivation, andcognitive resources are available, the individual mustdecide whether his or her initial attribution is bothimportant and unsatisfying. If this is not the case, andthe initial attribution is either unimportant or satisfy-ing, then an impulsive behavior will likely occur. Ifthis is the case, then one or several reappraisals ofthe event will occur. Reappraisals will continue to bemade until the individual is satisfied with the attri-bution or until a response is required, in which casea thoughtful action will likely occur. Thoughtful orimpulsive actions can be either aggressive or nonag-gressive, and reappraisal of events does not necessar-ily guarantee that an initially hostile attribution willbe altered by reappraisal.

After an impulsive or thoughtful appraisal ismade, the ensuing behavior then feeds into the ongo-ing social encounter. The social encounter then influ-ences the situational input for the next behavioralcycle. This process is one basis for GAM's proposedviolence escalation cycle (Figure 3). 'When a hostileattribution is made, it can be considered a trigger-ing event for the violence escalation processes. Thesehostile attributions may occur as a result of anyrange of events, from mild provocation (e.g., beingbumped in the hallway) to severe provocation (e.g.,being insulted). After being provoked, an individualis likely to retaliate in a more severe manner thanwarranted by the initial provocation. The individualwho made the initial perceived or actual provocationis then likely to respond with an even more severeretaliation, which leads to continued repetitions ofthe cycle. General aggression model posits that mediaviolence (as well as other risk factors) influences theknowledge structures that individuals retrieve whenmaking attributions to a significant event. They

therefore increase the likelihood that a triggeringevent is perceived as hostile and guide the perceivedappropriate behavioral response. Research has dem-onstrated that a minor triggering event is more likelyto initiate a violence escalation cycle for individualshigh in trait aggressiveness than for nonaggressiveindividuals

Distal Processes

General aggression model also incorporates sev-eral developmental processes in its understanding ofaggressive behavior (see upper portion of Figure I).These distal processes focus on how continued expo-sure to aggression-related stimuli (such as mediaviolence) develops long-term aggressive personalities.There are two primary types of factors that influ-ence the development of an aggressive personality.The first type involves biological modifiers such asarousal, serotonin levels, hormonal imbalances,and the possession of disorders such as attentiondeficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). The secondtype involves environmental influences on whatpeople learn and believe. These may include harsh

InappropriateOver Retaliation

AppropriateRetaliation

InappropriateOver Retaliation

UnintentionalJustified

Relatively Mild

( A's Perspectives

AppropriateRetaliation

InappropriateOver Retaliation

Retaliation /

IntentionalUnjustified

Relatively Harmful

Figure 3 The Violence Escalation Cycle

Source: Anderson, C. A. 8c Carnagey, N. L. (2004) Violentevil and the general aggression model. Chapter in A. Miller(Ed.). The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (p. 181).New York, NY: Guilford Publications. Copyright GuilfordPress. Reprinted with permission of The Guilford Press.

or inconsistent parenting, cultural and communityinfluences, peer influences, exposure to violence, andpoverty. General aggression model proposes thatthese two types of modifiers interact with each otherto influence the development of aggressive (or nonag-gressive) personalities.

At its most fundamental level, GAM is considereda social cognitive model of aggression. As individualscontinually interact with aggression-related stimuli,they learn, rehearse, and reinforce aggression-relatedknowledge structures, and each interaction serves asa learning trial. Furthermore, observational learn-ing plays a key role in the development of aggressivetendencies. Individuals do not simply imitate aggres-sive behavior but also use the behavior of others asa model through which to draw inferences to helpdetermine when aggressive responses are appro-priate. As individuals find themselves in situationsthat repeatedly evoke aggressive thoughts, feelings,and behaviors, they continually develop aggression-related knowledge structures. These knowledgestructures are then "tapped into" when individu-als interpret events and make decisions, ultimatelyleading to an increased likelihood of aggressivebehavior. If the emitted aggressive behavior tends tobe successful—in other words, if it is reinforced bythe environment—then such thought, feeling, andaction patterns (scripts) become more likely avenuesof response in future situations. Of course, if theenvironment (e.g., parents, peers) does not reinforceaggressive behaviors, and especially if it insteadrewards nonaggressive solutions to conflict, then anonaggressive behavior style becomes more likely.

One of these proposed underlying processesinvolves desensitization, defined as a reduction innegative emotion–related physiological reactionsto viewing, thinking about, and planning real-lifeviolence (Carnagey, Anderson, Bushman, 2007).Physiological reactivity is defined as the change invarious forms of negative emotional arousal suchas heart rate, perspiration, and skin conductance.Multiple studies have established a relationshipbetween exposure to violent media and subsequentdesensitization. As individuals become desensitizedto violence, they experience a lessened negative emo-tional and physiological reaction to thoughts aboutviolence, essentially reducing normal emotionalinhibitions to behaving aggressively. In short, vio-lence is experienced as less aversive and seen as moreacceptable.

Nicholas L. Carnagey and colleagues exam-ined the effects of violent media on desensitization

by randomly assigning participants to play a vio-lent or nonviolent game and measuring physi-ological arousal both before and after game play.Subsequently, participants viewed clips of real-lifeviolence and had their physiological arousal mea-sured a third time. Participants who had played theviolent game showed significantly reduced physiolog-ical reactions to viewing the clips of real-life violencecompared with those who had just played a non-violent game. Similarly, Brad J. Bushman and CraigA. Anderson (2009) examined the effects of mediaviolence on helping behavior. Specifically, their stud-ies involved participants who played either a violentor a nonviolent game (Study I), or who watchedeither a violent or nonviolent movie (Study 2),and were then given an opportunity to help a personin need. In both studies, media violence exposuredecreased helping behavior.

A second process through which exposure tomedia violence leads to long-term developments ofaggressive behavioral tendencies comes from thedevelopment of aggressive attitudes and beliefs.General aggression model points out that positivebeliefs and attitudes toward violence should lead toincreased aggressive behavior. For example, whenaggressive responses are considered more sociallyappropriate, individuals may be more likely toengage in aggressive behavior. General aggressionmodel argues that as aggressive behavior is positivelyreinforced, attitudes and beliefs toward aggressiveresponses to provoking situations are increasinglyperceived as appropriate. This notion is supportedby a variety of studies in which playing violentgames was associated with more positive attitudestoward violence. When positive attitudes towardviolence were taken into account, the relationshipbetween violent video game play and aggressionwas nearly extinguished. Longitudinal research hasdemonstrated that playing violent video games wasassociated with increased likelihood of believingaggressive responses to be appropriate 30 monthsfollowing initial exposure. Furthermore, these beliefswere associated with increased aggressive behavior.This suggests that one of the routes through whichviolent media exposure leads to aggressive behavioris by supporting and reinforcing positive attitudesand beliefs toward violence.

Another way in which individuals develop long-term aggressive behavioral tendencies is throughthe development of aggressive behavioral scripts.A behavioral script is a mental representation of whatevents should occur given any social situation, such

as what to do in a fast-food restaurant. Such scriptsguide our interpretation of events that we witness,but they also guide our behavior. Although manybehavioral scripts are universal within a given culture,others are more regional or even idiosyncratic.

With regard to aggressive behavior, behavioralscripts inform individuals how and when aggressiveresponses are appropriate in a given social scenario.Road rage, intimate partner abuse, and child abuseall appear to have scripted aggressive behaviors attheir core. Our experiences and individual character-istics dictate, to some extent, what behavioral scriptsare encoded. As individuals are repeatedly exposedto violence, whether in the form of violent media orreal-life violence, they develop and reinforce aggres-sive behavioral scripts. As these scripts becomeincreasingly available, individuals are more likely toretrieve and use them when deciding when aggres-sive responses are most appropriate. Contrastingly,for those who are not frequently exposed to vio-lence, fewer scripts are developed, and for scriptsthat do exist, automatic retrieval is less likely. Thistendency is reflected in research demonstratingthat long-term exposure to violent video games ispositively associated with an increased likelihoodof perceiving ambiguous behavior as aggressive.Furthermore, short-term violent video game expo-sure has been shown to increase the accessibility ofaggressive behavioral scripts.

The formation of individuals' long-term aggres-sive tendencies as a result of violent media exposureis also related to the development of aggressive per-ceptual schema. Perceptual schemas are knowledgestructures that individuals draw upon to identifyobjects and scenarios. For example, individuals areable to identify a vehicle by drawing upon whatis known about the qualities of vehicles (e.g., theobject moves, has wheels or some type of engine).However, :ndividuals also use perceptual schemato identify complex social scenarios such as provo-cation by collecting and interpreting the variety of"cues" associated with provocation (e.g., an angryfacial expression). These knowledge structurescontain nodes that are linked together in semanticmemory. Aggressive concepts such as "murder"are repeatedly paired with similar concepts such as"gun" or "stab." Therefore, when one of these con-cepts, or nodes, is activated, other associated nodesare also activated. As events continually prime oneor more nodes within an associative network (suchas aggression-related concepts), they reinforce thenetwork, making other nodes within that network

more likely to become activated. For instance, someresearch has demonstrated that viewing aggression-related pictures (e.g., guns) led to faster responsesto aggression-related words (e.g., injure) than tononaggressive words. Similarly, research has beenconducted testing this hypothesis using word-fragment completion tasks. In these tasks, partici-pants are asked to fill in the blanks of words thatcan be completed to form either aggressive or non-aggressive words. For example, the word fragmentexp/o_e can be completed with the word explode orexplore. Other research has shown that participantswere more likely to complete word fragments withaggressive words after playing a violent game thanafter playing a nonviolent game.

Longitudinal research has further elucidated therelationship between violent media exposure andaggressive perceptual schema by studying a groupof elementary school children at two points duringthe school year over a six-month period. They foundthat for children who were repeatedly exposed toviolent video game play, increases in hostile attri-bution biases were more likely. General aggressionmodel posits that as these children continually rein-forced aggression-related nodes within their semanticnetwork, these aggression-related concepts becamemore heavily used, relied upon, and available. Whenencountering an ambiguous situation, they weretherefore more likely to draw upon aggression-related concepts, ultimately leading to a tendency tointerpret the ambiguous behavior as aggressive.

Other research has also examined the relation-ship between violent media exposure and aggres-sive perceptual schema using a different but relatedmethod. This research demonstrated that collegestudents who are exposed to high amounts of vio-lent media are more likely to display highly acces-sible aggressive self-images. Taken as a whole, thesestudies appear to demonstrate that exposure toviolent media influences the development of long-term aggression-related knowledge structures, andas individuals are exposed to violent media, theseknowledge structures are activated and reinforced inthe moment. It is important to note, however, thatthis collection of discussed knowledge structures isnot an exhaustive list but includes some of the mostimportant and well-researched to date.

Theoretical ExtensionsGeneral aggression model has been applied heav-ily to research regarding the effects of media on

aggression and is one of the most cited contempo-rary theoretical models in media effects researchon aggression. However, its applications are notmerely limited to media effects research, nor was itever intended as merely a model for media effects.Instead, as a general model of aggression, GAMcan be and is applied to numerous other aggressionresearch topics. These include (but are certainly notlimited to) provocation, intimate partner violence,intergroup violence, global climate change effectson violence, and suicide. Another prominent exam-ple involves the "weapons effect." It has been longunderstood that the presence of a weapon leads toan increase in aggressive behavior. As was men-tioned previously, GAM predicts that this occursas a result of the knowledge structures associatedwith weapons. Because weapons are often closelylinked in memory to aggression-related concepts(e.g., murder, kill), activation of a single concept(e.g., the presence of a weapon) leads to a spread-ing activation of similar concepts. However, GAMpoints out that this spreading activation is depen-dent on any given individual's personal history andthe nature of the knowledge structures that areactivated.

Research by Bruce D. Bartholow and colleagues(2005) directly tested this by recruiting participantswho reported their leisure activities either to includehunting or to not include hunting. In their firstexperiment, they determined that hunters reportedmore positive and less aggressive associations withguns used for hunting than did nonhunters. In theirsecond and third experiments, exposure to imagesof hunting guns was associated with higher levelsof aggressive thoughts and behavior for nonhunt-ers as compared to hunters. This effect, accord-ing to GAM, occurs as a result of the associationsthat hunters have regarding guns used for hunting.Because these individuals view guns used for huntingas a tool for leisure and sport rather than aggressionand harm toward other people, fewer aggression-related concepts are simultaneously activated—leading to lessened aggressive responses comparedwith those whose knowledge structures stronglyconnect guns used for hunting with aggressionand harm toward others.

General aggression model has also been modi-fied to apply to nonaggressive learning tendenciesin what is called the general learning model (GLM).Of course, not all media depict violent content. Forexample, some media, including video games, por-tray prosocial content. Theoretically, many of the

same processes through which individuals developaggressive tendencies will also apply to (in this case)prosocial tendencies. Much like GAM, exposure toprosocial content in media leads to both long-termand immediate prosocial tendencies. Other researchhas demonstrated that individuals who played moreprosocial games were more likely to behave proso-cially in the future. Furthermore, playing a prosocialgame increased the likelihood of a student partici-pant helping another student in need.

Craig A. Anderson and Christopher Groves

See also Cognition: Schemas and Scripts; CognitivePsychology of Violence; Cognitive Script Theory andthe Dynamics of Cognitive Scripting; Effects FromViolent Media, Short- and Long-Term; InteractiveMedia, Aggressive Outcomes of; LongitudinalResearch Findings on the Effects of Violent Content;Social Cognitive Theory; Social Learning FromMedia; Video Game Player and Opponent Effects

Further Readings

Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the scriptconcept. American Psychologist, 36, 15-29.

Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J., 8c Bartholow, B. D.(1998). Does the gun pull the trigger? Automaticpriming effects of weapon pictures and weapon names.Psychological Science, 9, 308-314.

Anderson, C. A., Buckley, K. E., 8c Carnagey, N. L. (2008).Creating your own hostile environment: A laboratoryexamination of trait aggression and the violenceescalation cycle. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 34, 462-473.

Anderson, C. A., 8c Bushman, B. J. (2002). Humanaggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51.

Anderson, C. A., 8c Carnagey, N. L. (2004). Violent eviland the general aggression model. In A. Miller (Ed.),The social psychology of good and evil (pp. 168-192).New York, NY: Guilford.

Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., Flanagan, M., Benjamin,A. J., Eubanks, J., 8c Valentine, J. C. (2004). Violentvideo games: Specific effects of violent content onaggressive thoughts and behavior. Advances inExperimental Social Psychology, 36, 199-249.

Anderson, C. A., 8c Dill, K. E. (2000). Video games andaggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior in thelaboratory and in life. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 78, 772-790.

Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., 8c Buckley, K. E. (2007).Violent video game effects on children and adolescents:theory, research, and public policy. New York, NY:Oxford University Press.

Anderson, C. A., Krull, D. S., 8c Weiner, B. (1996).Explanations: Processes and consequences. InE. T. Higgins 8c A. W. Kruglar_ski (Eds.), Social psychology:Handbook of basic principles. New York, NY: Guilford.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought andaction: A social-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:Prentice-Hall.

Bartholow, B. D., Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L.,8c Benjamin, A. J. (2005). Interactive effects of lifeexperience and situational cues on aggression: Theweapons priming effect in hunters and nonhunters.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 48-60.

Berkowitz, L. (1984). Some effects on thoughts on anti- andprosocial influences of media events: A cognitive neo-association analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 95, 410-427.

Bushman, B. J., 8c Anderson, C. A. (2009). Comfortablynumb: Desensitizing effects of violent media on helpingothers. Psychological Science, 20, 273-277.

Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., 8c Bushman, B. J.(2007). The effect of video game violence onphysiological desensitization tD real-life violence. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 43, 489-496.

DeWall, C. N., Anderson, C. A., 8c Bushman, B. J. (2011).The general aggression model: Theoretical extensions toviolence. Psychology of Violence, 1, 245-258.

Gentile, D. A., Anderson, C. A., Yukawa. S., Ihori, N.,Saleem, M., Ming, L. K., Shibuya, A., Liau, A. K.,Khoo, A., 8c Sakamoto, A. (2009). The effects ofprosocial video games on prosocial behaviors:International evidence from correlational, experimental,and longitudinal studies. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 35, 752-763.

Moller, I., 8c Krahe, B. (2009). Exposure to violent videogames and aggression in German adolescents: Alongitudinal analysis. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 75-89.

Uhlmann, E., 8c Swanson, J. (2004). Exposure to violentvideo games increases implicit aggressiveness. Journal ofAdolescence, 27, 41-52.

GENETICS OF AGGRESSIVEBEHAVIOR

In many respects, aggression serves as the raw mate-rial that drives conduct problems across the lifecourse. Whether assessing difficult temperament ininfancy and toddlerhood, seli-regulation deficits inchildhood, delinquency in adolescence, or criminalviolence in adulthood, aggression-defined as abehavior directed toward another person with theintention of doing harm (Anderson Bushman,2002)-is the fundamental, elemental construct