SlideShare a Scribd company logo

The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx

•Download as DOCX, PDF•
•
R
rtodd194

The General Aggression Model: Theoretical Extensions to Violence C. Nathan DeWall University of Kentucky Craig A. Anderson Iowa State University Brad J. Bushman The Ohio State University and VU University, Amsterdam This article discusses the General Aggression Model (GAM), which provides a com- prehensive and integrative social– cognitive framework for understanding aggression and violence. After providing a brief description of the basic components of GAM, we discuss how it can be used to better understand 4 topics related to phenomena that occur primarily outside the laboratory and apply to a broad range of people. Specifically, we apply GAM to better understand intimate partner violence, intergroup violence, global climate change effects on violence, and suicide. We also explain how the tenets of GAM can be used to inform interventions aimed at reducing these forms of violence. Finally, we show how GAM can explain why people do not behave violently, such as in societies where violence is exceedingly rare. Applying GAM to violent behavior that occurs outside the laboratory adds to its explanatory power and enhances the external validity of its predictions. Because the 4 topics apply to such a broad range of people, GAM may have broader influence in fostering understanding of aggression in these domains. By increasing our understanding of the causes of violent behavior, GAM may help reduce it. Keywords: General Aggression Model, climate change, intergroup violence, intimate partner violence, suicide Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. —Thomas A. Edison, American inventor In the distant past, aggression often was an adaptive behavior for our ancient ancestors who lived in small groups. Aggression and related threat displays played an important role in mate selection, protection of offspring and other kin, and survival of the group. As humans became more social and developed culture, however, aggression became less adaptive, especially at the group level. Although one can reasonably argue that even today, minor forms of aggres- sion play an adaptive role in socialization and social control (e.g., Tedeschi & Felson, 1994), more serious forms of aggression are more mal- adaptive than adaptive. Aggression breeds ag- gression, and it seems to cause more problems than it solves. Even when it works in the short run, aggression frequently fails in the long run. So, why are people aggressive today? We could blame it on our genes, but that is only part of the story. The purpose of this is article is to explain how an overarching framework for understanding aggression and violence —the General Aggres- sion Model, or GAM for short (see Figure 1)— can be applied to violence outside the labora- tory: intimate partner violence, aggression be- tween groups, global warming effects on vio- lence, and suicide. We also discuss how GAM can be ap.

Education
1 of 322
The General Aggression Model: Theoretical Extensions to Violence C. Nathan DeWall University of Kentucky Craig A. Anderson Iowa State University Brad J. Bushman The Ohio State University and VU University, Amsterdam This article discusses the General Aggression Model (GAM), which provides a com- prehensive and integrative social– cognitive framework for understanding aggression and violence. After providing a brief description of the basic components of GAM, we discuss how it can be used to better understand 4 topics related to phenomena that occur primarily outside the laboratory and apply to a broad range of people. Specifically, we apply GAM to better understand intimate partner violence, intergroup violence, global climate change effects on violence, and suicide. We also explain how the tenets of GAM can be used to inform interventions aimed at reducing these forms of violence. Finally, we show how GAM can explain why people do not behave violently, such as in societies where violence is exceedingly rare. Applying GAM to violent behavior that
occurs outside the laboratory adds to its explanatory power and enhances the external validity of its predictions. Because the 4 topics apply to such a broad range of people, GAM may have broader influence in fostering understanding of aggression in these domains. By increasing our understanding of the causes of violent behavior, GAM may help reduce it. Keywords: General Aggression Model, climate change, intergroup violence, intimate partner violence, suicide Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. —Thomas A. Edison, American inventor In the distant past, aggression often was an adaptive behavior for our ancient ancestors who lived in small groups. Aggression and related threat displays played an important role in mate selection, protection of offspring and other kin, and survival of the group. As humans became more social and developed culture, however, aggression became less adaptive, especially at the group level. Although one can reasonably argue that even today, minor forms of aggres- sion play an adaptive role in socialization and social control (e.g., Tedeschi & Felson, 1994), more serious forms of aggression are more mal- adaptive than adaptive. Aggression breeds ag- gression, and it seems to cause more problems
than it solves. Even when it works in the short run, aggression frequently fails in the long run. So, why are people aggressive today? We could blame it on our genes, but that is only part of the story. The purpose of this is article is to explain how an overarching framework for understanding aggression and violence —the General Aggres- sion Model, or GAM for short (see Figure 1)— can be applied to violence outside the labora- tory: intimate partner violence, aggression be- tween groups, global warming effects on vio- lence, and suicide. We also discuss how GAM can be applied to interventions aimed at reduc- This article was published Online First May 30, 2011. C. Nathan DeWall, Department of Psychology, Univer- sity of Kentucky; Craig A. Anderson, Center for the Study of Violence, Department of Psychology, Iowa State Univer- sity; Brad J. Bushman, School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Department of Psychology, VU Univer- sity, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This research was supported in part by Grant BCS- 1104118 to C. Nathan DeWall and Brad J. Bushman from the National Science Foundation. The opinions and conclu- sions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the National Science Foundation. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to C. Nathan DeWall, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Kastle Hall 201, Lexington, KY 40506-0044. E-mail: [email protected] Psychology of Violence © 2011 American Psychological Association
2011, Vol. 1, No. 3, 245–258 2152-0828/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023842 245 T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er
ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed
p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he
p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e
di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . ing these forms of violence and even nonviolent behavior. Applying GAM to aggression that occurs outside the laboratory not only adds to its explanatory power, but it also enhances the ex- ternal validity of its predictions. Psychologists have proposed a variety of the- ories to understand why people sometimes be- have aggressively. Some examples include frus- tration–aggression theory (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939), socioecologi- cal models (Heise, 1998), cognitive neoassocia- tion theory (e.g., Berkowitz, 1989), social learn- ing theory (e.g., Bandura, 1973; Mischel & Shoda, 1995), script theory (e.g., Huesmann, 1986), excitation transfer theory (e.g., Zillmann, 1983), and social interaction theory (e.g., Tede-
schi & Felson, 1994). Each theory offers crucial insight into understanding specific reasons why people behave aggressively. Yet, these mini- theories do not provide an overarching frame- work for understanding human aggression and violence. GAM integrates minitheories of aggression into a single conceptual framework. In so doing, GAM provides a more parsimonious model of aggression than other theories do, explains ag- gression that occurs because of multiple mo- tives, and offers empirically validated insights into ways to reduce aggression, including how to stunt the development of aggressive tenden- cies over time. It is the only social– cognitive model that explicitly incorporates biological, personality development, social processes, ba- sic cognitive processes (e.g., perception, prim- ing), short-term and long-term processes, and decision processes into understanding aggres- sion. Therefore, GAM offers scholars a frame- work from which to derive and test hypotheses regarding aggression, a framework that is more expansive than any other social– cognitive model. One major focus of the present article is to show how GAM can also increase our un- derstanding of more extreme forms of physical aggression that occur outside the laboratory— violent behavior. GAM emphasizes three critical stages in un- derstanding a single episodic cycle of aggres- sion: (1) person and situation inputs, (2) present internal states (i.e., cognition, arousal, affect,
including brain activity), and (3) outcomes of appraisal and decision-making processes. A feedback loop can influence future cycles of aggression, which can produce a violence esca- lation cycle (Anderson, Buckley, & Carnagey, 2008; DeWall & Anderson, 2011). Several ar- ticles provide further insight into these basic tenets of GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; DeWall & Anderson, 2011). Applications of GAM GAM has received consistent support as a general model of aggression (for reviews, see Anderson & Bushman, 2002; DeWall & Ander- son, 2011). Although it was tested primarily using laboratory aggression experiments, it can also be applied to aggression in the “real world” outside the laboratory. Before we go further, however, we need to define the terms aggres- sion and violence. We define aggression as any behavior intended to harm another person who does not want to be harmed (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). We define violence as any aggressive act that has as its goal extreme physical harm, such as injury or death (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). In this section, we include several novel ex- tensions of how GAM can inform understand- ing and research investigating intimate partner violence, intergroup violence, impact of global climate change on violence, and suicide. We chose these topics for two reasons. First, each topic applies to phenomena that occur outside
the laboratory, thereby increasing the explana- tory potential of GAM and the external validity of its predictions. Second, each topic relates to phenomena that occur relatively frequently in Figure 1. General aggression model. 246 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e
A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts
a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y
fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot
to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . the United States and in other countries. Vio- lence between intimate partners in the United States occurs at alarmingly high rates, with over one in five of couples (Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998) and over one in three college stu- dents (Straus & Ramirez, 2002) reporting at least one incident over the past year. Intergroup violence is also very common. In the 40 years after the end of World War II, there were roughly 150 wars and only 26 days of world peace (defined as the absence of international war; Sluka, 1992). In terms of global climate change, the earth is warmer now than it has
been at any time in the past 2,000 years (Parry, Canziani, Palutikof, van der Linden, & Hanson, 2007). However, people rarely think of the im- pact of climate change on violence (Anderson & DeLisi, in press). Suicide also claims the lives of over a million people each year (World Health Organization, 2008). Thus, applying GAM to understand these four topics not only increases the explanatory power of GAM, but it also informs consideration regarding phenom- ena that impact millions of people worldwide. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Previous research on GAM has focused pri- marily on aggression between strangers (e.g., Anderson & Anderson, 2008, Study 2), but we believe that GAM can also provide a useful framework for understanding IPV. As with ag- gression between strangers, person and situation factors play a significant role in increasing the likelihood of IPV. There are dozens, if not hun- dreds, of personal factors involved, including trait anger, attachment style, and alcohol abuse (e.g., Finkel, 2007; Follingstad, Bradley, Helff, & Laughlin, 2002; Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997; Schumacher, Feld- bau-Kohn, Slep, & Heyman, 2001). Yet, there is little conceptual organization regarding how and why risk factors influence IPV, leading some scholars to suggest that “theory and re- search on relationship violence remain uncohe- sive” (Berscheid & Regan, 2005, p. 52). Attitudes toward violence are also useful in predicting actual aggression directed toward an
intimate partner. In one recent investigation, college students who had more positive atti- tudes toward IPV were more likely to physically assault and verbally abuse their current roman- tic partner 14 weeks later (Fincham, Cui, Braithwaite, & Pasley, 2008). Other research has shown that people who have permissive attitudes toward IPV also have the highest per- petration rates (Cote, Vaillancourt, LeBlanc, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2006). Some situational factors that increase aggres- sion toward strangers also increase IPV, such as alcohol (e.g., Hove, Parkhill, Neighbors, McCo- nchie, & Fossos, 2010). Moreover, meta- analytic findings demonstrate that alcohol increases both male-to-female and female-to- male violence (Foran & O’Leary, 2008). Situations that decrease self-control increase aggression toward both strangers and intimate relationship partners (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007; Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009). For example, people who are made to feel mentally ex- hausted, compared with people who are not made to feel mentally exhausted, make their romantic partners endure longer painful yoga poses when the partner insults them (Finkel et al., 2009, Study 4). Affect, cognition, and arousal may also be related to IPV. Currently experienced anger, for example, is related to more aggressive verbal- izations among intoxicated maritally violent men (Eckhardt, 2007). In addition, having hos-
tile cognitive biases toward one’s spouse is as- sociated with perpetrating more violence against one’s partner (Fincham, Bradbury, Arias, Byrne, & Karney, 1997). Relatively little research has examined the role of arousal in IPV. In one relevant study, men who showed diminished sensitivity to their wives’ expres- sions of happiness (an indicator of reduced arousal) were more likely to commit IPV com- pared with men who showed high sensitivity to their spouse’s emotional expressions (Marshall & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2010). Future research is clearly needed on the relationship between arousal and IPV. The appraisal and decision-making compo- nent of GAM is involved in both aggression toward strangers and toward intimate relation- ship partners. When people do not have suffi- cient mental resources to engage in reappraisal processing, they are more likely to behave ag- gressively toward their romantic partners (Fin- kel et al., 2009). When people are mentally exhausted, they are less likely to control their aggressive impulses when provoked. Just as ex- ercising a muscle strengthens it, people who 247SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu
m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic
al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T hi
s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t
he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro
ad ly . exercise self-control are buffered from the neg- ative effects of mental exhaustion on IPV (Fin- kel et al., 2009, Study 5). The implication is that the more self-control strength people have, the more likely they are to carefully consider the negative ramifications of their actions and to choose to behave in a more thoughtful, nonag- gressive manner. Thus, GAM provides a cohesive understand- ing regarding situational and personal attributes that elevate the likelihood of IPV, mechanisms through which aggressive urges translate into violent behavior and decision-making processes that influence whether people succumb to their aggressive urges or instead engage in thought- ful, nonaggressive behavior. Commonly used theoretical models, such as socioecological models (Heise, 1998) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), provide valuable insight into the causes of IPV, but they lack crucial compo- nents that limit their explanatory power. For example, socioecological models do not exam- ine the influence of an individual’s knowledge structures, attitudes, and beliefs on currently experienced emotions, cognitive processes, and arousal levels, and their influence on whether people engage in impulsive or thoughtful ac- tions toward one’s partner. Instead, socioeco-
logical models seek to understand the causes of IPV at different levels of analysis (individual, relationship, community, societal), which estab- lishes the source of influence but does not offer clear understanding regarding the role of cur- rently experienced emotion, cognitive pro- cesses, or arousal on appraisal and decision- making processes that influence whether people perpetrate IPV. Social learning theory offers a useful framework to understand risk factors for aggression, but it neglects the importance of factors that increase the risk for aggression that are independent of one’s learning history, such as genetic predispositions known to heighten the risk for aggression (e.g., monoamine oxi- dase A gene, serotonin transporter gene; Dolan, Anderson, & Deakin, 2001; McDermott, Tin- gley, Cowden, Frazzetto, & Johnson, 2009). GAM is a biological–social– cognitive model, which uses both learning history and factors not associated with one’s learning history to under- stand why people perpetrate IPV. For these rea- sons, GAM offers a more comprehensive model from which to test hypotheses regarding IPV perpetration. Intergroup Violence Most aggression theories attempt to explain the causes and consequences of aggression be- tween individuals, leaving open the question of whether similar processes may be involved in explaining aggression between groups. GAM offers a useful framework for understanding how aggression between groups begins and why it persists.
Aggression between groups begins as a result of characteristics that each group brings to a situation and of environmental features that in- crease aggression. Groups, like individuals, tend to have enduring motivations, attitudes, values, and beliefs that develop out of their prior history. Indeed, research on the disconti- nuity effect has consistently shown that individ- uals have internal states that are heavily influ- enced by group processes (Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, 1990). Other research from the attitude literature suggests that expos- ing people to an in-group member (e.g., a fellow member of one’s political party) causes people to express strong attitudes that support their in-group, whereas exposing people to an out- group member has the opposite effect (Ledger- wood & Chaiken, 2007). Within the context of group aggression, the terrorist group Al Qaeda believes that an alliance between Christians and Jews threatens the future of Islam. Most people living in the United States are Christians (78%; Newport, 2009), and most people living in Is- rael are Jews (76%; Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009). As a result, situations that signal a strong Christian–Jewish alliance, such as activities re- lated to a coalition between the United States and Israel, may increase aggressive affect, neg- ative attitudes, and arousal among members of Al Qaeda. These internal states may, in turn, increase the likelihood that members of Al Qaeda will perpetrate violence against all peo- ple associated with a U.S.–Israel coalition, even bystanders and civilians.
GAM’s feedback loop also explains why ag- gressive retaliations between groups persist. Once conflict between two groups begins, the violence escalation cycle is triggered. Group A experiences Group B’s retaliation, which causes Group A’s members to have high levels of aggressive affect, to perceive Group B as hostile and aggressive, and to experience heightened arousal. These internal states cause members of 248 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by
th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o
f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol
el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is
n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . Group A to act impulsively on their immediate appraisal of Group B as hostile and threatening. Group B then experiences the impulsively ag- gressive act from Group A, which sets in mo- tion the same set of internal states and appraisal and decision processes that result in an even more aggressive retaliation (see Figure 2). Both groups will trade increasingly aggressive retal- iations back and forth, which can result in the widespread destruction of human life and prop-
erty. To be sure, the feedback loop can only be applied to understand ongoing aggressive retal- iations between groups. If Group A refuses to respond to Group B’s provocation with aggres- sive retaliation, then Group A bears no respon- sibility for any additional aggression provoca- tion it may experience from Group B. Thus, GAM offers a parsimonious and ade- quate perspective for understanding why inter- group violence begins and persists. Socioeco- logical models and social learning theory offer useful insight into why intergroup violence oc- curs, but they also suffer significant limitations in terms of the scope of their explanatory power. From a socioecological perspective, un- derstanding intergroup violence begins with un- derstanding the individual within the group, then understanding that individual’s relation- ships with others inside and outside the group, and finally understanding the group’s relation- ship within society. Although these levels of analysis provide information regarding risk and resiliency factors for intergroup violence, they do not offer much in the way of understanding how mechanisms through which the influence of the four-level socioecological model influ- ences the appraisal and decision process that ultimately determines whether groups will en- gage in violent behavior. According to social learning theory, intergroup violence occurs in large part because members of a group are ex- posed to violence that taught them to solve group conflict through behaving violently. Un- like GAM, social learning theory does not em-
phasize the importance of personal factors that enhance or diminish the effect of exposure to violence on subsequent group violent behavior. GAM incorporates the best perspectives of these theoretical models, addresses their limita- tions, and as a result provides researchers with a strong theoretical framework from which to un- derstand intergroup violence. Global Climate Change and Violence Global climate change and its wide-ranging environmental consequences (e.g., flooding, droughts, desertification, food and water short- ages) have been recognized by numerous na- tional, military, and international groups as a significant risk factor for social disorder, eco- migration conflicts, and war. Global climate change influences aggression and violence both as a proximate situational factor and as a distal environmental modifier. More specifically, there appear to be three main ways in which rapid global climate change (rapid in geological terms) can increase the risk of violence (Ander- son & DeLisi, in press). First, there is a direct effect of heat on aggressive inclinations. This well-researched line of work has shown that uncomfortably hot temperatures can increase physical aggression in laboratory settings and in real-world violent crime studies (Anderson, 2001). Simply presenting people with words related to hot temperatures is enough to increase aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions Violence Escalation Cycle
Appropriate retaliation B harms A Inappropriate over-retaliation A harms B Inappropriate over-retaliation Appropriate retaliation B harms A retaliation Appropriate over-retaliation Inappropriate A harms B B harms A Intentional Unjustified Unintentional Justified A harms B
Relatively harmful j Relatively mild Events sevitcepsrep s'Bsevitcepsrep s'A Figure 2. The violence escalation cycle. N. L. From Vi- olent evil and the general aggression model, by C. A. Anderson and N. L. Carnagey, 2004, Chapter in A. Miller (Ed.) The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp. 168 – 192). Copyright 2004 by New York: Guilford Publications. Reprinted with permission of Guilford Press. 249SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te
d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o
ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed
s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a
nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . (DeWall & Bushman, 2009). Second, many of the environmental risk factors known to in- crease the likelihood of a child growing up to be an aggression-prone adult will become more widespread worldwide, especially in regions likely to experience flooding as a result of sea
level increases, tropical storms, glacial melt, and regions likely to experience drought and resulting food and water shortages. Poor pre- and postnatal nutrition is known to influence a host of aggression-related competencies and proneness to violence (e.g., DeLisi, 2005; Liu, Raine, Venables, & Mednick, 2004). Indeed, recent molecular genetics studies have found specific brain chemistry-related Genetic � En- vironment interactions (both physical and social environments) on violent criminality (see An- derson & DeLisi, in press). Third, historical and contemporary research shows that rapid climate change can increase group violence. Specifi- cally, a growing body of literature supports the notion that rapid climate change (heating or cooling) increases civil disorder, political insta- bility, and war, mostly by creating acute and recurring resource shortages that lead to ecomi- gration and violent conflict. Examples include war in China during 1000 –1900 A.D. (Zhang, Zhang, Lee, & He, 2007), civil war in sub- Sahara Africa (Burke, Miguel, Satyanath, Dykema, & Lobell, 2009), ecomigration and violence in Bangladesh and India, and violence associated with the U.S. Dust Bowl and Hurri- cane Katrina. Similarly, U.S. data reveal a ro- bust relation between increasingly hot years and violent crime rates (Anderson, Bushman, & Groom, 1997; Anderson & DeLisi, in press). GAM does a better job of explaining the effects of climate change on violence than other theories of violence. Whereas socioecological theories of violence focus primarily on how people in one’s environment influence violence,
GAM emphasizes the importance of both peo- ple in one’s environment and changes in the physical environment itself as relevant to un- derstanding violence. Likewise, social learning theory would explain the relationship between climate change and violence as a function of observing a greater number of people behaving violently, thereby ignoring the importance of changes in the actual environment (irrespective of the people in the environment) and their influence on the higher number of people be- having violently. Thus, GAM is unique in its ability to account for changes in the environ- ment that may have implications for increasing violence, such as increasing ambient tempera- tures. Suicide Why people commit suicide has puzzled so- cial scientists for centuries. Very few interven- tions aimed at reducing suicide are successful (Van Orden et al., 2010). To prevent suicides, we need to know why they occur. We believe GAM can offer a powerful framework for un- derstanding why people commit suicide. Many of the same person and situation fac- tors that increase aggression between individu- als and groups also increase suicide, sometimes called self-aggression. Alcohol intoxication, for example, is common among people who die by suicide (Ohberg, Vuori, & Ojanpera, 1996). Laboratory research has shown that intoxicated people inflict more intense shocks on them-
selves compared with sober people (McCloskey & Berman, 2003). Feeling rejected and lonely is also robustly associated with aggression toward others (e.g., DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010; DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009) and with suicide (see Van Orden et al., 2010, for a review). One longitu- dinal study, for example, found that feelings of loneliness at age 12–13 predicted higher sui- cidal risk 30 years later (Rojas & Stenberg, 2010). Just as poor self-control and serotonergic dysfunction are related to aggression against other people, they are also reliably associated with an increased risk for death by suicide (e.g., Anisman et al., 2008; Brent et al., 1994; Re- naud, Berlim, McGirr, Tousignant, & Turecki, 2008). Affect, cognition, and arousal all play a cru- cial role in suicidal behavior. People who gen- erally internalize their anger are also more likely to attempt suicide, which is the leading risk factor for suicidal completion (see Van Orden et al., 2010, for a review). Suicidal ide- ation refers to thoughts related to ending one’s life. The more people think about dying by suicide, the more likely they are to die by sui- cide (Van Orden, Merrill, & Joiner, 2005). In addition, diminished arousal to the pain and distress that are associated with suicidal behav- ior relate to higher numbers of suicide attempts 250 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi
s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch
ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs
. T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u
se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at
ed b ro ad ly . (Van Orden, Witte, Gordon, Bender, & Joiner, 2008). Because most people have a strong fear of death, they must acquire the ability to inflict lethal self-injury through repeated exposure to and habituation to fear-provoking stimuli (Van Orden et al., 2010). Simply having the desire to die by suicide is not sufficient to predict who actually will die by suicide. Recurrent exposure to frightening and painful situations desensi- tizes people to pain and increases their risk for suicide (Nademin et al., 2008). These findings mirror work in the aggression literature, which shows that frequent exposure to violent media desensitizes people to violent images and is associated with higher aggression toward others (Anderson et al., 2010; Bartholow, Bushman, & Sestir, 2006). For researchers interested in understanding why people die by suicide, GAM provides a social– cognitive framework from which rich and complex hypotheses can be formulated and
tested. Socioecological models of violence may identify risk factors for suicide, but they do not elucidate the crucial mechanisms through which these risk factors heighten the risk for suicide. Social learning theorists emphasize that expo- sure to others who commit suicide may heighten one’s risk for suicide, but they neglect personal factors (e.g., traits, genetic polymorphisms) that may exacerbate or buffer people from this risk. In contrast, suicide researchers can use GAM to make specific predictions regarding the mod- erators and mediators of the effects of belong- ingness and burdensomeness on suicidal behav- ior. They can also understand how the acquired ability to inflict lethal self-injury develops, and whether experiences of lowered belongingness, which influence physical pain processes (Bor- sook & MacDonald, 2010; DeWall & Baumeis- ter, 2006; DeWall, MacDonald, et al., 2010; Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003), accelerate the development of people’s ability to commit suicide. In addition, GAM offers suicide researchers an extensive toolkit of fac- tors known to increase aggression against others (e.g., media violence) that may have a similar impact on suicidal behavior. Thus, GAM offers a more comprehensive framework for under- standing suicidal behavior than existing theoret- ical models among researchers who wish to explain why people die by suicide from a so- cial– cognitive perspective. Using GAM to Inform Violence Prevention Programs
GAM suggests that a knowledge structure approach would be a more useful means of preventing violence compared with existing models. Specifically, it suggests that individual interventions should begin with an assessment of inappropriate aggressive episodes in the in- dividual’s life along four dimensions. The first dimension is how much hostile or agitated af- fect is present. The second dimension is how much a specific thought, feeling, or action has become automatized. The third dimension is how much the primary (ultimate) goal is harm- ing the victim versus benefitting the perpetrator. The fourth dimension is how much the perpe- trator considers the consequences of commit- ting the aggressive act. Doing so allows the model to avoid the problems created by various artificial dichotomies of aggressive behavior types, such as the reactive–proactive dichotomy (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). One then could tailor the intervention to the specific aspects that appear most relevant to the individual. A GAM- directed intervention would be more likely to capture all of the critical elements. In what follows, we discuss how GAM can be applied to violence prevention programs for IPV, inter- group violence, global climate change-related violence, and suicide. IPV To illustrate the explanatory power of GAM in shaping effective interventions, consider the hypothetical scenario of an intervention to re- duce violence in a man who is referred to a psychological clinic because he routinely bat-
ters his wife. Although some assessment proto- cols for preventing IPV involve setting clear-cut goals and expectations (Sonkin & Liebert, 2003), they do not do so within an overarching framework that assesses inappropriate aggres- sive episodes in the individual’s life along the four dimensions noted above. A GAM-directed intervention would consist of five steps. First, an assessment session would measure how much hostile affect is present in the man; how much a specific thought, feeling, or action related to violence against his wife has been automatized through repetitive exposure or practice; how much the man’s primary goal is 251SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri
gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n
or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te
nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u
se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . harming his wife versus benefitting himself (e.g., feeling a sense of power and control in the relationship); and how much the man reflects on the consequences of violently battering his wife.
Second, the therapist would provide the man with strategies designed to reduce his hostile affect (e.g., distraction, relaxation) and make him aware of the specific thoughts, feelings, and behavior related to his battering behavior that have become so deeply ingrained in his every- day life that they occur automatically. Third, the therapist would give the man strategies de- signed to increase his thoughtful awareness of the violent thoughts, feelings, and actions re- lated to his wife. Fourth, the therapist would work with the man to reduce his desire to cause harm to his wife (if that is his primary goal) and to develop a list of other activities he could use to feel that he plays an important and valued role in his marriage. Fifth, the therapist would provide the man with activities designed to strengthen his self-regulatory abilities, which may increase the likelihood that he will engage in thoughtful decision-making processes when he has the urge to batter his wife. As noted earlier, practicing self-regulation reduces IPV inclinations (Finkel et al., 2009), even when people practice self-regulation in domains that are unrelated to violence. Thus, GAM can in- form IPV programs that can be tailored to spe- cific aspects that are most relevant to an indi- vidual. Intergroup Violence GAM can also help explain how to stop per- sistent intergroup violence. Whereas previous interventions have focused on improving rela- tionships, increasing care and empathy, and be- coming cognitively aware of one’s aggressive
urges (Shechtman & Ifargan, 2009), GAM sug- gests that understanding how to break the vio- lence escalation cycle may also prove a useful intervention strategy to reduce intergroup vio- lence. According to GAM, extinguishing per- sistent intergroup violence should occur under the following circumstances. First, Group A may perceive that the outcome of further ag- gressive retaliation is sufficiently important and unsatisfying that they should engage in thought- ful, as opposed to impulsive, actions toward Group B. Next, Group B experiences Group A’s thoughtful response, which should not increase its aggressive affect, cognition, or arousal. As a result, Group B does not perceive Group A as hostile and threatening, leading it to refrain from further aggressive retaliation. This is an upward spiral rather than a downward one (Slater, Henry, Swaim, & Anderson, 2003). Thus, intergroup violence should stop in the appraisal and decision process component of GAM. But, of course, this can occur only if the thoughtful process results in a decision to de- escalate. Frequently, in international politics, this does not happen. In fact, formal political policies frequently endorse an escalation strat- egy on the oft-mistaken notion that “if we show the enemy that their provocations will only hurt them more, then they will back down.” There may be cases, however, in which extreme esca- lation can end a conflict because one or more parties are simply unable to continue the esca- lation cycle.
Even in cases of vastly unequal power, how- ever, “relative” escalation may occur (Anderson et al., 2008). That is, the weaker side may not be able to retaliate at the same level as the stronger side, but it still may retaliate more strongly than it did before. Indeed, much international terror- ism has this characteristic. The Israel–Palestinian conflict offers one ex- ample of how GAM can help explain how in- tergroup violence begins, persists—and how it can end. This intergroup conflict erupted several decades ago when Jews and Arabs exchanged violent attacks over a strip of land, alternately called Israel or Palestine, which Jews claim is their birthright and Palestinians claim as theirs. When will the Israeli–Palestinian conflict end? A GAM-derived intervention would begin by encouraging citizens from Israel, Palestine, or both countries to perceive that the outcome of their country’s retaliation is both important and unsatisfying. When this occurs, the relenting country will engage in reappraisal processing and thoughtful nonviolent action toward the other country. The opposing country will expe- rience a thoughtful, as opposed to an impul- sively aggressive, action from the other country, which will disrupt the internal states and ap- praisal and decision processes that usually ac- company acts from the other group. For this to happen, of course, major belief systems (knowl- edge structures) must change and be replaced by a set of new beliefs, especially beliefs about each other and about the efficacy of violent
252 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an
P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub
lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er
so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss
em in at ed b ro ad ly . competition versus nonviolent cooperation. This could be implemented through the use of advertising and marketing campaigns and changes in the public opinions and apologies expressed by political leaders. Global Climate Change and Violence To curb the relationship between global cli- mate change and violence, GAM suggests two approaches. The first involves four steps de- signed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce or slow climate change. Previous re- search has shown that people can be motivated to invest money in a fund to encourage people to reduce fossil fuel use if doing so can foster a positive social reputation (Milinski, Semmann, Krambeck, & Marotzke, 2006). A GAM- directed intervention would extend this prior work by changing not only aspects of the social
situation related to fossil fuel use but also mo- tivating people to change their beliefs regarding global climate change and its influence on vio- lence as opposed to other outcomes. First, widespread programs would attempt to change people’s beliefs regarding the presence of global climate change and their attitudes to- ward activities that would reduce global climate change. Second, programs would seek to change aspects of the social situation that may increase behavior that would reduce global cli- mate change. For example, organizations and communities can publicly reward their employ- ees for using the fewest carbon emissions each month, which would establish a norm that lim- iting one’s carbon emissions would be met with social acceptance and approval. Third, a GAM- driven intervention would seek to reduce nega- tive emotions, cognitive processes, or arousal that people may experience in response to over- tures to change their behavior to reduce global climate change. Among people who report that they do not monitor their carbon emissions be- cause it increases their anxiety, interventionists can provide simple and easy solutions aimed at reducing anxiety or tension associated with changing their behaviors that reduce global cli- mate change. Fourth, interventionists would seek to convince citizens that by not taking action to reduce global climate change, the re- sult will have an important and unsatisfying effect on violence. In so doing, citizens will be motivated to engage in thoughtful action to en- gage in behaviors that will reduce global cli-
mate change. By reducing global climate change, such an intervention provides an effec- tive means of reducing violence that occurs in its wake. The second approach involves directly ad- dressing the violence-enhancing effects of rapid climate change. Although the basic heat effect on aggressive tendencies is likely so subtle and automatic that it will difficult to short circuit, it may be that widespread education programs that inform people about the effects of heat- induced stress on aggression might well help some people to refrain from acting on aggres- sive impulses. More important, international programs can intervene on behalf of the other two climate change paths to violence. Well- mother and well-baby nutrition programs for the poor; improved birth control and family planning access and education; and improved education for all, especially for girls, can reduce the effects of poverty and climate-change- induced food and water shortages on the devel- opment of violence-prone individuals. Simi- larly, large-scale investment in flood and drought control and in general environmentally sensitive economic development in regions that have subsistence economies can reduce future resource crises that otherwise are likely to pre- cipitate ecomigration and war. Suicide As noted earlier, suicide prevention programs are notoriously ineffective (Van Orden et al., 2010). Previously successful suicide prevention
programs have involved providing people at risk for suicide with information about suicidal behavior and frequent follow-up contacts (Fleischmann et al., 2008; Motto & Bostrom, 2001), but it is unclear precisely why these interventions were successful. Because GAM focuses on understanding the mechanisms un- derlying suicidal behavior, it may provide a useful extension to these previous interventions. A GAM-directed intervention would take a four-pronged approach to preventing suicide. First and second, therapists would identify per- sonal (e.g., beliefs, attitudes, traits) and social (e.g., social rejection, employment, exposure to violence) factors known to increase the risk for suicide. After identifying an individual’s per- sonal and social “risk profile,” the therapist 253SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu m en t i s co
py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia
tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is
in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du
al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . would direct the individual to treatments di-
rected at each specific risk factor. For example, individuals who have positive beliefs about sui- cide may be exposed to therapeutic treatment aimed at changing the individual’s suicide be- liefs. Individuals who chronically feel rejected would be given opportunities for renewed affil- iation, which quickly reduces the harmful ef- fects of social rejection (DeWall, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2008; DeWall, Twenge, et al., 2010). Third, therapists would identify whether an individual possesses emotional responses, cog- nitive processes, or arousal levels associated with a risk for suicide. After identifying those risk factors, the therapist would offer the indi- vidual treatments aimed at alleviating each risk factor. Among individuals who have become desensitized to graphic images and physical pain, for example, treatments would center on limiting exposure to situations that might in- crease such desensitization (e.g., exposure to weapons, violent media) and providing medical attention to limit any physical damage that may enhance the individual’s desensitization. Fourth, therapists would motivate individuals to perceive suicide as having an outcome that is deeply important and unsatisfying for them per- sonally and their loved ones. By focusing indi- viduals to engage in such appraisal processes, individuals may be more likely to engage in thoughtful action that does not involve suicide. Using GAM to Explain Nonviolent Behavior Whereas the previous sections have empha-
sized how GAM can be used to explain violence in four novel ways, this section demonstrates that GAM also can be used to explain nonvio- lent behavior. Most theories of violence are used to explain the causes of these behaviors in contexts in which they occur somewhat fre- quently. At first blush, it might seem natural for GAM to be used only to explain behavior in societies marked by relatively frequent in- stances of violence. We argue that GAM also may be used to explain the nonoccurrence of violence in relatively peaceful societies. There are not very many of them, but there are some societies in which war is a foreign word and violence is extremely rare (Bonta, 1997; Fry, 2007). For example, more than 100 years ago, the Fipa of western Tanzania trans- formed their society from one based on violence and war to one based on nonviolence and peace. The Fipa are very competitive in their business dealings, but the competition is constructive and peaceful (Willis, 1989). Another peaceful soci- ety is the Jains of India. The Jains believe in ahimas (nonviolence), and they take vows to avoid any socially harmful acts, including steal- ing and telling lies. But even in these largely peaceful societies, GAM can explain both the predominance of nonviolence and the rare cases in which people engage in violent and aggressive behavior. Be- cause their lives are filled with largely cooper- ative and prosocial experiences, people embed- ded in highly peaceful societies do not develop
enriched aggressive knowledge structures. As a result, violence and aggression in peaceful so- cieties should occur primarily as a result of situational factors that give rise to internal states and appraisal and decision processes associated with impulsive actions. GAM can also explain why peaceful societies remain peaceful—and how societies marked by frequent war and violence can become more peaceful. Unpleasant stimuli and interpersonal conflict are inevitable, which can increase ag- gressive affect, cognition, and arousal. But members of peaceful societies likely appraise the outcome of an aggressive action as a signif- icant and unsatisfying break from norms that encourage cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution, leading them to engage in a thought- ful nonviolent action. In a similar fashion, so- cieties marked by frequent violent conflicts can become less violent when norms that formerly advocated violence now encourage citizens to exercise self-control to override their violent impulses. The eminent sociologist Norbert Elias (1969, 1982) argued that European societal norms changed from the 9th century to the 19th century to encourage people to exercise restraint over their violent impulses and to shame people who failed to do so, which Elias referred to as a “civilizing process.” Other work has shown that modern civilizations are the most peaceful in the history of the world in terms of deaths by war (Keeley, 1996) and murder (Eisner, 2003), presumably as a result of changes in the situa- tional context that encourage people to override their violent impulses. Thus, although unpleas-
ant stimuli and interpersonal conflict pervade human life, GAM argues that appraising the 254 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er
ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed
p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he
p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e
di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . outcome of an aggressive action as important and unfulfilling can reduce the likelihood of violence and aggression even in peaceful soci- eties. Conclusion This article has highlighted the strengths of a general theory of aggression. Specifically, GAM provides the only theoretical framework of aggression and violence that explicitly incor- porates biological, personality development, social processes, basic cognitive processes, short-term and long-term processes, and deci- sion processes. We not only have discussed the basic components of GAM, but we also have made several novel contributions to the devel-
opment of GAM as a theoretical model. First, whereas GAM has been used primarily to ex- plain aggression, we have demonstrated that GAM can also be used to explain violence. Second, GAM was developed to account for aggression between strangers, but we have shown that it can also be applied to understand IPV. Third, we have shown how GAM can help explain how changes in one’s physical environ- ment, such as climate change, can have direct implications for the safety and sustainability of that environment by increasing violence. Fourth, we have suggested that GAM may be applied to understand violence between groups of people and suicide. Fifth, we have explained how GAM can be used to inform interventions aimed at reducing IPV, violence between groups, violence that occurs as a result of global climate change, and suicide. Sixth, this article illustrates the utility of GAM for explaining nonviolent behavior, such as that found in so- cieties in which war and violence are extremely rare. There are some drawbacks, however, to GAM. Hints about the potential weakness of a general theory of aggression come from the attitude literature. In the attitudes domain, gen- eral attitudes can be poor predictors of specific behaviors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). For exam- ple, a student’s attitude toward college is a poor predictor of whether he or she will like a par- ticular class. Similarly, GAM was proposed to offer a comprehensive, general view of human aggression. Domain-specific theories may do a better job predicting more specific behaviors.
The disadvantage of domain-specific aggres- sion theories, however, is that they cannot cap- ture the complexity of human aggression and violence. Human behavior, including aggres- sive and violent behavior, is complex and is multiply determined. GAM includes most if not all of the factors that can influence aggression and violence. When grappling to understand the causes of aggression, researchers and layper- sons can use GAM to provide a glimpse into why a person or group behaved aggressively— and how that aggression can be reduced. Such global insights can prove very helpful to re- searchers working on more domain-specific models as well as practitioners involved in in- dividual or intergroup violence. Ultimately, as we begin to understand the causes of aggression and violence, people may stop “harming all other living beings,” which is what Thomas Edison hoped would happen one day. References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude– behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of em- pirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888 – 918. Anderson, C. A. (2001). Heat and violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 33–38. Anderson, C. A., & Anderson, K. B. (2008). Men who target women: Specificity of target, generality of aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 605– 622.
Anderson, C. A., Buckley, K. E., & Carnagey, N. L. (2008). Creating your own hostile environment: A laboratory examination of trait aggression and the violence escalation cycle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 462– 473. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27– 51. Anderson, C. A., Bushman, B. J., & Groom, R. W. (1997). Hot years and serious and deadly assault: Empirical tests of the heat hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1213– 1223. Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2004). Violent evil and the general aggression model. In A. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. pp. 168 –192. New York: Guilford Publications. Anderson, C. A., & DeLisi, M. (in press). Implica- tions of global climate change for violence in developed and developing countries. In J. Forgas, A. Kruglanski, & K. Williams (Eds.), Social con- flict and aggression. New York: Psychology Press. 255SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do
cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og
ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T
hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o
f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b
ro ad ly . Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173. Anisman, H., Du, L., Palkovits, M., Faludi, G., Ko- vacs, G. G., Szontagh-Kishazi, P., . . . Poulter, M. O. (2008). Serotonin receptor subtype and p11 mRNA expression in stress-relevant brain regions of suicide and control subjects. Journal of Psychi- atry and Neuroscience, 33, 131–141. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 42, 532–539. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration–aggression hy- pothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 106, 59 –73.
Berscheid, E., & Regan, P. (2005). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: Prentice Hall. Bonta, B. D. (1997). Cooperation and competition in peaceful societies. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 299 –320. Borsook, T. K., & MacDonald, G. (2010). Mildly negative social encounters reduce physical pain sensitivity. Pain, 151, 372–377. Brent, D. A., Johnson, B. A., Perper, J., Connolly, J., Bridge, J., Bartle, S., & Rather, C. (1994). Person- ality disorder, personality traits, impulsive vio- lence, and completed suicide in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 1080 –1086. Burke, M. B., Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., Dykema, J. A., & Lobell, D. B. (2009). Warming increases the risk of civil war in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 20670 – 20674. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108, 273–279. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Aggres- sion. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 833– 863). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Israel in figures:
2009. Retrieved from http://www1.cbs.gov.il/ publications/isr_in_n09e.pdf Cote, S., Vaillancourt, T., LeBlanc, J., Nagin, D. W., & Tremblay, R. E. (2006). The development of physical aggression from toddlerhood to pre- adolescence: A nationwide longitudinal study of Canadian children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 71– 85. DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeWall, C. N., & Anderson, C. A. (2011). The Gen- eral Aggression Model. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Understanding and reducing ag- gression, violence, and their consequences (pp. 15–33). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affec- tive forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15. DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulatory capacity and its depletion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental So- cial Psychology, 43, 62–76. DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Satiated with belongingness? Effects of
acceptance, rejection, and task framing on self- regulatory performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1367–1382. DeWall, C. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Hot under the collar in a lukewarm environment: Hot tem- perature primes increased aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions. Journal of Experimental So- cial Psychology, 45, 453– 459. DeWall, C. N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G. D., Masten, C., Baumeister, R. F., Powell, C., . . . Eisenberger, N. I. (2010). Acetaminophen reduces social pain: Behavioral and neural evidence. Psy- chological Science, 21, 931–937. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Bushman, B. J., Im, C., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Acceptance by one differs from acceptance by none: Applying social impact theory to the rejection–aggression link. So- cial Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 168 –174. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45–59. Dolan, M., Anderson, I. M., & Deakin, J. F. (2001). Relationship between 5-HT function and impulsiv- ity and aggression in male offenders with person- ality disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 352–359. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer,
O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eckhardt, C. I. (2007). Effects of alcohol intoxication on anger experience and expression among partner 256 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e
A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts
a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y
fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot
to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . assaultive men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 61–71. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003, October 10). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290 –292. Eisner, M. (2003). Long-term historical trends in violent crime. Crime and Justice; A Review of Research, 30, 83–142. Elias, N. (1969). The civilizing process. Vol. I: The
history of manners. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Elias, N. (1982). The civilizing process. Vol. II: State formation and civilization. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Fincham, F. D., Bradbury, T. N., Arias, I., Byrne, C. A., & Karney, B. R. (1997). Marital violence, marital distress, and attributions. Journal of Fam- ily Psychology, 11, 367–372. Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Braithwaite, S. R., & Pas- ley, K. (2008). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence in dating relationships. Psychological As- sessment, 20, 260 –269. Finkel, E. J. (2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11, 193–207. Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V. A. (2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 483– 499. Fleischmann, A., Bertolote, J. M., Wasserman, D., De Leo, D., Bolhari, J., Botega, N. J., . . . Than, H. T. (2008). Effectiveness of brief intervention and contact for suicide attempters: A randomized controlled trial in five countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86, 703–709. Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Helff, C. M., & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). A model for predicting dating violence: Anxious attachment, angry tem-
perament and need for relationship control. Vio- lence and Victims, 17, 35– 47. Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1222–1234. Fry, D. P. (2007). Beyond war. New York: Oxford University Press. Heise, L. (1998). Violence against women: An inte- grated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4, 262–290. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence. Aggression and Violent Be- havior, 1, 65–99. Hove, M. C. B., Parkhill, M. R., Neighbors, C., McConchie, J. M., & Fossos, N. (2010). Alcohol consumption and intimate partner violence perpe- tration among college students: The role of self- determination. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 78 – 85. Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125–139. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J., & Graetz, K. A. (1990). Individual– group discon- tinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 68 –79.
Keeley, L. H. (1996). War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Ledgerwood, A., & Chaiken, S. (2007). Priming us and them: Automatic assimilation and contrast in group attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 940 –956. Liu, J., Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2004). Malnutrition at age 3 years and external- izing behavior problems at ages 8, 11, and 17 years. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 2005–2013. Marshall, A. D., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2010). Recognition of wives’ emotional expressions: A mechanism in the relationship between psychopa- thology and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 21–30. McCloskey, M. S., & Berman, M. E. (2003). Alcohol intoxication and self-aggressive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 306 –311. McDermott, R., Tingley, D., Cowden, J., Frazzetto, G., & Johnson, D. D. P. (2009). Monoamine oxi- dase A gene (MAOA) predicts behavioral aggres- sion following provocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 2118 – 2123. Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Krambeck, H.-J., & Ma- rotzke, J. (2006). Stabilizing the Earth’s climate is not a losing game: Supporting evidence from pub-
lic goods experiments. Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 3994 – 3998. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive– affective system theory of personality: Reconcep- tualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246 –268. Motto, J. A., & Bostrom, A. G. (2001). A randomized controlled trial of postcrisis suicide prevention. Psychiatric Services, 52, 828 – 833. Nademin, E., Jobes, D. A., Pflanz, S. E., Jacoby, A. M., Ghahramanlou-Holloway, M., Campise, R., . . . Johnson, L. (2008). An investigation of inter- personal–psychological variables in Air Force sui- cides: A controlled-comparison study. Archives of Suicide Research, 12, 309 –326. Newport, F. (2009). This Christmas, 78% of Ameri- cans identify as Christian. Retrieved from http:// 257SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu m en
t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A
ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli ed p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar
tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in
di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly
. www.gallup.com/poll/124793/this-christmas-78- americans-identify-christian.aspx Ohberg, A., Vuori, E., & Ojanpera, I. (1996). Alcohol and drugs in suicides. British Journal of Psychia- try, 169, 75– 80. Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J., & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.). (2007). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Renaud, J., Berlim, M. T., McGirr, A., Tousignant, M., & Turecki, G. (2008). Current psychiatric mor- bidity, aggression/impulsivity, and personality di- mensions in child and adolescent suicide: A case– control study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 105, 221–228. Rojas, Y., & Stenberg, S.-A. (2010). Early life cir- cumstances and male suicide—A 30-year fol- low-up of a Stockholm cohort born in 1953. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 420 – 427. Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1702– 1704. Schumacher, J. A., Feldbau-Kohn, S. R., Slep, A. M. S., & Heyman, R. E. (2001). Risk factors for male-to-female partner physical abuse. Aggression
and Violent Behavior, 6, 281–352. Shechtman, Z., & Ifargan, M. (2009). School-based integrated and segregated interventions to reduce aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 342–356. Slater, M. D., Henry, K. L., Swaim, R. C., & Ander- son, L. L. (2003). Violent media content and ag- gressiveness in adolescents: A downward spiral model. Communication Research, 30, 713–736. Sluka, J. (1992). The anthropology of conflict. In C. Nordstrom & J. Martin (Eds.), The paths to dom- ination, resistance, and terror (pp. 18 –36). Berke- ley: University of California Press. Sonkin, D., & Liebert, D. S. (2003). The assessment of court-mandated perpetrators of domestic vio- lence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 6, 3–36. Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2002, July). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Paper pre- sented at the XV World Meeting of the Interna- tional Society for Research on Aggression, Mon- treal, Canada. Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Van Orden, K. A., Merrill, K. A., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2005). Interpersonal–psychological precursors to
suicidal behavior: A theory of attempted and com- pleted suicide. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 1, 187–196. Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Cukrowicz, K. C., Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2010). The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psy- chological Review, 117, 575– 600. Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Gordon, K. H., Bender, T. W., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2008). Suicidal desire and the capability for suicide: Tests of the interpersonal–psychological theory of suicidal be- havior among adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 72– 83. Willis, R. (1989). The “peace puzzle” in Ufipa. In S. Howell & R. Willis (Eds.), Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 133–145). Lon- don: Routledge. World Health Organization. (2008). Suicide statis- tics: Introduction. Retrieved from http:// www.who.int/mental_health/ prevention/suicide/ suicideprevent/en/print.html Zhang, D. D., Zhang, J., Lee, H. F., & He, Y.-Q. (2007). Climate change and war frequency in East- ern China over the last millennium. Human Ecol- ogy, 35, 403– 414. Zillmann, D. (1983). Arousal and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1, pp. 75–102). New York: Academic Press.
Received August 6, 2010 Revision received March 23, 2011 Accepted March 28, 2011 � 258 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m
er ic an P sy ch ol og ic al A ss oc ia tio n or o ne o f i ts a lli
ed p ub lis he rs . T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed s ol el y fo r t
he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b
e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . Journal of Abnormal and Social P&ychoh 1961, Vol. 63, No. 3, 575-582 TRANSMISSION OF AGGRESSION THROUGH IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS1 ALBERT BANDURA, DOROTHEA ROSS, AND SHEILA A. ROSS2 Stanford University A previous study, designed to account
for the phenomenon of identification in terms of incidental learning, demon- strated that children readily imitated behavior exhibited by an adult model in the presence of the model (Bandura & Huston, 1961). A series of experiments by Blake (1958) and others (Grosser, Polansky, & Lippitt, 1951; Rosenblith, 1959; Schachter & Hall, 1952) have likewise shown that mere observation of responses of a model has a facilitating effect on subjects' reactions in the immediate social influence setting. While these studies provide convincing evi- dence for the influence and control exerted on others by the behavior of a model, a more crucial test of imitative learning involves the generalization of imitative response patterns to new settings in which the model is absent. In the experiment reported in this paper children were exposed to aggressive and non- aggressive adult models and were then tested for amount of imitative learning in a new situ- ation in the absence of the model. According to the prediction, subjects exposed to aggres- sive models would reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of their models and would differ in this respect both from subjects who observed nonaggressive models and from those who had no prior exposure to any models. This hypothesis assumed that subjects had learned imitative habits as a result of prior reinforcement, and these tendencies would
generalize to some extent to adult experi- menters (Miller & Bollard, 1941). It was further predicted that observation of subdued nonaggressive models would have a generalized inhibiting effect on the subjects' subsequent behavior, and this effect would be reflected in a difference between the non- aggressive and the control groups, with sub- 'This investigation was supported by Research Grant M-4398 from the National Institute of Health, United States Public Health Service. 2 The authors wish to express their appreciation to Edith Dowley, Director, and Patricia Rowe, Head Teacher, Stanford University Nursery School for their assistance throughout this study. jects in the latter group displaying significantly more aggression. Hypotheses were also advanced concerning the influence of the sex of model and sex of subjects on imitation. Pauls and Smith (1956) have shown that preschool children perceive their parents as having distinct preferences regarding sex appropriate modes of behavior for their children. Their findings, as well as informal observation, suggest that parents re- ward imitation of sex appropriate behavior and discourage or punish sex inappropriate imitative responses, e.g., a male child is un- likely to receive much reward for performing female appropriate activities, such as cooking, or for adopting other aspects of the maternal
role, but these same behaviors are typically welcomed if performed by females. As a result of differing reinforcement histories, tendencies to imitate male and female models thus acquire differential habit strength. One would expect, on this basis, subjects to imitate the behavior of a same-sex model to a greater degree than a model of the opposite sex. Since aggression, however, is a highly mascu- line-typed behavior, boys should be more pre- disposed than girls toward imitating aggres- sion, the difference being most marked for subjects exposed to the male aggressive model. METHOD Subjects The subjects were 36 boys and 36 girls enrolled in the Stanford University Nursery School. They ranged in age from 37 to 69 months, with a mean age of 52 months. Two adults, a male and a female, served in the role of model, and one female experimenter conducted the study for all 72 children. Experimental Design Subjects were divided into eight experimental groups of six subjects each and a control group consisting of 24 subjects. Half the experimental subjects were ex- posed to aggressive models and half were exposed to models that were subdued and nonaggressive in their behavior. These groups were further subdivided into
male and female subjects. Half the subjects in the aggressive and nonaggressive conditions observed 575 576 A. BANDURA, D. Ross, AND S. A. Ross same-sex models, while the remaining subjects in each group viewed models of the opposite sex. The control group had no prior exposure to the adult models and was tested only in the generalization situation. It seemed reasonable to expect that the subjects' level ol aggressiveness would be positively related to the readiness with which they imitated aggressive modes of behavior. Therefore, in order to increase the precision of treatment comparisons, subjects in the experimental and control groups were matched individually on the basis of ratings of their aggressive behavior in social interactions in the nursery school. The subjects were rated on four five-point rating scales by the experimenter and a nursery school teacher, both of whom were well acquainted with the children. These scales measured the extent to which subjects displayed physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition. The latter scale, which dealt with the subjects' tendency to inhibit aggressive reactions in the face of high instigation, provided a measure of aggres- sion anxiety. Fifty-one subjects were rated independently by both judges so as to permit an assessment of interrater
agreement. The reliability of the composite aggression score, estimated by means of the Pearson product- moment correlation, was .89. The composite score was obtained by summing the ratings on the four aggression scales; on the basis of these scores, subjects were arranged in triplets and assigned at random to one of two treatment conditions or to the control group. Experimental Conditions In the first step in the procedure subjects were brought individually by the experimenter to the experimental room and the model who was in the hallway outside the room, was invited by the experi- menter to come and join in the game. The experimenter then escorted the subject to one corner of the room, which was structured as the subject's play area. After seating the child at a small table, the experimenter demonstrated how the subject could design pictures with potato prints and picture stickers provided. The potato prints included a variety of geometrical forms; the stickers were attractive multicolor pictures of animals, flowers, and western figures to be pasted on a pastoral scene. These activities were selected since they had been established, by previous studies in the nursery school, as having high interest value for the children. After having settled the subject in his corner, the experimenter escorted the model to the opposite corner of the room which contained a small table and chair, a tinker toy set, a mallet, and a S-foot inflated Bobo doll. The experimenter explained that these were the materials provided for the model to play with and, after the model was seated, the experimenter left the
experimental room. With subjects in the nonaggressive condition, the model assembled the tinker toys in a quiet subdued manner totally ignoring the Bobo doll. In contrast, with subjects in the aggressive condition, the model began by assembling the tinker toys but after approximately a minute had elapsed, the model turned to the Bobo doll and spent the remainder of the period aggressing toward it. Imitative learning can be clearly demonstrated if a model performs sufficiently novel patterns of responses which are unlikely to occur independently of the ob- servation of the behavior of a model and if a subject reproduces these behaviors in substantially identical form. For this reason, in addition to punching the Bobo doll, a response that is likely to be performed by children independently of a demonstration, the model exhibited distinctive aggressive acts which were to be scored as imitative responses. The model laid Bobo on its side, sat on it and punched it repeatedly in the nose. The model then raised the Bobo doll, picked up the mallet and struck the doll on the head. Following the mallet aggression, the model tossed the doll up in the air aggressively and kicked it about the room. This sequence of physically aggressive acts was repeated approximately three times, interspersed with verbally aggressive responses such as, "Sock him in the nose .. .," "Hit him down...," "Throw him in the air . . .," "Kick him . . . ," "Pow . . . ," and two non- aggressive comments, "He keeps coming back for more" and "He sure is a tough fella."
Thus in the exposure situation, subjects were pro- vided with a diverting task which occupied their attention while at the same time insured observation of the model's behavior in the absence of any instruc- tions to observe or to learn the responses in question. Since subjects could not perform the model's aggressive behavior, any learning that occurred was purely on an observational or covert basis. At the end of 10 minutes, the experimenter entered the room, informed the subject that he would now go to another game room, and bid the model goodbye. Aggression Arousal Subjects were tested for the amount of imitative learning in a different experimental room that was set off from the main nursery school building. The two experimental situations were thus clearly differentiated; in fact, many subjects were under the impression that they were no longer on the nursery school grounds. Prior to the test for imitation, however, all subjects, experimental and control, were subjected to mild aggression arousal to insure that they were under some degree of instigation to aggression. The arousal experi- ence was included for two main reasons. In the first place, observation of aggressive behavior exhibited by others tends to reduce the probability of aggression on the part of the observer (Rosenbaum & deCharms, 1960). Consequently, subjects in the aggressive con- dition, in relation both to the nonaggressive and con- trol groups, would be under weaker instigation following exposure to the models. Second, if subjects in the non- aggressive condition expressed little aggression in the face of appropriate instigation, the presence of an
inhibitory process would seem to be indicated. Following the exposure experience, therefore, the experimenter brought the subject to an anteroom that contained these relatively attractive toys: a fire engine, a locomotive, a jet fighter plane, a cable car, a colorful spinning top, and a doll set complete with wardrobe, doll carriage, and babr crib. The experi- IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS 577 menter explained that the toys were for the subject to play with but, as soon as the subject became suffi- ciently involved with the play material (usually in about 2 minutes), the experimenter remarked that these were her very best toys, that she did not let just anyone play with them, and that she had decided to reserve these toys for the other children. However, the subject could play with any of the toys that were in the next room. The experimenter and the subject then entered the adjoining experimental room. It was necessary for the experimenter to remain in the room during the experimental session; otherwise a number of the children would either refuse to remain alone or would leave before the termination of the session. However, in order to minimize any influence her presence might have on the subject's behavior, the experimenter remained as inconspicuous as possible by busying herself with paper work at a desk in the far corner of the room and avoiding any interaction with the child. Test for Delayed Imitation
The experimental room contained a variety of toys including some that could be used in imitative or non- imitative aggression, and others that tended to elicit predominantly nonaggressive forms of behavior. The aggressive toys included a 3-foot Bobo doll, a mallet and peg board, two dart guns, and a tether ball with a face painted on it which hung from the ceiling. The nonaggressive toys, on the other hand, included a tea set, crayons and coloring paper, a ball, two dolls, three bears, cars and trucks, and plastic farm animals. In order to eliminate any variation in behavior due to mere placement of the toys in the room, the play material was arranged in a fixed order for each of the sessions. The subject spent 20 minutes in this experimental room during which time his behavior was rated in terms of predetermined response categories by judges who observed the session through a one-way mirror in an adjoining observation room. The 20-minute session was divided into 5-second intervals by means of an electric interval timer, thus yielding a total number of 240 response units for each subject. The male model scored the experimental sessions for all 72 children. Except for the cases in which he served as model, he did not have knowledge of the subjects' group assignments. In order to provide an estimate of interscorer agreement, the performances of half the subjects were also scored independently by a second observer. Thus one or the other of the two ob- servers usually had no knowledge of the conditions to which the subjects were assigned. Since, however, all but two of the subjects in the aggressive condition
performed the models' novel aggressive responses while subjects in the other conditions only rarely exhibited such reactions, subjects who were exposed to the aggres- sive models could be readily identified through their distinctive behavior. The responses scored involved highly specific con- crete classes of behavior and yielded high interscorer reliabilities, the product-moment coefficients being in the .90s. Response Measures Three measures of imitation were obtained: Imitation of physical aggression: This category in- cluded acts of striking the Bobo doll with the mallet, sitting on the doll and punching it in the nose, kicking the doll, and tossing it in the air. Imitative verbal aggression: Subject repeats the phrases, "Sock him," "Hit him down," "Kick him," "Throw him in the air," or "Pow." Imitative nonaggressive verbal responses: Subject repeats, "He keeps coming back for more," or "He sure is a tough fella." During the pretest, a number of the subjects imi- tated the essential components of the model's behavior but did not perform the complete act, or they directed the imitative aggressive response to some object other than the Bobo doll. Two responses of this type were therefore scored and were interpreted as partially imitative behavior. Mallet aggression: Subject strikes objects other than
the Bobo doll aggressively with the mallet. Sits on Bobo doll: Subject lays the Bobo doll on its side and sits on it, but does not aggress toward it. The following additional nonimitative aggressive responses were scored: Punches Bobo doll: Subject strikes, slaps, or pushes the doll aggressively. Nonimitative physical and verbal aggression: This category included physically aggressive acts directed toward objects other than the Bobo doll and any hostile remarks except for those in the verbal imitation cate- gory; e.g., "Shoot the Bobo," "Cut him," "Stupid ball," "Knock over people," "Horses fighting, biting" Aggressive gun play: Subject shoots darts or aims the guns and fires imaginary shots at objects in the room. Ratings were also made of the number of behavior units in which subjects played nonaggressively or sat quietly and did not play with any of the material at all. RESULTS Complete Imitation of Models' Behavior Subjects in the aggression condition repro- duced a good deal of physical and verbal ag- gressive behavior resembling that of the models, and their mean scores differed mark- edly from those of subjects in the nonaggressive and control groups who exhibited virtually no imitative aggression (see Table 1).
Since there were only a few scores for sub- jects in the nonaggressive and control condi- tions (approximately 70% of the subjects had zero scores), and the assumption of homo- geneity of variance could not be made, the Friedman two-way analysis of variance by ranks was employed to test the significance of the obtained differences. The prediction that exposure of subjects to aggressive models increases the probability 578 A. BANDTJRA, D. Ross, AND S. A. Ross of aggressive behavior is clearly confirmed (see Table 2). The main effect of treatment conditions is highly significant both for physi- cal and verbal imitative aggression. Compari- son of pairs of scores by the sign test shows that the obtained over-all differences were due almost entirely to the aggression displayed by subjects who had been exposed to the aggres- sive models. Their scores were significantly higher than those of either the nonaggressive TABLE 1 MEAN AGGRESSION SCORES FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS Response category Imitative physical aggres-
sion Female subjects Male subjects Imitative verbal aggression Female subjects Male subjects Mallet aggression Female subjects Male subjects Punches Bobo doll Female subjects Male subjects Nonimitative aggression Female subjects Male subjects Aggressive gun play Female subjects Male subjects Experimental groups Aggressive F Model s.s 12.4 13.7
4.3 17.2 15. S 6.3 18.9 21.3 16.2 1.8 7.3 M Model 7.2 25.8 2 . 0 12.7 18.7 28.8 16.5 11.9 8.4 36.7 4.5 IS. 9
Nonaggres- sive F Model 2.5 0.2 0.3 1.1 0.5 18.7 5.8 15.6 7.2 26.1 2.6 8.9 M Model 0.0 1.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 6.7
4 . 3 14.8 1.4 22.3 2.5 16.7 Control groups 1.2 2 . 0 0.7 1.7 13.1 13.5 11.7 15.7 6.1 24.6 3 . 7 14.3 or control groups, which did not differ from each other (Table 2). Imitation was not confined to the model's aggressive responses. Approximately one-third of the subjects in the aggressive condition also
repeated the model's nonaggressive verbal responses while none of the subjects in either the nonaggressive or control groups made such remarks. This difference, tested by means of the Cochran Q test, was significant well beyond the .001 level (Table 2). Partial Imitation of Models' Behavior Differences in the predicted direction were also obtained on the two measures of partial imitation. Analysis of variance of scores based on the subjects' use of the mallet aggressively toward objects other than the Bobo doll reveals that treatment conditions are a statistically sig- nificant source of variation (Table 2). In ad- dition, individual sign tests show that both the aggressive and the control groups, relative to subjects in the nonaggressive condition, pro- duced significantly more mallet aggression, the difference being particularly marked with regard to female subjects. Girls who observed nonaggressive models performed a mean num- ber of 0.5 mallet aggression responses as com- pared to mean values of 18.0 and 13.1 for girls in the aggressive and control groups, re- spectively. Although subjects who observed aggressive models performed more mallet aggression (M = 20.0) than their controls (M = 13.3), the difference was not statistically significant. TABLE 2
SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS IN THE EXPRESSION or AGGRESSION Comparison of pairs of treatment conditions Response category x3r 0 P Aggressive vs. Aggressive vs. ,,rfl"; I!,:is" Nonaggressive Control fe £„ tf f ' Imitative responses Physical aggression Verbal aggression Nonaggressive verbal responses Partial imitation Mallet aggression Sits on Bobo Nonimitative aggression Punches Bobo doll Physical and verbal Aggressive gun play 27.17 9.17 17. SO 11.06 13.44 2.87 8.96
2.75 <.001 <.02 <.001 <.01 <.01 ns <.02 ns <.001 .004 .004 .026 .018 .026 <.001 .048 .004 ns .059 ns .09 .09
ns .005 ns IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS 579 With respect to the partially imitative re- sponse of sitting on the Bobo doll, the over-all group differences were significant beyond the .01 level (Table 2). Comparison of pairs of scores by the sign test procedure reveals that subjects in the aggressive group reproduced this aspect of the models' behavior to a greater extent than did the nonaggressive (p = .018) or the control (p = .059) subjects. The latter two groups, on the other hand, did not differ from each other. Nonimitative Aggression Analyses of variance of the remaining ag- gression measures (Table 2) show that treat- ment conditions did not influence the extent to which subjects engaged in aggressive gun play or punched the Bobo doll. The effect of conditions is highly significant (x2r = 8.96, p < .02), however, in the case of the subjects' expression of nonimitative physical and verbal aggression. Further comparison of treatment pairs reveals that the main source of the over- all difference was the aggressive and non- aggressive groups which differed significantly from each other (Table 2), with subjects ex-
posed to the aggressive models displaying the greater amount of aggression. Influence of Sex of Model and Sex of Subjects on Imitation The hypothesis that boys are more prone than girls to imitate aggression exhibited by a model was only partially confirmed, t tests computed for subjects in the aggressive con- dition reveal that boys reproduced more imita- tive physical aggression than girls (t = 2.50, p < .01). The groups do not differ, however, in their imitation of verbal aggression. The use of nonparametric tests, necessitated by the extremely skewed distributions of scores for subjects in the nonaggressive and control conditions, preclude an over-all test of the influence of sex of model per se, and of the various interactions between the main effects. Inspection of the means presented in Table 1 for subjects in the aggression condi- tion, however, clearly suggests the possibility of a Sex X Model interaction. This interaction effect is much more consistent and pronounced for the male model than for the female model. Male subjects, for example, exhibited more physical (t = 2.07, p < .05) and verbal imita- tive aggression (t = 2.51, p < .05), more non- imitative aggression (t = 3.15, p < .025), and engaged in significantly more aggressive gun play (t = 2.12, p < .05) following exposure to the aggressive male model than the female subjects. In contrast, girls exposed to the
female model performed considerably more imitative verbal aggression and more non- imitative aggression than did the boys (Table 1). The variances, however, were equally large and with only a small N in each cell the mean differences did not reach statistical significance. Data for the nonaggressive and control subjects provide additional suggestive evi- dence that the behavior of the male model exerted a greater influence than the female model on the subjects' behavior in the gener- alization situation. It will be recalled that, except for the greater amount of mallet aggression exhibited by the control subjects, no significant differences were obtained between the nonaggressive and con- trol groups. The data indicate, however, that the absence of significant differences between these two groups was due primarily to the fact that subjects exposed to the nonaggressive female model did not differ from the controls on any of the measures of aggression. With respect to the male model, on the other hand, the differences between the groups are striking. Comparison of the sets of scores by means of the sign test reveals that, in relation to the control group, subjects exposed to the non- aggressive male model performed significantly less imitative physical aggression (p = .06), less imitative verbal aggression (p = .002), less mallet aggression (p = .003), less non- imitative physical and verbal aggression (p = .03), and they were less inclined to punch the Bobo doll (p = .07).
While the comparison of subgroups, when some of the over-all tests do not reach sta- tistical significance, is likely to capitalize on chance differences, nevertheless the con- sistency of the findings adds support to the interpretation in terms of influence by the model. Nonaggressive Behavior With the exception of expected sex differ- ences, Lindquist (1956) Type III analyses of variance of the nonaggressive response scores yielded few significant differences. Female subjects spent more time than boys 580 A. BANDURA, D. Ross, AND S. A. Ross playing with dolls (p < .001), with the tea set (p < .001), and coloring (p < .05). The boys, on the other hand, devoted significantly more time than the girls to exploratory play with the guns (p < .01). No sex differences were found in respect to the subjects use of the other stimulus objects, i.e., farm animals, cars, or tether ball. Treatment conditions did produce signifi- cant differences on two measures of nonag- gressive behavior that are worth mentioning. Subjects in the nonaggressive condition engaged in significantly more nonaggressive
play with dolls than either subjects in the aggressive group (t = 2.67, p < .02), or in the control group (/ = 2.57, p < .02). Even more noteworthy is the finding that subjects who observed nonaggressive models spent more than twice as much time as sub- jects in aggressive condition (t = 3.07, p < .01) in simply sitting quietly without handling any of the play material. DISCUSSION Much current research on social learning is focused on the shaping of new behavior through rewarding and punishing conse- quences. Unless responses are emitted, how- ever, they cannot be influenced. The results of this study provide strong evidence that observation of cues produced by the behavior of others is one effective means of eliciting certain forms of responses for which the origi- nal probability is very low or zero. Indeed, social imitation may hasten or short-cut the acquisition of new behaviors without the necessity of reinforcing successive approxima- tions as suggested by Skinner (1953). Thus subjects given an opportunity to observe aggressive models later reproduced a good deal of physical and verbal aggression (as well as nonaggressive responses) sub- stantially identical with that of the model. In contrast, subjects who were exposed to nonaggressive models and those who had no previous exposure to any models only rarely
performed such responses. To the extent that observation of adult models displaying aggression communicates permissiveness for aggressive behavior, such exposure may serve to weaken inhibitory responses and thereby to increase the prob- ability of aggressive reactions to subsequent frustrations. The fact, however, that subjects expressed their aggression in ways that clearly resembled the novel patterns exhibited by the models provides striking evidence for the occurrence of learning by imitation. In the procedure employed by Miller and Bollard (1941) for establishing imitative be- havior, adult or peer models performed dis- crimination responses following which they were consistently rewarded, and the subjects were similarly reinforced whenever they matched the leaders' choice responses. While these experiments have been widely accepted as demonstrations of learning by means of imitation, in fact, they simply involve a spe- cial case of discrimination learning in which the behavior of others serves as discriminative stimuli for responses that are already part of the subject's repertoire. Auditory or visual environmental cues could easily have been substituted for the social stimuli to facilitate the discrimination learning. In contrast, the process of imitation studied in the present experiment differed in several important re- spects from the one investigated by Miller and Bollard in that subjects learned to com-
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx
The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx

Recommended

Dv training unit 3 10.18.11
Dv training unit 3 10.18.11Dv training unit 3 10.18.11
Dv training unit 3 10.18.11University of Miami
 
Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...
Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...
Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...William Woods
 
1Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitud.docx
1Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitud.docx1Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitud.docx
1Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitud.docxdrennanmicah
 
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTVOL. 4, NO.docx
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTVOL. 4, NO.docxPSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTVOL. 4, NO.docx
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTVOL. 4, NO.docxpotmanandrea
 
Running head EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY VIEW ON VIOLENCE .docx
Running head EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY VIEW ON VIOLENCE .docxRunning head EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY VIEW ON VIOLENCE .docx
Running head EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY VIEW ON VIOLENCE .docxcowinhelen
 
Intergroup biasHewstone, Miles; Rubin, MarkPress the Escape ke.docx
Intergroup biasHewstone, Miles; Rubin, MarkPress the Escape ke.docxIntergroup biasHewstone, Miles; Rubin, MarkPress the Escape ke.docx
Intergroup biasHewstone, Miles; Rubin, MarkPress the Escape ke.docxmariuse18nolet
 
Running head RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE1RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE.docx
Running head RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE1RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE.docxRunning head RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE1RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE.docx
Running head RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE1RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE.docxcharisellington63520
 
Running Head VIOLENCE 1Violence in the Media3Vi.docx
Running Head VIOLENCE 1Violence in the Media3Vi.docxRunning Head VIOLENCE 1Violence in the Media3Vi.docx
Running Head VIOLENCE 1Violence in the Media3Vi.docxagnesdcarey33086
 

Recommended

Dv training unit 3 10.18.11
Dv training unit 3 10.18.11Dv training unit 3 10.18.11
Dv training unit 3 10.18.11University of Miami
 
Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...
Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...
Effect of item order on self-reported psychological aggression: Exploring the...William Woods
 
1Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitud.docx
1Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitud.docx1Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitud.docx
1Developmental Predictors of Violent Extremist Attitud.docxdrennanmicah
 
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTVOL. 4, NO.docx
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTVOL. 4, NO.docxPSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTVOL. 4, NO.docx
PSYCHOLOGICAL SCIENCE IN THE PUBLIC INTERESTVOL. 4, NO.docxpotmanandrea
 
Running head EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY VIEW ON VIOLENCE .docx
Running head EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY VIEW ON VIOLENCE .docxRunning head EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY VIEW ON VIOLENCE .docx
Running head EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY VIEW ON VIOLENCE .docxcowinhelen
 
Intergroup biasHewstone, Miles; Rubin, MarkPress the Escape ke.docx
Intergroup biasHewstone, Miles; Rubin, MarkPress the Escape ke.docxIntergroup biasHewstone, Miles; Rubin, MarkPress the Escape ke.docx
Intergroup biasHewstone, Miles; Rubin, MarkPress the Escape ke.docxmariuse18nolet
 
Running head RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE1RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE.docx
Running head RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE1RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE.docxRunning head RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE1RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE.docx
Running head RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE1RESEARCH PAPER TEMPLATE.docxcharisellington63520
 
Running Head VIOLENCE 1Violence in the Media3Vi.docx
Running Head VIOLENCE 1Violence in the Media3Vi.docxRunning Head VIOLENCE 1Violence in the Media3Vi.docx
Running Head VIOLENCE 1Violence in the Media3Vi.docxagnesdcarey33086
 
10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx
10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx
10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docxpaynetawnya
 
Ecological Effects of CSA
Ecological Effects of CSAEcological Effects of CSA
Ecological Effects of CSAHayley Armstrong
 
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team B
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team BChronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team B
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team BSarah M
 
Senior Thesis 2014 PDF
Senior Thesis 2014 PDFSenior Thesis 2014 PDF
Senior Thesis 2014 PDFSamuel Hall
 
ferrellj_final
ferrellj_finalferrellj_final
ferrellj_finalJeff Ferrell
 
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docx
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docxJunxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docx
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docxtawnyataylor528
 
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)Jan Warner LISWS PhD
 
Literature Review
Literature ReviewLiterature Review
Literature ReviewMegan White
 
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docx
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docxAGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docx
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docxnettletondevon
 
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsC
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsCFilm Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsC
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsCChereCheek752
 
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docx
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docxSingle-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docx
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docxjennifer822
 
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docxLynellBull52
 
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docx
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docxDiscussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docx
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docxelinoraudley582231
 
Aggression.pptx
Aggression.pptxAggression.pptx
Aggression.pptxMahnoorHashmi
 
N0507233_Project Report 2016
N0507233_Project Report 2016N0507233_Project Report 2016
N0507233_Project Report 2016Daniel Horsley
 
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docxAssessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docxgalerussel59292
 
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the re
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the reHistorically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the re
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the reSusanaFurman449
 
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docx
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docxMass ShootingsJUST300-06.docx
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docxalfredacavx97
 
Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus
Prevention of Sexual Violence on College CampusPrevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus
Prevention of Sexual Violence on College CampusKerri-Michaela Berlin LVN BSPH
 
Domestic violence essay sample
Domestic violence essay sampleDomestic violence essay sample
Domestic violence essay sampleMarie Fincher
 
The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docx
The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docxThe gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docx
The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docxrtodd194
 
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docx
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docxthe gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docx
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docxrtodd194
 

More Related Content

Similar to The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx

10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx
10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx
10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docxpaynetawnya
 
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team B
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team BChronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team B
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team BSarah M
 
Senior Thesis 2014 PDF
Senior Thesis 2014 PDFSenior Thesis 2014 PDF
Senior Thesis 2014 PDFSamuel Hall
 
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docx
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docxJunxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docx
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docxtawnyataylor528
 
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)Jan Warner LISWS PhD
 
Literature Review
Literature ReviewLiterature Review
Literature ReviewMegan White
 
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docx
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docxAGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docx
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docxnettletondevon
 
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsC
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsCFilm Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsC
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsCChereCheek752
 
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docx
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docxSingle-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docx
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docxjennifer822
 
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docxLynellBull52
 
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docx
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docxDiscussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docx
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docxelinoraudley582231
 
N0507233_Project Report 2016
N0507233_Project Report 2016N0507233_Project Report 2016
N0507233_Project Report 2016Daniel Horsley
 
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docxAssessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docxgalerussel59292
 
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the re
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the reHistorically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the re
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the reSusanaFurman449
 
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docx
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docxMass ShootingsJUST300-06.docx
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docxalfredacavx97
 
Domestic violence essay sample
Domestic violence essay sampleDomestic violence essay sample
Domestic violence essay sampleMarie Fincher
 

Similar to The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx (20)

10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx
10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx
10.11770192513X04270345JOURNAL OF FAMILY ISSUES April 2005J.docx
 
Ecological Effects of CSA
Ecological Effects of CSAEcological Effects of CSA
Ecological Effects of CSA
 
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team B
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team BChronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team B
Chronic Emotional Detachment, Disorders, and Treatment-Team B
 
Senior Thesis 2014 PDF
Senior Thesis 2014 PDFSenior Thesis 2014 PDF
Senior Thesis 2014 PDF
 
ferrellj_final
ferrellj_finalferrellj_final
ferrellj_final
 
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docx
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docxJunxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docx
Junxian KuangLaura SinaiENG099101572018In the essay O.docx
 
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)
Leyden transgenerational trauma 10-30-16 (2)
 
Literature Review
Literature ReviewLiterature Review
Literature Review
 
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docx
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docxAGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docx
AGGRESSIVE BEHAVIORVolume 30, pages 273–283 (2004)The .docx
 
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsC
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsCFilm Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsC
Film Analysis Midterm Question--minimum 1000 to max 1200 wordsC
 
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docx
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docxSingle-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docx
Single-System Studies Mark A. Mattaini ocial work pr.docx
 
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx
© 2013 Springer Publishing Company 1015httpdx.doi.org10..docx
 
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docx
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docxDiscussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docx
Discussion Question PHL 1010 150 WORDS1. Describe an example of.docx
 
Aggression.pptx
Aggression.pptxAggression.pptx
Aggression.pptx
 
N0507233_Project Report 2016
N0507233_Project Report 2016N0507233_Project Report 2016
N0507233_Project Report 2016
 
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docxAssessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx
Assessing Gender Role of Partner-Violent Men Using the Minneso.docx
 
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the re
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the reHistorically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the re
Historically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the re
 
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docx
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docxMass ShootingsJUST300-06.docx
Mass ShootingsJUST300-06.docx
 
Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus
Prevention of Sexual Violence on College CampusPrevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus
Prevention of Sexual Violence on College Campus
 
Domestic violence essay sample
Domestic violence essay sampleDomestic violence essay sample
Domestic violence essay sample
 

More from rtodd194

The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docx
The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docxThe gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docx
The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docxrtodd194
 
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docx
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docxthe gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docx
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docxrtodd194
 
The G i r I on the PI an e John Morton came down.docx
The G i r I on the PI an e John Morton came down.docxThe G i r I on the PI an e John Morton came down.docx
The G i r I on the PI an e John Morton came down.docxrtodd194
 
The Future of Project Management  Please respond to the following.docx
The Future of Project Management  Please respond to the following.docxThe Future of Project Management  Please respond to the following.docx
The Future of Project Management  Please respond to the following.docxrtodd194
 
The function of professional nursing refers to the organizing princ.docx
The function of professional nursing refers to the organizing princ.docxThe function of professional nursing refers to the organizing princ.docx
The function of professional nursing refers to the organizing princ.docxrtodd194
 
The Function and the use of Analytics of Partners Healthcare sys.docx
The Function and the use of Analytics of Partners Healthcare sys.docxThe Function and the use of Analytics of Partners Healthcare sys.docx
The Function and the use of Analytics of Partners Healthcare sys.docxrtodd194
 
The fundamental distinction between the Democrats and the Republican.docx
The fundamental distinction between the Democrats and the Republican.docxThe fundamental distinction between the Democrats and the Republican.docx
The fundamental distinction between the Democrats and the Republican.docxrtodd194
 
The fundamental components of financial accounting, including it.docx
The fundamental components of financial accounting, including it.docxThe fundamental components of financial accounting, including it.docx
The fundamental components of financial accounting, including it.docxrtodd194
 
The Future of Health Care Delivery and Health PolicyThis discuss.docx
The Future of Health Care Delivery and Health PolicyThis discuss.docxThe Future of Health Care Delivery and Health PolicyThis discuss.docx
The Future of Health Care Delivery and Health PolicyThis discuss.docxrtodd194
 
The Futile Pursuit of HappinessBy Jon Gertner· Sept. 7, 2003.docx
The Futile Pursuit of HappinessBy Jon Gertner· Sept. 7, 2003.docxThe Futile Pursuit of HappinessBy Jon Gertner· Sept. 7, 2003.docx
The Futile Pursuit of HappinessBy Jon Gertner· Sept. 7, 2003.docxrtodd194
 
The function of a short story’s exposition is to __________. (.docx
The function of a short story’s exposition is to __________. (.docxThe function of a short story’s exposition is to __________. (.docx
The function of a short story’s exposition is to __________. (.docxrtodd194
 
The Future Leader Scholarship is for students who have demonstrated .docx
The Future Leader Scholarship is for students who have demonstrated .docxThe Future Leader Scholarship is for students who have demonstrated .docx
The Future Leader Scholarship is for students who have demonstrated .docxrtodd194
 
The Future of Cyber Crimes and Cyber TerrorismIn the United Stat.docx
The Future of Cyber Crimes and Cyber TerrorismIn the United Stat.docxThe Future of Cyber Crimes and Cyber TerrorismIn the United Stat.docx
The Future of Cyber Crimes and Cyber TerrorismIn the United Stat.docxrtodd194
 
THE FRANKENSTEIN PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!! For this paper, you.docx
THE FRANKENSTEIN PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!! For this paper, you.docxTHE FRANKENSTEIN PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!! For this paper, you.docx
THE FRANKENSTEIN PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!! For this paper, you.docxrtodd194
 
The Freedmens Bureau.....A. Had as its main purpose to prevent a.docx
The Freedmens Bureau.....A. Had as its main purpose to prevent a.docxThe Freedmens Bureau.....A. Had as its main purpose to prevent a.docx
The Freedmens Bureau.....A. Had as its main purpose to prevent a.docxrtodd194
 
The form attached is to be filled out on each one of these condi.docx
The form attached is to be filled out on each one of these condi.docxThe form attached is to be filled out on each one of these condi.docx
The form attached is to be filled out on each one of these condi.docxrtodd194
 
The Fraud Triangle and HackingThe fraud triangle exists when t.docx
The Fraud Triangle and HackingThe fraud triangle exists when t.docxThe Fraud Triangle and HackingThe fraud triangle exists when t.docx
The Fraud Triangle and HackingThe fraud triangle exists when t.docxrtodd194
 
The freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to gu.docx
The freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to gu.docxThe freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to gu.docx
The freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to gu.docxrtodd194
 
The fourth mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to sa.docx
The fourth mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to sa.docxThe fourth mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to sa.docx
The fourth mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to sa.docxrtodd194
 
The fourth step in planning a unit plan is to research and decid.docx
The fourth step in planning a unit plan is to research and decid.docxThe fourth step in planning a unit plan is to research and decid.docx
The fourth step in planning a unit plan is to research and decid.docxrtodd194
 

More from rtodd194 (20)

The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docx
The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docxThe gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docx
The gathering of system related information about national infrastru.docx
 
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docx
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docxthe gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docx
the gateway arch in St. Louis was built in 1965.it is the tallest mo.docx
 
The G i r I on the PI an e John Morton came down.docx
The G i r I on the PI an e John Morton came down.docxThe G i r I on the PI an e John Morton came down.docx
The G i r I on the PI an e John Morton came down.docx
 
The Future of Project Management  Please respond to the following.docx
The Future of Project Management  Please respond to the following.docxThe Future of Project Management  Please respond to the following.docx
The Future of Project Management  Please respond to the following.docx
 
The function of professional nursing refers to the organizing princ.docx
The function of professional nursing refers to the organizing princ.docxThe function of professional nursing refers to the organizing princ.docx
The function of professional nursing refers to the organizing princ.docx
 
The Function and the use of Analytics of Partners Healthcare sys.docx
The Function and the use of Analytics of Partners Healthcare sys.docxThe Function and the use of Analytics of Partners Healthcare sys.docx
The Function and the use of Analytics of Partners Healthcare sys.docx
 
The fundamental distinction between the Democrats and the Republican.docx
The fundamental distinction between the Democrats and the Republican.docxThe fundamental distinction between the Democrats and the Republican.docx
The fundamental distinction between the Democrats and the Republican.docx
 
The fundamental components of financial accounting, including it.docx
The fundamental components of financial accounting, including it.docxThe fundamental components of financial accounting, including it.docx
The fundamental components of financial accounting, including it.docx
 
The Future of Health Care Delivery and Health PolicyThis discuss.docx
The Future of Health Care Delivery and Health PolicyThis discuss.docxThe Future of Health Care Delivery and Health PolicyThis discuss.docx
The Future of Health Care Delivery and Health PolicyThis discuss.docx
 
The Futile Pursuit of HappinessBy Jon Gertner· Sept. 7, 2003.docx
The Futile Pursuit of HappinessBy Jon Gertner· Sept. 7, 2003.docxThe Futile Pursuit of HappinessBy Jon Gertner· Sept. 7, 2003.docx
The Futile Pursuit of HappinessBy Jon Gertner· Sept. 7, 2003.docx
 
The function of a short story’s exposition is to __________. (.docx
The function of a short story’s exposition is to __________. (.docxThe function of a short story’s exposition is to __________. (.docx
The function of a short story’s exposition is to __________. (.docx
 
The Future Leader Scholarship is for students who have demonstrated .docx
The Future Leader Scholarship is for students who have demonstrated .docxThe Future Leader Scholarship is for students who have demonstrated .docx
The Future Leader Scholarship is for students who have demonstrated .docx
 
The Future of Cyber Crimes and Cyber TerrorismIn the United Stat.docx
The Future of Cyber Crimes and Cyber TerrorismIn the United Stat.docxThe Future of Cyber Crimes and Cyber TerrorismIn the United Stat.docx
The Future of Cyber Crimes and Cyber TerrorismIn the United Stat.docx
 
THE FRANKENSTEIN PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!! For this paper, you.docx
THE FRANKENSTEIN PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!! For this paper, you.docxTHE FRANKENSTEIN PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!! For this paper, you.docx
THE FRANKENSTEIN PAPER!!!!!!!!!!!! For this paper, you.docx
 
The Freedmens Bureau.....A. Had as its main purpose to prevent a.docx
The Freedmens Bureau.....A. Had as its main purpose to prevent a.docxThe Freedmens Bureau.....A. Had as its main purpose to prevent a.docx
The Freedmens Bureau.....A. Had as its main purpose to prevent a.docx
 
The form attached is to be filled out on each one of these condi.docx
The form attached is to be filled out on each one of these condi.docxThe form attached is to be filled out on each one of these condi.docx
The form attached is to be filled out on each one of these condi.docx
 
The Fraud Triangle and HackingThe fraud triangle exists when t.docx
The Fraud Triangle and HackingThe fraud triangle exists when t.docxThe Fraud Triangle and HackingThe fraud triangle exists when t.docx
The Fraud Triangle and HackingThe fraud triangle exists when t.docx
 
The freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to gu.docx
The freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to gu.docxThe freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to gu.docx
The freedom of the press was included in the First Amendment to gu.docx
 
The fourth mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to sa.docx
The fourth mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to sa.docxThe fourth mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to sa.docx
The fourth mission of the Department of Homeland Security is to sa.docx
 
The fourth step in planning a unit plan is to research and decid.docx
The fourth step in planning a unit plan is to research and decid.docxThe fourth step in planning a unit plan is to research and decid.docx
The fourth step in planning a unit plan is to research and decid.docx
 

Recently uploaded

When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...Gary Wood
 
How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17
How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17
How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17Celine George
 
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptxGraduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptxneillewis46
 
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽
會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽
會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽中 央社
 
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDF
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDFThe Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDF
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDFVivekanand Anglo Vedic Academy
 
Trauma-Informed Leadership - Five Practical Principles
Trauma-Informed Leadership - Five Practical PrinciplesTrauma-Informed Leadership - Five Practical Principles
Trauma-Informed Leadership - Five Practical PrinciplesPooky Knightsmith
 
Transparency, Recognition and the role of eSealing - Ildiko Mazar and Koen No...
Transparency, Recognition and the role of eSealing - Ildiko Mazar and Koen No...Transparency, Recognition and the role of eSealing - Ildiko Mazar and Koen No...
Transparency, Recognition and the role of eSealing - Ildiko Mazar and Koen No...EADTU
 
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdfRich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdfJerry Chew
 
The Liver & Gallbladder (Anatomy & Physiology).pptx
The Liver & Gallbladder (Anatomy & Physiology).pptxThe Liver & Gallbladder (Anatomy & Physiology).pptx
The Liver & Gallbladder (Anatomy & Physiology).pptxVishal Singh
 
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategiesMajor project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategiesAmanpreetKaur157993
 
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptxObserving-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptxAdelaideRefugio
 
male presentation...pdf.................
male presentation...pdf.................male presentation...pdf.................
male presentation...pdf.................MirzaAbrarBaig5
 
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...Nguyen Thanh Tu Collection
 
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...MysoreMuleSoftMeetup
 
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio App
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio AppImproved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio App
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio AppCeline George
 

Recently uploaded (20)

VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA! .
VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA! .VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA! .
VAMOS CUIDAR DO NOSSO PLANETA! .
 
When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
When Quality Assurance Meets Innovation in Higher Education - Report launch w...
 
How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17
How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17
How to Send Pro Forma Invoice to Your Customers in Odoo 17
 
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptxGraduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
Graduate Outcomes Presentation Slides - English (v3).pptx
 
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
ĐỀ THAM KHẢO KÌ THI TUYỂN SINH VÀO LỚP 10 MÔN TIẾNG ANH FORM 50 CÂU TRẮC NGHI...
 
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: Named Entity Recognition"
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: Named Entity Recognition"Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: Named Entity Recognition"
Mattingly "AI & Prompt Design: Named Entity Recognition"
 
OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...
OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...
OS-operating systems- ch05 (CPU Scheduling) ...
 
會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽
會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽
會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽會考英聽
 
Including Mental Health Support in Project Delivery, 14 May.pdf
Including Mental Health Support in Project Delivery, 14 May.pdfIncluding Mental Health Support in Project Delivery, 14 May.pdf
Including Mental Health Support in Project Delivery, 14 May.pdf
 
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDF
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDFThe Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDF
The Story of Village Palampur Class 9 Free Study Material PDF
 
Trauma-Informed Leadership - Five Practical Principles
Trauma-Informed Leadership - Five Practical PrinciplesTrauma-Informed Leadership - Five Practical Principles
Trauma-Informed Leadership - Five Practical Principles
 
Transparency, Recognition and the role of eSealing - Ildiko Mazar and Koen No...
Transparency, Recognition and the role of eSealing - Ildiko Mazar and Koen No...Transparency, Recognition and the role of eSealing - Ildiko Mazar and Koen No...
Transparency, Recognition and the role of eSealing - Ildiko Mazar and Koen No...
 
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdfRich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf
Rich Dad Poor Dad ( PDFDrive.com )--.pdf
 
The Liver & Gallbladder (Anatomy & Physiology).pptx
The Liver & Gallbladder (Anatomy & Physiology).pptxThe Liver & Gallbladder (Anatomy & Physiology).pptx
The Liver & Gallbladder (Anatomy & Physiology).pptx
 
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategiesMajor project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
Major project report on Tata Motors and its marketing strategies
 
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptxObserving-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
Observing-Correct-Grammar-in-Making-Definitions.pptx
 
male presentation...pdf.................
male presentation...pdf.................male presentation...pdf.................
male presentation...pdf.................
 
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
TỔNG HỢP HƠN 100 ĐỀ THI THỬ TỐT NGHIỆP THPT TOÁN 2024 - TỪ CÁC TRƯỜNG, TRƯỜNG...
 
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
MuleSoft Integration with AWS Textract | Calling AWS Textract API |AWS - Clou...
 
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio App
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio AppImproved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio App
Improved Approval Flow in Odoo 17 Studio App
 

The General Aggression Model Theoretical Extensions to Violen.docx

  • 1. The General Aggression Model: Theoretical Extensions to Violence C. Nathan DeWall University of Kentucky Craig A. Anderson Iowa State University Brad J. Bushman The Ohio State University and VU University, Amsterdam This article discusses the General Aggression Model (GAM), which provides a com- prehensive and integrative social– cognitive framework for understanding aggression and violence. After providing a brief description of the basic components of GAM, we discuss how it can be used to better understand 4 topics related to phenomena that occur primarily outside the laboratory and apply to a broad range of people. Specifically, we apply GAM to better understand intimate partner violence, intergroup violence, global climate change effects on violence, and suicide. We also explain how the tenets of GAM can be used to inform interventions aimed at reducing these forms of violence. Finally, we show how GAM can explain why people do not behave violently, such as in societies where violence is exceedingly rare. Applying GAM to violent behavior that
  • 2. occurs outside the laboratory adds to its explanatory power and enhances the external validity of its predictions. Because the 4 topics apply to such a broad range of people, GAM may have broader influence in fostering understanding of aggression in these domains. By increasing our understanding of the causes of violent behavior, GAM may help reduce it. Keywords: General Aggression Model, climate change, intergroup violence, intimate partner violence, suicide Nonviolence leads to the highest ethics, which is the goal of all evolution. Until we stop harming all other living beings, we are still savages. —Thomas A. Edison, American inventor In the distant past, aggression often was an adaptive behavior for our ancient ancestors who lived in small groups. Aggression and related threat displays played an important role in mate selection, protection of offspring and other kin, and survival of the group. As humans became more social and developed culture, however, aggression became less adaptive, especially at the group level. Although one can reasonably argue that even today, minor forms of aggres- sion play an adaptive role in socialization and social control (e.g., Tedeschi & Felson, 1994), more serious forms of aggression are more mal- adaptive than adaptive. Aggression breeds ag- gression, and it seems to cause more problems
  • 3. than it solves. Even when it works in the short run, aggression frequently fails in the long run. So, why are people aggressive today? We could blame it on our genes, but that is only part of the story. The purpose of this is article is to explain how an overarching framework for understanding aggression and violence —the General Aggres- sion Model, or GAM for short (see Figure 1)— can be applied to violence outside the labora- tory: intimate partner violence, aggression be- tween groups, global warming effects on vio- lence, and suicide. We also discuss how GAM can be applied to interventions aimed at reduc- This article was published Online First May 30, 2011. C. Nathan DeWall, Department of Psychology, Univer- sity of Kentucky; Craig A. Anderson, Center for the Study of Violence, Department of Psychology, Iowa State Univer- sity; Brad J. Bushman, School of Communication, The Ohio State University, Department of Psychology, VU Univer- sity, Amsterdam, the Netherlands. This research was supported in part by Grant BCS- 1104118 to C. Nathan DeWall and Brad J. Bushman from the National Science Foundation. The opinions and conclu- sions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the National Science Foundation. Correspondence concerning this article should be ad- dressed to C. Nathan DeWall, Department of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Kastle Hall 201, Lexington, KY 40506-0044. E-mail: [email protected] Psychology of Violence © 2011 American Psychological Association
  • 4. 2011, Vol. 1, No. 3, 245–258 2152-0828/11/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0023842 245 T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er
  • 8. di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . ing these forms of violence and even nonviolent behavior. Applying GAM to aggression that occurs outside the laboratory not only adds to its explanatory power, but it also enhances the ex- ternal validity of its predictions. Psychologists have proposed a variety of the- ories to understand why people sometimes be- have aggressively. Some examples include frus- tration–aggression theory (Dollard, Doob, Miller, Mowrer, & Sears, 1939), socioecologi- cal models (Heise, 1998), cognitive neoassocia- tion theory (e.g., Berkowitz, 1989), social learn- ing theory (e.g., Bandura, 1973; Mischel & Shoda, 1995), script theory (e.g., Huesmann, 1986), excitation transfer theory (e.g., Zillmann, 1983), and social interaction theory (e.g., Tede-
  • 9. schi & Felson, 1994). Each theory offers crucial insight into understanding specific reasons why people behave aggressively. Yet, these mini- theories do not provide an overarching frame- work for understanding human aggression and violence. GAM integrates minitheories of aggression into a single conceptual framework. In so doing, GAM provides a more parsimonious model of aggression than other theories do, explains ag- gression that occurs because of multiple mo- tives, and offers empirically validated insights into ways to reduce aggression, including how to stunt the development of aggressive tenden- cies over time. It is the only social– cognitive model that explicitly incorporates biological, personality development, social processes, ba- sic cognitive processes (e.g., perception, prim- ing), short-term and long-term processes, and decision processes into understanding aggres- sion. Therefore, GAM offers scholars a frame- work from which to derive and test hypotheses regarding aggression, a framework that is more expansive than any other social– cognitive model. One major focus of the present article is to show how GAM can also increase our un- derstanding of more extreme forms of physical aggression that occur outside the laboratory— violent behavior. GAM emphasizes three critical stages in un- derstanding a single episodic cycle of aggres- sion: (1) person and situation inputs, (2) present internal states (i.e., cognition, arousal, affect,
  • 10. including brain activity), and (3) outcomes of appraisal and decision-making processes. A feedback loop can influence future cycles of aggression, which can produce a violence esca- lation cycle (Anderson, Buckley, & Carnagey, 2008; DeWall & Anderson, 2011). Several ar- ticles provide further insight into these basic tenets of GAM (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; DeWall & Anderson, 2011). Applications of GAM GAM has received consistent support as a general model of aggression (for reviews, see Anderson & Bushman, 2002; DeWall & Ander- son, 2011). Although it was tested primarily using laboratory aggression experiments, it can also be applied to aggression in the “real world” outside the laboratory. Before we go further, however, we need to define the terms aggres- sion and violence. We define aggression as any behavior intended to harm another person who does not want to be harmed (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). We define violence as any aggressive act that has as its goal extreme physical harm, such as injury or death (e.g., Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Bushman & Huesmann, 2010). In this section, we include several novel ex- tensions of how GAM can inform understand- ing and research investigating intimate partner violence, intergroup violence, impact of global climate change on violence, and suicide. We chose these topics for two reasons. First, each topic applies to phenomena that occur outside
  • 11. the laboratory, thereby increasing the explana- tory potential of GAM and the external validity of its predictions. Second, each topic relates to phenomena that occur relatively frequently in Figure 1. General aggression model. 246 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e
  • 14. fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot
  • 15. to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . the United States and in other countries. Vio- lence between intimate partners in the United States occurs at alarmingly high rates, with over one in five of couples (Schafer, Caetano, & Clark, 1998) and over one in three college stu- dents (Straus & Ramirez, 2002) reporting at least one incident over the past year. Intergroup violence is also very common. In the 40 years after the end of World War II, there were roughly 150 wars and only 26 days of world peace (defined as the absence of international war; Sluka, 1992). In terms of global climate change, the earth is warmer now than it has
  • 16. been at any time in the past 2,000 years (Parry, Canziani, Palutikof, van der Linden, & Hanson, 2007). However, people rarely think of the im- pact of climate change on violence (Anderson & DeLisi, in press). Suicide also claims the lives of over a million people each year (World Health Organization, 2008). Thus, applying GAM to understand these four topics not only increases the explanatory power of GAM, but it also informs consideration regarding phenom- ena that impact millions of people worldwide. Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) Previous research on GAM has focused pri- marily on aggression between strangers (e.g., Anderson & Anderson, 2008, Study 2), but we believe that GAM can also provide a useful framework for understanding IPV. As with ag- gression between strangers, person and situation factors play a significant role in increasing the likelihood of IPV. There are dozens, if not hun- dreds, of personal factors involved, including trait anger, attachment style, and alcohol abuse (e.g., Finkel, 2007; Follingstad, Bradley, Helff, & Laughlin, 2002; Holtzworth-Munroe, Bates, Smutzler, & Sandin, 1997; Schumacher, Feld- bau-Kohn, Slep, & Heyman, 2001). Yet, there is little conceptual organization regarding how and why risk factors influence IPV, leading some scholars to suggest that “theory and re- search on relationship violence remain uncohe- sive” (Berscheid & Regan, 2005, p. 52). Attitudes toward violence are also useful in predicting actual aggression directed toward an
  • 17. intimate partner. In one recent investigation, college students who had more positive atti- tudes toward IPV were more likely to physically assault and verbally abuse their current roman- tic partner 14 weeks later (Fincham, Cui, Braithwaite, & Pasley, 2008). Other research has shown that people who have permissive attitudes toward IPV also have the highest per- petration rates (Cote, Vaillancourt, LeBlanc, Nagin, & Tremblay, 2006). Some situational factors that increase aggres- sion toward strangers also increase IPV, such as alcohol (e.g., Hove, Parkhill, Neighbors, McCo- nchie, & Fossos, 2010). Moreover, meta- analytic findings demonstrate that alcohol increases both male-to-female and female-to- male violence (Foran & O’Leary, 2008). Situations that decrease self-control increase aggression toward both strangers and intimate relationship partners (DeWall, Baumeister, Stillman, & Gailliot, 2007; Finkel, DeWall, Slotter, Oaten, & Foshee, 2009). For example, people who are made to feel mentally ex- hausted, compared with people who are not made to feel mentally exhausted, make their romantic partners endure longer painful yoga poses when the partner insults them (Finkel et al., 2009, Study 4). Affect, cognition, and arousal may also be related to IPV. Currently experienced anger, for example, is related to more aggressive verbal- izations among intoxicated maritally violent men (Eckhardt, 2007). In addition, having hos-
  • 18. tile cognitive biases toward one’s spouse is as- sociated with perpetrating more violence against one’s partner (Fincham, Bradbury, Arias, Byrne, & Karney, 1997). Relatively little research has examined the role of arousal in IPV. In one relevant study, men who showed diminished sensitivity to their wives’ expres- sions of happiness (an indicator of reduced arousal) were more likely to commit IPV com- pared with men who showed high sensitivity to their spouse’s emotional expressions (Marshall & Holtzworth-Munroe, 2010). Future research is clearly needed on the relationship between arousal and IPV. The appraisal and decision-making compo- nent of GAM is involved in both aggression toward strangers and toward intimate relation- ship partners. When people do not have suffi- cient mental resources to engage in reappraisal processing, they are more likely to behave ag- gressively toward their romantic partners (Fin- kel et al., 2009). When people are mentally exhausted, they are less likely to control their aggressive impulses when provoked. Just as ex- ercising a muscle strengthens it, people who 247SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu
  • 23. ad ly . exercise self-control are buffered from the neg- ative effects of mental exhaustion on IPV (Fin- kel et al., 2009, Study 5). The implication is that the more self-control strength people have, the more likely they are to carefully consider the negative ramifications of their actions and to choose to behave in a more thoughtful, nonag- gressive manner. Thus, GAM provides a cohesive understand- ing regarding situational and personal attributes that elevate the likelihood of IPV, mechanisms through which aggressive urges translate into violent behavior and decision-making processes that influence whether people succumb to their aggressive urges or instead engage in thought- ful, nonaggressive behavior. Commonly used theoretical models, such as socioecological models (Heise, 1998) and social learning theory (Bandura, 1973), provide valuable insight into the causes of IPV, but they lack crucial compo- nents that limit their explanatory power. For example, socioecological models do not exam- ine the influence of an individual’s knowledge structures, attitudes, and beliefs on currently experienced emotions, cognitive processes, and arousal levels, and their influence on whether people engage in impulsive or thoughtful ac- tions toward one’s partner. Instead, socioeco-
  • 24. logical models seek to understand the causes of IPV at different levels of analysis (individual, relationship, community, societal), which estab- lishes the source of influence but does not offer clear understanding regarding the role of cur- rently experienced emotion, cognitive pro- cesses, or arousal on appraisal and decision- making processes that influence whether people perpetrate IPV. Social learning theory offers a useful framework to understand risk factors for aggression, but it neglects the importance of factors that increase the risk for aggression that are independent of one’s learning history, such as genetic predispositions known to heighten the risk for aggression (e.g., monoamine oxi- dase A gene, serotonin transporter gene; Dolan, Anderson, & Deakin, 2001; McDermott, Tin- gley, Cowden, Frazzetto, & Johnson, 2009). GAM is a biological–social– cognitive model, which uses both learning history and factors not associated with one’s learning history to under- stand why people perpetrate IPV. For these rea- sons, GAM offers a more comprehensive model from which to test hypotheses regarding IPV perpetration. Intergroup Violence Most aggression theories attempt to explain the causes and consequences of aggression be- tween individuals, leaving open the question of whether similar processes may be involved in explaining aggression between groups. GAM offers a useful framework for understanding how aggression between groups begins and why it persists.
  • 25. Aggression between groups begins as a result of characteristics that each group brings to a situation and of environmental features that in- crease aggression. Groups, like individuals, tend to have enduring motivations, attitudes, values, and beliefs that develop out of their prior history. Indeed, research on the disconti- nuity effect has consistently shown that individ- uals have internal states that are heavily influ- enced by group processes (Insko, Schopler, Hoyle, Dardis, & Graetz, 1990). Other research from the attitude literature suggests that expos- ing people to an in-group member (e.g., a fellow member of one’s political party) causes people to express strong attitudes that support their in-group, whereas exposing people to an out- group member has the opposite effect (Ledger- wood & Chaiken, 2007). Within the context of group aggression, the terrorist group Al Qaeda believes that an alliance between Christians and Jews threatens the future of Islam. Most people living in the United States are Christians (78%; Newport, 2009), and most people living in Is- rael are Jews (76%; Central Bureau of Statistics, 2009). As a result, situations that signal a strong Christian–Jewish alliance, such as activities re- lated to a coalition between the United States and Israel, may increase aggressive affect, neg- ative attitudes, and arousal among members of Al Qaeda. These internal states may, in turn, increase the likelihood that members of Al Qaeda will perpetrate violence against all peo- ple associated with a U.S.–Israel coalition, even bystanders and civilians.
  • 26. GAM’s feedback loop also explains why ag- gressive retaliations between groups persist. Once conflict between two groups begins, the violence escalation cycle is triggered. Group A experiences Group B’s retaliation, which causes Group A’s members to have high levels of aggressive affect, to perceive Group B as hostile and aggressive, and to experience heightened arousal. These internal states cause members of 248 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by
  • 29. el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is
  • 30. n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . Group A to act impulsively on their immediate appraisal of Group B as hostile and threatening. Group B then experiences the impulsively ag- gressive act from Group A, which sets in mo- tion the same set of internal states and appraisal and decision processes that result in an even more aggressive retaliation (see Figure 2). Both groups will trade increasingly aggressive retal- iations back and forth, which can result in the widespread destruction of human life and prop-
  • 31. erty. To be sure, the feedback loop can only be applied to understand ongoing aggressive retal- iations between groups. If Group A refuses to respond to Group B’s provocation with aggres- sive retaliation, then Group A bears no respon- sibility for any additional aggression provoca- tion it may experience from Group B. Thus, GAM offers a parsimonious and ade- quate perspective for understanding why inter- group violence begins and persists. Socioeco- logical models and social learning theory offer useful insight into why intergroup violence oc- curs, but they also suffer significant limitations in terms of the scope of their explanatory power. From a socioecological perspective, un- derstanding intergroup violence begins with un- derstanding the individual within the group, then understanding that individual’s relation- ships with others inside and outside the group, and finally understanding the group’s relation- ship within society. Although these levels of analysis provide information regarding risk and resiliency factors for intergroup violence, they do not offer much in the way of understanding how mechanisms through which the influence of the four-level socioecological model influ- ences the appraisal and decision process that ultimately determines whether groups will en- gage in violent behavior. According to social learning theory, intergroup violence occurs in large part because members of a group are ex- posed to violence that taught them to solve group conflict through behaving violently. Un- like GAM, social learning theory does not em-
  • 32. phasize the importance of personal factors that enhance or diminish the effect of exposure to violence on subsequent group violent behavior. GAM incorporates the best perspectives of these theoretical models, addresses their limita- tions, and as a result provides researchers with a strong theoretical framework from which to un- derstand intergroup violence. Global Climate Change and Violence Global climate change and its wide-ranging environmental consequences (e.g., flooding, droughts, desertification, food and water short- ages) have been recognized by numerous na- tional, military, and international groups as a significant risk factor for social disorder, eco- migration conflicts, and war. Global climate change influences aggression and violence both as a proximate situational factor and as a distal environmental modifier. More specifically, there appear to be three main ways in which rapid global climate change (rapid in geological terms) can increase the risk of violence (Ander- son & DeLisi, in press). First, there is a direct effect of heat on aggressive inclinations. This well-researched line of work has shown that uncomfortably hot temperatures can increase physical aggression in laboratory settings and in real-world violent crime studies (Anderson, 2001). Simply presenting people with words related to hot temperatures is enough to increase aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions Violence Escalation Cycle
  • 33. Appropriate retaliation B harms A Inappropriate over-retaliation A harms B Inappropriate over-retaliation Appropriate retaliation B harms A retaliation Appropriate over-retaliation Inappropriate A harms B B harms A Intentional Unjustified Unintentional Justified A harms B
  • 34. Relatively harmful j Relatively mild Events sevitcepsrep s'Bsevitcepsrep s'A Figure 2. The violence escalation cycle. N. L. From Vi- olent evil and the general aggression model, by C. A. Anderson and N. L. Carnagey, 2004, Chapter in A. Miller (Ed.) The Social Psychology of Good and Evil (pp. 168 – 192). Copyright 2004 by New York: Guilford Publications. Reprinted with permission of Guilford Press. 249SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te
  • 37. s ol el y fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a
  • 38. nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . (DeWall & Bushman, 2009). Second, many of the environmental risk factors known to in- crease the likelihood of a child growing up to be an aggression-prone adult will become more widespread worldwide, especially in regions likely to experience flooding as a result of sea
  • 39. level increases, tropical storms, glacial melt, and regions likely to experience drought and resulting food and water shortages. Poor pre- and postnatal nutrition is known to influence a host of aggression-related competencies and proneness to violence (e.g., DeLisi, 2005; Liu, Raine, Venables, & Mednick, 2004). Indeed, recent molecular genetics studies have found specific brain chemistry-related Genetic � En- vironment interactions (both physical and social environments) on violent criminality (see An- derson & DeLisi, in press). Third, historical and contemporary research shows that rapid climate change can increase group violence. Specifi- cally, a growing body of literature supports the notion that rapid climate change (heating or cooling) increases civil disorder, political insta- bility, and war, mostly by creating acute and recurring resource shortages that lead to ecomi- gration and violent conflict. Examples include war in China during 1000 –1900 A.D. (Zhang, Zhang, Lee, & He, 2007), civil war in sub- Sahara Africa (Burke, Miguel, Satyanath, Dykema, & Lobell, 2009), ecomigration and violence in Bangladesh and India, and violence associated with the U.S. Dust Bowl and Hurri- cane Katrina. Similarly, U.S. data reveal a ro- bust relation between increasingly hot years and violent crime rates (Anderson, Bushman, & Groom, 1997; Anderson & DeLisi, in press). GAM does a better job of explaining the effects of climate change on violence than other theories of violence. Whereas socioecological theories of violence focus primarily on how people in one’s environment influence violence,
  • 40. GAM emphasizes the importance of both peo- ple in one’s environment and changes in the physical environment itself as relevant to un- derstanding violence. Likewise, social learning theory would explain the relationship between climate change and violence as a function of observing a greater number of people behaving violently, thereby ignoring the importance of changes in the actual environment (irrespective of the people in the environment) and their influence on the higher number of people be- having violently. Thus, GAM is unique in its ability to account for changes in the environ- ment that may have implications for increasing violence, such as increasing ambient tempera- tures. Suicide Why people commit suicide has puzzled so- cial scientists for centuries. Very few interven- tions aimed at reducing suicide are successful (Van Orden et al., 2010). To prevent suicides, we need to know why they occur. We believe GAM can offer a powerful framework for un- derstanding why people commit suicide. Many of the same person and situation fac- tors that increase aggression between individu- als and groups also increase suicide, sometimes called self-aggression. Alcohol intoxication, for example, is common among people who die by suicide (Ohberg, Vuori, & Ojanpera, 1996). Laboratory research has shown that intoxicated people inflict more intense shocks on them-
  • 41. selves compared with sober people (McCloskey & Berman, 2003). Feeling rejected and lonely is also robustly associated with aggression toward others (e.g., DeWall, Twenge, Bushman, Im, & Williams, 2010; DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009) and with suicide (see Van Orden et al., 2010, for a review). One longitu- dinal study, for example, found that feelings of loneliness at age 12–13 predicted higher sui- cidal risk 30 years later (Rojas & Stenberg, 2010). Just as poor self-control and serotonergic dysfunction are related to aggression against other people, they are also reliably associated with an increased risk for death by suicide (e.g., Anisman et al., 2008; Brent et al., 1994; Re- naud, Berlim, McGirr, Tousignant, & Turecki, 2008). Affect, cognition, and arousal all play a cru- cial role in suicidal behavior. People who gen- erally internalize their anger are also more likely to attempt suicide, which is the leading risk factor for suicidal completion (see Van Orden et al., 2010, for a review). Suicidal ide- ation refers to thoughts related to ending one’s life. The more people think about dying by suicide, the more likely they are to die by sui- cide (Van Orden, Merrill, & Joiner, 2005). In addition, diminished arousal to the pain and distress that are associated with suicidal behav- ior relate to higher numbers of suicide attempts 250 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi
  • 46. ed b ro ad ly . (Van Orden, Witte, Gordon, Bender, & Joiner, 2008). Because most people have a strong fear of death, they must acquire the ability to inflict lethal self-injury through repeated exposure to and habituation to fear-provoking stimuli (Van Orden et al., 2010). Simply having the desire to die by suicide is not sufficient to predict who actually will die by suicide. Recurrent exposure to frightening and painful situations desensi- tizes people to pain and increases their risk for suicide (Nademin et al., 2008). These findings mirror work in the aggression literature, which shows that frequent exposure to violent media desensitizes people to violent images and is associated with higher aggression toward others (Anderson et al., 2010; Bartholow, Bushman, & Sestir, 2006). For researchers interested in understanding why people die by suicide, GAM provides a social– cognitive framework from which rich and complex hypotheses can be formulated and
  • 47. tested. Socioecological models of violence may identify risk factors for suicide, but they do not elucidate the crucial mechanisms through which these risk factors heighten the risk for suicide. Social learning theorists emphasize that expo- sure to others who commit suicide may heighten one’s risk for suicide, but they neglect personal factors (e.g., traits, genetic polymorphisms) that may exacerbate or buffer people from this risk. In contrast, suicide researchers can use GAM to make specific predictions regarding the mod- erators and mediators of the effects of belong- ingness and burdensomeness on suicidal behav- ior. They can also understand how the acquired ability to inflict lethal self-injury develops, and whether experiences of lowered belongingness, which influence physical pain processes (Bor- sook & MacDonald, 2010; DeWall & Baumeis- ter, 2006; DeWall, MacDonald, et al., 2010; Eisenberger, Lieberman, & Williams, 2003), accelerate the development of people’s ability to commit suicide. In addition, GAM offers suicide researchers an extensive toolkit of fac- tors known to increase aggression against others (e.g., media violence) that may have a similar impact on suicidal behavior. Thus, GAM offers a more comprehensive framework for under- standing suicidal behavior than existing theoret- ical models among researchers who wish to explain why people die by suicide from a so- cial– cognitive perspective. Using GAM to Inform Violence Prevention Programs
  • 48. GAM suggests that a knowledge structure approach would be a more useful means of preventing violence compared with existing models. Specifically, it suggests that individual interventions should begin with an assessment of inappropriate aggressive episodes in the in- dividual’s life along four dimensions. The first dimension is how much hostile or agitated af- fect is present. The second dimension is how much a specific thought, feeling, or action has become automatized. The third dimension is how much the primary (ultimate) goal is harm- ing the victim versus benefitting the perpetrator. The fourth dimension is how much the perpe- trator considers the consequences of commit- ting the aggressive act. Doing so allows the model to avoid the problems created by various artificial dichotomies of aggressive behavior types, such as the reactive–proactive dichotomy (Bushman & Anderson, 2001). One then could tailor the intervention to the specific aspects that appear most relevant to the individual. A GAM- directed intervention would be more likely to capture all of the critical elements. In what follows, we discuss how GAM can be applied to violence prevention programs for IPV, inter- group violence, global climate change-related violence, and suicide. IPV To illustrate the explanatory power of GAM in shaping effective interventions, consider the hypothetical scenario of an intervention to re- duce violence in a man who is referred to a psychological clinic because he routinely bat-
  • 49. ters his wife. Although some assessment proto- cols for preventing IPV involve setting clear-cut goals and expectations (Sonkin & Liebert, 2003), they do not do so within an overarching framework that assesses inappropriate aggres- sive episodes in the individual’s life along the four dimensions noted above. A GAM-directed intervention would consist of five steps. First, an assessment session would measure how much hostile affect is present in the man; how much a specific thought, feeling, or action related to violence against his wife has been automatized through repetitive exposure or practice; how much the man’s primary goal is 251SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri
  • 53. se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . harming his wife versus benefitting himself (e.g., feeling a sense of power and control in the relationship); and how much the man reflects on the consequences of violently battering his wife.
  • 54. Second, the therapist would provide the man with strategies designed to reduce his hostile affect (e.g., distraction, relaxation) and make him aware of the specific thoughts, feelings, and behavior related to his battering behavior that have become so deeply ingrained in his every- day life that they occur automatically. Third, the therapist would give the man strategies de- signed to increase his thoughtful awareness of the violent thoughts, feelings, and actions re- lated to his wife. Fourth, the therapist would work with the man to reduce his desire to cause harm to his wife (if that is his primary goal) and to develop a list of other activities he could use to feel that he plays an important and valued role in his marriage. Fifth, the therapist would provide the man with activities designed to strengthen his self-regulatory abilities, which may increase the likelihood that he will engage in thoughtful decision-making processes when he has the urge to batter his wife. As noted earlier, practicing self-regulation reduces IPV inclinations (Finkel et al., 2009), even when people practice self-regulation in domains that are unrelated to violence. Thus, GAM can in- form IPV programs that can be tailored to spe- cific aspects that are most relevant to an indi- vidual. Intergroup Violence GAM can also help explain how to stop per- sistent intergroup violence. Whereas previous interventions have focused on improving rela- tionships, increasing care and empathy, and be- coming cognitively aware of one’s aggressive
  • 55. urges (Shechtman & Ifargan, 2009), GAM sug- gests that understanding how to break the vio- lence escalation cycle may also prove a useful intervention strategy to reduce intergroup vio- lence. According to GAM, extinguishing per- sistent intergroup violence should occur under the following circumstances. First, Group A may perceive that the outcome of further ag- gressive retaliation is sufficiently important and unsatisfying that they should engage in thought- ful, as opposed to impulsive, actions toward Group B. Next, Group B experiences Group A’s thoughtful response, which should not increase its aggressive affect, cognition, or arousal. As a result, Group B does not perceive Group A as hostile and threatening, leading it to refrain from further aggressive retaliation. This is an upward spiral rather than a downward one (Slater, Henry, Swaim, & Anderson, 2003). Thus, intergroup violence should stop in the appraisal and decision process component of GAM. But, of course, this can occur only if the thoughtful process results in a decision to de- escalate. Frequently, in international politics, this does not happen. In fact, formal political policies frequently endorse an escalation strat- egy on the oft-mistaken notion that “if we show the enemy that their provocations will only hurt them more, then they will back down.” There may be cases, however, in which extreme esca- lation can end a conflict because one or more parties are simply unable to continue the esca- lation cycle.
  • 56. Even in cases of vastly unequal power, how- ever, “relative” escalation may occur (Anderson et al., 2008). That is, the weaker side may not be able to retaliate at the same level as the stronger side, but it still may retaliate more strongly than it did before. Indeed, much international terror- ism has this characteristic. The Israel–Palestinian conflict offers one ex- ample of how GAM can help explain how in- tergroup violence begins, persists—and how it can end. This intergroup conflict erupted several decades ago when Jews and Arabs exchanged violent attacks over a strip of land, alternately called Israel or Palestine, which Jews claim is their birthright and Palestinians claim as theirs. When will the Israeli–Palestinian conflict end? A GAM-derived intervention would begin by encouraging citizens from Israel, Palestine, or both countries to perceive that the outcome of their country’s retaliation is both important and unsatisfying. When this occurs, the relenting country will engage in reappraisal processing and thoughtful nonviolent action toward the other country. The opposing country will expe- rience a thoughtful, as opposed to an impul- sively aggressive, action from the other country, which will disrupt the internal states and ap- praisal and decision processes that usually ac- company acts from the other group. For this to happen, of course, major belief systems (knowl- edge structures) must change and be replaced by a set of new beliefs, especially beliefs about each other and about the efficacy of violent
  • 57. 252 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er ic an
  • 60. so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot to b e di ss
  • 61. em in at ed b ro ad ly . competition versus nonviolent cooperation. This could be implemented through the use of advertising and marketing campaigns and changes in the public opinions and apologies expressed by political leaders. Global Climate Change and Violence To curb the relationship between global cli- mate change and violence, GAM suggests two approaches. The first involves four steps de- signed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and to reduce or slow climate change. Previous re- search has shown that people can be motivated to invest money in a fund to encourage people to reduce fossil fuel use if doing so can foster a positive social reputation (Milinski, Semmann, Krambeck, & Marotzke, 2006). A GAM- directed intervention would extend this prior work by changing not only aspects of the social
  • 62. situation related to fossil fuel use but also mo- tivating people to change their beliefs regarding global climate change and its influence on vio- lence as opposed to other outcomes. First, widespread programs would attempt to change people’s beliefs regarding the presence of global climate change and their attitudes to- ward activities that would reduce global climate change. Second, programs would seek to change aspects of the social situation that may increase behavior that would reduce global cli- mate change. For example, organizations and communities can publicly reward their employ- ees for using the fewest carbon emissions each month, which would establish a norm that lim- iting one’s carbon emissions would be met with social acceptance and approval. Third, a GAM- driven intervention would seek to reduce nega- tive emotions, cognitive processes, or arousal that people may experience in response to over- tures to change their behavior to reduce global climate change. Among people who report that they do not monitor their carbon emissions be- cause it increases their anxiety, interventionists can provide simple and easy solutions aimed at reducing anxiety or tension associated with changing their behaviors that reduce global cli- mate change. Fourth, interventionists would seek to convince citizens that by not taking action to reduce global climate change, the re- sult will have an important and unsatisfying effect on violence. In so doing, citizens will be motivated to engage in thoughtful action to en- gage in behaviors that will reduce global cli-
  • 63. mate change. By reducing global climate change, such an intervention provides an effec- tive means of reducing violence that occurs in its wake. The second approach involves directly ad- dressing the violence-enhancing effects of rapid climate change. Although the basic heat effect on aggressive tendencies is likely so subtle and automatic that it will difficult to short circuit, it may be that widespread education programs that inform people about the effects of heat- induced stress on aggression might well help some people to refrain from acting on aggres- sive impulses. More important, international programs can intervene on behalf of the other two climate change paths to violence. Well- mother and well-baby nutrition programs for the poor; improved birth control and family planning access and education; and improved education for all, especially for girls, can reduce the effects of poverty and climate-change- induced food and water shortages on the devel- opment of violence-prone individuals. Simi- larly, large-scale investment in flood and drought control and in general environmentally sensitive economic development in regions that have subsistence economies can reduce future resource crises that otherwise are likely to pre- cipitate ecomigration and war. Suicide As noted earlier, suicide prevention programs are notoriously ineffective (Van Orden et al., 2010). Previously successful suicide prevention
  • 64. programs have involved providing people at risk for suicide with information about suicidal behavior and frequent follow-up contacts (Fleischmann et al., 2008; Motto & Bostrom, 2001), but it is unclear precisely why these interventions were successful. Because GAM focuses on understanding the mechanisms un- derlying suicidal behavior, it may provide a useful extension to these previous interventions. A GAM-directed intervention would take a four-pronged approach to preventing suicide. First and second, therapists would identify per- sonal (e.g., beliefs, attitudes, traits) and social (e.g., social rejection, employment, exposure to violence) factors known to increase the risk for suicide. After identifying an individual’s per- sonal and social “risk profile,” the therapist 253SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu m en t i s co
  • 69. rected at each specific risk factor. For example, individuals who have positive beliefs about sui- cide may be exposed to therapeutic treatment aimed at changing the individual’s suicide be- liefs. Individuals who chronically feel rejected would be given opportunities for renewed affil- iation, which quickly reduces the harmful ef- fects of social rejection (DeWall, Baumeister, & Vohs, 2008; DeWall, Twenge, et al., 2010). Third, therapists would identify whether an individual possesses emotional responses, cog- nitive processes, or arousal levels associated with a risk for suicide. After identifying those risk factors, the therapist would offer the indi- vidual treatments aimed at alleviating each risk factor. Among individuals who have become desensitized to graphic images and physical pain, for example, treatments would center on limiting exposure to situations that might in- crease such desensitization (e.g., exposure to weapons, violent media) and providing medical attention to limit any physical damage that may enhance the individual’s desensitization. Fourth, therapists would motivate individuals to perceive suicide as having an outcome that is deeply important and unsatisfying for them per- sonally and their loved ones. By focusing indi- viduals to engage in such appraisal processes, individuals may be more likely to engage in thoughtful action that does not involve suicide. Using GAM to Explain Nonviolent Behavior Whereas the previous sections have empha-
  • 70. sized how GAM can be used to explain violence in four novel ways, this section demonstrates that GAM also can be used to explain nonvio- lent behavior. Most theories of violence are used to explain the causes of these behaviors in contexts in which they occur somewhat fre- quently. At first blush, it might seem natural for GAM to be used only to explain behavior in societies marked by relatively frequent in- stances of violence. We argue that GAM also may be used to explain the nonoccurrence of violence in relatively peaceful societies. There are not very many of them, but there are some societies in which war is a foreign word and violence is extremely rare (Bonta, 1997; Fry, 2007). For example, more than 100 years ago, the Fipa of western Tanzania trans- formed their society from one based on violence and war to one based on nonviolence and peace. The Fipa are very competitive in their business dealings, but the competition is constructive and peaceful (Willis, 1989). Another peaceful soci- ety is the Jains of India. The Jains believe in ahimas (nonviolence), and they take vows to avoid any socially harmful acts, including steal- ing and telling lies. But even in these largely peaceful societies, GAM can explain both the predominance of nonviolence and the rare cases in which people engage in violent and aggressive behavior. Be- cause their lives are filled with largely cooper- ative and prosocial experiences, people embed- ded in highly peaceful societies do not develop
  • 71. enriched aggressive knowledge structures. As a result, violence and aggression in peaceful so- cieties should occur primarily as a result of situational factors that give rise to internal states and appraisal and decision processes associated with impulsive actions. GAM can also explain why peaceful societies remain peaceful—and how societies marked by frequent war and violence can become more peaceful. Unpleasant stimuli and interpersonal conflict are inevitable, which can increase ag- gressive affect, cognition, and arousal. But members of peaceful societies likely appraise the outcome of an aggressive action as a signif- icant and unsatisfying break from norms that encourage cooperation and peaceful conflict resolution, leading them to engage in a thought- ful nonviolent action. In a similar fashion, so- cieties marked by frequent violent conflicts can become less violent when norms that formerly advocated violence now encourage citizens to exercise self-control to override their violent impulses. The eminent sociologist Norbert Elias (1969, 1982) argued that European societal norms changed from the 9th century to the 19th century to encourage people to exercise restraint over their violent impulses and to shame people who failed to do so, which Elias referred to as a “civilizing process.” Other work has shown that modern civilizations are the most peaceful in the history of the world in terms of deaths by war (Keeley, 1996) and murder (Eisner, 2003), presumably as a result of changes in the situa- tional context that encourage people to override their violent impulses. Thus, although unpleas-
  • 72. ant stimuli and interpersonal conflict pervade human life, GAM argues that appraising the 254 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m er
  • 76. di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . outcome of an aggressive action as important and unfulfilling can reduce the likelihood of violence and aggression even in peaceful soci- eties. Conclusion This article has highlighted the strengths of a general theory of aggression. Specifically, GAM provides the only theoretical framework of aggression and violence that explicitly incor- porates biological, personality development, social processes, basic cognitive processes, short-term and long-term processes, and deci- sion processes. We not only have discussed the basic components of GAM, but we also have made several novel contributions to the devel-
  • 77. opment of GAM as a theoretical model. First, whereas GAM has been used primarily to ex- plain aggression, we have demonstrated that GAM can also be used to explain violence. Second, GAM was developed to account for aggression between strangers, but we have shown that it can also be applied to understand IPV. Third, we have shown how GAM can help explain how changes in one’s physical environ- ment, such as climate change, can have direct implications for the safety and sustainability of that environment by increasing violence. Fourth, we have suggested that GAM may be applied to understand violence between groups of people and suicide. Fifth, we have explained how GAM can be used to inform interventions aimed at reducing IPV, violence between groups, violence that occurs as a result of global climate change, and suicide. Sixth, this article illustrates the utility of GAM for explaining nonviolent behavior, such as that found in so- cieties in which war and violence are extremely rare. There are some drawbacks, however, to GAM. Hints about the potential weakness of a general theory of aggression come from the attitude literature. In the attitudes domain, gen- eral attitudes can be poor predictors of specific behaviors (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). For exam- ple, a student’s attitude toward college is a poor predictor of whether he or she will like a par- ticular class. Similarly, GAM was proposed to offer a comprehensive, general view of human aggression. Domain-specific theories may do a better job predicting more specific behaviors.
  • 78. The disadvantage of domain-specific aggres- sion theories, however, is that they cannot cap- ture the complexity of human aggression and violence. Human behavior, including aggres- sive and violent behavior, is complex and is multiply determined. GAM includes most if not all of the factors that can influence aggression and violence. When grappling to understand the causes of aggression, researchers and layper- sons can use GAM to provide a glimpse into why a person or group behaved aggressively— and how that aggression can be reduced. Such global insights can prove very helpful to re- searchers working on more domain-specific models as well as practitioners involved in in- dividual or intergroup violence. Ultimately, as we begin to understand the causes of aggression and violence, people may stop “harming all other living beings,” which is what Thomas Edison hoped would happen one day. References Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude– behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of em- pirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888 – 918. Anderson, C. A. (2001). Heat and violence. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 10, 33–38. Anderson, C. A., & Anderson, K. B. (2008). Men who target women: Specificity of target, generality of aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 605– 622.
  • 79. Anderson, C. A., Buckley, K. E., & Carnagey, N. L. (2008). Creating your own hostile environment: A laboratory examination of trait aggression and the violence escalation cycle. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 462– 473. Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27– 51. Anderson, C. A., Bushman, B. J., & Groom, R. W. (1997). Hot years and serious and deadly assault: Empirical tests of the heat hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1213– 1223. Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2004). Violent evil and the general aggression model. In A. Miller (Ed.), The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. pp. 168 –192. New York: Guilford Publications. Anderson, C. A., & DeLisi, M. (in press). Implica- tions of global climate change for violence in developed and developing countries. In J. Forgas, A. Kruglanski, & K. Williams (Eds.), Social con- flict and aggression. New York: Psychology Press. 255SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do
  • 84. ro ad ly . Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., . . . Saleem, M. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173. Anisman, H., Du, L., Palkovits, M., Faludi, G., Ko- vacs, G. G., Szontagh-Kishazi, P., . . . Poulter, M. O. (2008). Serotonin receptor subtype and p11 mRNA expression in stress-relevant brain regions of suicide and control subjects. Journal of Psychi- atry and Neuroscience, 33, 131–141. Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. Bartholow, B. D., Bushman, B. J., & Sestir, M. A. (2006). Chronic violent video game exposure and desensitization: Behavioral and event-related brain potential data. Journal of Experimental Social Psy- chology, 42, 532–539. Berkowitz, L. (1989). Frustration–aggression hy- pothesis: Examination and reformulation. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 106, 59 –73.
  • 85. Berscheid, E., & Regan, P. (2005). The psychology of interpersonal relationships. New York: Prentice Hall. Bonta, B. D. (1997). Cooperation and competition in peaceful societies. Psychological Bulletin, 121, 299 –320. Borsook, T. K., & MacDonald, G. (2010). Mildly negative social encounters reduce physical pain sensitivity. Pain, 151, 372–377. Brent, D. A., Johnson, B. A., Perper, J., Connolly, J., Bridge, J., Bartle, S., & Rather, C. (1994). Person- ality disorder, personality traits, impulsive vio- lence, and completed suicide in adolescents. Journal of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, 33, 1080 –1086. Burke, M. B., Miguel, E., Satyanath, S., Dykema, J. A., & Lobell, D. B. (2009). Warming increases the risk of civil war in Africa. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 20670 – 20674. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Is it time to pull the plug on the hostile versus instrumental aggression dichotomy? Psychological Review, 108, 273–279. Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Aggres- sion. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., pp. 833– 863). New York: John Wiley & Sons. Central Bureau of Statistics. (2009). Israel in figures:
  • 86. 2009. Retrieved from http://www1.cbs.gov.il/ publications/isr_in_n09e.pdf Cote, S., Vaillancourt, T., LeBlanc, J., Nagin, D. W., & Tremblay, R. E. (2006). The development of physical aggression from toddlerhood to pre- adolescence: A nationwide longitudinal study of Canadian children. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34, 71– 85. DeLisi, M. (2005). Career criminals in society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. DeWall, C. N., & Anderson, C. A. (2011). The Gen- eral Aggression Model. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), Understanding and reducing ag- gression, violence, and their consequences (pp. 15–33). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. DeWall, C. N., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Alone but feeling no pain: Effects of social exclusion on physical pain tolerance and pain threshold, affec- tive forecasting, and interpersonal empathy. Jour- nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 1–15. DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., Stillman, T. F., & Gailliot, M. T. (2007). Violence restrained: Effects of self-regulatory capacity and its depletion on aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental So- cial Psychology, 43, 62–76. DeWall, C. N., Baumeister, R. F., & Vohs, K. D. (2008). Satiated with belongingness? Effects of
  • 87. acceptance, rejection, and task framing on self- regulatory performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 1367–1382. DeWall, C. N., & Bushman, B. J. (2009). Hot under the collar in a lukewarm environment: Hot tem- perature primes increased aggressive thoughts and hostile perceptions. Journal of Experimental So- cial Psychology, 45, 453– 459. DeWall, C. N., MacDonald, G., Webster, G. D., Masten, C., Baumeister, R. F., Powell, C., . . . Eisenberger, N. I. (2010). Acetaminophen reduces social pain: Behavioral and neural evidence. Psy- chological Science, 21, 931–937. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Bushman, B. J., Im, C., & Williams, K. D. (2010). Acceptance by one differs from acceptance by none: Applying social impact theory to the rejection–aggression link. So- cial Psychological and Personality Science, 1, 168 –174. DeWall, C. N., Twenge, J. M., Gitter, S. A., & Baumeister, R. F. (2009). It’s the thought that counts: The role of hostile cognition in shaping aggressive responses to social exclusion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 45–59. Dolan, M., Anderson, I. M., & Deakin, J. F. (2001). Relationship between 5-HT function and impulsiv- ity and aggression in male offenders with person- ality disorders. British Journal of Psychiatry, 178, 352–359. Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer,
  • 88. O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Eckhardt, C. I. (2007). Effects of alcohol intoxication on anger experience and expression among partner 256 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e
  • 91. fo r t he p er so na l u se o f t he in di vi du al u se r a nd is n ot
  • 92. to b e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . assaultive men during anger arousal. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 75, 61–71. Eisenberger, N. I., Lieberman, M. D., & Williams, K. D. (2003, October 10). Does rejection hurt? An fMRI study of social exclusion. Science, 302, 290 –292. Eisner, M. (2003). Long-term historical trends in violent crime. Crime and Justice; A Review of Research, 30, 83–142. Elias, N. (1969). The civilizing process. Vol. I: The
  • 93. history of manners. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Elias, N. (1982). The civilizing process. Vol. II: State formation and civilization. Oxford, England: Blackwell. Fincham, F. D., Bradbury, T. N., Arias, I., Byrne, C. A., & Karney, B. R. (1997). Marital violence, marital distress, and attributions. Journal of Fam- ily Psychology, 11, 367–372. Fincham, F. D., Cui, M., Braithwaite, S. R., & Pas- ley, K. (2008). Attitudes toward intimate partner violence in dating relationships. Psychological As- sessment, 20, 260 –269. Finkel, E. J. (2007). Impelling and inhibiting forces in the perpetration of intimate partner violence. Review of General Psychology, 11, 193–207. Finkel, E. J., DeWall, C. N., Slotter, E. B., Oaten, M., & Foshee, V. A. (2009). Self-regulatory failure and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 483– 499. Fleischmann, A., Bertolote, J. M., Wasserman, D., De Leo, D., Bolhari, J., Botega, N. J., . . . Than, H. T. (2008). Effectiveness of brief intervention and contact for suicide attempters: A randomized controlled trial in five countries. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 86, 703–709. Follingstad, D. R., Bradley, R. G., Helff, C. M., & Laughlin, J. E. (2002). A model for predicting dating violence: Anxious attachment, angry tem-
  • 94. perament and need for relationship control. Vio- lence and Victims, 17, 35– 47. Foran, H. M., & O’Leary, K. D. (2008). Alcohol and intimate partner violence: A meta-analytic review. Clinical Psychology Review, 28, 1222–1234. Fry, D. P. (2007). Beyond war. New York: Oxford University Press. Heise, L. (1998). Violence against women: An inte- grated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4, 262–290. Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smutzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband violence. Aggression and Violent Be- havior, 1, 65–99. Hove, M. C. B., Parkhill, M. R., Neighbors, C., McConchie, J. M., & Fossos, N. (2010). Alcohol consumption and intimate partner violence perpe- tration among college students: The role of self- determination. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 71, 78 – 85. Huesmann, L. R. (1986). Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer. Journal of Social Issues, 42, 125–139. Insko, C. A., Schopler, J., Hoyle, R. H., Dardis, G. J., & Graetz, K. A. (1990). Individual– group discon- tinuity as a function of fear and greed. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 68 –79.
  • 95. Keeley, L. H. (1996). War before civilization: The myth of the peaceful savage. Oxford, England: Oxford University Press. Ledgerwood, A., & Chaiken, S. (2007). Priming us and them: Automatic assimilation and contrast in group attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 940 –956. Liu, J., Raine, A., Venables, P. H., & Mednick, S. A. (2004). Malnutrition at age 3 years and external- izing behavior problems at ages 8, 11, and 17 years. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 161, 2005–2013. Marshall, A. D., & Holtzworth-Munroe, A. (2010). Recognition of wives’ emotional expressions: A mechanism in the relationship between psychopa- thology and intimate partner violence perpetration. Journal of Family Psychology, 24, 21–30. McCloskey, M. S., & Berman, M. E. (2003). Alcohol intoxication and self-aggressive behavior. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 112, 306 –311. McDermott, R., Tingley, D., Cowden, J., Frazzetto, G., & Johnson, D. D. P. (2009). Monoamine oxi- dase A gene (MAOA) predicts behavioral aggres- sion following provocation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 106, 2118 – 2123. Milinski, M., Semmann, D., Krambeck, H.-J., & Ma- rotzke, J. (2006). Stabilizing the Earth’s climate is not a losing game: Supporting evidence from pub-
  • 96. lic goods experiments. Proceedings of the Na- tional Academy of Sciences, USA, 103, 3994 – 3998. Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1995). A cognitive– affective system theory of personality: Reconcep- tualizing situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychological Review, 102, 246 –268. Motto, J. A., & Bostrom, A. G. (2001). A randomized controlled trial of postcrisis suicide prevention. Psychiatric Services, 52, 828 – 833. Nademin, E., Jobes, D. A., Pflanz, S. E., Jacoby, A. M., Ghahramanlou-Holloway, M., Campise, R., . . . Johnson, L. (2008). An investigation of inter- personal–psychological variables in Air Force sui- cides: A controlled-comparison study. Archives of Suicide Research, 12, 309 –326. Newport, F. (2009). This Christmas, 78% of Ameri- cans identify as Christian. Retrieved from http:// 257SPECIAL ISSUE: GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL T hi s do cu m en
  • 101. . www.gallup.com/poll/124793/this-christmas-78- americans-identify-christian.aspx Ohberg, A., Vuori, E., & Ojanpera, I. (1996). Alcohol and drugs in suicides. British Journal of Psychia- try, 169, 75– 80. Parry, M. L., Canziani, O. F., Palutikof, J. P., van der Linden, P. J., & Hanson, C. E. (Eds.). (2007). Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. Renaud, J., Berlim, M. T., McGirr, A., Tousignant, M., & Turecki, G. (2008). Current psychiatric mor- bidity, aggression/impulsivity, and personality di- mensions in child and adolescent suicide: A case– control study. Journal of Affective Disorders, 105, 221–228. Rojas, Y., & Stenberg, S.-A. (2010). Early life cir- cumstances and male suicide—A 30-year fol- low-up of a Stockholm cohort born in 1953. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 420 – 427. Schafer, J., Caetano, R., & Clark, C. (1998). Rates of intimate partner violence in the United States. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1702– 1704. Schumacher, J. A., Feldbau-Kohn, S. R., Slep, A. M. S., & Heyman, R. E. (2001). Risk factors for male-to-female partner physical abuse. Aggression
  • 102. and Violent Behavior, 6, 281–352. Shechtman, Z., & Ifargan, M. (2009). School-based integrated and segregated interventions to reduce aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 35, 342–356. Slater, M. D., Henry, K. L., Swaim, R. C., & Ander- son, L. L. (2003). Violent media content and ag- gressiveness in adolescents: A downward spiral model. Communication Research, 30, 713–736. Sluka, J. (1992). The anthropology of conflict. In C. Nordstrom & J. Martin (Eds.), The paths to dom- ination, resistance, and terror (pp. 18 –36). Berke- ley: University of California Press. Sonkin, D., & Liebert, D. S. (2003). The assessment of court-mandated perpetrators of domestic vio- lence. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment, & Trauma, 6, 3–36. Straus, M. A., & Ramirez, I. L. (2002, July). Gender symmetry in prevalence, severity, and chronicity of physical aggression against dating partners by university students in Mexico and USA. Paper pre- sented at the XV World Meeting of the Interna- tional Society for Research on Aggression, Mon- treal, Canada. Tedeschi, J. T., & Felson, R. B. (1994). Violence, aggression, and coercive actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Van Orden, K. A., Merrill, K. A., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2005). Interpersonal–psychological precursors to
  • 103. suicidal behavior: A theory of attempted and com- pleted suicide. Current Psychiatry Reviews, 1, 187–196. Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Cukrowicz, K. C., Braithwaite, S. R., Selby, E. A., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2010). The interpersonal theory of suicide. Psy- chological Review, 117, 575– 600. Van Orden, K. A., Witte, T. K., Gordon, K. H., Bender, T. W., & Joiner, T. E., Jr. (2008). Suicidal desire and the capability for suicide: Tests of the interpersonal–psychological theory of suicidal be- havior among adults. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 76, 72– 83. Willis, R. (1989). The “peace puzzle” in Ufipa. In S. Howell & R. Willis (Eds.), Societies at peace: Anthropological perspectives (pp. 133–145). Lon- don: Routledge. World Health Organization. (2008). Suicide statis- tics: Introduction. Retrieved from http:// www.who.int/mental_health/ prevention/suicide/ suicideprevent/en/print.html Zhang, D. D., Zhang, J., Lee, H. F., & He, Y.-Q. (2007). Climate change and war frequency in East- ern China over the last millennium. Human Ecol- ogy, 35, 403– 414. Zillmann, D. (1983). Arousal and aggression. In R. G. Geen & E. Donnerstein (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1, pp. 75–102). New York: Academic Press.
  • 104. Received August 6, 2010 Revision received March 23, 2011 Accepted March 28, 2011 � 258 DEWALL, ANDERSON, AND BUSHMAN T hi s do cu m en t i s co py ri gh te d by th e A m
  • 108. e di ss em in at ed b ro ad ly . Journal of Abnormal and Social P&ychoh 1961, Vol. 63, No. 3, 575-582 TRANSMISSION OF AGGRESSION THROUGH IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS1 ALBERT BANDURA, DOROTHEA ROSS, AND SHEILA A. ROSS2 Stanford University A previous study, designed to account
  • 109. for the phenomenon of identification in terms of incidental learning, demon- strated that children readily imitated behavior exhibited by an adult model in the presence of the model (Bandura & Huston, 1961). A series of experiments by Blake (1958) and others (Grosser, Polansky, & Lippitt, 1951; Rosenblith, 1959; Schachter & Hall, 1952) have likewise shown that mere observation of responses of a model has a facilitating effect on subjects' reactions in the immediate social influence setting. While these studies provide convincing evi- dence for the influence and control exerted on others by the behavior of a model, a more crucial test of imitative learning involves the generalization of imitative response patterns to new settings in which the model is absent. In the experiment reported in this paper children were exposed to aggressive and non- aggressive adult models and were then tested for amount of imitative learning in a new situ- ation in the absence of the model. According to the prediction, subjects exposed to aggres- sive models would reproduce aggressive acts resembling those of their models and would differ in this respect both from subjects who observed nonaggressive models and from those who had no prior exposure to any models. This hypothesis assumed that subjects had learned imitative habits as a result of prior reinforcement, and these tendencies would
  • 110. generalize to some extent to adult experi- menters (Miller & Bollard, 1941). It was further predicted that observation of subdued nonaggressive models would have a generalized inhibiting effect on the subjects' subsequent behavior, and this effect would be reflected in a difference between the non- aggressive and the control groups, with sub- 'This investigation was supported by Research Grant M-4398 from the National Institute of Health, United States Public Health Service. 2 The authors wish to express their appreciation to Edith Dowley, Director, and Patricia Rowe, Head Teacher, Stanford University Nursery School for their assistance throughout this study. jects in the latter group displaying significantly more aggression. Hypotheses were also advanced concerning the influence of the sex of model and sex of subjects on imitation. Pauls and Smith (1956) have shown that preschool children perceive their parents as having distinct preferences regarding sex appropriate modes of behavior for their children. Their findings, as well as informal observation, suggest that parents re- ward imitation of sex appropriate behavior and discourage or punish sex inappropriate imitative responses, e.g., a male child is un- likely to receive much reward for performing female appropriate activities, such as cooking, or for adopting other aspects of the maternal
  • 111. role, but these same behaviors are typically welcomed if performed by females. As a result of differing reinforcement histories, tendencies to imitate male and female models thus acquire differential habit strength. One would expect, on this basis, subjects to imitate the behavior of a same-sex model to a greater degree than a model of the opposite sex. Since aggression, however, is a highly mascu- line-typed behavior, boys should be more pre- disposed than girls toward imitating aggres- sion, the difference being most marked for subjects exposed to the male aggressive model. METHOD Subjects The subjects were 36 boys and 36 girls enrolled in the Stanford University Nursery School. They ranged in age from 37 to 69 months, with a mean age of 52 months. Two adults, a male and a female, served in the role of model, and one female experimenter conducted the study for all 72 children. Experimental Design Subjects were divided into eight experimental groups of six subjects each and a control group consisting of 24 subjects. Half the experimental subjects were ex- posed to aggressive models and half were exposed to models that were subdued and nonaggressive in their behavior. These groups were further subdivided into
  • 112. male and female subjects. Half the subjects in the aggressive and nonaggressive conditions observed 575 576 A. BANDURA, D. Ross, AND S. A. Ross same-sex models, while the remaining subjects in each group viewed models of the opposite sex. The control group had no prior exposure to the adult models and was tested only in the generalization situation. It seemed reasonable to expect that the subjects' level ol aggressiveness would be positively related to the readiness with which they imitated aggressive modes of behavior. Therefore, in order to increase the precision of treatment comparisons, subjects in the experimental and control groups were matched individually on the basis of ratings of their aggressive behavior in social interactions in the nursery school. The subjects were rated on four five-point rating scales by the experimenter and a nursery school teacher, both of whom were well acquainted with the children. These scales measured the extent to which subjects displayed physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition. The latter scale, which dealt with the subjects' tendency to inhibit aggressive reactions in the face of high instigation, provided a measure of aggres- sion anxiety. Fifty-one subjects were rated independently by both judges so as to permit an assessment of interrater
  • 113. agreement. The reliability of the composite aggression score, estimated by means of the Pearson product- moment correlation, was .89. The composite score was obtained by summing the ratings on the four aggression scales; on the basis of these scores, subjects were arranged in triplets and assigned at random to one of two treatment conditions or to the control group. Experimental Conditions In the first step in the procedure subjects were brought individually by the experimenter to the experimental room and the model who was in the hallway outside the room, was invited by the experi- menter to come and join in the game. The experimenter then escorted the subject to one corner of the room, which was structured as the subject's play area. After seating the child at a small table, the experimenter demonstrated how the subject could design pictures with potato prints and picture stickers provided. The potato prints included a variety of geometrical forms; the stickers were attractive multicolor pictures of animals, flowers, and western figures to be pasted on a pastoral scene. These activities were selected since they had been established, by previous studies in the nursery school, as having high interest value for the children. After having settled the subject in his corner, the experimenter escorted the model to the opposite corner of the room which contained a small table and chair, a tinker toy set, a mallet, and a S-foot inflated Bobo doll. The experimenter explained that these were the materials provided for the model to play with and, after the model was seated, the experimenter left the
  • 114. experimental room. With subjects in the nonaggressive condition, the model assembled the tinker toys in a quiet subdued manner totally ignoring the Bobo doll. In contrast, with subjects in the aggressive condition, the model began by assembling the tinker toys but after approximately a minute had elapsed, the model turned to the Bobo doll and spent the remainder of the period aggressing toward it. Imitative learning can be clearly demonstrated if a model performs sufficiently novel patterns of responses which are unlikely to occur independently of the ob- servation of the behavior of a model and if a subject reproduces these behaviors in substantially identical form. For this reason, in addition to punching the Bobo doll, a response that is likely to be performed by children independently of a demonstration, the model exhibited distinctive aggressive acts which were to be scored as imitative responses. The model laid Bobo on its side, sat on it and punched it repeatedly in the nose. The model then raised the Bobo doll, picked up the mallet and struck the doll on the head. Following the mallet aggression, the model tossed the doll up in the air aggressively and kicked it about the room. This sequence of physically aggressive acts was repeated approximately three times, interspersed with verbally aggressive responses such as, "Sock him in the nose .. .," "Hit him down...," "Throw him in the air . . .," "Kick him . . . ," "Pow . . . ," and two non- aggressive comments, "He keeps coming back for more" and "He sure is a tough fella."
  • 115. Thus in the exposure situation, subjects were pro- vided with a diverting task which occupied their attention while at the same time insured observation of the model's behavior in the absence of any instruc- tions to observe or to learn the responses in question. Since subjects could not perform the model's aggressive behavior, any learning that occurred was purely on an observational or covert basis. At the end of 10 minutes, the experimenter entered the room, informed the subject that he would now go to another game room, and bid the model goodbye. Aggression Arousal Subjects were tested for the amount of imitative learning in a different experimental room that was set off from the main nursery school building. The two experimental situations were thus clearly differentiated; in fact, many subjects were under the impression that they were no longer on the nursery school grounds. Prior to the test for imitation, however, all subjects, experimental and control, were subjected to mild aggression arousal to insure that they were under some degree of instigation to aggression. The arousal experi- ence was included for two main reasons. In the first place, observation of aggressive behavior exhibited by others tends to reduce the probability of aggression on the part of the observer (Rosenbaum & deCharms, 1960). Consequently, subjects in the aggressive con- dition, in relation both to the nonaggressive and con- trol groups, would be under weaker instigation following exposure to the models. Second, if subjects in the non- aggressive condition expressed little aggression in the face of appropriate instigation, the presence of an
  • 116. inhibitory process would seem to be indicated. Following the exposure experience, therefore, the experimenter brought the subject to an anteroom that contained these relatively attractive toys: a fire engine, a locomotive, a jet fighter plane, a cable car, a colorful spinning top, and a doll set complete with wardrobe, doll carriage, and babr crib. The experi- IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS 577 menter explained that the toys were for the subject to play with but, as soon as the subject became suffi- ciently involved with the play material (usually in about 2 minutes), the experimenter remarked that these were her very best toys, that she did not let just anyone play with them, and that she had decided to reserve these toys for the other children. However, the subject could play with any of the toys that were in the next room. The experimenter and the subject then entered the adjoining experimental room. It was necessary for the experimenter to remain in the room during the experimental session; otherwise a number of the children would either refuse to remain alone or would leave before the termination of the session. However, in order to minimize any influence her presence might have on the subject's behavior, the experimenter remained as inconspicuous as possible by busying herself with paper work at a desk in the far corner of the room and avoiding any interaction with the child. Test for Delayed Imitation
  • 117. The experimental room contained a variety of toys including some that could be used in imitative or non- imitative aggression, and others that tended to elicit predominantly nonaggressive forms of behavior. The aggressive toys included a 3-foot Bobo doll, a mallet and peg board, two dart guns, and a tether ball with a face painted on it which hung from the ceiling. The nonaggressive toys, on the other hand, included a tea set, crayons and coloring paper, a ball, two dolls, three bears, cars and trucks, and plastic farm animals. In order to eliminate any variation in behavior due to mere placement of the toys in the room, the play material was arranged in a fixed order for each of the sessions. The subject spent 20 minutes in this experimental room during which time his behavior was rated in terms of predetermined response categories by judges who observed the session through a one-way mirror in an adjoining observation room. The 20-minute session was divided into 5-second intervals by means of an electric interval timer, thus yielding a total number of 240 response units for each subject. The male model scored the experimental sessions for all 72 children. Except for the cases in which he served as model, he did not have knowledge of the subjects' group assignments. In order to provide an estimate of interscorer agreement, the performances of half the subjects were also scored independently by a second observer. Thus one or the other of the two ob- servers usually had no knowledge of the conditions to which the subjects were assigned. Since, however, all but two of the subjects in the aggressive condition
  • 118. performed the models' novel aggressive responses while subjects in the other conditions only rarely exhibited such reactions, subjects who were exposed to the aggres- sive models could be readily identified through their distinctive behavior. The responses scored involved highly specific con- crete classes of behavior and yielded high interscorer reliabilities, the product-moment coefficients being in the .90s. Response Measures Three measures of imitation were obtained: Imitation of physical aggression: This category in- cluded acts of striking the Bobo doll with the mallet, sitting on the doll and punching it in the nose, kicking the doll, and tossing it in the air. Imitative verbal aggression: Subject repeats the phrases, "Sock him," "Hit him down," "Kick him," "Throw him in the air," or "Pow." Imitative nonaggressive verbal responses: Subject repeats, "He keeps coming back for more," or "He sure is a tough fella." During the pretest, a number of the subjects imi- tated the essential components of the model's behavior but did not perform the complete act, or they directed the imitative aggressive response to some object other than the Bobo doll. Two responses of this type were therefore scored and were interpreted as partially imitative behavior. Mallet aggression: Subject strikes objects other than
  • 119. the Bobo doll aggressively with the mallet. Sits on Bobo doll: Subject lays the Bobo doll on its side and sits on it, but does not aggress toward it. The following additional nonimitative aggressive responses were scored: Punches Bobo doll: Subject strikes, slaps, or pushes the doll aggressively. Nonimitative physical and verbal aggression: This category included physically aggressive acts directed toward objects other than the Bobo doll and any hostile remarks except for those in the verbal imitation cate- gory; e.g., "Shoot the Bobo," "Cut him," "Stupid ball," "Knock over people," "Horses fighting, biting" Aggressive gun play: Subject shoots darts or aims the guns and fires imaginary shots at objects in the room. Ratings were also made of the number of behavior units in which subjects played nonaggressively or sat quietly and did not play with any of the material at all. RESULTS Complete Imitation of Models' Behavior Subjects in the aggression condition repro- duced a good deal of physical and verbal ag- gressive behavior resembling that of the models, and their mean scores differed mark- edly from those of subjects in the nonaggressive and control groups who exhibited virtually no imitative aggression (see Table 1).
  • 120. Since there were only a few scores for sub- jects in the nonaggressive and control condi- tions (approximately 70% of the subjects had zero scores), and the assumption of homo- geneity of variance could not be made, the Friedman two-way analysis of variance by ranks was employed to test the significance of the obtained differences. The prediction that exposure of subjects to aggressive models increases the probability 578 A. BANDTJRA, D. Ross, AND S. A. Ross of aggressive behavior is clearly confirmed (see Table 2). The main effect of treatment conditions is highly significant both for physi- cal and verbal imitative aggression. Compari- son of pairs of scores by the sign test shows that the obtained over-all differences were due almost entirely to the aggression displayed by subjects who had been exposed to the aggres- sive models. Their scores were significantly higher than those of either the nonaggressive TABLE 1 MEAN AGGRESSION SCORES FOR EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL SUBJECTS Response category Imitative physical aggres-
  • 121. sion Female subjects Male subjects Imitative verbal aggression Female subjects Male subjects Mallet aggression Female subjects Male subjects Punches Bobo doll Female subjects Male subjects Nonimitative aggression Female subjects Male subjects Aggressive gun play Female subjects Male subjects Experimental groups Aggressive F Model s.s 12.4 13.7
  • 122. 4.3 17.2 15. S 6.3 18.9 21.3 16.2 1.8 7.3 M Model 7.2 25.8 2 . 0 12.7 18.7 28.8 16.5 11.9 8.4 36.7 4.5 IS. 9
  • 124. 4 . 3 14.8 1.4 22.3 2.5 16.7 Control groups 1.2 2 . 0 0.7 1.7 13.1 13.5 11.7 15.7 6.1 24.6 3 . 7 14.3 or control groups, which did not differ from each other (Table 2). Imitation was not confined to the model's aggressive responses. Approximately one-third of the subjects in the aggressive condition also
  • 125. repeated the model's nonaggressive verbal responses while none of the subjects in either the nonaggressive or control groups made such remarks. This difference, tested by means of the Cochran Q test, was significant well beyond the .001 level (Table 2). Partial Imitation of Models' Behavior Differences in the predicted direction were also obtained on the two measures of partial imitation. Analysis of variance of scores based on the subjects' use of the mallet aggressively toward objects other than the Bobo doll reveals that treatment conditions are a statistically sig- nificant source of variation (Table 2). In ad- dition, individual sign tests show that both the aggressive and the control groups, relative to subjects in the nonaggressive condition, pro- duced significantly more mallet aggression, the difference being particularly marked with regard to female subjects. Girls who observed nonaggressive models performed a mean num- ber of 0.5 mallet aggression responses as com- pared to mean values of 18.0 and 13.1 for girls in the aggressive and control groups, re- spectively. Although subjects who observed aggressive models performed more mallet aggression (M = 20.0) than their controls (M = 13.3), the difference was not statistically significant. TABLE 2
  • 126. SIGNIFICANCE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EXPERIMENTAL AND CONTROL GROUPS IN THE EXPRESSION or AGGRESSION Comparison of pairs of treatment conditions Response category x3r 0 P Aggressive vs. Aggressive vs. ,,rfl"; I!,:is" Nonaggressive Control fe £„ tf f ' Imitative responses Physical aggression Verbal aggression Nonaggressive verbal responses Partial imitation Mallet aggression Sits on Bobo Nonimitative aggression Punches Bobo doll Physical and verbal Aggressive gun play 27.17 9.17 17. SO 11.06 13.44 2.87 8.96
  • 128. ns .005 ns IMITATION OF AGGRESSIVE MODELS 579 With respect to the partially imitative re- sponse of sitting on the Bobo doll, the over-all group differences were significant beyond the .01 level (Table 2). Comparison of pairs of scores by the sign test procedure reveals that subjects in the aggressive group reproduced this aspect of the models' behavior to a greater extent than did the nonaggressive (p = .018) or the control (p = .059) subjects. The latter two groups, on the other hand, did not differ from each other. Nonimitative Aggression Analyses of variance of the remaining ag- gression measures (Table 2) show that treat- ment conditions did not influence the extent to which subjects engaged in aggressive gun play or punched the Bobo doll. The effect of conditions is highly significant (x2r = 8.96, p < .02), however, in the case of the subjects' expression of nonimitative physical and verbal aggression. Further comparison of treatment pairs reveals that the main source of the over- all difference was the aggressive and non- aggressive groups which differed significantly from each other (Table 2), with subjects ex-
  • 129. posed to the aggressive models displaying the greater amount of aggression. Influence of Sex of Model and Sex of Subjects on Imitation The hypothesis that boys are more prone than girls to imitate aggression exhibited by a model was only partially confirmed, t tests computed for subjects in the aggressive con- dition reveal that boys reproduced more imita- tive physical aggression than girls (t = 2.50, p < .01). The groups do not differ, however, in their imitation of verbal aggression. The use of nonparametric tests, necessitated by the extremely skewed distributions of scores for subjects in the nonaggressive and control conditions, preclude an over-all test of the influence of sex of model per se, and of the various interactions between the main effects. Inspection of the means presented in Table 1 for subjects in the aggression condi- tion, however, clearly suggests the possibility of a Sex X Model interaction. This interaction effect is much more consistent and pronounced for the male model than for the female model. Male subjects, for example, exhibited more physical (t = 2.07, p < .05) and verbal imita- tive aggression (t = 2.51, p < .05), more non- imitative aggression (t = 3.15, p < .025), and engaged in significantly more aggressive gun play (t = 2.12, p < .05) following exposure to the aggressive male model than the female subjects. In contrast, girls exposed to the
  • 130. female model performed considerably more imitative verbal aggression and more non- imitative aggression than did the boys (Table 1). The variances, however, were equally large and with only a small N in each cell the mean differences did not reach statistical significance. Data for the nonaggressive and control subjects provide additional suggestive evi- dence that the behavior of the male model exerted a greater influence than the female model on the subjects' behavior in the gener- alization situation. It will be recalled that, except for the greater amount of mallet aggression exhibited by the control subjects, no significant differences were obtained between the nonaggressive and con- trol groups. The data indicate, however, that the absence of significant differences between these two groups was due primarily to the fact that subjects exposed to the nonaggressive female model did not differ from the controls on any of the measures of aggression. With respect to the male model, on the other hand, the differences between the groups are striking. Comparison of the sets of scores by means of the sign test reveals that, in relation to the control group, subjects exposed to the non- aggressive male model performed significantly less imitative physical aggression (p = .06), less imitative verbal aggression (p = .002), less mallet aggression (p = .003), less non- imitative physical and verbal aggression (p = .03), and they were less inclined to punch the Bobo doll (p = .07).
  • 131. While the comparison of subgroups, when some of the over-all tests do not reach sta- tistical significance, is likely to capitalize on chance differences, nevertheless the con- sistency of the findings adds support to the interpretation in terms of influence by the model. Nonaggressive Behavior With the exception of expected sex differ- ences, Lindquist (1956) Type III analyses of variance of the nonaggressive response scores yielded few significant differences. Female subjects spent more time than boys 580 A. BANDURA, D. Ross, AND S. A. Ross playing with dolls (p < .001), with the tea set (p < .001), and coloring (p < .05). The boys, on the other hand, devoted significantly more time than the girls to exploratory play with the guns (p < .01). No sex differences were found in respect to the subjects use of the other stimulus objects, i.e., farm animals, cars, or tether ball. Treatment conditions did produce signifi- cant differences on two measures of nonag- gressive behavior that are worth mentioning. Subjects in the nonaggressive condition engaged in significantly more nonaggressive
  • 132. play with dolls than either subjects in the aggressive group (t = 2.67, p < .02), or in the control group (/ = 2.57, p < .02). Even more noteworthy is the finding that subjects who observed nonaggressive models spent more than twice as much time as sub- jects in aggressive condition (t = 3.07, p < .01) in simply sitting quietly without handling any of the play material. DISCUSSION Much current research on social learning is focused on the shaping of new behavior through rewarding and punishing conse- quences. Unless responses are emitted, how- ever, they cannot be influenced. The results of this study provide strong evidence that observation of cues produced by the behavior of others is one effective means of eliciting certain forms of responses for which the origi- nal probability is very low or zero. Indeed, social imitation may hasten or short-cut the acquisition of new behaviors without the necessity of reinforcing successive approxima- tions as suggested by Skinner (1953). Thus subjects given an opportunity to observe aggressive models later reproduced a good deal of physical and verbal aggression (as well as nonaggressive responses) sub- stantially identical with that of the model. In contrast, subjects who were exposed to nonaggressive models and those who had no previous exposure to any models only rarely
  • 133. performed such responses. To the extent that observation of adult models displaying aggression communicates permissiveness for aggressive behavior, such exposure may serve to weaken inhibitory responses and thereby to increase the prob- ability of aggressive reactions to subsequent frustrations. The fact, however, that subjects expressed their aggression in ways that clearly resembled the novel patterns exhibited by the models provides striking evidence for the occurrence of learning by imitation. In the procedure employed by Miller and Bollard (1941) for establishing imitative be- havior, adult or peer models performed dis- crimination responses following which they were consistently rewarded, and the subjects were similarly reinforced whenever they matched the leaders' choice responses. While these experiments have been widely accepted as demonstrations of learning by means of imitation, in fact, they simply involve a spe- cial case of discrimination learning in which the behavior of others serves as discriminative stimuli for responses that are already part of the subject's repertoire. Auditory or visual environmental cues could easily have been substituted for the social stimuli to facilitate the discrimination learning. In contrast, the process of imitation studied in the present experiment differed in several important re- spects from the one investigated by Miller and Bollard in that subjects learned to com-