Exposure to weapon pictures and subsequent aggression during adolescence

Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 113–118

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Personality and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Exposure to weapon pictures and subsequent aggression during adolescence Qian Zhang a,b,c,e,⁎,1, JingJin Tian a, Jian Cao e, Da-Jun Zhang a,c,⁎⁎, Philip Rodkin d a

School of Applied Technology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 401147 Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 400715 Center for the Study of Mental Health Education, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China d Department of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois, Champaign, IL 61820, USA e College of Literature, Southwest University, Chongqing, China, 400715 b c

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 15 July 2014 Received in revised form 7 September 2015 Accepted 11 September 2015 Available online xxxx Keywords: Weapon pictures Aggression Adolescence Semantic categorization task

a b s t r a c t This study tested the effect of weapon picture viewing on aggression among children by employing Semantic Categorization task. A total sample of 288 fourth- and fifth-graders from 4 elementary schools participated in this study. Results showed that children who viewed weapon pictures exhibited high levels of aggression, whereas children who viewed non-weapon pictures displayed low levels of aggression. Specifically, boys, but not girls, manifested significant high levels of aggression after viewing weapon pictures. Additionally, viewers with high-aggressiveness (HA), but not with moderate-aggressiveness (MA) and low-aggressiveness (LA), yielded high levels of aggression after viewing weapon pictures. These findings indicated that weapon pictures (situational variables), gender and aggressive trait (individual variables) were responsible for changing levels of subsequent aggression among children. Limitations and implications of these findings are discussed. © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Aggression was conceptualized as a sort of behavior intended to harm others (Anderson & Bushman, 2002; Baron & Richardson, 2004). Common explicit forms of aggression included physical (e.g., punching, fighting, hitting), verbal (e.g., saying mean rumors or hurtful things), and relational aggression (e.g., make fun of someone, or publicly making someone ashamed or embarrassed to harm interpersonal relationships). As for aggression, the bullies (aggressors) must assure that the behavior harms the victims (objects) who tend to avoid (Berkowitz, 1993; Bushman & Anderson, 2001; Tremblay, 2000), and that aggression could be measured through cognition and anger (Bushman & Huesmann, 2010; Coie, Dodge, Terry, & Wright, 1991; DeWall, Twenge, Gitter, & Baumeister, 2009). Based on this, aggression could be referred as a cognitively primed state instead of an aggressive behavior, which was likely to be provoked by violent stimuli (i.e., guns, swords, cannons). In daily life, playing weapon toys has been one of the popular recreations among children in China. During weapon picture viewing ⁎ Correspondence to: Q. Zhang, Research Center of Mental Health Education & School of Applied Technology, Southwest University, Chongqing, 401147, China. ⁎⁎ Correspondence to: D.-J. Zhang, Faculty of Psychology, Southwest University, Tiansheng Road, 2, Beibei District, Chongqing 400715, China. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (Q. Zhang), [email protected] (J. Tian), [email protected] (J. Cao), [email protected] (D.-J. Zhang), [email protected] (P. Rodkin). 1 2114 ORCHARD ST, Apt 202, Urbana, IL, USA 61801.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.017 0191-8869/© 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

process, children might be taught to act aggressively in real-life settings not only through observational learning from models (Bandura, 1973), but also through rewards on violence from virtual scenes (Polman, Orobio de Castro, & van Aken, 2008). Over the past decades, the vast majority of correlational and experimental study testified the correlations between media violence (i.e., movie, TV, video game) and aggression across different methodologies, ideologies, and cultures (Anderson, 2010; Anderson & Bushman, 2001; Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2007; Barlett, Anderson, & Swing, 2009; Bingenheimer, Brennan, & Earls, 2005; Carnagey & Anderson, 2005; Hasan, Bègue, Scharkow, & Bushman, 2013; Uhlmann & Swanson, 2004). In particular, metaanalysis indicated that exposures to violent stimuli often led to aggressive cognition, hostile feeling, and aggressive behavior (Anderson, 2010; Giumetti & Markey, 2007). The opposite views, however, asserted that no clear evidence suggests that firearm violence enhanced aggression. Some personality factors and individual differences, such as situational variables, social status, cultural background, trait-aggressiveness, gender and academic performance, could also induce aggression (Bushman, 1995; Kirsh, 2003). For instance, cultural variation had been verified as an important variable to explain the association between violent stimuli and aggression (Ramirez, Andreu, & Fujihara, 2001). Thus, it was of necessity to figure out whether and how weapon pictures influenced children's aggression and, to find out who were sensitive to violent stimuli. By doing so, researchers, parents, teachers and administrators could take effective measures to prevent violence, bullying, and aggression among children.

114

Q. Zhang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 113–118

According to General Aggression Model (GAM), repeated exposure to violent stimuli changes aggressive attitude, aggressive schema, aggressive expectation, aggressive behavior, and desensitization to violence (DeWall, Anderson & Bushman, 2011). Accordingly, frequent exposure to weapon cues might form individuals' hostile expectation and aggressive behavior (Bartholow, Anderson, Carnagey, & Benjamin, 2005). Thus, based on GAM, weapon picture, as a type of violent stimuli (cues), was likely to induce aggression among children. Taken together, the present study attempted to ask whether viewing weapon pictures provoked aggression among children. In addition, we seek to find whether personality and individual differences, including trait-aggressiveness and gender, could strengthen different levels of aggression.

meet their demands to be an aggressor. In fact, violent media scenes were comprised of weapon pictures, which were a kind of possible clues to trigger aggression and crimes (i.e., murder, rape, and assault). Prior researches revealed that individuals with high-trait aggressiveness showed more aggressive behavior than those with low-trait aggressiveness by exposure to violent movies or violent video games (Bushman & Anderson, 2002; Bushman, 1995; Zhang & Zhang, 2014). As such, it was possible that levels of aggression were somewhat connected with aggressive traits. Thus, we proposed the third hypothesis,

2. Research framework

3. Method

2.1. Aggression and weapon pictures

3.1. Participants

Researchers found that adolescents viewing weapon pictures showed higher aggressive cognition, aggressive affect and aggressive behavior than those viewing non-weapon pictures, which indicated the automatic priming effects of gun pictures on trigger pulling (Anderson, Benjamin, & Bartholow, 1998). Further, scholars assumed that single exposure to firearm violence doubled the chances of aggressive behavior (Bingenheimer, Brennan, & Earls, 2005; Kleck, 2005; Mehta, 2005). Drawing upon this, children who viewed weapon pictures might increase the probability of aggression in naturally academic settings. So, the great probability might exist among the relationship between weapon exposures and aggressive intensity. Thereby, the first hypothesis was stated as follows,

288 children (50% girls) were randomly selected from 8 classrooms in 4 elementary schools in China to participate in the study. Children ranged in age from 9 to 13 years (M = 11.34, SD = 1.42), with 144 designated to weapon picture group (experimental group) and 144 distributed to non-weapon picture group (control group). They were righthanded, no color blindness, without any physical and mental disorders.

H1. Children who viewed weapon pictures might display high levels of aggression, whereas children who viewed non-weapon pictures might exhibit low levels of aggression.

2.2. Weapon pictures, aggression and gender disparity As for gender differences, some researchers stated that boys are more likely to behave in aggressive ways than girls, and an increasing percentage of investigations reported that boys are prone to list girls as victim targets, forming bully–victim dyads (Rodkin & Berger, 2008; Rodkin, Ryan, Jamison, & Wilson, 2013). Importantly, sex difference could explain the disparity in physical and social aggression during adolescence (Katherine, Foshee, Ennett, & Suchindran, 2008). Actually, most boys like to play weapon toys (i.e., carbines, pistols, swords), whereas most girls love to play non-weapon toys (i.e., dolls, pets). Boys were more likely to display physical aggression, while females were intended to display relational aggression (Lansford et al., 2012). As girls grew up, they responded to provocation and irritation by feeling anxious. By contrast, boys were encouraged to retaliate to cope with violent events. In other words, girls were much more likely to respond to anger with depression, anxiety and shame relative to boys. Yet, boys tended to expose violent images and scenes using weapon toys and act in domineering ways. It seemed that boys had more opportunities to commit violence than girls. Thus, the second hypothesis was postulated as follows, H2. Boys might show high levels of aggression, whereas girls might show low levels of aggression after viewing weapon pictures.

2.3. Weapon pictures, aggression, and aggressive trait Over the past few years, delinquency and criminal behavior continuously emerged among adolescents in China. Some juvenile delinquents confessed that they'd like to search simulating and violent pictures to

H3. Children with high-aggressiveness (HA) might show high levels of aggression, while children with low-aggressiveness (LA) might show low levels of aggression after viewing weapon pictures.

3.2. Instruments 3.2.1. Pictures The purpose of presenting pictures was to prime children's aggression when they were viewing. A total of 40 pictures, including 20 weapon and 20 non-weapon pictures, were used as primes. Specifically, 4 pictures (2 weapon pictures, 2 non-weapon pictures) and 36 pictures (18 weapon pictures, 18 non-weapon pictures) were used for practical section and formal section, respectively. 3.2.2. Goal words The purpose of presenting goal words was to assess children's reaction times (RTs). If they demonstrated shorter RTs to goal words, indicating aggression was primed by the presented pictures, and vice versa. 30 aggressive and 30 nonaggressive words were randomly chosen as goal words from previous studies (Anderson, BenjaminJr, & Bartholow, 1998). The selection standards included familiarity and aggression degree. 3.2.3. Measures 1) Aggressive trait. Buss–Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ), with 29 items, was used to measure aggressive trait (Buss & Perry, 1992). It was a 5-point Likert scale which consisted of four dimensions: physical aggression (PA), verbal aggression (VA), anger (A), and hostility (H). Participants' reaction to each item was evaluated by 5 points, 1 represented “not conform to”, and 5 represented “very in line with”. Choosing “1” recorded 1 point, and choosing “5” recorded 5 point, and so forth. Internal consistent reliability (Cronbach-alpha coefficient) for the scale was .94. Test and re-test reliability yielded a correlation coefficient of .89, and Cronbach-alpha coefficient of physical aggression, verbal aggression, anger, and hostility were .85, .72, .83 and .77, respectively. The questionnaire had good convergent validity as a measure of aggression. (2) Aggression. Aggression was regarded as the dependent variable in this study. It could be defined in terms of assessment. We assumed that aggression was a cognitively primed state (not aggressive behavior), which could be measured through RTs to aggressive words and non-aggressive words after viewing violent and non-violent stimuli (i.e., weapon pictures, non-weapon pictures). Thus, RTs was used as a marker of aggression in this study.

Q. Zhang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 113–118

3.3. Experimental design A 2 (Picture type: weapon vs. non-weapon) × 2 (Goal word: aggressive vs. nonaggressive) × 3 (Aggressive trait: HA, MA, LA) × 2 (Gender: boys, girls) repeated four measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted, with picture type, aggressive trait and gender as the between-group factors, with goal word as the within-group factor. According to score distribution, participants who gained the top of 27% total score on BPAQ were considered as HA, and who gained the last of 27% total score on BPAQ were deemed as LA, and the rest were considered as MA.

115

90%, could the program automatically get into the formal section. This practice was to familiarize participants with the whole procedure. 3.4.2. Formal section 18 weapon pictures (9 guns, 9 knifes), 18 non-weapon pictures (9 animals, 9 plants) and 50 goal words (25 aggressive words, 25 nonaggressive words) were matched, forming totally 900 trials, which were divided into 3 blocks. Each block contained 300 trials, and participants could take a rest between each block. Pictures and words appeared randomly and successively. Participants should make quick responses when the goal word was presented. The left and right hand pressing was counterbalanced for each participant.

3.4. Procedure 4. Results During the Semantic classification/categorization task, the participants identified stimuli based on meaning synonyms (Kutas & Iragui, 1998; Bowers & Turner, 2003). This task involved perceptual priming for semantic categorization between words with a definable meaning and indefinable words (Brysbaert, Van Wijnendaele, & De Deyne, 2000). In this study, we used E-prime psychology software to program this task, which included two sessions: practical section and formal section. First, participants signed an informed consent with the help of their parents. Second, participants were given 30 min to complete BPAQ. Third, participants completed Semantic Categorization task. Finally, participants were debriefed on aggressive feelings. Specifically, a black sign “+” emerged on the screen center for 200 ms to remind participants to prepare, and then each picture was presented for 1500 ms. After that, goal words were presented for 1000 ms, and participants were required to react as quickly and accurately as possible via key pressing. If participants did not respond, the next trial will automatically appear. The blank screen lasted for 100 ms. The inter-stimulus-interval (ISI) was 250–300 ms, and the RT and accuracy rate were automatically recorded (see Fig. 1). Experimenter read instructions aloud:“The experiment is to test the speed and accuracy of your responses, pictures are first presented in screen centre, and then goal words are presented, please judge whether the words are aggressive or nonaggressive. Press ‘J’ for aggressive word, and press ‘F’ for nonaggressive word. After your response, the next trial starts.” 3.4.1. Practical section 2 weapon pictures (1 pistol, 1 sword), 2 non-weapon pictures (1 panda, 1 apple) and 10 goal words (5 aggressive words, 5 nonaggressive words) were paired, forming totally 40 trials. The pictures used in the practical section would not appear in the formal section. In the practical section, research assistant watched on the side, preparing to answer any questions raised by participants. If the accuracy rate in the practical section was lower than 90%, then the program automatically goes back to the onset of practice session. Only if the accuracy rate was higher than

4.1. Main effect of goal word on aggression One-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were performed to examine the main effect of goal word on aggression (see Table 1). As expected, significant shorter reaction times (RTs) to aggressive words (501.26 ms) than to nonaggressive words (566.43 ms) was found when weapon pictures were presented [F(1, 68) = 4.87, P b .05]. 4.2. AAS difference between weapon- and non-weapon picture groups Based on the significant longer RTs to nonaggressive words than to aggressive words (see Table 1), we created the aggressively activated score (AAS) to better illuminate the priming effects of weapon pictures on aggression. AAS could be calculated by subtracting the RTs to nonaggressive words from the RTs to aggressive words. As shown in Table 2, the RTs to aggressive words was shorter than to nonaggressive words (505.82 ms b 569.24 ms) when weapon pictures were presented. However, the RTs to aggressive words was a bit longer than to nonaggressive words (523.26 ms N 519.81 ms) while non-weapon pictures appeared. Thus, the AAS for weapon- and non-weapon picture groups were −63.42 ms and +3.45 ms, respectively. 4.3. Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) for picture type and goal word To further examine whether significant AAS difference existed for each variable, a picture type × goal word interaction was performed. If the interaction achieved significance, suggesting weapon pictures effectively primed aggression among children. MANCOVA was carried out to examine the main effect and interaction (see Table 3). As we can see, no main significant differences were found for picture type [F (1, 48) = .61, P N .05], suggesting that the RTs to goal words was not significant under each condition of prime presentation. A significant picture type × gender interaction was found [F(1, 155) = 1.75, P b .05], and further simple effect analysis indicated that AAS of boys was significantly smaller when viewing weapon pictures than when viewing non-weapon pictures [(F (1, 228) = 3.76, P b .01], but no significant difference for AAS of girls [F (1, 122) = 1.15, P N .05; see Table 4). What's more, a significant picture type × aggressive trait interaction was found [F(1, 244) = 1.67, P b .05; see Table 3], and further simple effect analysis demonstrated that AAS of participants with HA was significantly smaller when

Table 1 RT differences for goal words after weapon picture viewing. Goal words

RT Fig. 1. Semantic categorization task.

Aggressive words

Non-aggressive words

M

SD

M

SD

501.26

549.27

566.43

52.61

Note. RT = reaction time; * P b .05; ** P b .01; *** P b .001.

F

4.87*

116

Q. Zhang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 113–118

Table 2 Mean RT (milliseconds) to aggressive and nonaggressive words in the experiment. Goal words Stimuli

Weapon pictures Non-weapon pictures

Aggressive words

Nonaggressive words

M

SD

M

SD

505.82 523.26

81.03 81.77

569.24 519.81

88.75 80.05

AAS

Table 4 Post hoc test of AAS difference for boys and girls. Gender

Weapon picture

Non-weapon picture

F

Boys Girls

−5.78 4.61

9.42 10.74

3.76** 1.15

Note. * P b .05; ** P b .01; *** P b .001. −63.42 +3.45

Note. RT = reaction time; AAS = aggressively activated score; AAS = mean RT to weapon pictures minus RT to non-weapon pictures.

viewing weapon pictures than when viewing non-weapon pictures [F(1, 268) = 8.52, P b .01], whereas AAS of participants with MA was marginally significant [F (1, 226) = 2.74, P b .06], and AAS of participants with LA was not significant [F (1, 94) = .27, P N .05; see Table 5] under conditions of viewing weapon- and non-weapon pictures. No significant interaction, however, was found among picture type, aggressive trait, and gender [(F = 6.43, P N .05; see Table 3].

5. Discussion 5.1. Viewing weapon pictures significantly elevated aggression In this study, we found significant shorter RTs to aggressive words than to nonaggressive words, indicating that weapon pictures significantly activated aggression among children. This finding was comparable with prior similar researches (Bartholow, Anderson, Carnagey, & Benjamin, 2005), and also supported our first hypothesis. As for the reason, prior experts have assumed that contextual factors and individual variables were responsible for escalating aggression (Bushman & Anderson, 2002). Also, scholars claimed that repeatedly exposing violent stimuli could decrease empathy and desensitization to aggression (Holden, 2005; Strasburger & Wilson, 2002), which in turn, would reduce a perpetrator's empathy to the victims. So, it was relatively easy for individuals to be aggressive because of aggressively cognitive schema automatically stored in neural mechanisms. Actually, children consumed attentional and cognitive resources to identify aggressive words, which could be attributed to their activated aggressive framework. Hence, weapons might be closely connected with aggressive and hostile terms derived from semantic and long-term memory. For instance, when adolescents saw pistol picture, corresponding aggressive word was easily activated to induce shooting (Berkowitz, 2003). As such, psychologists vividly described the automatic priming effect of weapon pictures as the gun pulls the trigger (Anderson, Benjamin, & Bartholow, 1998) or violence breeds violence due to the long-term knowledge of aggression. Despite the lack of sufficient evidences, we inferred that different firearm and weapon knowledge of cognitive structure and framework caused shotgun picture to prime adolescents' aggression. And, this point of view could be found from theoretical hypothesis of aggression, such as General Aggression Model (GAM; DeWall, Anderson, & Bushman, 2011) and Cognitive Neassociation Model (CNM; Bushman, 1996), indicating that repeated exposure to violent stimuli increased short-term and long-term aggression.

Table 3 MANCOVA for AAS among research variables.

5.2. Viewing weapon picture significantly elicited aggression for boys It was observed that only boys' aggression was significantly activated when viewing weapon pictures, which was in agreement with the second hypothesis, and replicated previous researches as well (Boutwell, Franklin, Barnes & Beaver, 2011; Craig, Browne, Beech, & Stringer, 2006; Lansford et al., 2012; Salmivalli & Kaukiainen, 2004; Smith & Waterman, 2005), indicating that boys were more sensitive to violence than girls (Archer, 2004; Card, Stucky, Sawalani, & Little, 2008; Conley & Rudolph, 2009; Rose & Rudolph, 2006). Additionally, researches showed that males demonstrated a perceptual bias for words regarding direct aggression, whereas females had a perceptual bias for words regarding indirect aggression (Cross, & Campbell, 2012; Ramirez, Andreu, & Fujihara, 2001). In daily life, boys were more eager to see weapon pictures than girls. Findings revealed that boys were likely to display physical aggression, while girls exhibited relational aggression (Carlo, Raffaelli, Laible, & Meyer, 1999; Rodkin & Berger, 2008). For instance, girls tended to feel distressed rather than boys when they were frustrated, such as depression, anguish, shame, abnormality and anxiety. Interestingly, psychologists posited that boys viewed aggression and bullying as the token of high social status, and thus they became aggressors or perpetrators (Bottcher, 2001; Hines & Saudino, 2003; Wilson & Rodkin, 2013). Actually, boys embodied their dominant roles through physical aggression, whereas girls displayed self-control over aggression. These differing values caused girls to cope with obstacles they came across without resorting to violence. In fact, girls tended to hide explicit behavior and shared feelings when they were aggressive. Boys, by contrast, preferred to act out with their negative feelings by resorting to violence. The gender-based disparity of aggression implied that educators should take respective measures to control aggression for boys and girls.

5.3. Viewing weapon picture significantly elicited aggression for children with HA Noticeably, aggression of children with HA was significantly elicited after viewing weapon pictures. Aggression of participants with MA and LA, however, was not significantly activated. This result, being in line with our hypothesis 3, was congruent with previous studies (Anderson, Buckley, & Carnagey, 2008; Khoury, 2012; Wallace, Barry, Zeigler, & Green, 2012). Possibly, the cognitive networks of children with HA were more easily primed by weapon pictures than those with MA and LA, indicating that personality trait was linked to aggression. As a result, children with HA might have faster aggressively neural association networks than those with MA and LA, suggesting that children with HA were more susceptible to weapon pictures relative to those with MA and LA.

Table 5 Post hoc test of AAS difference for aggressive trait.

Variables

M

SD

F

Aggressive trait

Weapon picture

Non-weapon picture

F

Picture type Picture type × aggressive trait Picture type × gender Picture type × aggressive trait × gender

338.27 1634.72 1452.35 2741.23

53.45 196.04 157.28 435.67

.61 1.67* 1.75* 6.43

HA MA LA

−3.35 14.46 −3.84

18.89 10.12 −.69

8.52** 2.74 .27

Note. * P b .05; ** P b .01; *** P b .001.

Note. HA = high-aggressiveness, MA = moderate-aggressiveness, LA = low-aggressiveness. * P b .05; ** P b .01; *** P b .001.

Q. Zhang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 113–118

5.4. Limitations, future directions, and implications The potentially novel contribution of this study was that it broadened the horizons with regard to the effects of violent stimuli on aggression. Although prior researchers certified that media violence escalated aggression among college students (Bushman, 1995), the function of violent pictures has not been testified till now. In this study, several limitations should be noted. First, the sample was relatively consubstantial. As such, generalized validity should be questioned when applying conclusions to other groups (i.e., elders, cross-cultures, races). Second, using cross-sectional design might impede to clarify the casual correlations among research variables, and future studies using a longitudinal and interview-based design should be considered to provide firming evidences. Third, BPAQ, as a sort of aggressive trait measure created by American experts, might not be suitable for Chinese children due to cultural variation. Development of revisions (Chinese version) was necessary in follow-up studies. Last, careful selection of weapon pictures (e.g., knives, swords, and guns) should be regarded as a further research step. During the experiment, boys took great interest in viewing weapon pictures. Yet, girls might not be interested to do so. Therefore, selecting weapon primes attracting girls was indispensible to better avoid confounding variables and, to better improve reliability and validity. Also, the study had some implications. For one thing, by examining gender differences, it was indicated that boys might be particularly sensitive to weapon pictures relative to girls. As a result, aggression intervention and prevention might be strengthened among boys versus girls. For the other thing, more emphasis should be placed to children with HA to reduce levels of aggression after viewing weapon pictures. Thus, practical efforts in ameliorating the harmful effect of viewing weapon pictures should be made on children with HA.

Acknowledgments The present study was funded by the Youth Research Grant of Social Science and Humanities from the Ministry of Education in China (Grant Number: 13YJC190030), and it was also supported by "the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities" (Grant Number: XDJK2016C077), and also supported by the Ph.D Grant from “the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities” (Grant Number: SWU1509528). We are indebted to each adolescent who participated in the study as well as the contributions of their teachers. We thank the anonymous reviewers for their kind feedback on previous drafts of this manuscript.

References Anderson, C. A. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in eastern and western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018251 Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231 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. http://www.doi.org/ 10.1177/0146167207311282 Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and prosocial behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological Science, 12, 353–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1502 Anderson, C. A., Benjamin, A. J., & Bartholow, B. D. (1998). Does the gun pull the trigger? Automatic priming effects of weapon pictures and weapon names. Psychological Science, 9, 308–314. http://www.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00061 Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects on children and adolescents. New York: Oxford University Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/acprof: oso/9780195309836.001.0001 Archer, J. (2004). Sex differences in aggression in real-world settings: A meta-analytic review. Review of General Psychology, 8, 291–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/1089-2680. 8.4.291 Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

117

Barlett, C. P., Anderson, C. A., & Swing, E. L. (2009). Video game effects-confirmed, suspected, and speculative: A review of the evidence. Simulation Gaming, 40, 377–403. http://www.doi.org/10.1177/1046878108327539 Baron, R. A., & Richardson, D. R. (2004). Human aggression. New York: Plenum. Bartholow, B. D., Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Benjamin, A. J., Jr. (2005). Interactive effects of life experience and situational cues on aggression: The weapons priming effect in hunters and nonhunters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 48–60. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.005. Berkowitz, L. (1993). Pain and aggression: Some findings and implications. Motivation and Emotion, 17, 277–293. http://www.doi.org/10.1007/BF00992223 Berkowitz, L. (2003). Affect, aggression, and behavior. In R. J. Davidson, K. R. Scherer, & H. H. Goldsmith (Eds.), Handbook of affective science (pp. 804–823). New York: Oxford University Press. Bingenheimer, J. B., Brennan, R. T., & Earls, F. J. (2005). Sociology: Firearm violence exposure and serious violent behavior. Science, 308, 1323–1326. http://www.doi.org/10. 1126/science.1110096 Bottcher, J. (2001). Social practices of gender: How gender relates to delinquency in the everyday lives of high-risk youths. Criminology, 39, 893–932. http://www.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1745-9125.2001.tb00944.x Boutwell, B. B., Franklin, C. A., Barnes, J. C., & Beaver, K. M. (2011). Physical punishment and childhood aggression: The role of gender and gene-environment interplay. Aggressive Behavior, 37, 559–568. http://www.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20409 Bowers, J. S., & Turner, E. L. (2003). In search of perceptual priming in a semantic classification task. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 29, 1248–1255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0278-7393.29.6.1248 Brysbaert, M., Van Wijnendaele, I., & De Deyne, S. (2000). Age-of-acquisition effects in semantic processing tasks. Acta Psychologica, 104, 215–226. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0001-6918(00)00021–4 Bushman, B. J. (1996). Individual differences in the extent and development of aggressive cognitive-associative networks. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 811–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167296228004. Bushman, B. J. (1995). Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 950–960. http://www.doi.org/0022-3514/95 Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Aggression. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 833–863) (5th ed.). New York: John Wiley & Sons. 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 http:// www.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.108.1.273. Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2002). Violent video games and hostile expectations: A test of the general aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1679–1686. http://www.doi.org/10.1177/014616702237649 Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. P. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. http://www.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.63.3.452 Card, N. A., Stucky, B. D., Sawalani, G. M., & Little, T. D. (2008). Direct and indirect aggression during childhood and adolescence: A meta-analytic review of gender differences, inter-correlations, and relations to maladjustment. Child Development, 79, 1185–1229. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01184.x Carnagey, N., & Anderson, C. (2005). The effects of reward and punishment in violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychological Science, 16, 882–889. http://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01632.x Carlo, G., Raffaelli, M., Laible, D. J., & Meyer, K. A. (1999). Why are girls less physically aggressive than boys? Personality and parenting mediators of physical aggression. Sex Roles, 40, 711–729. http://www.doi.org/10.1023/A:1018856601513 Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Terry, R., & Wright, V. (1991). The role of aggression in peer relations: An analysis of aggression episodes in boys' play groups. Child Development, 62, 812–826. http://www.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1991.tb01571.x Conley, C. S., & Rudolph, K. D. (2009). The emerging sex difference in adolescent depression: Interacting contributions of puberty and peer stress. Development and Psychopathology, 21, 593–620. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0954579409000327 Craig, L. A., Browne, K. D., Beech, A., & Stringer, I. (2006). Differences in personality and risk characteristics in sex, violent and general offenders. Criminal Behavior and Mental Health, 16, 183–194. http://www.doi.org/10.1002/cbm.618 Cross, C. P., & Campbell, A. (2012). The effects of intimacy and target sex on direct aggression: Further evidence. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 272–280. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ ab.21430. DeWall, C. N., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2011). The general aggression model: Theoretical extensions to violence. Psychology of Violence, 1, 245–258. http://www. doi.org/10.1037/a0023842 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. http://www.doi.org/10. 1037/a0013196 Giumetti, G. W., & Markey, P. M. (2007). Violent video games and anger as predictors of aggression. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 1–10. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. jrp.2007.02.005 Hasan, Y., Bègue, L., Scharkow, M., & Bushman, B. J. (2013). The more you play, the more aggressive you become: A long-term experimental study of cumulative violent video game effects on hostile expectations and aggressive behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 224–227. http://www.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.10.016 Hines, D. A., & Saudino, K. J. (2003). Gender differences in psychological, physical, and sexual aggression among college students using the revised conflict tactics scales. Violence and Victims, 18, 197–217. http://dx.doi.org/10.1891/vivi.2003.18.2.197 Holden, C. (2005). Controversial study suggests seeing gun violence promotes it. Science, 308, 1239–1240. http://www.doi.org/10.1126/science.308.5726.1239a

118

Q. Zhang et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 90 (2016) 113–118

Katherine, K. J., Foshee, V. A., Ennett, S. T., & Suchindran, C. (2008). The development of aggression during adolescence: Sex differences in trajectories of physical and social aggression among youth in rural areas. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 36, 1227–1236. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10802-008-9245-5 Khoury, K. M. (2012). Perpetration of aggressive behaviors against peers and teachers as predicted by student and contextual factors. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 253–262. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21424 Kleck, G. D. (2005). Firearms, violence, and self-protection. Science, 309, 1675–1676. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5741.1675 Kirsh, S. J. (2003). The effects of violent video game play on adolescents: The overlooked influence of development. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal, 8, 377–389. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1359-1789(02)00056–3 Kutas, M., & Iragui, V. (1998). The N400 in a semantic categorization task across 6 decades. Electroencephalography and Clinical Neurophysiology/Evoked Potentials Section, 108, 456–471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0168-5597(98)00023–9 Lansford, J. E., Skinner, A. T., Sorbring, E., Giunta, L. D., Deater-Deckard, K., Dodge, K. A., ... Chang, L. (2012l). Boys' and girls' relational and physical aggression in nine countries. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 298–308. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21433 Mehta, N. G. (2005). The sight of violence and violent action. Science, 309, 1676–1677. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5741.1676 Polman, H., Orobio de Castro, B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2008). Experimental study of the differential effects of playing versus watching violent video games on children's aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 34, 256–264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab. 20245 Ramirez, J. M., Andreu, J. M., & Fujihara, T. (2001). Cultural and sex differences in aggression: A comparison between Japanese and Spanish students using two different inventories. Aggressive Behavior, 27, 313–322. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.1014 Rodkin, P. C., & Berger, C. (2008). Who bullies whom? Social status asymmetries by victim gender. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 32, 473–485. http://dx.doi. org/10.1177/0165025408093667

Rodkin, P. C., Ryan, A. M., Jamison, R., & Wilson, T. (2013). Social goals, social behavior, and social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1139–1150. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0029389 Rose, A., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex differences in peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the emotional and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 98–131. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132. 1.98 Salmivalli, C., & Kaukiainen, A. (2004). Female aggression revisited: Variable- and personcentered approaches to studying gender differences in different types of aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 158–163. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.20012 Smith, P., & Waterman, M. (2005). Sex differences in processing aggression words using the emotional Stroop task. Aggressive Behavior, 31, 271–282. http://dx.doi.org/10. 1002/ab.20071 Strasburger, V. C., & Wilson, B. J. (2002). Children, adolescents, and the media. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Tremblay, R. E. (2000). The development of aggressive behavior during childhood: What have we learned in the past century? International Journal of Behavioral Development, 24, 129–141 http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/016502500383232. Uhlmann, E., & Swanson, J. (2004). Exposure to violent video games increases automatic aggressiveness. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 41–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. adolescence.2003.10.004 Wallace, M. T., Barry, C. T., Zeigler, H. V., & Green, B. A. (2012). Locus of control as a contributing factor in the relation between self-perception and adolescent aggression. Aggressive Behavior, 38, 213–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ab.21419. Wilson, T., & Rodkin, P. C. (2013). Children's cross-ethnic relations in elementary schools: Concurrent and prospective associations between segregation and social status. Child Development, 84, 1081–1097. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12020 Zhang, Q., & Zhang, D. J. (2014). The effects of viewing violent movies via computer on aggressiveness among college students. Computers in Human Behavior, 35, 320–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.008