Fluent Essays

Social psychologists define aggression as behavior that is intended to harm another individual who does not wish to be harmed. Intent is an important element of aggression. The impact of video game violence (VGV) on adolescent gamers raises concerns and controversy. The General Aggression Model (GAM) suggests that the interactive nature of VGV (e.g., Manhunt, God of War, Grand Theft Auto IV, Bioshock, Call to Duty) may create cognitive scripts of aggression that when rehearsed by game playing over time may influence players’ thoughts, feelings, and physical arousal, causing confusion between reality and fiction and ultimately overt, physical aggression (Mathur & VanderWeele, 2019). However, there are studies that refute these claims on grounds the existing studies are flawed in several ways: (a) studies used nonserious measures of aggression (e.g., aggressive cognitions or affect), (b) failure to use adequate statistical controls (e.g., confounding variables such as prior aggressive behavior), and (c) failure to account for cross-cultural differences (Prescott, Sargent, & Hull, 2018). An attempt to reconcile conflicting findings was undertaken by Prescott et al. (2018). To clarify and quantify the relationship between violent video game play and overt physical aggression over time, the authors conducted a meta-analysis of all studies to date; 24 studies with over 17,000 participants over a period of 3 months to 4 years were identified. Samples included various ethnicities (e.g., Asian, Hispanic, White) with mean ages from 9 to 19 years old; studies included were limited to those using measures of overt, physical aggression and all confounding variables/covariates were accounted for. Based on the meta-analysis findings, Prescott et al. (2018) concluded that violent video game play is associated with increased levels of overt, physical aggression over time—after accounting for prior aggression levels (i.e., participants aggressive behavior before the study). This is the most comprehensive examination of the relationship between VGV and aggressive behavior to date. This week, you will analyze aggression from the perspective of social psychology and look at ways to reduce aggression and bullying. References Mathur, M. D. & VanderWeele, T. J. (2019) Finding common ground in meta-analysis ‘wars’ on violent video games. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(4), 705-708. Prescott, A. T., Sargent, J. D., & Hull, J. G. (2018). Metaanalysis of the relationship between violent video game play and physical aggression over time. PNAS, 115(40), 9882-9888.   Cyberbullying is an increasingly consequential social problem, one that has compelled the interest of social psychologists. Social learning theory is instructive here. We know that people repeat behaviors that lead to rewarding outcomes. By asking what exactly is rewarding the bullying behavior, social psychological research can identify the reasons why cyberbullying persists. For this Discussion, you will examine what is rewarding adolescent-aged cyberbullying behavior from the perspective of a social psychologist, as well as consider strategies to assist teachers and parents. To Prepare Review the Learning Resources for this week and examine how social psychology theories and research explain the dynamics of cyberbullying among adolescents. Post an explanation of what is rewarding the adolescent-aged cyberbullying behavior. Your explanation should be informed by social psychology theory and research.   Be sure to support your postings and responses with specific references to the social psychology theory and research. In addition to the Learning Resources, search the Walden Library and/or Internet for peer-reviewed articles to support your post and responses. Use proper APA format and citations, including those in the Learning Resources. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imgpjvHy25Qlable at ScienceDirect Computers in Human Behavior 69 (2017) 268e274 Contents lists avai Computers in Human Behavior journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh Review Cyberbullying in higher education: A literature review Lynette K. Watts a, *, Jessyca Wagner b, Benito Velasquez c, Phyllis I. Behrens d a Radiologic Sciences Department, Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Blvd., Bridwell Hall Office 201E, Wichita Falls, TX 76308, USA b Radiologic Sciences Department, Midwestern State University, 3410 Taft Blvd., Bridwell Hall, Office 216, Wichita Falls, TX 76308, USA c Athletic Training Department, School of Allied Health, Lincoln Memorial University, 6965 Cumberland Gap Parkway, Harrogate, TN 37752, USA d University of Missouri Extension, 3950 Newman Road, Plaster Hall 107A, Joplin, MO 64801-1512, USA a r t i c l e i n f o Article history: Received 29 January 2016 Received in revised form 10 November 2016 Accepted 15 December 2016 Available online 18 December 2016 Keywords: Higher education cyberbullying Cyberbullying prevalence Cyberbullying awareness Social media cyberbullying * Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (L.K. Wa http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.12.038 0747-5632/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. a b s t r a c t With the more pervasive use of technology, the prevalence of cyberbullying has increased. Universities and colleges have implemented more ways to reach students over the Internet and by other electronic means; consequently, itisimportant to investigate the prevalence of cyberbullyinginhighereducation.Thisliterature review was created to raise awareness of this continuing trend of cyberbullying among college students. Cyberbullying is defined as intent to consistently harass another individual to cause harm via any electronic method, including social media, and includes defamation, public disclosure of private facts, and intentional emotional distress. An exhaustive search of current literature was conducted using a variety of databases including Academic Search Complete, Education Source, E-Journals, ERIC, PsycArticles, Psychology and Behavioral Sciences Collection, and PsycINFO. Google, Google Scholar, and reference lists from key studies were also used to gather relevant studies for inclusion in this review. Articles were used to define cyberbul- lying, build a historical base of cyberbullying among adolescents, examine factors involved in cyberbullying, describeeffects ofcyberbullying,and examine thistrend among college students. Strategies suchasreporting, monitoring online interactions, and legal actions to address cyberbullying in all areas of education were included. Future research should investigate if educational programs lead to decreased cyberbullying, increased rates of reporting, and how cyberbullying may change social media etiquette. © 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Contents 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Parental Desensitization to Violence and Sex in Movies WHAT’S KNOWN ON THIS SUBJECT: Movie ratings designed to warn parents about violence and sexual content have permitted increasing amounts of each in popular films. One potential explanation for this “ratings creep” is parental desensitization to this content as it becomes more prevalent in movies. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS: This study adds experimental evidence that parents become desensitized to movie violence and sex and are more willing to allow children to view such content. abstract OBJECTIVES: To assess desensitization in parents’ repeated exposure to violence and sex in movies. METHODS: A national US sample of 1000 parents living with at least 1 target child in 1 of 3 age groups (6 to 17 years old) viewed a random sequence of 3 pairs of short scenes with either violent or sexual content from popular movies that were unrestricted to youth audiences (rated PG-13 or unrated) or restricted to those underage 17 years without adult supervision (rated R). Parents indicated the minimum age they would consider appropriate to view each film. Predictors included order of presentation, parent and child characteristics, and parent movie viewing history. RESULTS: As exposure to successive clips progressed, parents sup- ported younger ages of appropriate exposure, starting at age 16.9 years (95\% confidence interval [CI], 16.8 to 17.0) for violence and age 17.2 years (95\% CI, 17.0 to 17.4) for sex, and declining to age 13.9 years (95\% CI, 13.7 to 14.1) for violence and 14.0 years (95\% CI, 13.7 to 14.3) for sex. Parents also reported increasing willingness to allow their target child to view the movies as exposures progressed. Desensitization was observed across parent and child characteristics, violence toward both human and non-human victims, and movie rating. Those who frequently watched movies were more readily desensitized to violence. CONCLUSIONS: Parents become desensitized to both violence and sex in movies, which may contribute to the increasing acceptance of both types of content by both parents and the raters employed by the film industry. Pediatrics 2014;134:877–884 AUTHORS: Daniel Romer, PhD,a Patrick E. Jamieson, PhD,a Brad J. Bushman, PhD,b,c Amy Bleakley, PhD, MPH,a Anli Wang, PhD,a Daniel Langleben, MD,a,d and Kathleen Hall Jamieson, PhDa aAnnenberg Public Policy Center, and dDepartment of Psychiatry, Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; bSchool of Communication and Department of Psychology, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio; and cDepartment of Communication Science, VU University Amsterdam, The Netherlands KEY WORDS movie violence, movie sex, movie ratings, desensitization, parents, adolescents ABBREVIATIONS CARA—Classification and Rating Administration CI—confidence interval MPAA—Motion Picture Association of America Dr Romer conceptualized and designed the study, conducted the statistical analyses, and drafted the initialHistorically, in the wake of interpersonal violence, the restriction of individual freedoms has often followed. This pattern can be observed at various levels of analysis. A recent example at the level of national policy includes the passage of the contro- versial USA PATRIOT Act by the US Government in October, 2001, following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks. Since that time, the Act has been widely criticized for weakening government protection of civil liberties. Prior research has demonstrated that surveillance by an authority figure(s) in itself tends to be experienced as con- trolling (Lepper & Greene, 1975). Towns and cities routinely institute curfews, along with various other restrictions of freedom, following violent riots. At the person-level, parents, teachers, and various other authority figures very typically respond to violent behavior by exercising more control and taking away the rights of others to choose. Certainly, these measures of increased control and restricted freedom are effective toward achieving some desired ends, at least temporarily, Interpersonal control, dehumanization, and violence: A self-determination theory perspective Arlen C. Moller1,2 and Edward L. Deci3 Abstract Interpersonally controlling approaches are often used to keep individuals in line, ostensibly in order to create a safer, more civilized society. Ironically, emerging research findings indicate that when people feel controlled, they often respond by behaving in a less civilized, more antisocial manner (Gagné, 2003; Knee, Neighbors, & Vietor, 2001; Mask, Blanchard, Amiot, & Deshaies, 2005; McHoskey, 1999). The present research investigation explored whether a process of mechanistic dehumanization might help to explain the observed relation between interpersonal control and antisocial behavior, specifically with regard to tendencies toward violence. The results indicated that a significant relation between interpersonal control and tendencies toward interpersonal violence was partially mediated by perceived mechanistic dehumanization. Keywords aggression, autonomy, dehumanization, hostility, interpersonal control, mechanistic, self-determination theory, violence Paper received 27 December 2008; revised version accepted 31 August 2009. 1Northwestern University 2Gettysburg College 3University of Rochester Corresponding author: Arlen C. Moller, Department of Preventive Medicine, 680 N Lake Shore Dr., Suite 1220, Chicago, IL, USA [email: [email protected]] Article Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13(1) 41–53 © The Author(s) 2009 Reprints and permission: http://www. sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermission.nav DOI: 10.1177/1368430209350318 http://gpi.sagepub.com G P I R Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 42 Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 13(1) and have much intuitive appeal. However, emerg- ing research on self-determination theory suggests that these controlling stra