Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 320–325

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Computers in Human Behavior

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comphumbeh

Research Report

The effects of viewing violent movie via computer on aggressiveness

among college students

D
Zhang Qian a,b,c,1, Da-Jun Zhang a,c,⇑
a
Department of Psychology, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China
b
School of Applied Technology, Southwest University, Chongqing 401147, China
c
Center for the Study of Mental Health Education, Southwest University, Chongqing 400715, China

TE
a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Based on aggression theories and previous researches, we examined the effects of viewing violent movie
Available online 29 March 2014 via computer on aggressiveness among college students. A total of 108 (56% females) undergraduates
participated in this study, with 54 distributed to violent movie group and 54 allocated to non-violent
Keywords: movie group. Results indicated that aggressiveness of violent movie group but not non-violent movie
College students
Violent movie
Aggressiveness
Computer
C
group is significantly strengthened. Moreover, aggressiveness of males but not females is significantly
enhanced among violent movie group instead of non-violent movie group, and aggressiveness of viewers
with high aggression (HA) but not low aggression (LA) is significantly enhanced among violent movie
group instead of non-violent movie group. For males and viewers with HA, violent movie can significantly
intensify aggressiveness, indicating that gender and aggressive level are responsible for aggressiveness
A
among college students. The implications of these findings are discussed.
Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
R

1. Introduction violence (e.g., film, TV, video games, radio, lyrics, internet, etc.) and
aggressiveness over the past decades (Anderson & Bushman,
Human aggressiveness, in the past, was considered as any 2002a, 2002b; Hancox, Milne, & Poulton, 2004; Huesmann, Moise,
behavior attacking others with a deliberate goal to cause harm or Podolski, & Eron, 2003; Johnson, Cohen, Smailes, Kasen, & Brook,
ET

irritation (Anderson & Bushman, 2002a, 2002b; Huesmann,
2007). In other words, aggressiveness was spontaneously moti-
vated by irritation to absolutely injure the target. Prior researchers
believed that aggression is proactive rather than responsive, and it
is a deliberate means of obtaining targets (Akert, Aronson, &
Wilson, 2010; Anderson & Bushman, 2002a, 2002b; Anderson,
Carnagey, & Eubanks, 2003). Thus, aggressiveness, to a large extent,
was a kind of evoked cognition, affect, or behavior, which was
forceful, hostile, or attacking. Based on this, we assume that aggres-
R
2002). A host of evidences overwhelmingly confirmed that short-
term and long-term exposure to violent television during child-
hood and adulthood significantly increases aggressive behavior
and cultivates aggressive personality (Anderson, 2004; Anderson
& Carnagey, 2009; Anderson, Gentile, & Buckley, 2007; Anderson
et al., 2010; Bushman, 1998; Bushman & Anderson, 2001, 2007;
Bushman & Brickman, 2007; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006; Hues-
mann et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2002; Wood, Wong, & Chachere,
1991). Further, studies revealed that early exposure to violent

siveness, from an implicit standpoint, highlights the mediating role of
cognitive information processing on aggressive behavior.
What factors are prone to causing aggressiveness? A growing
body of correlational, cross-sectional and longitudinal research
drew controversial conclusions upon the relations between media
⇑ Corresponding author at: Department of Psychology, Southwest University,
Tiansheng Road, No. 2, Beibei District, Chongqing 400715, China. Tel.: +86 23 6825
2376.
E-mail addresses: 453457096@qq.com, zhq@swu.edu.cn (Z. Qian), zhangdj@
swu.edu.cn (D.-J. Zhang).
1 siveness. Other researchers, however, did not agree with these
Address: School of Applied Technology, Southwest University, Hongshi Road, No.
500, Longxi Town, Yubei District, Chongqing 401147, China. Tel.: +86 18883272558,
+86 23 89074412.
media may be an important predictor of anti-behavior and violent
crimes in real-life situations (Anderson & Bushman, 2001, 2002a,
2002b; Jane, Brown, & Witherspoon, 2002; Paik & Comstock,
1994; Wood et al., 1991). Notably, it was found that reward and
punishment in media violence causes aggressive cognition,
thoughts, hostile expectation and aggressive behavior afterwards
(Anderson, 1997; Carnagey & Anderson, 2005; Crick & Grotpeter,
1995; Zhen, Xie, Zhang, Wang, & Li, 2011).
Overall, these mainstream findings above indicated that view-
ing violent movie has a negative impact on an individual’s aggres-
standpoints and held the opposite view. Viewing violent movie,
they argued, might not be positively connected with aggressive

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2014.03.008
0747-5632/Ó 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
 Z. Qian, D.-J. Zhang / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 320–325
thoughts, cognition and behavior, and that movie violence does not
surely lead to aggression (Freedman, 1984, 2002; Funk, Bechtoldt,
Pasold, & Baumgardner, 2004; Holden, 2005). For the sake of ame-
liorating the effects, it is of necessity to understand how viewing
violent movie affects individuals’ aggressiveness, and to identify
those who are sensitive to aggressiveness. Only by doing so, could
we put correct intervention and prevention strategies of aggres-
siveness into effect.
Currently, there are mainly three theories accounting for the
forming process of aggressiveness, such as General Aggression
Model (GAM), Cognitive Neo-association Model (CNM), and Social
Learning Theory (SLT). GAM assumed that short-term exposure to
violent media (situational variable) could activate viewer’s aggres-
sive cognition, thinking, arousal, affect and behavior, and that long-
D
term exposure could develop viewer’s aggressive traits (DeWall,
Anderson, & Bushman, 2011). CNM clarified that aversive events
amplifies aggressive tendency. Particularly, negative influences
produced by disagreeable occurrences routinely encourage various
thoughts, expressive motor reactions, memories and physiological
TE
reactions linked with both fight and flight tendency (Berkowitz,
1993). SLT proposed that people obtain aggressive reactions simi-
lar to the mode of attaining other intricate types of social behavior
by immediate experience or by simulating others (Bandura, 1973).
With the Information Technology (IT) revolution taking place,
violent media online is becoming one of the most popular enter-
tainments among adolescents (Cesarone, 1998; Gentile, Lynch, Lin-
der, & Walsh, 2004; Gentile & Walsh, 2002; Gross, 2004, 2010;
C
Kirsh, 2003; Unsworth, Devilly, & Ward, 2007; Wu, Wang, & Tsai,
2010). In the process of exposing violent media, adolescents may
imitate aggressive behavior in real-life settings not only through
observational learning (Bandura, 1973; Huesmann, 2010), but also
through stimulating enjoyment. Unconsciously or consciously, col-
A
lege students may spend their spare time watching violent movie
via computer, and it is highly possible that they internalize movie
violence into aggressive cognition and behavior. Little empirical re-
search, nevertheless, has systematically explored the causal corre-
R
lation between movie violence and aggressiveness among Chinese
college students. In general, educators often raise such questions
like ‘‘Does viewing violent movie possibly cause college students
to attack others or commit crimes?’’ Although it is quite hard for
us to respond directly and clearly since no empirical support from
ET
previous researches, it can be gradually addressed by Chinese psy-
chologists through cross-sectional or longitudinal research.
Taken together, in this study, we examine whether viewing vio-
lent movie via computer strengthens aggressiveness among college
students by employing a modified STROOP task. Besides, we inves-
tigate whether aggressiveness varies across different genders and
aggressive levels.
R
2. Research framework
2.1. Correlation exists between violent movie and aggressiveness
Bushman (1995) found that college students who watched vio-
lent media reported higher levels of aggressive affect than partici-
pants who viewed the non-violent media, indicating a significant
positive correlation between amounts of time participants re-
ported watching violent TV programs and intensity of noise blasts
given to opponent (aggressive behavior). Several longitudinal
studies even concluded that a single exposure to firearm violence
doubles the chance that a young person will later engage in violent
behavior (Bingenheimer, Brennan, & Earls, 2005; Kleck, 2005;
Mehta, 2005). Drawing upon these, individuals who view violent
movie in the laboratory may increase likelihood of aggressiveness
immediately. Hence, we propose the Hypothesis 1,
321
H1. Viewing violent movie via computer may significantly
enhance aggressiveness among college students.
2.2. Correlation exists between violent movie, aggressiveness and
gender
Researches demonstrated that boys are more susceptible to so-
cial and physical aggression relative to girls (Paquette & Under-
wood, 1999; Smith & Waterman, 2005). In the real life, boys are
more likely to view violent movie than girls, and boys are prone
to resorting violence when solving problems relative to girls. Thus,
Hypothesis 2 is stated as follows,
H2. Males but not females may show significant aggressiveness by
viewing violent movie instead of non-violent movie.
2.3. Correlation exists between violent movie, aggressiveness and
aggressive level
Previous studies showed that subjects with high trait-aggres-
siveness are more prone to be aggressive than those with low
trait-aggressiveness by watching violent movies (Bushman, 1995;
Marshall & Brown, 2006). We may infer that viewers with HA
may be more likely to activate their aggressive cognition than
those with LA when they expose violent movie and aggressive
stimuli. Based on past findings and research rationale, we put for-
ward Hypothesis 3,
H3. Viewers with HA but not LA may show significant aggressive-
ness by viewing violent movie instead of non-violent movie.
3. Method
3.1. Participants
In the summer semester of 2012, a total of 108 undergraduate
students (56% females) from four grade levels participated in this
study. They ranged in age from 19 to 23 (M = 20.60, SD = 1.82). Par-
ticipants were recruited from the urban districts of Chongqing in
southwestern China. Therefore, the sample could just be seen as
representative of undergraduate students in urban China. The
majority of participants were freshmen (79.2%). 54 participants
viewing NINJA ASSASSIN (2009) were regarded as violent movie
group, and 54 participants watching BIG NOTHING (2006) were
considered as non-violent movie group.
3.2. Materials and stimuli
3.2.1. Computer & Earphone
Display resolution was 1024  576 pixels, and refresh rate was
60 Hz. The distance between participants’ faces and the computer
monitor was approximately 60 cm. The faces of the participants
were parallel with the computer screen, and the eyes were kept
at the same level with the screen center.
3.2.2. Movies
NINJA ASSASSIN, a type of American violent movie directed by
James McTeigue, was produced by Joel Silver and Wachowski
brothers. NINJA ASSASSIN explored political corruption, child
endangerment and the impact of violence. The time of watching
this movie lasted for 15 min. This kind of movie was selected as
violent movie as it consisted of many body-fighting scenes and lan-
guage attacks, which was consistent with the definition of violent
media (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). BIG NOTHING, a kind of
322 Z. Qian, D.-J. Zhang / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 320–325
European non-violent movie directed by Jean-Baptiste Andrea. The
movie was set in a small Oregon town, where a brutal serial killer
nicknamed the Oregon Undertaker had been murdering and
mutilating young women. This kind of movie was chosen as a
non-violent movie as it included no body-fighting contents and
language attacks, which was also obedient with the definition of
non-violent media (Anderson & Bushman, 2001).
3.2.3. Goal words
30 Aggressive (i.e., assault, stab, murder) and 30 nonaggressive
words (i.e., smile, joke, cheer) were randomly matched. The words
were presented in italics (font size = 72) with three colors (blue,
red, yellow) on screen centre under a gray background. The pre-
sented order of goal words was counterbalanced.
D
3.2.4. Measures
Buss-Perry Aggression Questionnaire (BPAQ), a 5-point rating
scale, was used to measure aggressive level. BPAQ included four
dimensions: physical aggression (PA), verbal aggression (VA), an-
TE
ger (A), and hostility (H). It was a 29-item Likert scale which asks
subjects to respond on a 1 (extremely uncharacteristic of me) to
5 (extremely characteristic of me) degree about their aggressive
levels. Certain items were reverse coded in order to make higher
scores indicate higher aggressive level. Internal consistent reliabil-
ity (Cronbach-alfa coefficient) for the scale was 0.94. Test and re-
test reliability yielded a correlation coefficient of 0.89. Cronbach-
alfa coefficients of PA, VA, A, and H were 0.85, 0.72, 0.83 and
C
0.77, respectively. The reliability of this scale for this study was
acceptable (Buss & Perry, 1992). Participants obtaining the first
27% of BPAQ were regarded as high aggression (HA), whereas oth-
ers gaining the last 27% of BPAQ were considered as low aggression
(LA).
A
3.3. Research design
We used multi-factorial design to analyze the data. Movie type
R
and gender were the independent variables, and aggressiveness
was the dependent variable. 2 (Movie Type: violent vs. non-vio-
lent)  2 (Goal Word: aggressive vs. non-aggressive)  2 (Gender:
male vs. female)  2 (Aggressive Level: HA vs. LA) repeated four
measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) was conducted. Movie type
ET
and gender were the between-group factors, and goal word was
the within-group factor.
3.4. Procedure
After signing informed consents, participants were given
45 min to complete the BPAQ. After that, they were randomly as-
signed to watch either violent- or non-violent movie, and then they
R
completed modified STROOP task programmed by E-prime soft-
ware (Psychology Software Tools, Inc., Sharpsburg, PA, USA). Each
participant was measured speed and accuracy of responses while
the goal words were presented. If the word color was red, press‘1’
on keyboard; if the word color was yellow, press ‘2’; if the word
color was blue, press ‘3’. Participants should react as quickly and
accurately as possible to distinguish the word color instead of word
meaning, then the next trial began. After instructions appeared, a
sign ‘+’ emerged on the screen centre with the time of 300 ms, then
the goal words appeared on screen center for 1000 ms. The inter-
stimulus-interval (ISI) was 200–300 ms. After participants re-
ported the word color, the program entered into the next trial. If
participants did not respond in 1000 ms, the program also entered
into the next trial automatically (see Fig. 1). Meanwhile, accuracy
rate and reaction time (RT) were recorded. When the session was
over, concluding remarks appeared on screen and participants
were debriefed.
The whole STROOP task was divided into two parts: 1) Practical
section. 20 trials existed in practical section did not appear in sub-
sequent formal section. The program returned to practical section
if the accuracy rate was below 80 percent. The practical section
was to familiar participants with key pressing as well as to coun-
terbalance the color and key pressing. 2) Formal section. This sec-
tion was divided into 3 blocks, in which 40 trials and totally 120
trials were presented on average. 30 aggressive and 30 nonaggres-
sive words were presented in one of three colors (red, yellow,
blue), and each word appeared only once in each block. Partici-
pants had a short rest among blocks, then the program entered into
the next block. It was worth mentioning that the mean accuracy
rate of all participants was from 80 percent to 90 percent in the
experiment.
4. Results
4.1. Reaction times difference to aggressive and nonaggressive words
One-way ANOVA was carried out to examine the main effect of
goal words on reaction times (RTs) after viewing violent movie via
computer (see Table 1). Overall, it showed that the main effect of
goal word on RTs was significant, particularly the RTs to aggressive
words was longer than to nonaggressive words (F = 4.41, P < .05).
4.2. Activated aggression score difference to violent and non-violent
movie group
Based on Table 1, the RTs to aggressive words was longer than
nonaggressive words, thus we postulated an aggressively activated
scores (AAS) to give an operational definition of aggressiveness
(see Table 2). Specifically, AAS was calculated by the mean RTs to
aggressive words minus the mean RTs to nonaggressive words.
Hence, we investigated whether significant AAS difference was
found between violent- and non-violent movie groups to deter-
mine aggressiveness. As we can see, the AAS of violent movie group
(23 ms) was higher than that of non-violent movie group ( 4 ms).
As a result, it could be inferred that aggressiveness of viewers in
violent movie group was stronger than non-violent movie group.
4.3. Activated aggression score difference in movie type, movie
type  gender, and movie type  aggressive level interaction
Multivariate analysis of covariance (MANCOVA) was used to
examine whether significant AAS difference existed among vari-
ables (see Table 3). It revealed significant main effect of movie type
on aggressiveness (F = .55, P < .01), and significant Movie
Type  Gender interaction (F = 4.41, P < .01) as well as significant
Movie Type  Aggressive Level interaction (F = 5.56, P < .01). No
significant interaction, nonetheless, was found among movie type,
gender and aggressive level (F = .07, P > .05).
ISI
200-300ms
+ 300ms
Stab 1000ms
Time
100ms
Fig. 1. The modified STROOP task. Note: ISI = inter-stimulus-interval.
 Z. Qian, D.-J. Zhang / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 320–325 323

Table 1 Table 3
RTs difference to aggressive and nonaggressive words. AAS difference among movie type, gender and aggressive level.

Goal words Variables M SD F

Aggressive words Nonaggressive words F Movie type 212 26.04 .55**
Movie type  Gender 1038 124.88 4.41**
M SD M SD
Movie type  Aggressive level 1718 152.31 5.56**
557 53.34 530 51.15 4.41* Movie type  Gender  Aggressive level 22 2.73 .07
⁄⁄ ⁄⁄⁄
Note: RTs = reaction times. P < .01, P < .001. Note: ⁄ P < .05, ⁄⁄⁄
P < .001.
* **
P < .05. P < .01.

Table 2 Table 4
AAS difference to violent- and non-violent movie group. AAS difference in gender between two movie groups.

Goal words Gender Violent group Non-violent group F

D
Movie group Aggressive words Nonaggressive words AAS (ms) Males 8.98 1.01 5.32**
Females 6.01 10.65 2.17
M SD M SD
⁄⁄⁄
Note: P < .05, P < .001.
Violent group 614 52.58 591 49.24 23 **
P < .01.
Non-violent group 521 51.37 525 54.11 4

TE
Note: AAS = aggressively activated score (Mean RTs to aggressive words subtracts
mean RTs to nonaggressive words).
Table 5
AAS difference in aggressive level between two movie groups.

To further examine significant interaction between movie type Aggressive level Violent group Non-violent group F
and gender, simple effect analysis was employed (see Table 4). Re- HA 19.95 2.56 9.47**
sults indicated that the AAS of males among violent movie group LA .05 2.86 .04
was significant higher than that of males among non-violent movie C Note: HA = high aggression; LA = low aggression; ⁄ P < .05, ⁄⁄⁄
P < .001.
group (F = 5.32, P < .01). No significant AAS difference, however, **
P < .01.
was found for females between two movie groups (F = 2.17,
P > .05).
To further examine significant interaction between movie type observational learning from others. Meanwhile, the above state-
and aggressive level, simple effect analysis was conducted (see Ta- ment was also supported by our post-interviews. Most interview-
A
ble 5). Results indicated that the AAS of viewers with HA among ers believed that they had an exciting and hostile feeling in violent
violent movie group was significant higher than that of those movie watching. Furthermore, most male interviewers would be
among non-violent movie group (F = 9.47, P < .01). No significant willing to buy the movie discs if they could. From this point, movie
AAS difference, however, was found for viewers with LA between publishers and dealers might need to seriously consider how to
two movie groups (F = .04, P > .05). control violent movies to a better degree to meet the requirements
R

of college students as well as to obtain profits. In short, special

5. Discussion emphasis should be placed on reducing opportunities to view vio-
lent movie among Chinese college students.
The purpose of the present study was to examine short-term
ET

changes in aggressiveness after viewing violent movie via com-
puter among Chinese college students. A secondary objective was
to investigate whether individual variables (i.e., gender, aggressive
level) differed among two groups. Overall, findings from this study
are consistent with our hypotheses.
5.1. Viewing violent movie significantly strengthens aggressiveness
R
5.2. Males viewing violent movie show aggressiveness, whereas
females viewing violent movie do not show aggressiveness
As predicted, we found important gender difference in main ef-
fect of viewing violent movie on aggressiveness. Specifically, view-
ing violent movie but not non-violent movie significantly boosted
aggressiveness among males, but not among females. In other
words, males are more sensitive to violent movie than females.

Our tests of the main effect of goal words was significant after
viewing violent movie (the RTs to aggressive words was longer
than nonaggressive words), indicating that college students spent
longer time reacting to aggressive words than nonaggressive
words. According to STROOP effect, this may cost subject’s plenty
of cognitive and attentional resources when she or he deferred re-
sponses to the word color rather than word meaning (Stroop,
1935). In other words, this finding indicated that the core reason
why viewing violent movie strengthens aggressiveness might attri-
bute to the cognitive framework activated by aggressive words
rather than nonaggressive words. In this regard, we announced
that aggressiveness among college students is significantly en-
hanced after viewing violent movie, which was consistent with
Hypothesis 1 and previous studies (e.g., Anderson & Bushman,
2002a, 2002b; Huesmann et al., 2003; Johnson et al., 2002). Be-
sides, this result was also correspondent with SLT, indicating view-
ers’ aggressive behavior could be indirectly reinforced through
This result, in part, was in agreement with Hypothesis 2 and was
consistent with relevant studies, which found that the correlation
between media violence and aggressiveness was larger for boys
than girls (Huesmann et al., 2003; Lindeman, Harakka, & Keltilkan-
gas, 1997; Paquette & Underwood, 1999; Smith & Waterman,
2005). To interpret the causes for this result, on the one hand, it
was the common notion that males were prone to select a violent
way to solve conflicts and disputes to reach a consensus or agree-
ment, and they were more likely to demonstrate aggressive behav-
ior than females in real life. Actually, males like to watch
competitive and stimulating movies (i.e., murder, killing) in their
spare time, and females love to watch emotional life drama (i.e.,
soap opera, humor). Thus, the habits of viewing movie type may
become a reason for gender difference in aggressiveness. On the
other hand, females might show more empathy than males after
viewing violent movie. As previous research proposed, females
were more empathic in their moral decision making instead of
324 Z. Qian, D.-J. Zhang / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 320–325
hostile thinking than males, so they might be show non-aggres-
siveness (Anderson et al., 2010; Harenski, Antonenko, Shane, &
Kiehl, 2008; Rueckert & Naybar, 2008; Zhen et al., 2011). Although
such inference might potentially act as one reason to interpret the
gender difference in aggressiveness, we assumed that males might
be easier to form aggressively cognitive schema than females after
viewing violent movie.
5.3. Viewers with HA watching violent movie show aggressiveness,
whereas viewers with LA watching violent movie do not show
aggressiveness
As can be seen from the results, variable interaction was signif-
D
icant between movie type and aggressive level, particularly aggres-
siveness of viewers with HA but not LA was strengthened by
violent movie, which supported our Hypothesis 3 and GAM, and
it was correspondent with previous researches (Bushman, 1995,
1998; Marshall & Brown, 2006). Why did viewers with HA show
TE
significant aggressiveness after viewing violent movie? First, view-
ers with HA, as a special group, their cognitive development was on
such an important stage that they were likely to engage in risk-tak-
ing activities such as show aggressiveness by simulating violent
behavior (Steinberg, 2008). Thus, viewers with HA were highly
sensitive to violent stimuli relative to those with LA. Second, expo-
sure to violent media primed the accessibility of aggressive con-
structs in memory (Bushman, 1998). So we speculated that
C
stronger aggressively cognitive network and special memorial sys-
tem might exist in viewers with HA but not LA. Consequently, vio-
lent movie tended to activate aggressive constructs in neural
mechanism and viewers with HA were more likely to retrieve
aggressive information from memorial processing system than
A
those with LA. Third, according to GAM and CNM, repeated expo-
sure to violent media may form aggressively cognitive structure
(cognition, affect, thinking, physiological arousal), and thus leading
to the general aggression (Anderson & Carnagey, 2004). Based on
this, we speculated the activation of aggressively cognitive net-
R
work eventually caused college students to react aggressively.
For viewers with HA, viewing violent movie met their requirement
of stimulation, while viewers with LA could better inhibit aggres-
siveness with more cognitive control after viewing violent movie,
ET
which was partially congruent with these two models.
6. Limitations and future directions
Although this study provides interesting insights into the vari-
ables affecting viewers’ aggressiveness, several limitations should
be noted. First, the data we obtained from a cross-sectional design,
which was confined to confirm a causal correlation between vio-
R
lent movie and aggressiveness. Hence, future studies using a longi-
tudinal design were necessary. Second, this study used BPAQ and
self-debriefing measures to test undergraduates’ aggressive level
and feelings, which may led to a cultural variation between China
and the U.S. Perhaps some items in BPAQ were not suitable for par-
ticipants under Chinese cultural background. In future study,
researchers may consider to use revised BPAQ (Chinese edition)
to obtain data, and to exactly assess participants’ aggressive level
to provide sounder evidences. Third, we did not separate different
subtypes of aggression (e.g., physical aggression, verbal aggression,
anger, hostility) in this study. This meant that viewing violent mo-
vie might enhance aggression subtypes through different paths.
For example, viewing violent movie may just significantly arouse
physical and verbal aggression. Future studies should examine dif-
ferent paths for aggression subtypes influenced by viewing violent
movie. Last, we did not take into account of the perpetrator gender,
which may play an indispensable role in the effects among college
students. In our study, perpetrators were all males instead of fe-
males, but what effects would be if the perpetrators were females?
Thus, selecting female perpetrators in violent movie was necessary
in future study of aggressiveness, which might be vitally important
for viewers and aggressors.
7. Implications
Despite these limitations, the findings of the study have impor-
tant implications for practice. First, by examining gender variables,
the study concluded that aggressiveness was stronger for males
but not females after viewing violent movie via computer. As a re-
sult, aggressiveness intervention and prevention may be more
important for male than female undergraduates. Second, by exam-
ining aggressive level difference, the study showed that viewers
with HA might be more prone to form aggressiveness than those
with LA after viewing violent movie. As a result, prevention and
intervention efforts should particularly focus on undergraduates
with HA on college campus. However, this result should be gener-
alized with great cautions, since it did not show that violent movie
elicits aggressiveness among all college students. And this might
be the true reason why numerous scholars took the opposite views
upon this debated issue over the past decade. Third, the internal
mechanisms underlying the effects should be further explored. Lar-
ger samples at different grades might be considered to better
examine the effects of viewing violent movie via computer on
aggressiveness among college students.
Acknowledgments
The present study was supported by the National Youth Re-
search Funds of National Educational Science Planning Grant in
China (Grant Number: CBA130128) and the Youth Research Funds
of Social Science and Humanities Grant from the Ministry of Edu-
cation in China (Grant Number: 13YJC190030), and the Fundamen-
tal Research Funds for the Central Universities (Grant Number:
SWU1409135), as well as a great Grant of Social Sciences and
Humanities from the Ministry of Education in China (Grant Num-
ber: 10JHQ003). Writing of the paper was also supported by a
scholarship from the China Scholarship Council (CSC) to Dr. Qian
Zhang during his academic visit as a visiting scholar at the Univer-
sity of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign (UIUC) in the USA (Grant
Number: 201308505040). We thank the college students who par-
ticipated in our study and Drs. Xiao-Fan Peng, Gang Cheng, and
Xin-Qiang Wang for their helpful comments in various ways.
References
Akert, R. M., Aronson, E., & Wilson, T. D. (2010). Social Psychology (7th ed.). Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Anderson, C. A. (1997). Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile
feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggressive Behavior, 23, 161–178. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997) 23:3<161::AID-AB2>3.0.CO;2-P.
Anderson, C. A. (2004). An update on the effects of playing violent video games.
Journal of Adolescence, 27, 113–122. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.
2003.10.009.
Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2004). Violent evil and the general aggression. In
A. Miller (Ed.), The social psychology of good and evil (Vol. 41), pp. 168–192.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2001). Effects of violent video games on aggressive
behavior, aggressive cognition, aggressive affect, physiological arousal, and pro-
social behavior: A meta-analytic review of the scientific literature. Psychological
Science, 5, 353–359. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00366.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002a). Human aggression. Annual Review of
Psychology, 53, 27–51. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.
135231.
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002b). The effects of media violence on society.
Science, 295, 2377–2378. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1070765.
Anderson, C. A., & Carnagey, N. L. (2009). Causal effects of violent sports video
games on aggression: Is it competitiveness or violent content? Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 731–739. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.
2009.04.019.
 Z. Qian, D.-J. Zhang / Computers in Human Behavior 35 (2014) 320–325
Anderson, C. A., Carnagey, N. L., & Eubanks, J. (2003). Exposure to violent media: The
effects of songs with violent lyrics on aggressive thoughts and feelings. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 960–971. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
0022-3514.84.5.960.
Anderson, C. A., Gentile, D. A., & Buckley, K. E. (2007). Violent video game effects on
children and adolescents: Theory, research and public policy. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., et al.
(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.
Bandura, A. (1973). Aggression: A social learning theory analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York, NY:
McGraw-Hill.
Bingenheimer, J. B., Brennan, R. T., & Earls, F. J. (2005). Sociology: Firearm violence
exposure and serious violent behavior. Science, 308, 1323–1326. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1110096.
D
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://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.950.
Bushman, B. J. (1998). Priming effects of violent media on the accessibility of
aggressive constructs in memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24,
537–545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167298245009.
TE
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2001). Media violence and American public:
Scientific facts versus media misinformation. American Psychologist, 5, 477–489.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.6-7.477.
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2007). Measuring the strength of the effect of
violent media on aggression. American Psychologist, 62, 253–254. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.62.3.253.
Bushman, B. J., & Brickman, D. W. (2007). Television and aggression. In J. J. Arnett
(Ed.). Encyclopedia of children, adolescents, and the media (Vol. 1, pp. 89–90).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bushman, B. J., & Huesmann, L. R. (2006). Short-term and long-term effects of
violent media on aggression in children and adults. Archives of Pediatrics &
C Marshall, M. A., & Brown, J. D. (2006). Trait aggressiveness and situational
Adolescent Medicine, 160, 348–352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1001/archpedi.160.
4.348.
Buss, A. H., & Perry, M. P. (1992). The aggression questionnaire. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 63, 452–459. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.
63.3.452.
Carnagey, N. L., & Anderson, C. A. (2005). The effects of reward and punishment in
A
violent video games on aggressive affect, cognition, and behavior. Psychological
Science, 11, 882–889. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01632.x.
Cesarone, B. (1998). Video games: Research, rating, recommendations. Eric Digest
(EDO-PS-98-11).
Crick, N. R., & Grotpeter, J. K. (1995). Relational aggression, gender, and social–
psychological adjustment. Child Development, 66, 710–722. http://dx.doi.org/
R
10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00900.x.
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://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0023842.
Freedman, J. L. (1984). Effect of television violence on aggressiveness. Psychological
Bulletin, 96, 227–246. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.96.2.227.
Freedman, J. L. (2002). Media violence and its effect on aggression: Assessing the
ET
scientific evidence. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Funk, J. B., Bechtoldt, B. H., Pasold, T., & Baumgardner, J. (2004). Violence exposure
in real life, video games, television, movies, and the internet: Is there
desensitization? Journal of Adolescence, 27, 23–39. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.adolescence.2003.10.005.
Gentile, D. A., Lynch, P. L., Linder, J. R., & Walsh, D. A. (2004). The effects of violent
video game habits on adolescent hostility, aggressive behaviors, and school
performance. Journal of Adolescence, 27, 5–22. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.adolescence.2003.10.002.
Gentile, D. A., & Walsh, D. A. (2002). A normative study of family media habits.
R
Applied Developmental Psychology, 23, 157–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
S0193-3973(02)00102-8.
Gross, E. F. (2004). Adolescent Internet use: What we expect, what teens report.
Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 25, 633–649. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/j.appdev.2004.09.005.
Gross, M. L. (2010). Advergames and the effects of game-product congruity.
Computers in Human Behavior, 26, 1259–1265. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.chb.2010.03.034.
325
Hancox, R. J., Milne, B. J., & Poulton, R. (2004). Association between child and
adolescent television viewing and adult health: A longitudinal birth cohort
study. Lancet, 364, 257–262. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(04)16675-
0.
Harenski, C. L., Antonenko, O., Shane, M. S., & Kiehl, K. A. (2008). Gender differences
in neural mechanisms underlying moral sensitivity. Social Cognitive and
Affective Neuroscience, 3, 313–321. http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/scan/nsn026.
Holden, C. (2005). Controversial study suggests seeing gun violence promotes it.
Science, 308, 1239–1240. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.308.5726.1239.
Huesmann, L. R. (2007). The impact of electronic media violence: Scientific theory
and research. Journal of Adolescent Health, 41, 6–13. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.jadohealth.2007.09.005.
Huesmann, L. R. (2010). Nailing the coffin shut on doubts that violent video games
stimulate aggression: Comment on Anderson et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin,
136, 179–181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018567.
Huesmann, L. R., Moise, T. J., Podolski, C., & Eron, L. D. (2003). Longitudinal relations
between children’s exposure to TV violence and their aggressive and violent
behavior in young adulthood: 1977–1992. Developmental Psychology, 39,
201–221. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.39.2.201.
Jane, D., Brown, E., & Witherspoon, M. (2002). The mass media and American
adolescents’ health. Journal of Adolescent Health, 31, 153–170. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1016/S1054-139X(02)00507-4.
Johnson, J. G., Cohen, P., Smailes, E. M., Kasen, S., & Brook, J. S. (2002). Television
viewing and aggressive behavior during adolescence and adulthood. Science,
295, 2468–2471. http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1062929.
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.
Kleck, G. D. (2005). Firearms, violence, and self-protection. Science, 309, 1675–1676.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.309.5741.1675.
Lindeman, M., Harakka, T., & Keltilkangas, J. L. (1997). Age and gender differences in
adolescents’ reactions to conflict situations: Aggression, pro-sociality, and
withdrawal. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 3, 339–351. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1007/s10964-005-0006-2.
provocation: A test of the traits as situational sensitivities (TASS) model.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1100–1113. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1177/0146167206288488.
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.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The effects of television violence on antisocial
behavior: A meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1177/009365094021004004.
Paquette, J. A., & Underwood, M. K. (1999). Gender differences in young adolescents’
experiences of peer victimization: Social and physical aggression. Merrill-Palmer
Quarterly, 45, 242–266. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23093677.
Rueckert, L., & Naybar, N. (2008). Gender differences in empathy: The role of the
right hemisphere. Brain and Cognition, 67, 162–167. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/
j.bandc.2008.01.002.
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.
Steinberg, L. (2008). A social neuroscience perspective on adolescent risk-taking.
Developmental Review, 28, 78–106. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2007.08.002.
Stroop, J. R. (1935). Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of
Experimental Psychology, 18, 643–662. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/h0054651.
Unsworth, G., Devilly, G. J., & Ward, T. (2007). The effect of playing violent video
games on adolescents: Should parents be quaking in their boots? Psychology,
Crime & Law, 13, 383–394. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10683160601060655.
Wood, W., Wong, F. Y., & Chachere, J. G. (1991). Effects of media violence on
viewers’ aggression in unconstrained social interaction. Psychological Bulletin,
109, 371–383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.109.3.371.
Wu, J. H., Wang, S. C., & Tsai, H. H. (2010). Falling in love with online games: The
uses and gratifications perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 26,
1862–1871. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2010.07.033.
Zhen, S. J., Xie, H. L., Zhang, W., Wang, S. J., & Li, D. P. (2011). Exposure to violent
computer games and Chinese adolescents’ physical aggression: The role of
beliefs about aggression, hostile expectations, and empathy. Computers in
Human Behavior, 27, 1675–1687. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2011.02.006.