14
Media Violence and Aggression
Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
No one is suggesting that video games are the only reason they went out and committed those
horriﬁc acts, but was it a tipping point? Was it something that pushed them over the edge?
Was it a factor in that? Perhaps. That’s a really big deal.
Jim Steyer, CEO Common Sense Media, 2012
No topic in the ﬁeld of communication has been more heavily investigated than media violence
and its eﬀects on aggression. Each time an act of real-world violence hits the airwaves, the
debate about the eﬀects of media violence on aggression rears its ugly head. Some passionately
argue that consumption of violent media content is a key route to aggressive behavior; others
vehemently deny such a connection. Indeed, time and time again, tempers seem to ﬂare when
the eﬀects (or lack thereof) of media violence are discussed.
Perhaps this is because the outcome most associated with media violence—namely aggression—is
a topic that evokes deep concern and fear. Or perhaps it is because the events that
often trigger the debate are poignant, heart-breaking, and traumatic. The quote above by Jim
Steyer, for example, concerns Adam Lanza who, in December 2012, shot and killed 20 school
children and six adults in Sandy Hook, New Jersey, and then turned his weapon on himself.
Indeed, it is hard to think of images such as those associated with Sandy Hook Elementary
School, Stoneman Douglas High School, Virginia Tech University, or the Pulse nightclub without
feeling an immediate and urgent need to “ﬁx” the problem. But as tragic as these incidents
are—and they are tragic—the best we as scientists can do is use the objectivity science aﬀords
us to identify the extent to which media violence is a risk factor for aggression so that we can
then identify routes for intervention. Herein lies the goal of this chapter.
From Then to Now
Most scholars view the Payne Fund Studies as a key starting point in the history of media violence
(Sparks, Sparks, & Sparks, 2009). These privately funded studies, conducted between 1929
and 1932, were designed to ascertain the eﬀects of movies on the behavior of children and
211
212 • Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
teens. Although numerous studies resulted, two in particular helped reinforce the notion that
violent media content could be a public concern. First, Blumer’s (1933) survey of nearly 2,000
respondents revealed that many movie viewers were aware that they had directly imitated acts
of violence ﬁrst witnessed in movies. Shortly thereafter, Dale’s (1935) analysis of 1,500 movies
revealed that movies of the day placed a heavy emphasis on crime. Together, these studies
helped to exacerbate public concern surrounding violent media content.
The Payne Fund Studies certainly helped put media violence into the public foray, but it
was work conducted in the early 1960s that attracted even greater attention. Speciﬁcally, in
1961, a team of American researchers demonstrated a positive relationship between televised
violence consumption and aggressive behavior among youngsters (Schramm, Lyle, & Parker,
1961). In contrast and at nearly the same time, researchers in Great Britain suggested that not
only was there no relationship between television violence and aggression but, moreover,
argued that ﬁnding such a link would be diﬃcult to prove (Himmelweit, Oppenheim, &
Vince, 1958). With this conﬂicted background in mind, the American government held Congressional
hearings to better understand the degree to which media violence might be
a public concern. During these hearings, scholars argued that it was imperative to form and
fund a program of research on the issue of media (then, speciﬁcally TV) violence eﬀects, with
a speciﬁc focus on children, given that this audience was seen as acutely susceptible to
media’s inﬂuence (Murray, 2007).
After these hearings, interest in media violence continued to grow, with signiﬁcant attention
in the U.S. due in part to the assassinations of President John F. Kennedy, Martin Luther King,
Jr., and Robert Kennedy. This led to the formation of several government commissions and scientiﬁc
review committees (e.g., the Surgeon General’s Scientiﬁc Advisory Committee on Television
and Social Behavior), all charged with summarizing the research evidence and identifying
the public policy issues associated with media (namely, TV) violence. In many ways, these committees
were central to setting the agenda for research and public discussion on media violence
for the years ahead (Murray, 2007).
But they were not the only forces that helped set the agenda. In the 1980s, the Federal Communications
Commission in the U.S. loosened broadcast restrictions related to public interest
programming. This ushered in greater concern associated with television content, particularly
children’s content, leading to the Children’s Television Act of 1990, which, among other things,
required broadcasters to air a certain amount of “educational” programming suitable for young
viewers (Kunkel, 1998). Within three years of this act, TV networks began labeling children’s
programs to warn parents about violent and unsuitable content, implicitly making the clear
point that such content was, at a minimum, controversial and potentially harmful.
Fast forward to 1998 when the National Television Violence Study (NTVS), commissioned
in the U.S., published its results of a three-year study that conﬁrmed a link between viewing
television violence and subsequent aggressive behavior among youth and noted that the proportion
of violent media was increasing, particularly with content most likely to support behavioral
imitation (Wilson et al., 1998). This report was almost immediately followed by the Columbine
High School shooting in the U.S. in April 1999, where one teacher and 12 students were murdered
in a highly planned attack by two other students. The attack was blamed, in part, on
violent video games—Doom, Wolfenstein 3D, Duke Nukem, Quest—which the attackers reportedly
played, once again perpetuating the (perceived) link between media violence and aggression.
As a result of the tragedy, then-President Bill Clinton commissioned a report by the
Surgeon General, which, similar to the NTVS, reported a “strong” relationship between media
Media Violence and Aggression • 213
violence consumption and short-term aggression, although this aggressive behavior “stopped far
short of breaking limbs or committing murder” (Bryant, Thompson, & Finklea, 2013, p. 158;
U.S. Surgeon General, 2001).
Since the Surgeon General’s report, both social and scientiﬁc concerns have continued to
grow. As Murray (2007) notes, the extent of this concern is most aptly demonstrated by the
fact that over the past half-century, more than 1,000 reports have been published on the issue.
And this scholarship still continues with fervor, extending beyond the classic sphere of television
and video games to social media, virtual reality, mobile media, and more (e.g., Lull &
Bushman, 2016; Patton et al., 2014; Reed, Tolman, & Ward, 2016). But this scholarship has also
increasingly witnessed a tension in the ﬁeld. Although the historical rhetoric mostly suggests
that violent media consumption is, at minimum, a risk factor for aggressive behavior, the current
scientiﬁc community does not unilaterally share this sentiment. Rather, some scholars
vehemently argue that the relationship is “much ado about nothing” (e.g., Ferguson & Kilburn,
2010), while others equally ﬁerce in their conviction contend that it is indeed “much ado about
something” (e.g., Bushman, Rothstein, & Anderson, 2010). And it is in this context, caught
between the fences so to speak, that we ﬁnd ourselves as scholars continuing to study an issue
that may be among the most deﬁning for communication science.
Key Theories
As this brief history shows us, since the early days of electronic media, concerns about the
eﬀects of media violence—particularly on aggressive cognitions, attitudes, and behaviors—have
persisted. Alongside this concern, scholars have espoused numerous theories to explain why
such a relationship might occur. Some of these theories focus primarily on short-term eﬀects of
media violence; others take a longer-term perspective.
Social Cognitive Theory
No chapter on the eﬀects of media violence would be complete without explicit acknowledgment
and focus on social cognitive theory (Bandura, 2009). In fact, Albert Bandura’s social cognitive
theory has been among the most heavily cited when it comes to explaining how violent
media content may induce aggressive behavior. This theory posits that humans learn behavior
in two ways: by direct experience and by observing others. Like other behaviors, Bandura posits
that aggressive ones are learned by (1) seeing certain behaviors, (2) trying them out for ourselves,
and then (3) relying on cues from our social environment to encourage us to replicate
(or suspend) these behaviors.
Readers are encouraged to review Chapter 7 in this volume for a thorough discussion of
this theory, but a brief recap is helpful here. Social cognitive theory was developed and
tested in the 1960s in Bandura’s now-classic “Bobo doll” studies. Although the studies
varied in design, in the most classic version, Bandura invited a group of young children to
watch a movie showing an adult acting aggressively toward a Bobo doll (i.e., an inﬂated toy
that rights itself to a standing position when knocked down). Participants were assigned to
one of three conditions: (1) the aggressor was rewarded for aggressive action in the ﬁlm, (2)
the aggressor was punished for aggressive action, or (3) neither reward nor punishment
occurred. Following the viewing, all participants were allowed to play with the Bobo doll
featured in the movie. Results showed that reward matters: Children in the rewarded
214 • Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
condition imitated more aggressive acts than the children in the punishment or no consequences
condition (Bandura, 1965).
The Bobo experiments, and other comparable studies, tried to explain the process of observational
learning, in particular when aggressive behavior was rewarded or punished. Importantly,
the theory makes the explicit point that audiences do not merely imitate behaviors learned
observationally, but rather that, by observing, audiences learn more abstract rules about
a behavior, which can then be applied in future situations. In order to learn these abstract rules,
Bandura posits that viewers must attend to, remember, and be physically capable of replicating
the modeled behavior (see Chapter 7 for more detail about these processes). But even if these
processes are accomplished, the observer needs to be motivated to perform the behavior. This is
where external reinforcement comes into play: If you believe that your environment will not
support the planned (aggressive) behavior, then you are less likely to engage in it. But if you
believe the environment will support the behavior—think of hero genres whereby the “good
guy” receives accolades for acting violently—then you are more likely to replicate the behavior
(Bandura, 1986). As such, the presence, type, and context of violent behaviors, together with
the attention of the audience, is argued to predict the degree to which violent behaviors may be
learned and replicated in society.
Desensitization Theory
Social cognitive theory is used to explain both short and long-term eﬀects of violent media content,
with the (implicit) acknowledgment that the replication of behaviors is dependent upon
the opportunity to engage in such replication. Desensitization theory, in contrast, is focused primarily
on long-term eﬀects. Like social cognitive theory, it has been used to explain a variety of
potential media eﬀects, although it has found a particularly strong footing in the media violence
literature. In short, desensitization theory posits that repeated exposure to media violence leads
to gradual cognitive and emotional habituation in response to aggression. Over time and with
increased exposure, audience members become more accustomed to aggressive behavior, which
then impacts moral judgments and behaviors. In particular, it is anticipated that audiences will
ﬁnd violent content less ethically problematic and eventually become indiﬀerent to enacting and
observing aggressive behavior in their daily life (Carnagey, Anderson, & Bushman, 2007;
Gubler, Herrick, Price, & Wood, 2018; Krahé et al., 2011).
Support for desensitization theory can be found in the media violence literature. In what
many consider a classic study, Linz and colleagues (1984) showed a group of college-aged men
violent “slasher” ﬁlms (i.e., ﬁlms in which physical violence against women was quite pronounced)
for ﬁve consecutive days. By the end of the viewing period, the male participants
found the ﬁlms to be less violent and degrading to women. Even more, after watching
a documentary about a trial for sexual assault, the male participants were less sympathetic
toward the rape victim than men who had not viewed the slasher ﬁlms. In similar work, Smith
and Donnerstein (1998) demonstrated that the more viewers saw graphic media violence, the
more they viewed the material that they once perceived as oﬀensive as signiﬁcantly less so.
More recently, Krahé and colleagues (2011) provided evidence to support desensitization via
skin conductance analyses. In their study, college undergraduates completed a battery of measures,
including habitual media violence exposure. Two weeks later, they were shown a violent
ﬁlm clip (and a sad or funny clip for comparison). During viewing, skin conductance—an indicator
of physiological arousal (see Chapter 13 in this volume)—was measured continuously.
Media Violence and Aggression • 215
After the clip, a lexical task measured the accessibility of aggressive cognitions. Results showed
that habitual media violence exposure correlated negatively with arousal during violent ﬁlm
viewing and positively with faster accessibility of aggressive cognitions. This was not the case
for the comparison group viewers. In line with predictions of desensitization, viewers more
accustomed to violent media content were less likely to be aroused by a violent clip and more
likely to quickly access aggressive thoughts post-viewing (Krahé et al., 2011).
Just as Krahé relied on psychophysiological measurement (in part) to operationalize desensitization,
scholars have also recently begun to rely on brain-scanning technology to provide
a more reﬁned look at this potential process (see Chapter 13 in this volume). In this work,
researchers used fMRI to view the neural responses of teen boys during violent ﬁlm viewing
(Strenziok et al., 2010). Here, the argument is that active areas of the brain require more
oxygen than less active areas. If desensitization occurs, then one would expect less activity in
the emotional areas of the brain over the course of exposure. In this particular study, the
researchers observed increased oxygen in the area of the brain most often connected with emotional
responses at the outset of exposure. But, as the clips being viewed became more violent,
the activation diminished. This diminishing oxygen was interpreted by the authors of evidence
of a desensitization eﬀect.
Priming Theory
Unlike desensitization theory, which focuses on the long-term consequences of media exposure,
priming theory helps explain short-term eﬀects of media exposure. Although priming
theory is often linked with research in the political communication sphere (Roskos-Ewoldsen
& Roskos-Ewoldsen, 2009), it has also been used to explore how media violence may inﬂuence
aggression.
Discussed elsewhere in this volume in greater detail (see Chapter 6), in short, priming theory
is based on the understanding that humans rely on scripts and schemata to eﬃciently store
information. Schemata are deﬁned as mental frameworks or concepts we use to organize and
understand the world. Related to schemata are scripts, which are deﬁned as a speciﬁc schema
(or schemas) that is associated with the particular order of expected events in a particular context.
Schemata and scripts are core to priming theory. Speciﬁcally, priming theory relies on the
assumption that the human brain consists of diﬀerent associative schemata that reﬂect thoughts,
ideas, emotions, and actions that are stored in memory and that, when an external stimulus
activates a certain schema, it may also activate—or prime—other conceptually related schemata
(Jo & Berkowitz, 1994).
In the case of violent media exposure, researchers have argued that consuming media violence
can prime certain violent schemata, which in turn may activate related schemata. As
a result, these related schemata become (temporarily) more accessible. The now-classic Karate
Kid study (Bushman, 1998) does a good job of elucidating this process. Speciﬁcally, in this
study, participants were randomly assigned to either watch the ﬁlm Karate Kid or a non-violent
ﬁlm. Afterwards participants were asked to identify whether a set of letters was an actual word
or not by pressing a button as quickly as possible. Half of the depicted words were aggressive
in connotation. Viewers of Karate Kid had faster reaction times to aggressive words compared
to their control group peers. The researcher interpreted this as evidence that certain violent
schemata in the brain were primed and thus these schemata were temporarily more accessible,
leading to faster judgments regarding subsequent violence-related stimuli.
216 • Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
Excitation Transfer Theory
Just as some scholars have used priming to explain why media violence might enhance shortterm
aggressive cognitions (and in some instances aggressive behavior), others have suggested it
is not the activation of the neural network that explains this relationship but rather it is a more
physical response, namely, arousal. Coined excitation transfer theory, this theory assumes that
people become physically aroused during certain types of media content, including violent content.
The theory argues that, even when the media exposure ends, arousal does not immediately
subside but rather dissipates slowly. As such, it can transfer to behavior after the media experience,
making that experience seem more arousing (i.e., misattribution; Zillmann, 1978). For
example, if you are frustrated (e.g., your boss gives you extra work just as you are leaving the
oﬃce for the weekend) and then something makes you angry (e.g., someone has dented your
new car while you were at work), then the leftover arousal from the ﬁrst event (frustration) will
be added to the arousal from the second event (anger), leading you to experience the latter
more intensely that you would have otherwise.
In much the same way, if violent media consumption immediately precedes a situation that
induces anger, the experienced anger may be intensiﬁed and, as such, increase the likelihood for
aggressive behavior. Not only might this misattribution occur, but the high arousal evoked by
violent media content is also proposed to increase aggressive behavior by energizing action tendencies
immediately after (Anderson & Bushman, 2001). In other words, individuals may feel
more aroused after consuming violent media and then opt for action-based activities afterwards,
which may be more aggressive in nature than had they consumed less violent media content.
Even more, if confronted with a provocation, a person in a heightened state of arousal is more
likely to respond aggressively (Ireland, Birch, & Ireland, 2018).
General Aggression Model
The challenge with each of the above theories is that, although they all oﬀer a plausible explanation
as to why violent media consumption may induce aggression, they focus on diﬀer manifestations
of aggression and on diﬀerent timelines. For example, social cognitive theory looks at
both short and long-term eﬀects and is more strongly focused on the replication of modeled
behavior. On the other hand, desensitization and priming theory tend to focus most on aggressive
cognitions, with desensitization explaining potential long-term eﬀects and priming explaining
immediate ones. Contrast this with excitation transfer theory, which focuses on
physiological responses in the immediate moment, with some (potential) connection to behavior.
Combined, these diﬀering theories indicate that the route to eﬀect is likely dependent on
characteristics of the content and of the audience. This is what Anderson and Bushman
observed, and from this observation they united these theories in the General Aggression Model
(GAM) (Anderson & Bushman, 2002, 2018).
Not a communication or media eﬀects model per se, the GAM is designed to identify how
individual and situational factors may directly (and in combination) inﬂuence three potential
routes to aggression—cognition, aﬀect, and arousal—that subsequently inﬂuence appraisal and
decision-making processes, which in turn inﬂuence behavior. The model speciﬁes both immediate
and longer-term eﬀects. In the short term, the model posits that violent media can cause
increases in aggression via a person’s cognitive, aﬀective, and physiological state. For example,
Bushman and Anderson (2002) note that playing a violent video game may prime aggressive
Media Violence and Aggression • 217
cognitions, increase arousal, and create an angry state. In the long-term, the GAM speciﬁes that
learning processes—namely, learning how to perceive, interpret, judge, and respond to events in
the environment—will inﬂuence knowledge structures. In this way, each violent media episode
is seen as one additional trial to “learn that the world is a dangerous place, that aggression is an
appropriate way to deal with conﬂict and anger, that aggression works” (p. 1680) and more.
With repeated exposure, these hostile knowledge structures become more complex and diﬃcult
to change, which may ultimately lead to an aggressive personality (Bushman & Anderson,
2002). In line with the predictions of the GAM, a recent meta-analysis demonstrated that
increased exposure to violent media content is both cross-sectionally and causally linked to
increased hostile attributions in daily life (i.e., perceiving the ambiguous actions of others as
aggressive actions) (Bushman, 2016).
Diﬀerential Susceptibility to Media Eﬀects Model
In recent years, the GAM has been one of the key models used to explain how violent media
may aﬀect audiences. This is relatively unsurprising given its comprehensive and nuanced
stance. Yet, it is not a media-eﬀects model per se but rather a model focused on the predictors
of aggression. And while aggression is certainly the most commonly investigated outcome associated
with media violence (and, as such, the focus of this chapter), scholars have investigated
other (related) outcomes, including criminal violence (Savage & Yancey, 2008), empathy
(Vossen, Piotrowski, & Valkenburg, 2016), prosocial behavior (Anderson et al., 2010; Bushman
& Anderson, 2009), social-emotional development (Beyens, Piotrowski, & Valkenburg, 2018),
issue acceptance (e.g., rape myth, Emmers-Sommer, Pauley, Hanzal, & Triplett, 2006; gun control,
McGinty, Webster, & Barry, 2013), ethical decision-making (Gubler et al., 2018), and societal
moral panic (Burns & Crawford, 1999; Ferguson, 2008). These outcomes do not ﬁt squarely
within the GAM and, at the same time, face the challenge as to which of the competing theoretical
models may best explain any potential relationship with exposure to media violence. Here
is where the diﬀerential susceptibility to media eﬀects model (DSMM) comes into play (Valkenburg
& Peter, 2013).
The DSMM is among one of the newest models of media eﬀects in communication science.
Considered by some to be a tour de force, it is a comprehensive model that takes a nuanced
perspective to understand the ways in which media—including violent media—aﬀect users. The
model makes the explicit point that media eﬀects are not homogeneous and instead that,
a priori, it is crucial to identify for whom and in what situations media eﬀects may (or may
not) occur. Broadly speaking, the DSMM posits that media content will directly inﬂuence one’s
response to media (i.e., cognitive, aﬀective, and physiological response states), which will subsequently
inﬂuence the breadth and depth of experienced media eﬀects. In other words, content
matters. In particular, the way that content is shaped, contextualized, and delivered inﬂuences
one’s responses. But the model goes further to acknowledge that not all users will respond to all
content in the same way. Instead, developmental, dispositional, and contextual factors are said
to inﬂuence both media selection and the processing of media content, which then determines
media eﬀects. This diﬀerential susceptibility is argued to explain why some individuals are particularly
aﬀected by media content and others are seemingly less so (see also Piotrowski & Valkenburg,
2015).
While the DSMM is relatively new and has only been applied in a scattering of studies on
media violence, the available evidence—both using and related to the DSMM—suggests that the
218 • Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
model deserves careful consideration. For example, consider the issue of media content for
a moment. While researchers often use the phrase “violent media” as though the content was
homogeneous (including here in this chapter), violent media content is undoubtedly a far more
heterogeneous concept. As Valkenburg and Piotrowski (2017) note,
a documentary containing violent scenes that is meant to inform viewers cannot be compared
with a movie in which a character attacks his enemies with a chainsaw … it is not diﬃcult to
predict that the eﬀects of Schindler’s List will diﬀer from those of Terminator Genisys.
(p. 111)
And indeed, when it comes to the portrayal of media violence, research has suggested at least
ﬁve relevant contextual variables that may increase the likelihood of subsequent aggression: (1)
appealing perpetrators, (2) rewarded violence, (3) justiﬁed violence, (4) consequence-free violence,
and (5) arousing violence (Anderson et al., 2010; Bandura, 1986; Krcmar & Valkenburg,
1999; Paik & Comstock, 1994; Wilson et al., 1998, as cited in Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017 in
Table 7.1), inasmuch as the DSMM explicitly argues that these content attributes are crucial to
consider when understanding which violent media may induce eﬀects.
But it is not just a question of exposure (or not) to media content. The literature has
numerous examples where media violence had little to no documented eﬀect on audiences.
In many cases, eﬀect sizes reported in media violence studies are relatively small, while in
other cases there seem to be reasonably robust eﬀects for certain groups of the population.
This raises the question as to who is more or less likely to experience consequences of violent
media. Consistent with the predictions of the DSMM, a closer examination of the literature
on media violence suggests that there are three global factors that can modulate the
relationship between media violence exposure and subsequent eﬀects: development, disposition,
and social factors (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017; see also Wiedeman, Black, Dolle,
Finney, & Coker, 2015).
In terms of development, for example, the work with children and adolescents indicates that
younger children are more at risk of negative outcomes associated with media violence, particularly
children younger than age seven (Paik & Comstock, 1994). Although several competing
explanations for this susceptibility exist, most agree that it is due to a combination of the portrayals
of media violence and the still-developing cognitive and emotional capacities of children.
Speciﬁcally, during the younger years, violent media content is often depicted in animated
movies or cartoons—often as part of the rewarded-hero genre—which in general has been
shown to increase the likelihood of media violence eﬀects (refer back to predictions of social
cognitive theory). Alongside this, thanks to still-developing cognitive capacities, young children
struggle to separate reality from fantasy, which makes standard media literacy techniques (e.g.,
“this is not real!”) diﬃcult to employ. Further, as a result of their still-developing emotional and
physiological capacities, young children struggle to regulate their responses more so than their
older peers, leading to intense emotional and physical arousal, which subsequently predicts
more lasting eﬀects (refer back to excitation transfer theory).
Much like development, dispositional diﬀerences have also been shown to modulate the eﬀects
of media violence. For example, a rich body of research shows that individuals with an aggressive
temperament, as well as individuals with a strong need for sensation, seem to be more susceptible
to media violence eﬀects. Valkenburg and Peter (2013) argued that disposition-content congruency
may explain this ﬁnding. Speciﬁcally, they argued that violent media—with its frequent
Media Violence and Aggression • 219
pacing and scene changes, alongside its inclusion of aggressive content—aligns well with aggressive
and high-sensation-seeking temperaments. As a result, they explain (via hedonic contingency;
Wegener & Petty, 1994) that the processing of violent content is more aesthetically pleasurable
for some viewers, which may lead to ampliﬁed eﬀects.
Lastly, also in line with predictions of the DSMM, a clear body of research suggests that the context
in which media violence is consumed also inﬂuences the degree of any potential eﬀects. In our
Center at the University of Amsterdam, this role of context has been of particular interest as we have
sought to understand how diﬀerential contextual factors may inﬂuence media violence eﬀects on
teens. Inspired by work on cultivation theory (see Chapter 5 in this volume) and the notion of resonance
eﬀects (Morgan & Shanahan, 2010), for example, we have explored whether living in an environment
that (implicitly or explicitly) endorses aggressive behavior may augment the eﬀects of violent
media consumption in adolescents. In particular, if a living environment does not place clear sanctions
on aggression, then individuals may be less likely to reject aggression and instead see it as an
acceptable behavior for replication. Our results bear support for these expectations. Speciﬁcally, we
found that teens growing up in homes with increased family conﬂict seem to be particularly aroused
by media violence and are more likely to demonstrate later aggression, which we refer to as a doubledose
eﬀect (see Fikkers, Piotrowski, & Valkenburg, 2016; Fikkers, Piotrowski, Weeda, Vossen, &
Valkenburg, 2013). Even more, we identiﬁed a similar pattern with teens’ peer networks in that teens
seem to be more aggressive after violent media consumption if they believe that the peers in their life
are also likely to engage in similar behaviors (Fikkers, Piotrowski, Lugtig, & Valkenburg, 2016).
Much Ado about Nothing … or Something? The Evidence
As previously noted, the majority of research looking at media violence has focused on the degree
to which media violence may induce aggressive feelings, thoughts, or behavior1
(Murray, 2013).
Admittedly, this chapter too has focused mostly on those outcomes. And all told, the evidence accumulated
to address media violence and aggression has yielded compelling ﬁndings. Indeed, we see
that experimental data have provided internally valid evidence about short-term eﬀects, whereas
correlational work has yielded externally valid evidence about long-term relationships. For example,
consider the now-classic study by Leyens and colleagues in which youth living in an institution for
juvenile delinquents who were shown violent movies every evening for a week (compared to
a group who watched neutral movies) became more aggressive after viewing. This study certainly
provides an interesting discussion from the experimental domain (Leyens, Camino, Parke, & Berkowitz,
1975). Similarly, the equally classic study by Eron and colleagues provides a rich example from
the correlational domain (Eron, Huesmann, Lefkowitz, & Walder, 1972). Here, the authors observed
youngsters’ preferences for media violence and a tendency to engage in aggressive behavior at age
eight. Ten years later, these subjects were observed again for both violent media preference and
aggressive behavior. The researchers found that watching violent content at age eight predicted
increased aggressive behavior a decade later. And although they did not ﬁnd a reciprocal pattern in
their work, other scholars using a similar methodological paradigm did provide evidence for reciprocity,
showing that violent media aﬀects aggressive behavior and aggressive behavior subsequently
predicts increased preference for violent media (e.g., Slater, Henry, Swaim, & Cardador, 2004).
These—and the handful of studies described earlier—represent just a few examples of the more
than 600 studies (Murray, 2013) investigating the eﬀects of media violence. Any attempt at
a comprehensive reporting of all of these studies is a fool’s errand. Instead, it seems more logical to
spend the ﬁnal few paragraphs of this chapter examining the size and scope of media violence
220 • Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
eﬀects. That is, although our historical accounting of the scholarly record certainly suggests that
media violence is a concern for (some members of) society, and although a great number of theoretical
suppositions explain why and how media violence may aﬀect aggression, perhaps a more
useful question to interrogate as a concluding thought is the degree to which the empirical evidence
supports or rejects the assertion that media violence is worthy of concern. To that end, we turn to
meta-analyses of the eﬀects of media violence. Although meta-analyses may provide overestimations
of eﬀect sizes due to publication biases, errors in statistical reporting, or varying quality of included
studies (Ferguson, 2007; Savage & Yancey, 2008), they oﬀer us a reasonably comprehensive lens
with which to assess the eﬀects of media violence.
As of the time of writing, seven meta-analyses have investigated the inﬂuence of media violence
on aggressive behavior. The ﬁrst, conducted by Paik and Comstock (1994), suggested
a moderate (r = .31) relationship between violent media and aggressive behavior. The others
(Anderson et al., 2010; Bushman & Huesmann, 2006; Ferguson, 2015; Ferguson & Kilburn,
2009; Greitemeyer & Muegge, 2014; Sherry, 2001) have all similarly demonstrated a positive
(though relatively weaker) correlation (ranging between r = .08 and r = .20) between violent
media consumption and subsequent aggressive outcomes, with reported eﬀect sizes that are considered
by statisticians to be small to moderate (Cohen, 1988). In these cases, a statistically
small to moderate eﬀect means that there is a small to moderate chance of media violence consumption
causing aggressive behavior. And this, of course, does not include other potential
eﬀects of media violence (e.g., social-emotional development; Beyens et al., 2018; Vossen et al.,
2016). So, the question becomes, is a small or moderate chance of media violence eﬀects suﬃcient
to warrant concern? Herein lies the debate.
Indeed, perhaps the largest issue in the ﬁeld of media violence eﬀects is not whether there is
a small to moderate eﬀect of media violence on subsequent aggression, but whether this eﬀect is
meaningful (Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017). On the one hand, one group of scholars (e.g., Anderson
& Bushman, 2001; Bushman et al., 2010) has staunchly argued that these eﬀects should be
taken seriously because large parts of society are exposed to violent media, eﬀects cumulate over
time, and potential consequences are severe (Fikkers, 2016). Yet there are others who argue, with
similar intensity, that eﬀects are statistically so small that they are negligible and not a concern to
public health (e.g., Ferguson & Kilburn, 2009, 2010). They take the stance that meta-analytic results
are likely too liberal because they have not taken into account risk factors of “real importance”
(e.g., an aggressive temperament or harsh familial environments; Ferguson & Kilburn, 2010,
p. 176). To this end, in their work, they show that—when controlling for such risk factors—any
detected eﬀect is nearly non-existent and, as such, they argue that eﬀorts to reduce media violence
exposure are misdirected and, instead, society should target “true” risk factors of aggression (also
see Kühn et al., 2018 for a discussion of null eﬀects).
So, where does this leave us? In this hotly contested debate, it almost feels as though there
are two “camps”: one that acknowledges the existence of eﬀects, the other rejecting them. Both
are working with the same data, the same articles, the same results, and drawing entirely diﬀerent
interpretations. This makes for a messy ﬁeld, not only for scholars but also for public stakeholders—parents,
caregivers, health care professionals, policy oﬃcials—who have a vested
interest in the topic. And at a time when media are increasingly digital, when we are no longer
modeling media violence but are quite literally performing “virtual” violence in rich, immersive
platforms (Daneels, Malliet, Koeman, & Ribbens, 2018; Madsen, 2016), the importance of this
ﬁeld cannot be underestimated. Although we cannot tell you as a reader which side you should
choose, we would suggest that, rather than two sides, there might be a third viewpoint.
Media Violence and Aggression • 221
Speciﬁcally, in our own research, we interpret eﬀect sizes for what they are: an aggregate of the
relationship between media violence and aggression. Although eﬀect sizes help us understand what
is going on for most people, they can easily mask the messier truth: namely, a minority of individuals
may be particularly inﬂuenced by media violence, while others may be less so or unaﬀected
altogether. For example, as discussed earlier, children growing up in high conﬂict homes or with
peers who are more aggressive may be particularly at-risk for the eﬀects of violent media, whereas
individuals without these additional risk factors for aggressive behavior may be more resistant to
media violence (Fikkers et al., 2013, 2016). Even more, we would argue that this small group is
meaningful because, in absolute terms, we could be talking about millions of people worldwide
(Valkenburg & Piotrowski, 2017). That does not (necessarily) mean, however, that we should take
to the airwaves to warn against the dangers of eﬀects. Rather, it is important to recognize that, for
the majority of audience members, media violence seems to have a negligible eﬀect on aggressive
outcomes. It is our role as scholars to ensure that both messages are accurately conveyed and
understood if we hope to support at-risk individuals and simultaneously counter the moral panic
rhetoric that typically accompanies real-world violent tragedies. This requires continuously
engaging in a healthy scholarly and public debate about media violence. As Fikkers (2016, p. 14)
poignantly noted, “the current debate [can become] even more meaningful when discussants
forego the notion that eﬀects should be either large, important, or for everyone, or small, unimportant,
and for none.” This is the future of the ﬁeld: foregoing the bivalent discussion in favor of
a nuanced, messier perspective that better reﬂects the scientiﬁc record and our collective realities.
Conclusion
Nearly a century ago, scientists began to ask questions about the inﬂuence of media violence on
its users. Although these questions have grown in complexity—just like the media spaces in
which they are entrenched—we still ﬁnd ourselves without a deﬁnitive answer to the question
“Does media violence induce aggression?” Despite advanced theories, methods, and approaches,
the literature does not bear a “yes” or “no” answer. If anything, after nearly 100 years, our best
answer is “probably, sometimes.” But then again, maybe “sometimes” is the answer. We now
know that not all violent media content leads to eﬀects. We know that the presentation and
context of violent media content (e.g., justiﬁed, rewarded), alongside a host of individual
variables, inﬂuence how users respond to the content and subsequent eﬀects. Furthermore, we
(perhaps somewhat implicitly) now see the value of asking, a priori, “Eﬀects on whom?” Rather
than statistically controlling for individual diﬀerences, and thus assuming that the eﬀect of
media violence is only truly meaningful if it holds for all media users, empirical research that
conceptualizes and tests the complex relationships between media violence and individual diﬀerence
variables is key for the future (Fikkers & Piotrowski, 2019). Not only will this better map
onto the reigning theoretical models of the day, but it will better reﬂect our diverse multicultural
spaces (Krahé, 2016) and, in doing so, help us develop improved predictions about how, for
whom, and why media violence eﬀects occur.
Although readers of this chapter may ﬁnd it frustrating that after nearly a century we
still cannot oﬀer a simple yes/no answer as to whether media violence induces aggression,
we would argue the problem lies not with the answer but rather with the answer options.
Our world is too complex for such bivariate response categories. “Sometimes.” This is the
answer that best reﬂects the complexity of the world we live in and the media space we
share in. Some media violence aﬀects some individuals in some situations: this is what we
222 • Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
know to be true. And, with this knowledge in hand, it is our job to understand the boundary
conditions to this statement. Serious work on that job has already begun, and it is likely
where the ﬁeld has the greatest opportunity for growth. Rather than staking a claim in
a particular camp, we would argue that our greatest future lies in a healthy debate wherein
we can accept that “sometimes” may best conceptualize the ﬁeld. From that point, we can
then work together to identify who is most vulnerable to the undesirable eﬀects of violent
media in order to aﬀect real societal change.
Note
1 The literature on aggressive behavior reports both direct (i.e., physical; for example, kicking or hitting)
and indirect (also called social or relational aggression; for example, gossiping or spreading rumors)
aggression; however, the great majority of work has focused on direct aggression. It is only in recent
years that we have seen a focus on indirect aggression as well (Coyne & Archer, 2004; Gentile, Coyne,
& Walsh, 2011).
References
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. doi:10.1111/
1467-9280.00366
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53,
27–51. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231
Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2018). Media violence and the general aggression model. Journal
of Social Issues, 74, 386–413. doi:10.1111/josi.12275
Anderson, C. A., Shibuya, A., Ihori, N., Swing, E. L., Bushman, B. J., Sakamoto, A., … Saleem, M.
(2010). Violent video game eﬀects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and
Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151–173. doi:10.1037/
a0018251
Bandura, A. (1965). Inﬂuence of models’ reinforcement contingencies on the acquisition of imitative
responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1, 589–595. doi:10.1037/h0022070
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood
Cliﬀs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (2009). Social cognitive theory of mass communication. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver
(Eds.), Media eﬀects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 94–124). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Beyens, I., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2018). Which came ﬁrst? Assessing transactional
relationships between children’s violent media use and ADHD-related behaviors. Communication
Research. Advanced online publication. doi:10.1177/0093650218782300.
Blumer, H. (1933). Movies and conduct. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Bryant, J., Thompson, S., & Finklea, B. W. (2013). Fundamentals of media eﬀects (2nd ed.). Long
Grove, IL: Waveland Press.
Burns, R., & Crawford, C. (1999). School shootings, the media, and public fear: Ingredients for
a moral panic. Crime, Law and Social Change, 32, 147–168. doi:10.1023/A:1008338323953
Bushman, B. J. (1998). Priming eﬀects of media violence on the accessibility of aggressive constructs
in memory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 537–545. doi:10.1177/
0146167298245009
Bushman, B. J. (2016). Violent media and hostile appraisals: A meta‐analytic review. Aggressive
Behavior, 42, 605–613. doi:10.1002/ab.21655
Media Violence and Aggression • 223
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.
doi:10.1177/014616702237649
Bushman, B. J., & Anderson, C. A. (2009). Comfortably numb: Desensitizing eﬀects of violent media
on helping others. Psychological Science, 20, 273–277. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02287.x
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 & Adolescent Medicine, 160, 348–352.
doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.4.348
Bushman, B. J., Rothstein, H. R., & Anderson, C. A. (2010). Much ado about something: Violent
video game eﬀects and a school of red herring: Reply to Ferguson and Kilburn (2010). Psychological
Bulletin, 136, 182–187. doi:10.1037/a0018718
Carnagey, N. L., Anderson, C. A., & Bushman, B. J. (2007). The eﬀect of video game violence on
physiological desensitization to real-life violence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43,
489–496. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.05.003
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Coyne, S. M., & Archer, J. (2004). Indirect aggression in the media: A content analysis of British
television programs. Aggressive Behavior, 30, 254–271. doi:10.1002/ab.20022
Dale, E. (1935). The content of motion pictures. New York, NY: Macmillan.
Daneels, R., Malliet, S., Koeman, J., & Ribbens, W. (2018). The enjoyment of shooting games:
Exploring the role of perceived realism. Computers in Human Behavior, 86, 330–336.
doi:10.1016/j.chb.2018.04.053
Emmers-Sommer, T. M., Pauley, P., Hanzal, A., & Triplett, L. (2006). Love, suspense, sex, and
violence: Men’s and women’s ﬁlm predilections, exposure to sexually violent media, and their
relationship to rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 55, 311–320. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9085-0
Eron, L. D., Huesmann, L. R., Lefkowitz, M. M., & Walder, L. O. (1972). Does television violence
cause aggression? American Psychologist, 27, 253–263. doi:10.1037/h0033721
Ferguson, C. J. (2007). Evidence for publication bias in video game violence eﬀects literature: A
meta-analytic review. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 470–482. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2007.01.001
Ferguson, C. J. (2008). The school shooting/violent video game link: Causal relationship or moral
panic? Journal of Investigative Psychology and Oﬀender Proﬁling, 5, 25–37. doi:10.1002/jip.76
Ferguson, C. J. (2015). Do angry birds make for angry children? A meta-analysis of video game
inﬂuences on children’s and adolescents’ aggression, mental health, prosocial behavior, and
academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 10, 646–666. doi:10.1177/
1745691615592234
Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2009). The public health risks of media violence: A meta-analytic
review. Journal of Pediatrics, 154, 759–763. doi:10.1016/j.jpeds.2008.11.033
Ferguson, C. J., & Kilburn, J. (2010). Much ado about nothing: The misestimation and overinterpretation
of violent video game eﬀects in Eastern and Western nations: Comment on Anderson
et al. (2010). Psychological Bulletin, 136, 174–178. doi:10.1037/a0018566
Fikkers, K. M. (2016). A diﬀerent(ial) perspective: How social context inﬂuences the media violenceaggression
relationship among early adolescents (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University
of Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Fikkers, K. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2019). Content and person eﬀects in media research: Studying
diﬀerences in cognitive, emotional, and arousal responses to media content. Media Psychology.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/15213269.2019.1608257
Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Lugtig, P., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). The role of perceived
peer norms in the relationship between media violence exposure and adolescents’ aggression.
Media Psychology, 19, 4–26. doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1037960
224 • Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). Beyond the lab: Investigating early
adolescents’ cognitive, emotional, and arousal responses to violent games. Computers in
Human Behavior, 60, 542–549. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.055
Fikkers, K. M., Piotrowski, J. T., Weeda, W. D., Vossen, H. G. M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2013).
Double dose: High family conﬂict enhances the eﬀect of media violence exposure on adolescents’
aggression. Societies, 3, 280–292. doi:10.3390/soc3030280
Gentile, D. A., Coyne, S., & Walsh, D. A. (2011). Media violence, physical aggression, and relational
aggression in school age children: A short-term longitudinal study. Aggressive Behavior,
37, 193–206. doi:10.1002/ab.20380
Greitemeyer, T., & Muegge, D. O. (2014). Video games do aﬀect social outcomes: A meta-analytic
review of the eﬀects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 40, 578–589. doi:10.1177/0146167213520459
Gubler, J. R., Herrick, S., Price, R. A., & Wood, D. A. (2018). Violence, aggression, and ethics: The
link between exposure to human violence and unethical behavior. Journal of Business Ethics,
147, 1–10. doi:10.1007/s10551-015-2926-4
Himmelweit, H. T., Oppenheim, A. N., & Vince, P. (1958). Television and the child: An empirical
study of the eﬀect of television on the young. London, UK: Oxford University Press.
Ireland, J. L., Birch, P., & Ireland, C. A. (2018). The Routledge international handbook of human
aggression: Current issues and perspectives. New York, NY: Routledge.
Jo, E., & Berkowitz, L. (1994). A priming eﬀect analysis of media inﬂuences: An update. In
J. Bryant & D. Zillmann (Eds.), Media eﬀects: Advances in theory and research (1st ed., pp. 43–
60). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Krahé, B. (2016). Violent media eﬀects on aggression: A commentary from a cross‐cultural perspective.
Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 16, 439–442. doi:10.1111/asap.12107
Krahé, B., Moeller, I., Kirwil, L., Huesmann, L. R., Felber, J., & Berger, A. (2011). Desensitization to
media violence: Links with habitual media violence exposure, aggressive cognitions, and aggressive
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 630–646. doi:10.1037/a0021711
Krcmar, M., & Valkenburg, P. M. (1999). A scale to assess children's moral interpretations of justiﬁed
and unjustiﬁed violence and its relationship to television viewing. Communication
Research, 26(5), 608–634.
Kühn, S., Kugler, D. T., Schmalen, K., Weichenberger, M., Witt, C., & Gallinat, J. (2018). Does
playing violent video games cause aggression? A longitudinal intervention study. Molecular
Psychiatry, 1. doi:10.1038/s41380-018-0031-7
Kunkel, D. (1998). Policy battles over deﬁning children’s educational television. The ANNALS of the
American Academy of Political and Social Science, 557, 39–53. doi:10.1177/0002716298557000004
Leyens, J. P., Camino, L., Parke, R. D., & Berkowitz, L. (1975). Eﬀects of movie violence on aggression
in a ﬁeld setting as a function of group dominance and cohesion. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 32, 346–360. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.32.2.346
Linz, D., Donnerstein, E., & Penrod, S. (1984). The eﬀects of multiple exposures to ﬁlmed violence
against women. Journal of Communication, 34, 130–147. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.1984.tb02180.x
Lull, R. B., & Bushman, B. J. (2016). Immersed in violence: Presence mediates the eﬀect of 3D
violent video gameplay on angry feelings. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 5, 133–144.
doi:10.1037/ppm0000062
Madsen, K. E. (2016). The diﬀerential eﬀects of agency on fear induction using a horror-themed
video game. Computers in Human Behavior, 56, 142–146. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2015.11.041
McGinty, E. E., Webster, D. W., & Barry, C. L. (2013). Eﬀects of news media messages about mass
shootings on attitudes toward persons with serious mental illness and public support for gun
control policies. American Journal of Psychiatry, 170, 494–501. doi:10.1176/appi.
ajp.2013.13010014
Media Violence and Aggression • 225
Morgan, M., & Shanahan, J. (2010). The state of cultivation. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic
Media, 54, 337–355. doi:10.1080/08838151003735018
Murray, J. P. (2007). TV violence: Research and controversy. In N. Pecora, J. P. Murray, &
E. Wartella (Eds.), Children and television: Fifty years of research (pp. 205–226). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Murray, J. P. (2013). Media violence and children: Applying research to advocacy. In A. M. Culp
(Ed.), Child and family advocacy: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp.
149–157). New York, NY: Springer.
Paik, H., & Comstock, G. (1994). The eﬀects of television violence on antisocial behavior: A
meta-analysis. Communication Research, 21, 516–546. doi:10.1177/009365094021004004
Patton, D. U., Hong, J. S., Ranney, M., Patel, S., Kelley, C., Eschmann, R., & Washington, T.
(2014). Social media as a vector for youth violence: A review of the literature. Computers in
Human Behavior, 35, 548–553. doi:10.1016/j.chb.2014.02.043
Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2015). Finding orchids in a ﬁeld of dandelions: Understanding
children’s diﬀerential susceptibility to media eﬀects. American Behavioral Scientist, 59,
1776–1789. doi:10.1177/0002764215596552
Reed, L. A., Tolman, R. M., & Ward, L. M. (2016). Snooping and sexting: Digital media as
a context for dating aggression and abuse among college students. Violence Against Women,
22, 1556–1576. doi:10.1177/1077801216630143
Roskos-Ewoldsen, D. R., & Roskos-Ewoldsen, B. (2009). Media priming: An updated synthesis. In
J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver (Eds.), Media eﬀects: Advances in theory and eﬀects (3rd ed., pp. 90–
109). New York, NY: Routledge.
Savage, J., & Yancey, C. (2008). The eﬀects of media violence exposure on criminal aggression: A
meta-analysis. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 35, 772–791. doi:10.1177/0093854808316487
Schramm, W., Lyle, J., & Parker, E. B. (1961). Television in the lives of our children. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Sherry, J. L. (2001). The eﬀects of violent video games on aggression: A meta-analysis. Human
Communication Research, 27, 409–431. doi:10.1093/hcr/27.3.409
Slater, M. D., Henry, K. L., Swaim, R. C., & Cardador, J. M. (2004). Vulnerable teens, vulnerable times:
How sensation seeking, alienation, and victimization moderate the violent media
content-aggressiveness relation. Communication Research, 31, 642–668. doi:10.1177/
0093650204269265
Smith, S. L., & Donnerstein, E. (1998). Harmful eﬀects of exposure to media violence: Learning of
aggression, emotional desensitization, and fear. Human Aggression, 167–202. doi:10.1016/
B978-012278805-5/50008-0
Sparks, G. G., Sparks, C. W., & Sparks, E. A. (2009). Media violence. In J. Bryant & M. B. Oliver
(Eds.), Media eﬀects: Advances in theory and research (3rd ed., pp. 269–286). New York, NY:
Routledge.
Strenziok, M., Krueger, F., Deshpande, G., Lenroot, R. K., van der Meer, E., & Grafman, J.
(2010). Fronto-parietal regulation of media violence exposure in adolescents: A
multi-method study. Social Cognitive and Aﬀective Neuroscience, 6, 537–547. doi:10.1093/
scan/nsq079
U. S. Surgeon General. (2001). Youth violence: A report of the surgeon general (PubMed No.
20669522). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
Valkenburg, P. M., & Peter, J. (2013). The diﬀerential susceptibility to media eﬀects model. Journal
of Communication, 63, 221–243. doi:10.1111/jcom.12024
Valkenburg, P. M., & Piotrowski, J. T. (2017). Plugged in: How media attract and aﬀect youth.
New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
226 • Jessica Taylor Piotrowski and Karin M. Fikkers
Vossen, H. G. M., Piotrowski, J. T., & Valkenburg, P. M. (2016). The longitudinal relationship
between media violence and empathy: Was it sympathy all along? Media Psychology, 20, 175–
193. doi:10.1080/15213269.2015.1121825
Wegener, D. T., & Petty, R. E. (1994). Mood management across aﬀective states: The hedonic contingency
hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 1034–1048. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.66.6.103
Wiedeman, A. M., Black, J. A., Dolle, A. L., Finney, E. J., & Coker, K. L. (2015). Factors inﬂuencing
the impact of aggressive and violent media on children and adolescents. Aggression and
Violent Behavior, 25, 191–198. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2015.04.008
Wilson, B. J., Kunkel, D., Linz, D., Potter, W. J., Donnerstein, E., Smith, S. L., … Berry, M. (1998).
Violence in television programming overall. In Center for Communication and Social Policy
(Ed.), National television violence study 2 (pp. 4–204). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Zillmann, D. (1978). Attribution and misattribution of excitatory reactions. In J. H. Harvey,
W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 2, pp. 335–368).
Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.