The General Aggression Model
Johnie J Allen1
, Craig A Anderson1
and Brad J Bushman2,3
The General Aggression Model (GAM) is a comprehensive,
integrative, framework for understanding aggression. It
considers the role of social, cognitive, personality,
developmental, and biological factors on aggression.
Proximate processes of GAM detail how person and situation
factors influence cognitions, feelings, and arousal, which in turn
affect appraisal and decision processes, which in turn influence
aggressive or nonaggressive behavioral outcomes. Each cycle
of the proximate processes serves as a learning trial that affects
the development and accessibility of aggressive knowledge
structures. Distal processes of GAM detail how biological and
persistent environmental factors can influence personality
through changes in knowledge structures. GAM has been
applied to understand aggression in many contexts including
media violence effects, domestic violence, intergroup violence,
temperature effects, pain effects, and the effects of global
climate change.
Addresses
1
Iowa State University, W-112 Lagomarcino Hall, 901 Stange Rd, Ames,
IA 50011, USA
2
The Ohio State University, 3016 Derby Hall, 154 N. Oval Mall,
Columbus, OH 43210, USA
3
VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam,
The Netherlands
Corresponding author: Allen, Johnie J (jallen@iastate.edu)
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80
This review comes from a themed issue on Aggression and violence
Edited by Brad J Bushman
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Available online 13th April 2017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.034
2352-250X/ã 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Many theories have been proposed to explain human
aggression—defined as any behavior intended to harm a
target who is motivated to avoid that harm [1
]. The
General Aggression Model (GAM) is one of the most
comprehensive and widely used theories for understanding
aggression. The present review describes the current
state of knowledge of GAM, and briefly outlines recent
applications of GAM and possibilities for future
directions.
The General Aggression Model
GAM is a comprehensive, integrative framework for
understanding human aggression. It considers the role
of social, cognitive, developmental, and biological factors
on aggression [1
,2
,3,4,5
]. GAM includes elements
from many domain-specific theories of aggression, including:
cognitive neoassociation theory [6,7], social learning
theory [8,9], script theory [10,11], excitation transfer
theory [12], and social interaction theory [13]. By unifying
these theories into one coherent whole, GAM provides a
broad framework for understanding aggression in many
contexts.
GAM posits that human aggression is heavily influenced
by knowledge structures, which affect a wide variety of
social-cognitive phenomena including perception, interpretation,
decision, and behaviors [14–18]. Some of the
most important knowledge structures include beliefs and
attitudes (e.g., believing aggression is normal, evaluating it
positively), perceptual schemata (e.g., perceiving ambiguous
events as hostile), expectation schemata (e.g.,
expecting aggression from others), and behavioral scripts
(e.g., believing that conflicts should be resolved with
aggression) [2
]. These knowledge structures are developed
through experience and can influence perception at
multiple levels, ranging from simple perception of objects
to complex perception of social events. Knowledge structures
can also become automatized with repeated practice
(as is the case with scripts), and can include both cognitive
and affective components. For example, anger is strongly
linked with hostile attribution biases (the tendency to
interpret ambiguous events as hostile) [19].
Proximate processes
GAM is separated into two major aspects: proximate and
distal processes (see Figure 1). The proximate processes
explain individual episodes of aggression using three
stages: inputs, routes, and outcomes. Inputs influence a
person’s present internal state, which in turn affects
appraisal and decision processes, which in turn influence
aggressive and nonaggressive outcomes. Importantly,
each episode of aggression (or non-aggression) serves as
a learning trial that can influence the development of
aggressive knowledge structures (and thereby personality)
over time.
Stage one: inputs
The first stage of the proximate processes outlines how
person and situation factors increase or decrease the
likelihood of aggression through their influence on present
internal state variables (i.e., cognition, affect, and
arousal) in stage two. Input variables that increase the
Available online at www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80
likelihood of aggression are considered risk factors,
whereas those that decrease the likelihood of aggression
are considered protective factors.
Person factors are any individual differences that may
influence how a person responds to a situation. These
factors tend to be fairly stable over time and across
situations as long as the person consistently uses the
same knowledge structures [9]. Through this lens, personality
can be considered the summary of a person’s
knowledge structures. Aggressive knowledge structures
make aggression more likely. Many person factors have
been identified as risk factors for aggression. These
include (but are not limited to): unstable high self-esteem
and narcissism, aggressive self-image, long-term goals
supportive of aggression, high self-efficacy for aggressive
behavior, normative acceptance of aggression, positive
attitudes toward aggression, hostile attribution biases,
aggressive behavioral scripts, moral justification of
violence, dehumanization, displacement of responsibility,
high trait anger, certain personality disorders, low selfcontrol,
high neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low
conscientiousness [1
,3,20]. For example, people with
hostile attribution, perception, and expectation biases
are more aggressive than people without those biases
[21,22]. Many of the risk factors that have been identified
serve as protective factors when reversed. For example,
negative attitudes toward aggression, low neuroticism,
high agreeableness, and high conscientiousness would
all make aggression less likely.
Situation factors are aspects of the situation that may
influence whether aggression occurs. Many situation factors
have been identified that increase the likelihood of
aggression. These include (but are not limited to): social
stress, social rejection, provocation, frustration, bad
moods, exercise, alcohol intoxication, violent media, pain
or discomfort, ego depletion, anonymity, hot
76 Aggression and violence
Figure 1
DistalCauses
&Procsses
ProximateCauses&Processes
Biological
Modifiers
Environmental
Modifiers
Personality
Person Situation
InputsRoutesOutcomes
Present Internal State: Social
Encounter
Cognition
Affect Arousal
Immediate
Appraisal
Reappraisal Thoughtful
ActionYes
Yes
No
No
Resources
sufficient?
Outcome important
& unsatisfying? Impulsive
Action
Appraisal & Decision Processes
Current Opinion in Psychology
The General Aggression Model (GAM): proximate and distal causes and processes. With permission from Ref. [56].
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80 www.sciencedirect.com
temperatures, noise, the presence of weapons, and threatening
or fear-inducing stimuli [1
,3]. For example, the
presence of a gun (as compared to a badminton racquet)
can increase the aggression of angered individuals [23,24].
Some situation factors also serve as protective factors,
such as good moods or exposure to prosocial media [25].
Person and situation factors can work additively or interactively
to influence cognition, affect, or arousal. Generally,
as the number of risk factors for aggression increases,
(either person or situation factors), the likelihood of
aggression increases [26]. This means, for example, that
a person who believes aggression is normal and useful is
more likely to be aggressive than a person who believes
aggression is abnormal. That same person would be even
more likely to behave aggressively if he or she was
provoked, especially if the provocation occurred in a
hot, noisy setting. In contrast, as the number of protective
factors increases, the likelihood of aggression decreases.
For example, someone who is highly agreeable and has
just received a gift is relatively less likely to behave
aggressively.
Stage two: routes
Stage two focuses on the routes through which person
and situation factors exert their influence on appraisal
and decision processes (and thus affect aggressive or
nonaggressive outcomes). Person and situation factors
can change a person’s affect, cognition, and arousal.
These three variable types make up a person’s present
internal state; changes in these variables alter the likelihood
of aggression. Different input variables affect different
present internal state variables, but present internal
state variables also influence each other in interactive
and reciprocal ways, as indicated by the dashed lines in
Figure 1 with arrows at both ends. Affect can influence
cognition and arousal [27]. For example, feeling angry
can encourage hostile thoughts and increase arousal.
Similarly, cognition and arousal can influence affect
[28]. For example, interpreting a situation in a hostile
manner can increase anger, which in turn can increase
arousal. GAM does not propose that the present internal
state variables must occur in a certain order. Any of the
three variables can occur first and then influence the
other two. Alternatively, some factors can influence
aggression primarily through one route. For example,
weapons increase aggression by priming aggressive
thoughts [24].
Affect
Input variables can influence our moods and emotions.
For example, people high in trait hostility (a person
factor) also have higher state hostility in a particular
situation (i.e., greater aggressive affect) [29,30]. Additionally,
situation factors can increase aggressive affect. Pain
increases state hostility and anger [31,32], and uncomfortably
hot temperatures also increase state hostility [33].
Cognition
Input variables can also influence aggressive thoughts.
Aggressive concepts can be activated by certain situational
factors (i.e., priming) or can become chronically
accessible after repeated activation (as with scripts)
[34,35]. Aggressive priming occurs when a situational
factor (such as exposure to media violence) causes a
short-term increase in the accessibility of aggressive
concepts [36
,37]. Certain input variables (e.g., trait
aggression) can lead aggressive thoughts to become
highly accessible at all times in the form of scripts [11]
and hostile attribution biases [21,38].
Arousal
Finally, input variables can influence arousal (both physiological
and psychological) by increasing it (e.g., exercise),
or decreasing it (e.g., alcohol). Arousal can affect
aggression in at least three ways. First, arousal from
irrelevant sources (e.g., exercise) can be mislabeled as
anger, increasing the likelihood of aggression (this is
known as excitation transfer) [39]. Second, arousal from
irrelevant sources can strengthen aggressive action tendencies,
as when a person is provoked while highly
aroused [40]. Finally, very high or low levels of arousal
can serve as aversive states that increase aggressive affect
and cognition in the same way that pain and uncomfortably
hot temperatures do [31–33].
Stage three: outcomes
The third stage of the proximate processes focuses on
appraisal and decision processes, and on aggressive or
nonaggressive outcomes. In stage three, the person
appraises the situation and decides how to respond.
The action that is selected then influences the encounter,
which in turn influences the person and situation factors,
beginning the episodic cycle anew.
As can be seen in Figure 1, the first part of stage three is an
immediate appraisal of the situation, which occurs automatically
(i.e., spontaneously, unconsciously, and with
little-to-no cognitive effort) and is influenced by the
person’s present internal state. Immediate appraisals
often include trait or situational inferences. For example,
if a man bumps into a woman at a crowded party, she
could make a trait inference (e.g., “He meant to do that—
what a jerk!”) or a situational inference (e.g., “It’s so
crowded—I’m sure that was an accident.”). Immediate
appraisals also include affective, goal, and intention information
(e.g., “I am angry. I want to retaliate. I want to push
this jerk.”). When a person’s present internal state is
conducive to aggression, negative immediate appraisals—including
a goal, plan, and script to harm the
perpetrator—are more likely. Input variables influence
immediate appraisals indirectly, through their effects on
present internal state. For example, hostile attribution
biases increase the likelihood of interpreting ambiguous
event as being intentionally harmful [21].
The General Aggression Model Allen, Anderson and Bushman 77
www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80
After immediate appraisal, the person decides how to
respond to the event. This process depends on available
resources and the event itself. If the person has sufficient
time and mental resources, and if the outcome of the
immediate appraisal feels both important and unsatisfying,
then the person will engage in a deliberative reappraisal
of the event (i.e., considering alternate interpretations).
If not, then the behavioral script that was activated
during immediate appraisal is enacted, with little or no
awareness of a decision having been made.
When the reappraisal process is activated, it can influence
present internal state variables. For example, if the
woman who was bumped at the party reconsiders her
initial hostile interpretation as an accidental event, then
she may feel less angry and have fewer aggressive
thoughts, depending on what other pieces of information
are discovered or brought to bear during reappraisal. Of
course, reappraisal can also yield information confirming
the immediate appraisal of intentional harm, and can thus
lead to more anger and aggressive thoughts. Once reappraisal
has occurred, the person decides on and carries out
a thoughtful action, which can be aggressive or non-
aggressive.
Once an action has been carried out, that action influences
the social encounter, which can alter person and situation
factors, restarting the cycle of proximate processes. For
example, if the woman decides to push the man who
bumped into her, he may decide to insult her, which may
provoke her to further escalating aggression [41].
Distal processes
The second aspect of GAM focuses on distal processes
(see Figure 1), which operate in the background of each
episode of proximate processes. This aspect of GAM
outlines how biological and persistent environmental
factors work together to influence personality, which in
turn change person (and situation) factors [3].
Biological modifiers that increase the likelihood of developing
an aggressive personality include (but are not
limited to): ADHD, impaired executive functioning, hormone
imbalances, low serotonin, and low arousal [3]. For
example, testosterone is positively associated with aggression
[42]. Individuals with more testosterone tend to be
more aggressive [43] and dominating others increases
testosterone [44].
Environmental modifiers that increase the likelihood of
developing an aggressive personality include (but are not
limited to): cultural norms supportive of violence, maladaptive
families or parenting, difficult life conditions,
deprivation, victimization, violent neighborhoods, violent
or antisocial peer groups, group conflict, diffusion of
responsibility, and chronic exposure to violent media
[3]. For example, aggressive behavior is more likely if
one has received poor parenting or lived with coercive
families [45–47].
Applications of the General Aggression Model
GAM has been applied to a wide variety of aggressive
contexts including: temperature effects [33,48], violence
associated with global climate change [5
,49,50], media
violence effects [51,52], pain [31,32], intergroup violence
[5
], intimate partner violence [5
], sexual aggression
[53], domestic violence [54
], suicide [5
], and personality
disorders with an aggression component [20]. By
increasing the understanding of aggression and violence,
GAM has guided research and informed interventions
aimed at reducing aggression and violence, such as the
treatment and assessment of violent offenders [55].
Summary and conclusions
GAM has effectively organized theoretical insights
gleaned from several key theoretical perspectives. Proximate
processes of GAM detail how person and situation
factors influence aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and
arousal levels, which in turn affect appraisal and decision
processes, which in turn influence aggressive or nonaggressive
behavior. Each cycle of the proximate processes
serves as a learning trial that can create aggressive knowledge
structures after many repetitions, contributing to an
aggressive personality. Distal processes of GAM detail
how biological and environmental factors can influence
personality through changes in knowledge structures.
GAM has already been used to guide research and interventions
in many domains of aggression, but there is
always more work to be done. New research is needed
to further develop GAM as a comprehensive model of
human aggression and violence. Promising directions
include more detailed applications to understanding
and treatment of perpetrators of violent crime, intimate
partner violence, and sexual aggression. Similarly, GAM
could be applied to help develop aggression prevention
programs at the individual, family, community, and societal
levels. The first step toward reducing aggression and
violence is understanding the underlying processes. GAM
sheds light on these underlying processes.
Conflict of interest statement
Nothing declared.
References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
have been highlighted as:
 of special interest
 of outstanding interest
1.

DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: Aggression. In
Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed.. Edited by Tennen H, Suls J,
Weiner IB.Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2012:449-
466. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/
docview/1267038814/80B067D382114D92PQ/1?
accountid=10906 [Accessed 14 July 2014].
78 Aggression and violence
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80 www.sciencedirect.com
This chapter provides additional information about aggression in general,
including a discussion of major theories of aggression, how aggression
develops and its stability over time, and a detailed discussion of person
and situation factors relevant to aggression as well as the most influential
affective, cognitive, and arousal factors.
2.

Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: Human aggression. Annu. Rev.
Psychol. 2002, 53:27-51.
This impactful article first introduced the General Aggression Model
(GAM). It provides excellent background information on many of the
domain-specific theories of aggression that were incorporated into the
GAM. This article also provides more detail about the GAM than the
current review (due to space limitations).
3. Anderson CA, Carnagey NL: Violent evil and the General
Aggression Model. In The Social Psychology of Good and Evil.
Edited by Miller AG. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2004:168-192.
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/docview/
620449294/D18E3D0FE9634D4CPQ/7?accountid=10906
[Accessed 13 July 2014].
4. Anderson CA, Huesmann LR: Human aggression: a socialcognitive
view. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Psychology.
Edited by Hogg MA, Cooper J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
Publications, Inc.; 2003:296-323.
5.

DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: The general aggression
model: theoretical extensions to violence. Psychol. Violence
2011, 1:245-258 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.
1037/a0023842.
This article helpfully demonstrates how the General Aggression Model
(GAM) can be successfully allied to many different domains of aggression.
Specifically, this article applies the GAM to enhance understanding of
intimate partner violence, intergroup violence, effects of global climate
change on violence, and suicide
6. Berkowitz L: Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination
and reformulation. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 106:59-73 In: http://dx.
doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59.
7. Berkowitz L: On the formation and regulation of anger and
aggression: a cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. Am.
Psychol. 1990, 45:494-503 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.
edu/10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.494.
8. Bandura A: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52:1-26 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
9. Mischel W, Shoda Y: A cognitive-affective system theory of
personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions,
dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol.
Rev. 1995, 102:246-268 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246.
10. Huesmann LR: Psychological processes promoting the
relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive
behavior by the viewer. J. Soc. Issues 1986, 42:125-139 In: http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.
tb00246.x.
11. Huesmann LR: The role of social information processing and
cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of
habitual aggressive behavior. In Human Aggression Theory,
Research, and Implications for Social Policy. Edited by Geen RG,
Donnerstein E. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1998:73-109.
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/
docview/619347130/94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/22?
accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July 2014].
12. Zillmann D, Bryant J: Effect of residual excitation on the
emotional response to provocation and delayed aggressive
behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1974, 30:782-791 In: http://dx.
doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0037541.
13. Tedeschi JT, Felson RB: Violence, Aggression, and Coercive
Actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
1994. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/
docview/618589898/2C0336C06CDB4861PQ/1?
accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July 2014].
14. Bargh JA: Automaticity in social psychology. In Social
Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. Edited by Higgins ET.
New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1996. http://search.proquest.com.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/docview/619024727/
90032C2CF72246FFPQ/14?accountid=10906 [Accessed 10 July
2014].
15. Collins AM, Loftus EF: A spreading-activation theory of
semantic processing. Psychol. Rev. 1975, 82:407-428.
16. Fiske ST, Taylor SE: Social Cognition. 2nd ed. New York, NY:
Mcgraw-Hill Book Company; 1991. http://search.proquest.com.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/618041511/
F5CBDCB87A364EAFPQ/1?accountid=10906 [Accessed
6 August 2014].
17. Higgins ET: Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability,
and salience. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic
Principles. Edited by Higgins ET. New York, NY: Guilford Press;
1996:133-168. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
psycinfo/docview/619021903/E3D41E53397C4B81PQ/1?
accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 August 2014].
18. Wegner DM, Bargh JA: Control and automaticity in social life. In
Handbook of Social Psychology, Vols. 1,2. Edited by Gilbert DT,
Fiske ST, Lindzey G . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1998:446-496
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/
docview/619357634/94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/24?
accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July 2014].
19. Epps J, Kendall PC: Hostile attributional bias in adults. Cogn.
Ther. Res. 1995, 19:159-178.
20. Gilbert F, Daffern M: Illuminating the relationship between
personality disorder and violence: contributions of the
General Aggression Model. Psychol. Violence 2011, 1:230-244
In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/a0024089.
21. Crick NR, Dodge KA: A review and reformulation of social
information-processing mechanisms in children’s social
adjustment. Psychol. Bull. 1994, 115:74-101 In: http://dx.doi.org.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74.
22. Dill KE, Anderson CA, Deuser WE: Effects of aggressive
personality on social expectations and social perceptions. J.
Res. Pers. 1997, 31:272-292 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.
edu/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2183.
23. Berkowitz L, LePage A: Weapons as aggression-eliciting
stimuli. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1967, 7:202-207 In: http://dx.doi.
org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0025008.
24. Benjamin AJ, Bushman BJ: Weapons effect. Curr. Opin. Psychol.
2017, 19.
25. Greitemeyer T, Mu¨ gge DO: Video games do affect social
outcomes: a meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and
prosocial video game play. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2014,
40:578-589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167213520459.
26. Gentile DA, Bushman BJ: Reassessing media violence effects
using a risk and resilience approach to understanding
aggression. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 2012, 1:138-151 http://dx.
doi.org/10.1037/a0028481.
27. Bower GH: Mood and memory. Am. Psychol. 1981, 36:129-148
In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.36.
2.129.
28. Schachter S, Singer J: Cognitive, social, and physiological
determinants of emotional state. Psychol. Rev. 1962, 69:379-
399 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0046234.
29. Anderson CA: Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on
hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggress. Behav.
1997, 23:161-178 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.
1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:3.
30. Bushman BJ: Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the
effects of violent media on aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
1995, 69:950-960 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.
1037/0022-3514.69.5.950.
31. Anderson KB, Anderson CA, Dill KE, Deuser WE: The interactive
relations between trait hostility, pain, and aggressive
thoughts. Aggress. Behav. 1998, 24:161-171 In: http://dx.doi.org.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:3.
32. Berkowitz L: Pain and aggression: some findings and
implications. Motiv. Emot. 1993, 17:277-293 In: http://dx.doi.org.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1007/BF00992223.
The General Aggression Model Allen, Anderson and Bushman 79
www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80
33. Anderson CA, Anderson KB, Deuser WE: Examining an affective
aggression framework: weapon and temperature effects on
aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Bull. 1996, 22:366-376 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1177/0146167296224004.
34. Bargh JA, Lombardi WJ, Higgins ET: Automaticity of chronically
accessible constructs in person  situation effects on person
perception: it’s just a matter of time. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1988,
55:599-605 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/
0022-3514.55.4.599.
35. Sedikides C, Skowronski JJ: Towards reconciling personality
and social psychology: a construct accessibility approach. J.
Soc. Behav. Pers. 1990, 5 http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/1292240934/
588604657F8C4A10PQ/70?accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July
2014].
36.

Anderson CA, Dill KE: Video games and aggressive thoughts,
feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. 2000, 78:772-790 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.
edu/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772.
This book provides detailed information about how violent video games
affect children and adolescents. The General Aggression Model (GAM) is
used to explain how violent media affect aggressive outcomes and the
results of three studies (one correlational, one experimental, and one
longitudinal) are presented that all support a positive relation between
violent video games and aggressive outcomes. Risk factor analyses are
also conducted to demonstrate that aggression is most likely when many
risk factors are present.
37. Bushman BJ: Priming effects of media violence on the
accessibility of aggressive constructs in memory. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 1998, 24:537-545 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/10.1177/0146167298245009.
38. Dodge KA, Coie JD: Social-information-processing factors in
reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53:1146-1158 In: http://dx.doi.org.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146.
39. Zillmann D: Cognition-excitation interdependencies in
aggressive behavior. Aggress. Behav. 1988, 14:51-64 In: http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/1098-2337(1988)14:1.
40. Geen RG, O’Neal EC: Activation of cue-elicited aggression by
general arousal. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1969, 11:289-292 In:
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0026885.
41. Anderson CA, Buckley KE, Carnagey NL: Creating your own
hostile environment: a laboratory examination of trait
aggressiveness and the violence escalation cycle. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34:462-473 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/10.1177/0146167207311282.
42. Archer Carre´ : Testosterone and aggression. Curr. Opin. Psychol.
2017, 19.
43. Archer J: The influence of testosterone on human aggression.
Br. J. Psychol. 1991, 82 http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/1293608844/
F64F794A662746ADPQ/9?accountid=10906 [Accessed 16 July
2014].
44. Gladue BA, Boechler M, McCaul KD: Hormonal response to
competition in human males. Aggress. Behav. 1989, 15:409-422
In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/1098-2337
(1989)15:6.
45. Patterson GR, Reid JB, Dishion TJ: Antisocial Boys. Malden:
Blackwell Publishing; 1998. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/619350615/
94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/25?accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July
2014].
46. Patterson GR, DeBaryshe BD, Ramsey E: A developmental
perspective on antisocial behavior. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44:329-
335 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.
44.2.329.
47. Labella Masten: Family influences on the development of
aggression and violence. Curr. Opin. Psychol. (n.d.).
48. Anderson CA, Deuser WE, DeNeve KM: Hot temperatures,
hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: tests of a general
model of affective aggression. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1995,
21:434-448 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1177/
0146167295215002.
49. Plante C, Anderson CA: Global warming and violent behavior.
Observer 2017, 30:29-32.
50. Plante C, Allen JJ, Anderson CA: Likely effects of rapid climate
change on violence and conflict. Oxf. Res. Encylopedia Clim.
Sci. (in press).
51. Anderson CA, Gentile DA, Buckley KE: Violent Video Game Effects
on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy.
New York NY: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2007.
52. Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ,
Sakamoto A, Rothstein HR, Saleem M: Violent video game
effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in
Eastern and Western countries: a meta-analytic review.
Psychol. Bull. 2010, 136:151-173 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/10.1037/a0018251.
53. Anderson CA, Anderson KB: Men who target women: specificity
of target, generality of aggressive behavior. Aggress. Behav.
2008, 34:605-622 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.
1002/ab.20274.
54.

Warburton WA, Anderson CA: On the clinical applications of the
General Aggression Model to understanding domestic
violence. In Understanding Domestic Violence: Theories,
Challenges, Remedies. Edited by Javier RA, Herron WG. Rowman
& Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2015.
This chapter provides a very detailed discussion of how the General
Aggression Model can be used to understand domestic violence. Specific
person and situation factors that increase the likelihood of domestic
violence are discussed as well as their impact on cognition, affect,
arousal, and reappraisal processes. Finally, the chapter outlines how
the GAM could be used to guide interventions aimed at reducing domestic
violence.
55. Gilbert M: The General Aggression Model and its application to
violent offender assessment and treatment. In Handbook of
Violence and Aggression. Edited by Sturmey P. Wiley; 2017.
56. Allen JJ, Anderson CA: General Aggression Model. The
International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Wiley-Blackwell;
2017.
80 Aggression and violence
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80 www.sciencedirect.com