Bartels & Herman (2019). Media research: Is violent media making us more aggressive? - Article summary

The general aggression model states that violent video games produce aggressive thoughts, feelings and increased arousal. It suggests that exposure to video game violence influences behaviour and personality over time by increasing the accessibility of violent scripts or mental representations for how to act in a situation, and increasingly insensitivity to violence. This model assumes a causal role of violent video games in violence. However, this model is not greatly supported.

The catalyst model takes one’s predisposition to aggression and violence into account. It states that individuals genetically predisposed to aggression and violence will be more likely to consume violent media and will be more easily provoked to violence when experiencing environmental stress. This model does not assume a causal role of violent video games in violence.

It appears as if competitiveness and not violence plays an important role in the relationship between violent videogames and aggression. The hot-sauce paradigm and the noise-blast paradigm have been used in order to measure aggression. However, there may be several flaws of the noise-blast paradigm:

1. The participants in the lab might not act aggressively but competitively.
2. The measure might not be valid due to a failure to correlate with other measures of aggression.
3. This measure might not be externally valid.
4. The results might not be consistent with a theory.
5. The behaviour might not be ecologically valid.

Trends in crime rates do not coincide with trends in violent media exposure. A good theory is comprehensive (1), consistent with other theories (2), precise (3), falsifiable (4) and has practical application (5).

There are several fallacies in a politically charged debate:

1. Confirmation bias
   This is the selective and convenient use of information that aligns with one’s beliefs.
2. Availability heuristic
   This is the tendency to overestimate the likelihood of easily accessible information.
3. Ad hominem attacks
   This is using personal attacks in order to disregard the person’s argument without adequately evaluating it.
4. Straw man
   This is purposefully distorting an argument in order to make them easier to refute.
5. False dilemma
   This is suggesting that there are only two, mutually exclusive sides in a debate.
6. Golden mean fallacy
   This is suggesting that the truth may be a compromise between two conflicting sides.
7. Assimilation bias
   This is the tendency to interpret inconclusive research as providing support for one’s position.

Psychological reactance refers to the feeling that one’s freedom of choice might be restricted or infringed upon. This influences attitudes. The third-person effect refers to the belief that something has an effect on others but not on oneself.