Anderson and Dill (2000)

This is a study related to Topic C, Aggression. It supports the social/nurture side of the debate. It is a key study in the syllabus and you are expected to now the aim, procedure, findings/results, conclusion and evaluation of the study.

Aim
Anderson and Dill wanted to see whether people who played violent video games became aggressive.

Procedure
Independent variable - type of video game participants played

Dependent variable - level of aggression shown after playing the game
 * They conducted a laboratory experiment where 210 psychology students were split into two groups and were asked to play either a violent game or a non-violent game.
 * They were told the study was about motor skills, to hide the aim of the study.
 * After playing for a while they were asked to begin a competitive game with the opponent involving a reaction test. The person who pressed the button fastest would be able to give the opponent the punishment of a blast of loud noise. The winner would be able to set the volume and duration of the noise inflicted on the opponent.

Findings/Results

 * Loudest and longest blasts of noise were given from participants who played the violent game.
 * Interestingly women gave greater punishments to their opponents than men.

Conclusion

 * Playing violent video games increased level of aggression in participants, particularly women.


 * It made them think in an aggressive way and that long-term use could result in permanent aggressive thought patterns

Evaluation
Strengths: Weaknesses:
 * It was a laboratory experiment, researchers had a lot of control over the participants. Same instructions and procedure were the same.
 * Findings of the study are useful in the real world, it tells us that we need to have age restrictions for video games because they might adversely affect the behaviour of young people.
 * Participants may have guessed the aim of the study, because they knew it was a psychology experiment.
 * Participants may have acted more/less aggressive because they knew they were being watched in a cubicle . They may not have behaved in the same way if they would have been alone
 * Participants were tricked, not given the full aims of the study, so they couldn't give fully informed consent. They may also have felt stressed out when giving/receiving loud blasts of noise.