Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

ScienceDirect

The General Aggression Model

Johnie J Allen1, Craig A Anderson1 and Brad J Bushman2,3

The General Aggression Model (GAM) is a comprehensive, The General Aggression Model
integrative, framework for understanding aggression. It GAM is a comprehensive, integrative framework for
considers the role of social, cognitive, personality, understanding human aggression. It considers the role
developmental, and biological factors on aggression. of social, cognitive, developmental, and biological factors
Proximate processes of GAM detail how person and situation on aggression [1,2,3,4,5]. GAM includes elements
factors influence cognitions, feelings, and arousal, which in turn from many domain-specific theories of aggression, includ-
affect appraisal and decision processes, which in turn influence ing: cognitive neoassociation theory [6,7], social learning
aggressive or nonaggressive behavioral outcomes. Each cycle theory [8,9], script theory [10,11], excitation transfer
of the proximate processes serves as a learning trial that affects theory [12], and social interaction theory [13]. By unifying
the development and accessibility of aggressive knowledge these theories into one coherent whole, GAM provides a
structures. Distal processes of GAM detail how biological and broad framework for understanding aggression in many
persistent environmental factors can influence personality contexts.
through changes in knowledge structures. GAM has been
applied to understand aggression in many contexts including GAM posits that human aggression is heavily influenced
media violence effects, domestic violence, intergroup violence, by knowledge structures, which affect a wide variety of
temperature effects, pain effects, and the effects of global social-cognitive phenomena including perception, inter-
climate change. pretation, 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 ambig-
Addresses uous events as hostile), expectation schemata (e.g.,
1
Iowa State University, W-112 Lagomarcino Hall, 901 Stange Rd, Ames, expecting aggression from others), and behavioral scripts
IA 50011, USA
2
The Ohio State University, 3016 Derby Hall, 154 N. Oval Mall,
(e.g., believing that conflicts should be resolved with
Columbus, OH 43210, USA aggression) [2]. These knowledge structures are devel-
3
VU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, oped through experience and can influence perception at
The Netherlands multiple levels, ranging from simple perception of objects
to complex perception of social events. Knowledge struc-
Corresponding author: Allen, Johnie J ([email protected])
tures can also become automatized with repeated practice
(as is the case with scripts), and can include both cognitive
Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80 and affective components. For example, anger is strongly
This review comes from a themed issue on Aggression and violence linked with hostile attribution biases (the tendency to
Edited by Brad J Bushman
interpret ambiguous events as hostile) [19].
For a complete overview see the Issue and the Editorial
Proximate processes
Available online 13th April 2017 GAM is separated into two major aspects: proximate and
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2017.03.034 distal processes (see Figure 1). The proximate processes
2352-250X/ã 2017 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. 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
Introduction a learning trial that can influence the development of
Many theories have been proposed to explain human aggressive knowledge structures (and thereby personality)
aggression—defined as any behavior intended to harm a over time.
target who is motivated to avoid that harm [1]. The
General Aggression Model (GAM) is one of the most Stage one: inputs
comprehensive and widely used theories for understand- The first stage of the proximate processes outlines how
ing aggression. The present review describes the current person and situation factors increase or decrease the
state of knowledge of GAM, and briefly outlines recent likelihood of aggression through their influence on pres-
applications of GAM and possibilities for future ent internal state variables (i.e., cognition, affect, and
directions. arousal) in stage two. Input variables that increase the

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80

76 Aggression and violence

Figure 1

Biological Environmental

Distal Causes
& Procsses
Modifiers Modifiers

Personality
Inputs

Person Situation
Proximate Causes & Processes

Present Internal State: Social

Routes

Encounter
Cognition

Affect Arousal

Immediate Reappraisal Thoughtful

Appraisal Action
Outcomes

Yes
Outcome important No
Yes
Resources & unsatisfying? Impulsive
sufficient? No Action

Appraisal & Decision Processes

Current Opinion in Psychology

The General Aggression Model (GAM): proximate and distal causes and processes. With permission from Ref. [56].

likelihood of aggression are considered risk factors, violence, dehumanization, displacement of responsibil-
whereas those that decrease the likelihood of aggression ity, high trait anger, certain personality disorders, low self-
are considered protective factors. control, high neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low
conscientiousness [1,3,20]. For example, people with
Person factors are any individual differences that may hostile attribution, perception, and expectation biases
influence how a person responds to a situation. These are more aggressive than people without those biases
factors tend to be fairly stable over time and across [21,22]. Many of the risk factors that have been identified
situations as long as the person consistently uses the serve as protective factors when reversed. For example,
same knowledge structures [9]. Through this lens, per- negative attitudes toward aggression, low neuroticism,
sonality can be considered the summary of a person’s high agreeableness, and high conscientiousness would
knowledge structures. Aggressive knowledge structures all make aggression less likely.
make aggression more likely. Many person factors have
been identified as risk factors for aggression. These Situation factors are aspects of the situation that may
include (but are not limited to): unstable high self-esteem influence whether aggression occurs. Many situation fac-
and narcissism, aggressive self-image, long-term goals tors have been identified that increase the likelihood of
supportive of aggression, high self-efficacy for aggressive aggression. These include (but are not limited to): social
behavior, normative acceptance of aggression, positive stress, social rejection, provocation, frustration, bad
attitudes toward aggression, hostile attribution biases, moods, exercise, alcohol intoxication, violent media, pain
aggressive behavioral scripts, moral justification of or discomfort, ego depletion, anonymity, hot

Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80 www.sciencedirect.com

 The General Aggression Model Allen, Anderson and Bushman 77

temperatures, noise, the presence of weapons, and threat- Cognition

ening or fear-inducing stimuli [1,3]. For example, the Input variables can also influence aggressive thoughts.
presence of a gun (as compared to a badminton racquet) Aggressive concepts can be activated by certain situa-
can increase the aggression of angered individuals [23,24]. tional factors (i.e., priming) or can become chronically
Some situation factors also serve as protective factors, accessible after repeated activation (as with scripts)
such as good moods or exposure to prosocial media [25]. [34,35]. Aggressive priming occurs when a situational
factor (such as exposure to media violence) causes a
Person and situation factors can work additively or inter- short-term increase in the accessibility of aggressive
actively to influence cognition, affect, or arousal. Gener- concepts [36,37]. Certain input variables (e.g., trait
ally, as the number of risk factors for aggression increases, aggression) can lead aggressive thoughts to become
(either person or situation factors), the likelihood of highly accessible at all times in the form of scripts [11]
aggression increases [26]. This means, for example, that and hostile attribution biases [21,38].
a person who believes aggression is normal and useful is
more likely to be aggressive than a person who believes Arousal
aggression is abnormal. That same person would be even Finally, input variables can influence arousal (both phys-
more likely to behave aggressively if he or she was iological and psychological) by increasing it (e.g., exer-
provoked, especially if the provocation occurred in a cise), or decreasing it (e.g., alcohol). Arousal can affect
hot, noisy setting. In contrast, as the number of protective aggression in at least three ways. First, arousal from
factors increases, the likelihood of aggression decreases. irrelevant sources (e.g., exercise) can be mislabeled as
For example, someone who is highly agreeable and has anger, increasing the likelihood of aggression (this is
just received a gift is relatively less likely to behave known as excitation transfer) [39]. Second, arousal from
aggressively. irrelevant sources can strengthen aggressive action ten-
dencies, as when a person is provoked while highly
Stage two: routes aroused [40]. Finally, very high or low levels of arousal
Stage two focuses on the routes through which person can serve as aversive states that increase aggressive affect
and situation factors exert their influence on appraisal and cognition in the same way that pain and uncomfort-
and decision processes (and thus affect aggressive or ably hot temperatures do [31–33].
nonaggressive outcomes). Person and situation factors
can change a person’s affect, cognition, and arousal. Stage three: outcomes
These three variable types make up a person’s present The third stage of the proximate processes focuses on
internal state; changes in these variables alter the likeli- appraisal and decision processes, and on aggressive or
hood of aggression. Different input variables affect dif- nonaggressive outcomes. In stage three, the person
ferent present internal state variables, but present inter- appraises the situation and decides how to respond.
nal state variables also influence each other in interactive The action that is selected then influences the encounter,
and reciprocal ways, as indicated by the dashed lines in which in turn influences the person and situation factors,
Figure 1 with arrows at both ends. Affect can influence beginning the episodic cycle anew.
cognition and arousal [27]. For example, feeling angry
can encourage hostile thoughts and increase arousal. As can be seen in Figure 1, the first part of stage three is an
Similarly, cognition and arousal can influence affect immediate appraisal of the situation, which occurs auto-
[28]. For example, interpreting a situation in a hostile matically (i.e., spontaneously, unconsciously, and with
manner can increase anger, which in turn can increase little-to-no cognitive effort) and is influenced by the
arousal. GAM does not propose that the present internal person’s present internal state. Immediate appraisals
state variables must occur in a certain order. Any of the often include trait or situational inferences. For example,
three variables can occur first and then influence the if a man bumps into a woman at a crowded party, she
other two. Alternatively, some factors can influence could make a trait inference (e.g., “He meant to do that—
aggression primarily through one route. For example, what a jerk!”) or a situational inference (e.g., “It’s so
weapons increase aggression by priming aggressive crowded—I’m sure that was an accident.”). Immediate
thoughts [24]. appraisals also include affective, goal, and intention infor-
mation (e.g., “I am angry. I want to retaliate. I want to push
Affect this jerk.”). When a person’s present internal state is
Input variables can influence our moods and emotions. conducive to aggression, negative immediate apprai-
For example, people high in trait hostility (a person sals—including a goal, plan, and script to harm the
factor) also have higher state hostility in a particular perpetrator—are more likely. Input variables influence
situation (i.e., greater aggressive affect) [29,30]. Addition- immediate appraisals indirectly, through their effects on
ally, situation factors can increase aggressive affect. Pain present internal state. For example, hostile attribution
increases state hostility and anger [31,32], and uncom- biases increase the likelihood of interpreting ambiguous
fortably hot temperatures also increase state hostility [33]. event as being intentionally harmful [21].

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80

78 Aggression and violence

After immediate appraisal, the person decides how to one has received poor parenting or lived with coercive
respond to the event. This process depends on available families [45–47].
resources and the event itself. If the person has sufficient
time and mental resources, and if the outcome of the Applications of the General Aggression Model
immediate appraisal feels both important and unsatisfy- GAM has been applied to a wide variety of aggressive
ing, then the person will engage in a deliberative reap- contexts including: temperature effects [33,48], violence
praisal of the event (i.e., considering alternate interpreta- associated with global climate change [5,49,50], media
tions). If not, then the behavioral script that was activated violence effects [51,52], pain [31,32], intergroup violence
during immediate appraisal is enacted, with little or no [5], intimate partner violence [5], sexual aggression
awareness of a decision having been made. [53], domestic violence [54], suicide [5], and personal-
ity disorders with an aggression component [20]. By
When the reappraisal process is activated, it can influence increasing the understanding of aggression and violence,
present internal state variables. For example, if the GAM has guided research and informed interventions
woman who was bumped at the party reconsiders her aimed at reducing aggression and violence, such as the
initial hostile interpretation as an accidental event, then treatment and assessment of violent offenders [55].
she may feel less angry and have fewer aggressive
thoughts, depending on what other pieces of information Summary and conclusions
are discovered or brought to bear during reappraisal. Of GAM has effectively organized theoretical insights
course, reappraisal can also yield information confirming gleaned from several key theoretical perspectives. Proxi-
the immediate appraisal of intentional harm, and can thus mate processes of GAM detail how person and situation
lead to more anger and aggressive thoughts. Once reap- factors influence aggressive thoughts, angry feelings, and
praisal has occurred, the person decides on and carries out arousal levels, which in turn affect appraisal and decision
a thoughtful action, which can be aggressive or non- processes, which in turn influence aggressive or nonag-
aggressive. gressive behavior. Each cycle of the proximate processes
serves as a learning trial that can create aggressive knowl-
Once an action has been carried out, that action influences edge structures after many repetitions, contributing to an
the social encounter, which can alter person and situation aggressive personality. Distal processes of GAM detail
factors, restarting the cycle of proximate processes. For how biological and environmental factors can influence
example, if the woman decides to push the man who personality through changes in knowledge structures.
bumped into her, he may decide to insult her, which may
provoke her to further escalating aggression [41]. GAM has already been used to guide research and inter-
ventions in many domains of aggression, but there is
Distal processes always more work to be done. New research is needed
The second aspect of GAM focuses on distal processes to further develop GAM as a comprehensive model of
(see Figure 1), which operate in the background of each human aggression and violence. Promising directions
episode of proximate processes. This aspect of GAM include more detailed applications to understanding
outlines how biological and persistent environmental and treatment of perpetrators of violent crime, intimate
factors work together to influence personality, which in partner violence, and sexual aggression. Similarly, GAM
turn change person (and situation) factors [3]. could be applied to help develop aggression prevention
programs at the individual, family, community, and soci-
Biological modifiers that increase the likelihood of devel- etal levels. The first step toward reducing aggression and
oping an aggressive personality include (but are not violence is understanding the underlying processes. GAM
limited to): ADHD, impaired executive functioning, hor- sheds light on these underlying processes.
mone imbalances, low serotonin, and low arousal [3]. For
example, testosterone is positively associated with aggres- Conflict of interest statement
sion [42]. Individuals with more testosterone tend to be Nothing declared.
more aggressive [43] and dominating others increases
testosterone [44]. References and recommended reading
Papers of particular interest, published within the period of review,
Environmental modifiers that increase the likelihood of have been highlighted as:
developing an aggressive personality include (but are not  of special interest
limited to): cultural norms supportive of violence, mal-  of outstanding interest
adaptive families or parenting, difficult life conditions,
1. DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: Aggression. In
deprivation, victimization, violent neighborhoods, violent  Handbook of Psychology, 2nd ed.. Edited by Tennen H, Suls J,
or antisocial peer groups, group conflict, diffusion of Weiner IB.Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc.; 2012:449-
466. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/
responsibility, and chronic exposure to violent media docview/1267038814/80B067D382114D92PQ/1?
[3]. For example, aggressive behavior is more likely if accountid=10906 [Accessed 14 July 2014].

Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80 www.sciencedirect.com

 The General Aggression Model Allen, Anderson and Bushman 79

This chapter provides additional information about aggression in general, 90032C2CF72246FFPQ/14?accountid=10906 [Accessed 10 July
including a discussion of major theories of aggression, how aggression 2014].
develops and its stability over time, and a detailed discussion of person
and situation factors relevant to aggression as well as the most influential 15. Collins AM, Loftus EF: A spreading-activation theory of
affective, cognitive, and arousal factors. semantic processing. Psychol. Rev. 1975, 82:407-428.

2. Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: Human aggression. Annu. Rev. 16. Fiske ST, Taylor SE: Social Cognition. 2nd ed. New York, NY:
 Psychol. 2002, 53:27-51. Mcgraw-Hill Book Company; 1991. http://search.proquest.com.
This impactful article first introduced the General Aggression Model proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/618041511/
(GAM). It provides excellent background information on many of the F5CBDCB87A364EAFPQ/1?accountid=10906 [Accessed
domain-specific theories of aggression that were incorporated into the 6 August 2014].
GAM. This article also provides more detail about the GAM than the 17. Higgins ET: Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability,
current review (due to space limitations). and salience. In Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic
3. Anderson CA, Carnagey NL: Violent evil and the General Principles. Edited by Higgins ET. New York, NY: Guilford Press;
Aggression Model. In The Social Psychology of Good and Evil. 1996:133-168. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
Edited by Miller AG. New York, NY: Guilford Press; 2004:168-192. psycinfo/docview/619021903/E3D41E53397C4B81PQ/1?
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/docview/ accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 August 2014].
620449294/D18E3D0FE9634D4CPQ/7?accountid=10906 18. Wegner DM, Bargh JA: Control and automaticity in social life. In
[Accessed 13 July 2014]. Handbook of Social Psychology, Vols. 1,2. Edited by Gilbert DT,
4. Anderson CA, Huesmann LR: Human aggression: a social- Fiske ST, Lindzey G . New York, NY: McGraw-Hill; 1998:446-496
cognitive view. In The SAGE Handbook of Social Psychology. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/
Edited by Hogg MA, Cooper J. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage docview/619357634/94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/24?
Publications, Inc.; 2003:296-323. accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July 2014].
19. Epps J, Kendall PC: Hostile attributional bias in adults. Cogn.
5. DeWall CN, Anderson CA, Bushman BJ: The general aggression
Ther. Res. 1995, 19:159-178.
 model: theoretical extensions to violence. Psychol. Violence
2011, 1:245-258 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10. 20. Gilbert F, Daffern M: Illuminating the relationship between
1037/a0023842. personality disorder and violence: contributions of the
This article helpfully demonstrates how the General Aggression Model General Aggression Model. Psychol. Violence 2011, 1:230-244
(GAM) can be successfully allied to many different domains of aggression. In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/a0024089.
Specifically, this article applies the GAM to enhance understanding of
intimate partner violence, intergroup violence, effects of global climate 21. Crick NR, Dodge KA: A review and reformulation of social
change on violence, and suicide information-processing mechanisms in children’s social
adjustment. Psychol. Bull. 1994, 115:74-101 In: http://dx.doi.org.
6. Berkowitz L: Frustration-aggression hypothesis: examination proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74.
and reformulation. Psychol. Bull. 1989, 106:59-73 In: http://dx.
doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59. 22. Dill KE, Anderson CA, Deuser WE: Effects of aggressive
personality on social expectations and social perceptions. J.
7. Berkowitz L: On the formation and regulation of anger and Res. Pers. 1997, 31:272-292 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.
aggression: a cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. Am. edu/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2183.
Psychol. 1990, 45:494-503 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.
edu/10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.494. 23. Berkowitz L, LePage A: Weapons as aggression-eliciting
stimuli. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1967, 7:202-207 In: http://dx.doi.
8. Bandura A: Social cognitive theory: an agentic perspective. org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0025008.
Annu. Rev. Psychol. 2001, 52:1-26 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1. 24. Benjamin AJ, Bushman BJ: Weapons effect. Curr. Opin. Psychol.
2017, 19.
9. Mischel W, Shoda Y: A cognitive-affective system theory of
personality: reconceptualizing situations, dispositions, 25. Greitemeyer T, Mügge DO: Video games do affect social
dynamics, and invariance in personality structure. Psychol. outcomes: a meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and
Rev. 1995, 102:246-268 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/ prosocial video game play. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 2014,
10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246. 40:578-589 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167213520459.

10. Huesmann LR: Psychological processes promoting the 26. Gentile DA, Bushman BJ: Reassessing media violence effects
relation between exposure to media violence and aggressive using a risk and resilience approach to understanding
behavior by the viewer. J. Soc. Issues 1986, 42:125-139 In: http:// aggression. Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 2012, 1:138-151 http://dx.
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986. doi.org/10.1037/a0028481.
tb00246.x.
27. Bower GH: Mood and memory. Am. Psychol. 1981, 36:129-148
11. Huesmann LR: The role of social information processing and In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.36.
cognitive schema in the acquisition and maintenance of 2.129.
habitual aggressive behavior. In Human Aggression Theory, 28. Schachter S, Singer J: Cognitive, social, and physiological
Research, and Implications for Social Policy. Edited by Geen RG, determinants of emotional state. Psychol. Rev. 1962, 69:379-
Donnerstein E. San Diego, CA: Academic Press; 1998:73-109. 399 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0046234.
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/
docview/619347130/94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/22? 29. Anderson CA: Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on
accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July 2014]. hostile feelings and aggressive thoughts. Aggress. Behav.
1997, 23:161-178 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.
12. Zillmann D, Bryant J: Effect of residual excitation on the 1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:3.
emotional response to provocation and delayed aggressive
behavior. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1974, 30:782-791 In: http://dx. 30. Bushman BJ: Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the
doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0037541. effects of violent media on aggression. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
1995, 69:950-960 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.
13. Tedeschi JT, Felson RB: Violence, Aggression, and Coercive 1037/0022-3514.69.5.950.
Actions. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association;
1994. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/ 31. Anderson KB, Anderson CA, Dill KE, Deuser WE: The interactive
docview/618589898/2C0336C06CDB4861PQ/1? relations between trait hostility, pain, and aggressive
accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July 2014]. thoughts. Aggress. Behav. 1998, 24:161-171 In: http://dx.doi.org.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:3.
14. Bargh JA: Automaticity in social psychology. In Social
Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles. Edited by Higgins ET. 32. Berkowitz L: Pain and aggression: some findings and
New York, NY: Guilford Press; 1996. http://search.proquest.com. implications. Motiv. Emot. 1993, 17:277-293 In: http://dx.doi.org.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/docview/619024727/ proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1007/BF00992223.

www.sciencedirect.com Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80

80 Aggression and violence

33. Anderson CA, Anderson KB, Deuser WE: Examining an affective In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/1098-2337
aggression framework: weapon and temperature effects on (1989)15:6.
aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Bull. 1996, 22:366-376 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/ 45. Patterson GR, Reid JB, Dishion TJ: Antisocial Boys. Malden:
10.1177/0146167296224004. Blackwell Publishing; 1998. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.
iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/619350615/
34. Bargh JA, Lombardi WJ, Higgins ET: Automaticity of chronically 94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/25?accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July
accessible constructs in person  situation effects on person 2014].
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/ 46. Patterson GR, DeBaryshe BD, Ramsey E: A developmental
0022-3514.55.4.599. perspective on antisocial behavior. Am. Psychol. 1989, 44:329-
335 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.
35. Sedikides C, Skowronski JJ: Towards reconciling personality 44.2.329.
and social psychology: a construct accessibility approach. J.
Soc. Behav. Pers. 1990, 5 http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib. 47. Labella Masten: Family influences on the development of
iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/1292240934/ aggression and violence. Curr. Opin. Psychol. (n.d.).
588604657F8C4A10PQ/70?accountid=10906 [Accessed 6 July
2014]. 48. Anderson CA, Deuser WE, DeNeve KM: Hot temperatures,
hostile affect, hostile cognition, and arousal: tests of a general
36. Anderson CA, Dill KE: Video games and aggressive thoughts, model of affective aggression. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 1995,
 feelings, and behavior in the laboratory and in life. J. Pers. Soc. 21:434-448 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1177/
Psychol. 2000, 78:772-790 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate. 0146167295215002.
edu/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772.
This book provides detailed information about how violent video games 49. Plante C, Anderson CA: Global warming and violent behavior.
affect children and adolescents. The General Aggression Model (GAM) is Observer 2017, 30:29-32.
used to explain how violent media affect aggressive outcomes and the
results of three studies (one correlational, one experimental, and one 50. Plante C, Allen JJ, Anderson CA: Likely effects of rapid climate
longitudinal) are presented that all support a positive relation between change on violence and conflict. Oxf. Res. Encylopedia Clim.
violent video games and aggressive outcomes. Risk factor analyses are Sci. (in press).
also conducted to demonstrate that aggression is most likely when many
risk factors are present. 51. Anderson CA, Gentile DA, Buckley KE: Violent Video Game Effects
on Children and Adolescents: Theory, Research, and Public Policy.
37. Bushman BJ: Priming effects of media violence on the New York NY: Oxford University Press, Inc; 2007.
accessibility of aggressive constructs in memory. Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 1998, 24:537-545 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib. 52. Anderson CA, Shibuya A, Ihori N, Swing EL, Bushman BJ,
iastate.edu/10.1177/0146167298245009. Sakamoto A, Rothstein HR, Saleem M: Violent video game
effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in
38. Dodge KA, Coie JD: Social-information-processing factors in Eastern and Western countries: a meta-analytic review.
reactive and proactive aggression in children’s peer groups. J. Psychol. Bull. 2010, 136:151-173 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1987, 53:1146-1158 In: http://dx.doi.org. iastate.edu/10.1037/a0018251.
proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1146.
53. Anderson CA, Anderson KB: Men who target women: specificity
39. Zillmann D: Cognition-excitation interdependencies in of target, generality of aggressive behavior. Aggress. Behav.
aggressive behavior. Aggress. Behav. 1988, 14:51-64 In: http:// 2008, 34:605-622 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/1098-2337(1988)14:1. 1002/ab.20274.
40. Geen RG, O’Neal EC: Activation of cue-elicited aggression by 54. Warburton WA, Anderson CA: On the clinical applications of the
general arousal. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 1969, 11:289-292 In:  General Aggression Model to understanding domestic
http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0026885. violence. In Understanding Domestic Violence: Theories,
41. Anderson CA, Buckley KE, Carnagey NL: Creating your own Challenges, Remedies. Edited by Javier RA, Herron WG. Rowman
hostile environment: a laboratory examination of trait & Littlefield Publishers, Inc.; 2015.
aggressiveness and the violence escalation cycle. Pers. Soc. This chapter provides a very detailed discussion of how the General
Psychol. Bull. 2008, 34:462-473 In: http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib. Aggression Model can be used to understand domestic violence. Specific
iastate.edu/10.1177/0146167207311282. person and situation factors that increase the likelihood of domestic
violence are discussed as well as their impact on cognition, affect,
42. Archer Carré: Testosterone and aggression. Curr. Opin. Psychol. arousal, and reappraisal processes. Finally, the chapter outlines how
2017, 19. the GAM could be used to guide interventions aimed at reducing domes-
tic violence.
43. Archer J: The influence of testosterone on human aggression.
Br. J. Psychol. 1991, 82 http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib. 55. Gilbert M: The General Aggression Model and its application to
iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/1293608844/ violent offender assessment and treatment. In Handbook of
F64F794A662746ADPQ/9?accountid=10906 [Accessed 16 July Violence and Aggression. Edited by Sturmey P. Wiley; 2017.
2014].
56. Allen JJ, Anderson CA: General Aggression Model. The
44. Gladue BA, Boechler M, McCaul KD: Hormonal response to International Encyclopedia of Media Effects. Wiley-Blackwell;
competition in human males. Aggress. Behav. 1989, 15:409-422 2017.

Current Opinion in Psychology 2018, 19:75–80 www.sciencedirect.com