Running header: THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 1

The General Aggression Model

Johnie J. Allena, Craig A. Andersona, & Brad J. Bushmanb, c

aIowa State University, W-112 Lagomarcino Hall, 901 Stange Rd., Ames, Iowa 50011, USA;

bThe Ohio State University, 3016 Derby Hall, 154 N. Oval Mall, Columbus , OH 43210, USA

cVU University Amsterdam, De Boelelaan 1105, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands

Corresponding Author: Johnie J. Allen, [email protected]

THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 2

Abstract

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.

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*–
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 3

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
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 4

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

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 self-control,

high neuroticism, low agreeableness, and low conscientiousness [1*,3,20]. For example, people
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 5

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 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
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 6

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.
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 7

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
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 8

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].

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.

THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 9

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
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 10

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 GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 11

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.

THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 12

References and Recommended Reading

Papers of special interest have been annotated. * Of special interest. ** Of outstanding interest.

[1] C.N. DeWall, C.A. Anderson, B.J. Bushman, Aggression, in: H. Tennen, J. Suls, I.B. Weiner,
(Eds.), Handb. Psychol., 2nd ed., John Wiley & Sons Inc, Hoboken, NJ, US, 2012: pp. 449–
466. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/
1267038814/80B067D382114D92PQ/1?accountid=10906 (accessed July 14, 2014).
* 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] C.A. Anderson, B.J. Bushman, Human aggression, Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53 (2002) 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] C.A. Anderson, N.L. Carnagey, Violent evil and the General Aggression Model., in: A.G.
Miller (Ed.), Soc. Psychol. Good Evil, Guilford Press, New York, NY, 2004: pp. 168–192.
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/docview/620449294/
D18E3D0FE9634D4CPQ/7?accountid=10906 (accessed July 13, 2014).
[4] C.A. Anderson, L.R. Huesmann, Human aggression: A social-cognitive view., in: M.A.
Hogg, J. Cooper (Eds.), Sage Handb. Soc. Psychol., Sage Publications, Inc., Thousand Oaks,
CA, 2003: pp. 296–323.
[5] C.N. DeWall, C.A. Anderson, B.J. Bushman, The general aggression model: Theoretical
extensions to violence., Psychol. Violence. 1 (2011) 245–258. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/a0023842.
** This article helpfully demonstrates how the General Aggression Model (GAM) can be
successfully applied 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] L. Berkowitz, Frustration-aggression hypothesis: Examination and reformulation., Psychol.

Bull. 106 (1989) 59–73. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1037/0033-2909.106.1.59.
[7] L. Berkowitz, On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-
neoassociationistic analysis., Am. Psychol. 45 (1990) 494–503. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.494.
[8] A. Bandura, Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective., Annu. Rev. Psychol. 52 (2001)
1–26. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.1.
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 13

[9] W. Mischel, Y. Shoda, A cognitive-affective system theory of personality: Reconceptualizing

situations, dispositions, dynamics, and invariance in personality structure., Psychol. Rev. 102
(1995) 246–268. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0033-295X.102.2.246.
[10] L.R. Huesmann, Psychological processes promoting the relation between exposure to
media violence and aggressive behavior by the viewer., J. Soc. Issues. 42 (1986) 125–139.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1986.tb00246.x.
[11] L.R. Huesmann, The role of social information processing and cognitive schema in the
acquisition and maintenance of habitual aggressive behavior., in: R.G. Geen, E. Donnerstein
(Eds.), Hum. Aggress. Theor. Res. Implic. Soc. Policy, Academic Press, San Diego, CA,
1998: pp. 73–109. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/
619347130/94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/22?accountid=10906 (accessed July 6, 2014).
[12] D. Zillmann, J. Bryant, Effect of residual excitation on the emotional response to
provocation and delayed aggressive behavior., J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 30 (1974) 782–791.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0037541.
[13] J.T. Tedeschi, R.B. Felson, Violence, aggression, and coercive actions., American
Psychological Association, Washington, DC, 1994. http://
search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/
618589898/2C0336C06CDB4861PQ/1?accountid=10906 (accessed July 6, 2014).
[14] J.A. Bargh, Automaticity in social psychology., in: E.T. Higgins (Ed.), Soc. Psychol.
Handb. Basic Princ., Guilford Press, New York, NY, 1996. http://
search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/docview/619024727/90032C2CF72246FFPQ/14?
accountid=10906 (accessed July 10, 2014).
[15] A.M. Collins, E.F. Loftus, A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing.,
Psychol. Rev. 82 (1975) 407–428.
[16] S.T. Fiske, S.E. Taylor, Social cognition., 2nd ed., Mcgraw-Hill Book Company, New
York, NY, 1991. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/
618041511/F5CBDCB87A364EAFPQ/1?accountid=10906 (accessed August 6, 2014).
[17] E.T. Higgins, Knowledge activation: Accessibility, applicability, and salience., in: E.T.
Higgins (Ed.), Soc. Psychol. Handb. Basic Princ., Guilford Press, New York, NY, 1996: pp.
133–168. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/619021903/
E3D41E53397C4B81PQ/1?accountid=10906 (accessed August 6, 2014).
[18] D.M. Wegner, J.A. Bargh, Control and automaticity in social life., in: D.T. Gilbert, S.T.
Fiske, G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handb. Soc. Psychol. Vols 1 2, 4th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York,
NY, 1998: pp. 446–496. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/
619357634/94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/24?accountid=10906 (accessed July 6, 2014).
[19] J. Epps, P.C. Kendall, Hostile attributional bias in adults, Cogn. Ther. Res. 19 (1995)
159–178.
[20] F. Gilbert, M. Daffern, Illuminating the relationship between personality disorder and
violence: Contributions of the General Aggression Model., Psychol. Violence. 1 (2011) 230–
244. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/a0024089.
[21] N.R. Crick, K.A. Dodge, A review and reformulation of social information-processing
mechanisms in children’s social adjustment., Psychol. Bull. 115 (1994) 74–101. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0033-2909.115.1.74.
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 14

[22] K.E. Dill, C.A. Anderson, W.E. Deuser, Effects of aggressive personality on social
expectations and social perceptions., J. Res. Personal. 31 (1997) 272–292. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2183.
[23] L. Berkowitz, A. LePage, Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli., J. Pers. Soc. Psychol.
7 (1967) 202–207. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/h0025008.
[24] A.J. Benjamin, B.J. Bushman, Weapons effect, Curr. Opin. Psychol. (n.d.).
[25] T. Greitemeyer, D.O. Mügge, Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic
review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play, Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 40
(2014) 578–589. doi:10.1177/0146167213520459.
[26] D.A. Gentile, B.J. Bushman, Reassessing media violence effects using a risk and
resilience approach to understanding aggression, Psychol. Pop. Media Cult. 1 (2012) 138–
151. doi:10.1037/a0028481.
[27] G.H. Bower, Mood and memory., Am. Psychol. 36 (1981) 129–148. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0003-066X.36.2.129.
[28] S. Schachter, J. Singer, Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of emotional
state., Psychol. Rev. 69 (1962) 379–399. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/
h0046234.
[29] C.A. Anderson, Effects of violent movies and trait hostility on hostile feelings and
aggressive thoughts., Aggress. Behav. 23 (1997) 161–178. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:3.
[30] B.J. Bushman, Moderating role of trait aggressiveness in the effects of violent media on
aggression., J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69 (1995) 950–960. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.69.5.950.
[31] K.B. Anderson, C.A. Anderson, K.E. Dill, W.E. Deuser, The interactive relations between
trait hostility, pain, and aggressive thoughts., Aggress. Behav. 24 (1998) 161–171. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1998)24:3.
[32] L. Berkowitz, Pain and aggression: Some findings and implications., Motiv. Emot. 17
(1993) 277–293. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1007/BF00992223.
[33] C.A. Anderson, K.B. Anderson, W.E. Deuser, Examining an affective aggression
framework: Weapon and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes.,
Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 22 (1996) 366–376. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1177/0146167296224004.
[34] J.A. Bargh, W.J. Lombardi, E.T. Higgins, Automaticity of chronically accessible
constructs in person × situation effects on person perception: It’s just a matter of time., J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 55 (1988) 599–605. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1037/0022-3514.55.4.599.
[35] C. Sedikides, J.J. Skowronski, Towards reconciling personality and social psychology: A
construct accessibility approach., J. Soc. Behav. Personal. 5 (1990). http://
search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/
1292240934/588604657F8C4A10PQ/70?accountid=10906 (accessed July 6, 2014).
[36] C.A. Anderson, K.E. Dill, Video games and aggressive thoughts, feelings, and behavior
in the laboratory and in life., J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78 (2000) 772–790. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0022-3514.78.4.772.
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 15

* 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] B.J. Bushman, Priming effects of media violence on the accessibility of aggressive
constructs in memory., Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 24 (1998) 537–545. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1177/0146167298245009.
[38] K.A. Dodge, J.D. Coie, Social-information-processing factors in reactive and proactive
aggression in children’s peer groups., J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 53 (1987) 1146–1158. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/0022-35
14.53.6.1146.
[39] D. Zillmann, Cognition-excitation interdependencies in aggressive behavior., Aggress.
Behav. 14 (1988) 51–64. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1002/1098-2337(1988)14:1.
[40] R.G. Geen, E.C. O’Neal, Activation of cue-elicited aggression by general arousal., J.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. 11 (1969) 289–292. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/
h0026885.
[41] C.A. Anderson, K.E. Buckley, N.L. Carnagey, Creating your own hostile environment: A
laboratory examination of trait aggressiveness and the violence escalation cycle., Pers. Soc.
Psychol. Bull. 34 (2008) 462–473. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1177/0146167207311282.
[42] Carré, Archer, Testosterone and aggression, Curr. Opin. Psychol. (n.d.).
[43] J. Archer, The influence of testosterone on human aggression, Br. J. Psychol. 82 (1991).
http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/1293608844/
F64F794A662746ADPQ/9?accountid=10906 (accessed July 16, 2014).
[44] B.A. Gladue, M. Boechler, K.D. McCaul, Hormonal response to competition in human
males., Aggress. Behav. 15 (1989) 409–422. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1002/1098-2337(1989)15:6.
[45] G.R. Patterson, J.B. Reid, T.J. Dishion, Antisocial Boys., Blackwell Publishing, Malden,
1998. http://search.proquest.com.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/psycinfo/docview/
619350615/94E36DC27B6D4912PQ/25?accountid=10906 (accessed July 6, 2014).
[46] G.R. Patterson, B.D. DeBaryshe, E. Ramsey, A developmental perspective on antisocial
behavior., Am. Psychol. 44 (1989) 329–335. doi: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] C.A. Anderson, W.E. Deuser, K.M. DeNeve, Hot temperatures, hostile affect, hostile
cognition, and arousal: Tests of a general model of affective aggression., Pers. Soc. Psychol.
Bull. 21 (1995) 434–448. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/
10.1177/0146167295215002.
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 16

[49] C. Plante, C.A. Anderson, Global warming and violent behavior, Observer. 30 (2017) 29–
32.
[50] C. Plante, J.J. Allen, C.A. Anderson, Likely effects of rapid climate change on violence
and conflict, Oxf. Res. Encylopedia Clim. Sci. (n.d.).
[51] C.A. Anderson, D.A. Gentile, K.E. Buckley, Violent video game effects on children and
adolescents: Theory, research, and public policy, Oxford University Press, Inc., New York,
NY, 2007.
[52] C.A. Anderson, A. Shibuya, N. Ihori, E.L. Swing, B.J. Bushman, A. Sakamoto, H.R.
Rothstein, M. Saleem, Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial
behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review., Psychol. Bull. 136
(2010) 151–173. doi:http://dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1037/a0018251.
[53] C.A. Anderson, K.B. Anderson, Men who target women: Specificity of target, generality
of aggressive behavior., Aggress. Behav. 34 (2008) 605–622. doi:http://
dx.doi.org.proxy.lib.iastate.edu/10.1002/ab.20274.
[54] W.A. Warburton, C.A. Anderson, On the clinical applications of the General Aggression
Model to understanding domestic violence, in: R.A. Javier, W.G. Herron (Eds.), Underst.
Domest. Violence Theor. Chall. Remedies, 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] F. Gilbert, M. Daffern, C.A. Anderson, The General Aggression Model and its application
to violent offender assessment and treatment, in: P. Sturmey (Ed.), Wiley Handb. Aggress.
Violence, 2017.
[56] J.J. Allen, C.A. Anderson, General Aggression Model, Int. Encycl. Media Eff. (n.d.).
THE GENERAL AGGRESSION MODEL 17

Figure 1. The General Aggression Model (GAM): Proximate and Distal Causes and Processes.

With permission from [56].