ANDERSON AND DILL (2000)

Description

Mind Map on ANDERSON AND DILL (2000), created by mrthrills on 06/05/2014.
mrthrills
Mind Map by mrthrills, updated more than 1 year ago
mrthrills
Created by mrthrills over 12 years ago
38
1

Resource summary

ANDERSON AND DILL (2000)
  1. AIM
    1. VIOLENT VIDEO GAMES
      1. AGGRESSION
    2. PROCEDURE
      1. LABORATORY
        1. 210 PSYCHOLOGY STUDENTS
          1. INDEPENDENT GROUPS
          2. IV
            1. TYPE OF GAME
              1. AGGRESSIVE
                1. NON-AGRESSIVE
              2. DV
                1. VOLUME AND DURATION
                  1. WHITE NOISE
              3. TOLD MOTOR SKILL TEST
                1. 30 MIN PLAYING GAME
                  1. THEN REACTION TEST
                    1. WIN
                      1. CHOOSE VOLUME AND DURATION
                2. RESULTS
                  1. AGGRESSIVE GAME
                    1. LOUDER AND LONGER NOISE
                    2. FEMALES
                      1. GAVE LONGER AND LOUDER
                        1. BLASTS
                    3. CONCLUSION
                      1. VIOLENT GAMES
                        1. CAUSE MORE AGGRESSION
                          1. PARTICULARLY WOMEN
                        2. MAKES PEOPLE THINK
                          1. IN AGGRESSIVE WAYS
                          2. LONG TERM
                            1. CHANGE THOUGHT PATTERNS
                          3. EVAULATION
                            1. STRENGTHS
                              1. LAB
                                1. CONTROLLED
                                  1. RELIABLE
                                    1. APPLIES TO AGE RESTRICTION
                                  2. WEAKNESSES
                                    1. LIED TO PPS
                                      1. FAKE ENVIRONMENT
                                        1. DEMAND CHARATERISTICS
                                          1. NOT INFORMED
                                            1. NOISE STRESSFUL
                                              1. LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY
                                            Show full summary Hide full summary

                                            Similar