ANDERSON AND DILL (2000)

Descrição

Mapa Mental sobre ANDERSON AND DILL (2000), criado por mrthrills em 06-05-2014.
mrthrills
Mapa Mental por mrthrills, atualizado more than 1 year ago
mrthrills
Criado por mrthrills mais de 12 anos atrás
38
1

Resumo de Recurso

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