Check out the following article, which is an interesting combination of two topics we explore in the lecture on aggression: the effects of violent media and the frustration-aggression model.
In the studies described, the researchers find evidence for the idea that playing video games can be frustrating, and that this experience plays just as much a role in producing subsequent aggression as does the violent content of the media itself (since they find the effects for both violent and non-violent games).
What do you think? Do you find their conclusions persuasive? Moreover, what do you think about the creative DV used here to operationally define aggressive behavior?
So let’s put what we’ve read/talked about regarding attitude change into practice. Check out the ad above. What do you think, is it more likely to operate effectively via the central or peripheral route to persuasion? Why do you say that? Now consider the three factors that influence persuasion as discussed by the Yale Attitude Change approach–how would you evaluate the way in which the creators of this ad handled these factors?
In short, knowing all that you now know about the science of persuasion and attitude change, what about this ad works and doesn’t work in your opinion?
On to Chapter 7…
Interesting story here on what happened in Turkey a few years ago when the government banned Twitter. Short answer? Twitter use skyrocketed.
Reactance at its finest, perhaps?
Per our discussion of dissonance, check out this interesting blog post on the psychology of hazing. Relevant to Chapter 6’s discussion of cognitive dissonance and our need to justify behavior, but also a variety of interesting topics we have discussed this term (and will discuss in the future).
Any responses? For that matter, if we stipulate that hazing is a problem we’d like to eliminate, any social psychological ideas for how to combat the tendency?