Media Influences on Aggression | AQA A-Level Psychology Revision
- Revision Notes
- Aug 7
- 29 min read
Updated: Aug 14
For 7182 specification, first teach in September 2025
AQA A-Level Psychology | Free Revision Notes
Estimated study time: 65 to 80 minutes
Media influences on aggression A-Level Psychology revision examines the possible effects of violent computer games and other aggressive media. You will learn how repeated exposure may lead to desensitisation, weaken restraints through disinhibition and activate aggressive behavioural scripts through cognitive priming.
You will also consider whether computer games increase aggression, provide a harmless outlet through catharsis or affect only certain people in particular situations. This final Aggression lesson draws together ideas from learning aggression through observation and reinforcement [Lesson 6: Social learning theory] and anonymity and reduced responsibility within groups [Lesson 7: De-individuation].
The AQA specification requires students to study media influences on aggression, including the effects of computer games and the roles of desensitisation, disinhibition and cognitive priming.
Learning Objectives 🎯
By the end of this revision page, you should be able to:
Explain how computer games may increase or reduce aggression.
Define desensitisation, disinhibition and cognitive priming.
Distinguish clearly between the three media mechanisms.
Apply each mechanism to unfamiliar examples.
Interpret research findings about violent media and aggressive behaviour.
Evaluate explanations using evidence, methodological issues and alternative explanations.
Reach a balanced conclusion about whether violent computer games cause aggression.
Revision Notes 📚
Media Influences on Aggression A-Level Psychology Revision Focus
A media influence is an effect that exposure to media content may have on a person’s thoughts, emotions or behaviour.
Aggressive content may appear in:
Computer games.
Online games.
Films.
Television programmes.
Social media videos.
Online communities.
Music videos.
Advertising.
News coverage.
The AQA specification specifically names the effects of computer games, but the three required mechanisms can also be applied to other forms of violent media.
Media exposure may influence aggression through several routes:
Aggressive behaviour may be observed and imitated.
Aggression may be rewarded within a game.
Repeated exposure may reduce emotional responsiveness to violence.
Social restraints against aggression may weaken.
Aggressive ideas and scripts may become more accessible in memory.
Gaming may provide a cathartic outlet that reduces aggression.
These effects are possibilities rather than guaranteed outcomes.
What Is Aggressive Media?
Aggressive or violent media depict behaviour intended to harm another person or character.
In a computer game, aggressive content might involve:
Fighting an opponent.
Shooting or attacking characters.
Threatening other players.
Destroying property.
Receiving rewards for violent actions.
Progressing through levels by defeating opponents.
Using aggression to solve problems.
The important issue is not simply whether aggression appears. Psychologists also consider:
Whether the player controls the aggressive character.
Whether violence is rewarded or punished.
Whether the consequences appear realistic.
Whether the player identifies with the character.
How frequently the person plays.
Whether the game is played anonymously.
The player’s previous experiences and personality.
Why Computer Games May Be Especially Influential
Computer games differ from passive media because the player usually participates in the action.
The player may:
Choose an aggressive response.
Control the aggressive character.
Repeat the same behaviour many times.
Receive immediate rewards.
Progress through the game by using aggression.
Identify with a successful character.
Practise a behavioural sequence.
For example, if a player attacks an opponent and immediately receives points, access to a new level or praise from teammates, the aggressive behaviour has been reinforced.
This connects with modelling, imitation and vicarious reinforcement [Lesson 6: Social learning theory].
The player may learn:
Aggression is an effective way to solve problems and achieve rewards.
However, the fictional nature of gaming means players may distinguish clearly between acceptable game behaviour and acceptable real-world conduct.
Possible Increases in Aggression
Exposure to violent computer games may be associated with changes in:
Aggressive thoughts.
Hostile interpretations.
Emotional arousal.
Willingness to behave aggressively.
Reduced empathy for victims.
Reduced physiological response to violence.
Accessibility of aggressive behavioural scripts.
Beliefs about whether aggression is normal.
The June 2022 AQA mark scheme accepted several possible routes through which computer games might influence aggression, including cognitive priming, desensitisation, disinhibition, modelling, reinforcement and identification with attractive models. It also recognised catharsis as a possible reduction in real-life aggression.
Desensitisation
Desensitisation is a reduced emotional and physiological response to violence following repeated exposure.
When a person first encounters violent content, they may experience:
Increased heart rate.
Sympathetic nervous system arousal.
Shock.
Discomfort.
Fear.
Concern for the victim.
After repeated exposure, the same content may produce a weaker response.
The person becomes less sensitive to the emotional significance of aggression.
The process can be represented as:
Repeated exposure to violence → reduced emotional and physiological arousal → violence appears less disturbing → weaker inhibition against aggression
Physiological Desensitisation
Violent images normally activate the sympathetic nervous system, producing physiological arousal.
Possible responses include:
Increased heart rate.
Faster breathing.
Increased alertness.
Sweating.
Greater skin conductance.
Repeated exposure may reduce this arousal.
A person who previously found a violent scene disturbing may eventually show little physiological reaction.
The June 2025 AQA mark scheme identified reduced sympathetic nervous system arousal when viewing violent images as a consequence of desensitisation.
Emotional Desensitisation
Desensitisation may also reduce emotional responses such as:
Fear.
Shock.
Sympathy.
Concern.
Empathy.
Guilt.
If violence no longer feels disturbing, a person may become less concerned by:
The suffering of a victim.
The consequences of aggression.
Aggressive language.
Threatening behaviour.
Minor acts of violence.
This may increase aggression because emotional reactions that normally discourage harmful behaviour become weaker.
How Desensitisation May Increase Aggression
The proposed mechanism is:
The person repeatedly encounters aggression in games or other media.
Their physiological and emotional responses become weaker.
Violence begins to appear ordinary or less serious.
Concern for victims may decrease.
The usual emotional restraint against aggression weakens.
Aggressive behaviour becomes more likely in a relevant situation.
The key idea is a reduction in responsiveness.
Desensitisation does not mean that the person forgets that aggression exists. It means that violence produces a weaker emotional or physiological reaction.
Applying Desensitisation
Consider this scenario:
When Imogen first played a violent computer game, she felt uncomfortable when characters were injured. After playing regularly for several months, she no longer reacts to the injuries and laughs when similar violence appears in online videos.
A desensitisation explanation would state:
Imogen has experienced repeated exposure to violent content.
Her emotional response has gradually weakened.
Violence now appears less shocking or serious.
Her reduced response to violent videos suggests that the effect may generalise beyond the game.
Reduced emotional concern could weaken an inhibition against aggressive behaviour.
A weak application would state only:
Imogen is used to violence.
A stronger answer identifies the reduced emotional or physiological response and explains why this may increase aggression.
Evidence for Desensitisation
AQA’s June 2022 mark scheme recognises evidence that regular exposure to violent games may reduce normal physiological responses to violent stimuli. It specifically identifies evidence of a desensitisation effect from Carnagey and colleagues.
Such evidence supports desensitisation if participants exposed to violent gaming later show:
Lower physiological arousal to violent images.
Less distress.
Reduced emotional concern.
Greater tolerance of aggression.
However, a reduced physiological response does not automatically demonstrate that the participant will behave aggressively.
The evidence may show desensitisation without proving a direct behavioural effect.
Desensitisation and Empathy
Empathy involves recognising and responding to another person’s emotional state.
If repeated exposure to violent media reduces empathy, the player may become less responsive to signs that another person is:
Frightened.
Upset.
Injured.
Distressed.
Asking for help.
Empathy can normally inhibit aggression because awareness of another person’s suffering discourages harmful behaviour.
Reduced empathy may remove one of these restraints.
However, enjoying fictional violence does not necessarily mean that a person lacks empathy towards real people. Players may understand that game characters are fictional and respond very differently to real suffering.
Disinhibition
Disinhibition is the weakening of normal restraints against aggressive behaviour.
Most people learn social rules that discourage aggression, such as:
Violence is unacceptable.
Aggressive behaviour causes harm.
People who behave aggressively may be punished.
Victims deserve sympathy.
Problems should be solved without violence.
Repeated exposure to media aggression may weaken these restraints if aggression is shown as:
Normal.
Justified.
Effective.
Rewarding.
Entertaining.
Free from serious consequences.
Approved by attractive or high-status characters.
The person may become more willing to behave aggressively because the usual social and moral restrictions have weakened.
How Disinhibition May Develop
The process may be:
The person repeatedly observes aggression.
Aggressive characters receive rewards or admiration.
Negative consequences are absent or minimised.
Aggression begins to appear socially acceptable.
Previously learned restraints become weaker.
Aggressive behaviour becomes more likely.
Disinhibition is therefore concerned with social rules and restraints, not primarily with reduced physiological arousal.
Anonymity and Disinhibition in Gaming
Online games may allow players to use:
Anonymous usernames.
Avatars.
Concealed identities.
Voice-changing software.
Accounts that cannot easily be linked to their offline identity.
Anonymity may reduce:
Public self-awareness.
Fear of identification.
Concern about reputation.
Personal responsibility.
Expectations of punishment.
This can produce disinhibited behaviour such as:
Threatening other players.
Using aggressive language.
Harassing opponents.
Joining coordinated attacks.
Behaving in ways the person would avoid face to face.
The June 2025 AQA mark scheme identified feeling anonymous and therefore less responsible for aggressive actions as the best example of disinhibition in violent computer gaming.
This connects with anonymity, responsibility and group norms [Lesson 7: De-individuation].
Applying Disinhibition
Consider this scenario:
Ben uses an anonymous account when playing an online game. Other members of his team regularly insult opponents and congratulate one another for making threats. Ben begins sending aggressive messages, although he would never make similar comments in person.
A disinhibition explanation would state:
Ben’s anonymous account reduces public self-awareness.
He may feel that his messages cannot be traced to him.
This weakens his sense of personal responsibility.
Aggressive language is normal and rewarded within the team.
Social restraints against threatening others become weaker.
Ben therefore behaves more aggressively online than face to face.
Disinhibition Through Media Portrayal
Disinhibition does not require online anonymity.
A film, programme or game may weaken restraint when it presents aggression as:
Necessary.
Heroic.
Humorous.
Deserved by the victim.
Successful.
Without meaningful consequences.
For example:
A game repeatedly rewards a character for attacking anyone who obstructs a mission. The character is praised and faces no punishment.
A player may learn that aggression is an acceptable response to obstruction.
This does not mean the person will automatically imitate the behaviour. It means that a social restraint may become weaker.
Desensitisation and Disinhibition Compared
These mechanisms are often confused.
Desensitisation | Disinhibition |
Reduced emotional or physiological response | Reduced social or moral restraint |
Violence becomes less shocking | Violence becomes more acceptable |
Involves reduced arousal or concern | Involves weakened rules and responsibility |
May reduce empathy for victims | May increase willingness to act |
Focuses on sensitivity to violence | Focuses on permission to behave aggressively |
A useful memory aid is:
Desensitisation: “I no longer feel as disturbed.”
Disinhibition: “I no longer feel as restrained.”
The June 2025 examiner report noted that some students confused disinhibition with desensitisation.
Cognitive Priming
Cognitive priming occurs when exposure to aggressive media activates aggressive ideas, memories and behavioural scripts.
A prime is a stimulus that makes related information more accessible.
Violent media may prime:
Aggressive thoughts.
Hostile interpretations.
Memories of conflict.
Expectations of aggression.
Behavioural scripts for responding to provocation.
The person is not necessarily consciously aware that priming has occurred.
Cognitive Scripts
A cognitive script is a mental representation of how to behave in a particular situation.
A script may include:
What usually happens.
How other people are likely to behave.
What response is appropriate.
What consequences are expected.
Repeated computer gaming may create or strengthen a script such as:
When another person blocks my goal, respond aggressively.
The June 2022 mark scheme describes cognitive priming as repeated exposure creating a script that produces readiness to behave aggressively.
How Cognitive Priming Works
The process can be organised as follows:
The player is exposed to aggressive images and actions.
Aggressive ideas and scripts are stored or strengthened in memory.
A later situation contains a related cue.
The cue activates the aggressive script.
The person interprets the situation through that script.
An aggressive response becomes more accessible.
Aggression becomes more likely.
For example:
A player repeatedly practises responding violently when another character approaches unexpectedly. Later, someone bumps into the player in a crowded corridor.
The aggressive game script may make the player more likely to interpret the contact as hostile and respond aggressively.
Priming Is Often Temporary
Priming may be strongest shortly after exposure because aggressive ideas are currently active in memory.
For example:
A participant watches a violent film.
Aggressive ideas become accessible.
The participant then plays an unfamiliar game.
Ambiguous actions within the game are interpreted aggressively.
The participant selects more aggressive responses.
The June 2023 AQA question used this type of design. The mark scheme predicted that participants exposed to a violent film would be more likely to show high aggression because the aggressive script would be stored and then triggered in the later situation.
Long-term repeated exposure may also strengthen scripts, making them easier to activate in future situations.
Applying Cognitive Priming
Consider this scenario:
Before taking part in a competitive activity, Morgan plays a game in which characters attack anyone who challenges them. During the activity, another participant accidentally moves one of Morgan’s pieces. Morgan assumes this was deliberate and responds aggressively.
A cognitive priming explanation would state:
The game exposed Morgan to aggressive images and responses.
This activated an aggressive script in memory.
The movement of the game piece provided a related cue involving challenge or obstruction.
The script influenced Morgan’s interpretation of the ambiguous action.
Morgan assumed hostile intent and selected an aggressive response.
Aggression became more likely because aggressive thoughts were already accessible.
Hostile Interpretation
Cognitive priming may influence how ambiguous behaviour is interpreted.
An ambiguous action could be understood as:
Accidental.
Friendly.
Neutral.
Hostile.
Deliberately provocative.
If aggressive scripts have recently been primed, the person may be more likely to choose a hostile interpretation.
This creates a possible chain:
Violent media → aggressive script → hostile interpretation → aggressive response
The media do not directly control behaviour. They alter which interpretation and response are most readily available.
Cognitive Priming and Social Learning Theory
Cognitive priming and social learning theory overlap, but they are not identical.
Cognitive priming | Social learning theory |
Aggressive ideas and scripts become accessible | Aggressive behaviour is observed and learned |
A later cue activates the script | The person imitates a model |
Can influence interpretation of ambiguous events | Depends on attention, retention, reproduction and motivation |
Often explains immediate effects after exposure | Can explain longer-term acquisition of behaviour |
Does not require conscious imitation | Involves modelling and possible identification |
The two mechanisms can operate together.
A player may:
Observe an aggressive model.
See that model rewarded.
Learn the aggressive behaviour.
Store it as a script.
Have the script activated in a later situation.
Comparing All Three Mechanisms
Mechanism | What changes? | Main process | Possible effect |
Desensitisation | Emotional and physiological response | Violence becomes less disturbing | Reduced empathy and weaker emotional inhibition |
Disinhibition | Social and moral restraint | Aggression appears acceptable or responsibility is reduced | Greater willingness to behave aggressively |
Cognitive priming | Accessibility of aggressive thoughts and scripts | Media cues activate stored aggressive responses | Hostile interpretations and faster selection of aggression |
A complete media explanation may involve all three:
Repeated violence produces less emotional arousal.
Aggression begins to appear normal.
Aggressive scripts become well rehearsed.
A later provocation activates the script.
The person feels little emotional concern and weak social restraint.
An aggressive response becomes more likely.
Social Learning and Reinforcement in Games
Computer games may also influence aggression through social learning.
The player may observe:
Powerful aggressive characters.
Attractive heroes using violence.
Teammates being praised for aggression.
Opponents being defeated through violence.
Aggression producing desirable outcomes.
The player may then:
Attend to the behaviour.
Remember the response.
Reproduce it within the game.
Feel motivated to repeat it because it is rewarded.
Examples of reinforcement include:
Receiving points.
Reaching a new level.
Winning a match.
Gaining virtual resources.
Receiving praise from teammates.
Increasing status within the game.
AQA’s June 2022 mark scheme recognises observation, imitation, modelling, positive reinforcement through game progression and identification with attractive models as possible explanations of computer-game effects.
Interactivity and Rehearsal
Computer games require the player to perform the aggressive response repeatedly.
This may mean the player is not simply watching a script. They are rehearsing it.
Repeated rehearsal may:
Strengthen the script.
Make the sequence easier to remember.
Increase confidence in selecting aggressive responses.
Associate aggression with reward.
Make aggressive thoughts more accessible.
However, game actions are often highly specific and unrealistic. The player may not transfer them to everyday life.
Identification with Game Characters
Identification occurs when a person adopts the perspective or behaviour of a model they perceive as similar, attractive or high in status.
Identification may be stronger when the character is:
Successful.
Powerful.
Attractive.
Similar to the player.
Customised by the player.
Rewarded for aggression.
Presented as heroic.
The player may be especially motivated to imitate a character whose aggression appears successful.
However, identifying with a fictional character does not mean the player believes every action is appropriate in real life.
The Catharsis Explanation
Media violence may not always increase aggression.
The catharsis explanation proposes that playing violent games can provide a safe outlet for aggressive feelings.
The suggested process is:
The person experiences anger or frustration.
The person expresses aggression within a fictional game.
Aggressive tension is released.
The person feels calmer.
Real-world aggression decreases.
AQA’s June 2022 mark scheme recognises catharsis as a possible effect of computer games and evidence supporting a cathartic effect as a possible evaluation point.
Applying Catharsis
Consider this scenario:
After a frustrating day, Josh plays a competitive fighting game. He reports feeling calmer afterwards and does not argue with his family as he sometimes does when he remains frustrated.
A catharsis explanation would suggest:
Josh entered the game with aggressive tension.
The game provided a fictional outlet.
Expressing aggression within the game released the tension.
His reduced arguing is consistent with a cathartic effect.
However, one example cannot establish that the game caused the reduction. Josh may have become calmer because:
Time had passed.
The game distracted him.
He achieved a reward.
He spoke to friends while playing.
His original frustration became less important.
Catharsis as a Counterargument
Catharsis challenges a simple claim that violent gaming always increases aggression.
If violent games sometimes reduce aggression, media effects may depend on:
The player’s emotional state.
The purpose of playing.
Whether aggression is rewarded.
The social context.
The game’s content.
Individual differences.
The June 2022 examiner report noted that catharsis was rarely included in descriptive responses, although it was sometimes used effectively as a counterargument in evaluation.
Immediate and Long-Term Effects
Media research may examine immediate effects or long-term effects.
Immediate effects
These occur shortly after exposure and may include:
Increased aggressive thoughts.
Greater emotional arousal.
Faster access to aggressive scripts.
More hostile interpretations.
Aggressive responses within an experimental task.
Cognitive priming is particularly useful for explaining immediate effects.
Long-term effects
These may develop after repeated exposure and include:
Desensitisation.
Stronger aggressive scripts.
Changed beliefs about acceptable behaviour.
Reduced concern about violence.
Aggression becoming a learned response.
Long-term effects are harder to establish because researchers cannot control everything a person experiences over months or years.
Applying the Mechanisms to One Scenario
Consider the following scenario:
Ava regularly plays an online game in which she receives points for attacking opponents. She uses an anonymous username and belongs to a team whose members praise threatening messages. After several months, Ava no longer reacts emotionally to violent images. Shortly after playing, she interprets an accidental push at school as deliberate and responds aggressively.
Several mechanisms can be applied.
Social learning and reinforcement
Ava receives points for attacking, so aggression is positively reinforced.
Disinhibition
Her anonymous username reduces responsibility, while threatening messages are approved by the team. Aggressive restraints may weaken.
Desensitisation
Ava’s reduced emotional reaction to violent images suggests that repeated exposure has lowered her responsiveness.
Cognitive priming
Playing immediately before the incident makes aggressive scripts accessible. The accidental push is interpreted as hostile, activating an aggressive response.
A high-quality application answer keeps these processes separate rather than using the terms as synonyms.
Supporting Evidence for Computer-Game Effects
The June 2022 AQA mark scheme recognises evidence connecting violent computer-game play with:
Increased aggression.
Increased emotion and reduced control.
Desensitisation.
Cognitive priming.
Possible catharsis.
The use of different research methods may provide converging evidence.
Researchers may use:
Laboratory experiments.
Correlational studies.
Longitudinal research.
Physiological measures.
Observations.
Self-report measures.
Meta-analysis.
However, each method has different strengths and limitations.
Strength: Experimental Evidence
Laboratory experiments can investigate whether exposure to violent media produces a short-term change in aggression.
Researchers may:
Allocate participants to violent or neutral media conditions.
Standardise exposure time.
Control the setting.
Measure aggressive thoughts or behaviour.
Compare the conditions.
Advantages include:
Control of extraneous variables.
Standardised procedures.
Easier replication.
Greater ability to investigate cause and effect.
The June 2023 cognitive-priming question used an experiment comparing exposure to violent and neutral films before computer-game performance.
Limitation: Artificial Measures of Aggression
Laboratory aggression may be measured through:
Noise blasts.
Aggressive word completion.
Decisions made in a game.
Classification of responses.
Willingness to punish another participant.
Aggressive statements.
These measures may not represent serious aggression outside the laboratory.
A person choosing an aggressive response in a game is not equivalent to:
Assault.
Bullying.
Domestic violence.
Threatening someone in everyday life.
Deliberate property damage.
This creates a problem of ecological validity.
The study may demonstrate an effect on an experimental measure without showing that violent media produce meaningful real-world aggression.
Limitation: Demand Characteristics
Participants may guess that researchers are investigating violence and aggression.
They may then:
Behave more aggressively because they believe this is expected.
Deliberately avoid aggressive responses.
Exaggerate emotional reactions.
Conceal their true feelings.
This reduces internal validity because measured aggression may reflect the participant’s interpretation of the study rather than the effect of media exposure.
Strength: Objective Physiological Measures
Desensitisation can be investigated using physiological measures such as:
Heart rate.
Skin conductance.
Other indicators of sympathetic nervous system arousal.
These measures can be more objective than asking participants whether they feel disturbed.
They may be less affected by:
Social desirability.
Memory errors.
Differences in how people describe emotions.
However, reduced arousal is not necessarily reduced empathy or increased aggression.
A participant may show low arousal because they:
Recognise the material as fictional.
Have previously seen similar content.
Are tired.
Differ naturally in physiological responsiveness.
Researchers must avoid treating a physiological measure as direct proof of aggressive behaviour.
Limitation: Correlation Does Not Establish Causation
Much research compares the amount of violent gaming with levels of aggression.
A positive correlation could mean:
Violent games increase aggression.
Aggressive people prefer violent games.
A third variable increases both violent gaming and aggression.
The June 2022 AQA mark scheme specifically identifies the correlational nature of much of the evidence as a problem when claiming that computer games affect aggression.
Direction of Effect
The direction of effect problem asks which variable influences the other.
It is possible that:
Violent gaming → increased aggression
It is also possible that:
Existing aggression → preference for violent games
An aggressive person may select games that match their interests.
This is known as selective exposure.
Without longitudinal or experimental evidence, the direction of the relationship cannot be established confidently.
This connects with relationships between co-variables [Lesson 7: Correlations].
Third Variables
A relationship between violent gaming and aggression may be caused partly by other variables.
Possible third variables include:
Personality.
Existing aggression.
Impulsivity.
Family conflict.
Exposure to real violence.
Aggressive peer groups.
Parental supervision.
Social isolation.
Amount of sleep.
Competitive motivation.
For example, someone with high impulsivity may:
Prefer fast and violent games.
React aggressively to provocation.
The game may not be the original cause of either behaviour.
Individual Differences
The effects of media are unlikely to be identical for every player.
Possible mediating factors include:
Existing aggressive tendencies.
Personality.
Age.
Identification with the character.
Interpretation of the game.
Previous learning.
Frequency of play.
Family environment.
Peer norms.
Emotional regulation.
The June 2022 mark scheme recognises the possibility that certain personality types are attracted to violent games, complicating causal conclusions.
A more realistic conclusion is:
Violent media may have a stronger effect on some individuals than others.
Content and Context Matter
Not all violent games are the same.
Their effects may depend on whether aggression is:
Rewarded.
Punished.
Presented as heroic.
Presented as harmful.
Realistic.
Fantastical.
Competitive.
Cooperative.
Directed towards human or imaginary targets.
Performed alone or within a group.
For example, a game in which players cooperate to protect others may have different social effects from one that rewards unprovoked aggression.
Treating all games as one category may hide important differences.
Competition as an Alternative Explanation
Some computer games are highly competitive.
Competition may produce:
Frustration.
Arousal.
Anger following defeat.
Conflict with teammates.
Hostility towards opponents.
Aggression following gaming may therefore result from competition rather than violent content.
A useful study would compare:
A violent competitive game.
A non-violent competitive game.
A violent non-competitive game.
A non-violent non-competitive game.
This would help separate the influence of violence from the influence of competition.
Frustration During Gaming
Computer games may obstruct goals when:
A player loses.
Another player cheats.
The connection fails.
Progress is lost.
A teammate performs poorly.
A difficult level cannot be completed.
Aggression following play may therefore be explained by blocked goals and negative affect [Lesson 5: The frustration-aggression hypothesis].
This is an important alternative explanation.
The aggression may not be caused by violent content. It may be caused by frustration within the game.
Social Context
Gaming can be:
Solitary.
Cooperative.
Competitive.
Anonymous.
Played with friends.
Played with strangers.
Organised around supportive or hostile groups.
The social context may influence behaviour as much as the content.
For example:
Supportive teammates may encourage cooperation.
Hostile teammates may model aggressive language.
Anonymous opponents may be easier to dehumanise.
Friends may discourage unacceptable behaviour.
A media explanation that ignores the social context may be incomplete.
Cultural Consistency
If relationships between violent gaming and aggression appear across cultures, this may support the idea that the effect is not limited to one society.
The June 2022 mark scheme recognises consistency across cultures as a possible evaluation point.
However, similar correlations across cultures do not establish causation.
Cultures may share:
Similar game content.
Similar competitive gaming environments.
Similar measures of aggression.
Similar selection effects.
Cultural consistency strengthens generalisability but does not remove methodological problems.
Practical Implications
Research into media aggression may influence:
Age ratings.
Parental guidance.
Game design.
Online moderation.
Education about media effects.
Controls on anonymous harassment.
Warnings about violent content.
Support for healthier gaming habits.
For example, game designers might:
Avoid rewarding unnecessary aggression.
Present realistic consequences.
Encourage cooperation.
Improve reporting systems.
Make players accountable for abusive communication.
These applications show why research has social importance.
However, restrictions should be based on strong evidence. Overstating weak or correlational findings could lead to unnecessary moral panic about computer games.
Socially Sensitive Implications
Research into violent games is socially sensitive because it may affect how players are perceived.
Possible consequences include:
Labelling gamers as aggressive.
Blaming games for complex social violence.
Ignoring family, biological or social causes.
Restricting media without strong evidence.
Creating fear among parents.
Treating correlations as proof of danger.
Psychologists must report findings carefully.
A responsible conclusion would be:
Violent gaming may be one risk factor for aggression, but it is not a sufficient explanation of violent behaviour.
Environmental Determinism
Media explanations may be criticised as environmentally deterministic because they suggest that exposure controls later behaviour.
A strongly deterministic account might imply:
Repeated violent gaming inevitably produces aggression.
This underestimates:
Personal choice.
Individual differences.
Understanding of fiction.
Moral judgement.
Family influences.
Resistance to media messages.
Alternative behavioural responses.
A less deterministic account treats media as one influence that changes the probability of aggression.
This connects with environmental causes and personal control [Lesson 3: Free will and determinism].
Environmental Reductionism
Media explanations may be environmentally reductionist because they reduce aggression to exposure to violent content.
This has scientific advantages:
Media exposure can be manipulated.
Aggressive responses can be measured.
Specific mechanisms can be tested.
However, aggression may also be influenced by:
Neural functioning.
Hormones.
Genetic vulnerability.
Frustration.
Social learning outside media.
Group identity.
Culture.
Family relationships.
Personality.
Violent media may contribute to aggression without providing a complete explanation.
This connects with levels of explanation in psychology [Lesson 5: Holism and reductionism].
A More Complete Interactionist Account
The effects of media may result from an interaction between:
Media content.
Individual characteristics.
Social circumstances.
Immediate triggers.
Previous learning.
For example:
A person has an existing tendency towards impulsive aggression.
They frequently play games that reward aggressive responses.
Repeated exposure strengthens aggressive scripts.
Anonymous team members approve threatening behaviour.
A frustrating real-life event activates the script.
Aggression becomes more likely.
This account does not treat media as the only cause.
Overall Evaluation
Computer games may influence aggression through several psychological processes.
Desensitisation reduces emotional and physiological responses to violence.
Disinhibition weakens social restraints and personal responsibility.
Cognitive priming makes aggressive ideas and behavioural scripts more accessible.
Social learning explains how aggression may be modelled and reinforced.
Catharsis offers the alternative possibility that gaming reduces aggressive tension.
Research supports some short-term relationships between violent media and aggressive thoughts, arousal or experimental behaviour. However, much real-world evidence is correlational, aggression is often measured artificially and personality or social circumstances may affect both game choice and behaviour.
The most balanced conclusion is that violent computer games may increase aggression for some people in some circumstances, especially where aggression is rewarded, scripts are repeatedly rehearsed and social restraints are weak. They do not make every player aggressive and cannot explain serious aggression on their own.
Key Words 🔑
Key word | Student-friendly definition | How it may be used in an exam |
Media influence | An effect of media content on thoughts, emotions or behaviour | Introduce the general topic |
Computer game | An interactive form of media in which the player controls actions | Explain why active participation and rewards may matter |
Desensitisation | A reduced emotional and physiological response after repeated exposure to violence | Explain why violence may become less disturbing |
Sympathetic nervous system arousal | Physiological activation associated with alertness or threat | Explain what becomes reduced through desensitisation |
Empathy | The ability to recognise and respond to another person’s feelings | Explain why reduced concern for victims may weaken restraint |
Disinhibition | The weakening of normal social or moral restraints on behaviour | Explain why a player becomes more willing to act aggressively |
Anonymity | A condition in which a person’s identity is concealed | Explain reduced responsibility in online games |
Social restraint | A learned rule or expectation that discourages unacceptable behaviour | Explain what weakens during disinhibition |
Cognitive priming | The activation of related ideas and scripts by recent media exposure | Explain short-term increases in aggressive thinking |
Cognitive script | A mental representation of how to behave in a particular situation | Explain how repeated aggression may guide later responses |
Prime | A stimulus that makes related information more accessible in memory | Identify the violent image or game acting on later behaviour |
Hostile interpretation | Understanding an ambiguous action as deliberately threatening | Explain how priming may affect appraisal |
Modelling | Demonstrating behaviour that may be observed and copied | Link computer games with social learning theory |
Identification | Adopting the perspective or behaviour of an attractive or similar model | Explain why a game character may be influential |
Positive reinforcement | A desirable consequence that increases repetition of behaviour | Explain the effects of points, rewards and level progression |
Vicarious reinforcement | Learning from observing another person being rewarded | Explain why players may imitate successful aggressive characters |
Catharsis | The proposed release of aggressive tension through expressing aggression | Explain how games might reduce real-world aggression |
Selective exposure | The tendency to choose media that matches existing preferences or characteristics | Evaluate the direction of effect |
Direction of effect | Uncertainty about which of two related variables influences the other | Evaluate correlational gaming research |
Third variable | Another factor that may explain an observed relationship | Evaluate claims that violent games cause aggression |
Ecological validity | The extent to which findings represent real-life behaviour | Evaluate laboratory measures of aggression |
Environmental determinism | The view that behaviour is controlled by external influences | Evaluate claims that media exposure determines aggression |
Environmental reductionism | Explaining complex behaviour through limited environmental factors | Evaluate media as a complete explanation |
Hints from the Examiner Reports 💡
Explain Mechanisms Rather Than Describing Studies
Examiner hint: A research conclusion alone is not a psychological explanation.
The June 2022 examiner report noted that low-scoring answers often consisted of a detailed study description followed only by the conclusion that games increased aggression. Better answers explained the effect through desensitisation, disinhibition and cognitive priming.
For an outline question, organise the answer around mechanisms:
Name the mechanism.
Define it accurately.
Explain the psychological process.
Link it to increased or decreased aggression.
Keep the Three Mechanisms Distinct
Examiner hint: Do not use desensitisation and disinhibition as synonyms.
The June 2025 examiner report found that some students confused these concepts.
Remember:
Desensitisation: reduced reaction to violence.
Disinhibition: reduced restraint against aggression.
Cognitive priming: increased accessibility of aggressive ideas and scripts.
Include Reduced Physiological Arousal
For desensitisation, refer to a reduced emotional or physiological response.
A high-quality sentence is:
Repeated exposure to violent content may reduce sympathetic nervous system arousal, making violence appear less disturbing and weakening an emotional inhibition against aggression.
Simply saying “the person gets used to it” lacks psychological detail.
Explain What Is Disinhibited
Do not define disinhibition only as “becoming aggressive”.
Explain that previously learned social restraints become weaker.
A strong explanation might state:
Aggression is repeatedly shown as rewarded and consequence-free, so it appears more acceptable. The individual’s learned restraint against behaving aggressively is weakened.
Where anonymity is involved, explain reduced responsibility explicitly.
Use a Complete Priming Chain
A strong cognitive-priming answer includes:
Exposure to aggressive images.
Activation or strengthening of an aggressive script.
Storage or accessibility within memory.
A later similar cue.
Activation of the script.
Increased likelihood of aggression.
The June 2023 mark scheme required students to predict more high aggression following violent media and explain this through a stored script triggered in a later situation.
Predict the Direction of Results
When given a priming experiment, state clearly which group should show more aggression.
For example:
Participants exposed to the violent film should be more likely to fall into the high-aggression category because aggressive scripts have been activated.
Do not explain the theory without answering the question’s request for a likely outcome.
Include the Possibility of Reduced Aggression
The examiner report noted that catharsis was rarely included in outline responses.
Where the question asks about the effects of games rather than only how they increase aggression, it may be useful to mention:
Gaming could provide a cathartic outlet and reduce aggression outside the game.
This is particularly useful as a counterargument in evaluation.
Link Methodological Criticism to the Conclusion
The June 2022 mark scheme states that methodological evaluation needs to be connected to the claimed effect on aggression.
Do not write only:
The study was a laboratory experiment, so it lacked ecological validity.
Develop the implication:
Laboratory measures such as aggressive word choices may not represent harmful real-life behaviour, so the study may overstate the effect of violent gaming on actual aggression.
Do Not Treat Correlation as Causation
A strong answer should recognise:
Violent gaming may increase aggression.
Aggressive people may select violent games.
A third variable may influence both.
Use cautious wording:
“Is associated with.”
“May contribute to.”
“Increases the likelihood.”
“Is consistent with.”
Avoid:
“Proves.”
“Always causes.”
“Turns people violent.”
Use Evidence to Construct an Argument
Instead of listing a study, explain its meaning:
Evidence of reduced physiological arousal after violent gaming supports desensitisation because repeated exposure appears to weaken the normal response to violence. However, lower arousal does not demonstrate that the participant will behave aggressively, so the behavioural conclusion remains uncertain.
Answer the Command Word
For outline, explain the effects clearly without lengthy evaluation.
For briefly evaluate, use one or two developed AO3 points rather than several undeveloped labels.
The June 2022 paper used separate four-mark questions for outlining and evaluating computer-game effects.
Common Mistakes ⚠️
Mistake 1
Mistake: Saying desensitisation means that aggression becomes socially acceptable.
Why this is inaccurate:
Social acceptability and weakened restraints are features of disinhibition. Desensitisation concerns reduced emotional or physiological response.
How to improve:
Refer to reduced arousal, shock, concern or empathy.
Mistake 2
Mistake: Saying disinhibition means reduced physiological arousal.
Why this is inaccurate:
Reduced arousal is desensitisation. Disinhibition is the weakening of social or moral restraints.
How to improve:
Explain why aggression appears permitted, normal or free from consequences.
Mistake 3
Mistake: Defining cognitive priming as copying a game character.
Why this is inaccurate:
Copying a character is modelling or imitation. Priming involves aggressive ideas or scripts becoming more accessible.
How to improve:
Use the sequence:
Media exposure → aggressive script → later cue → script activated → possible aggression
Mistake 4
Mistake: Saying the game teaches the person that every situation is aggressive.
Why this is too absolute:
Priming changes the accessibility of an interpretation. It does not remove every alternative interpretation.
How to improve:
State that an ambiguous event may be more likely to be interpreted as hostile.
Mistake 5
Mistake: Treating aggressive thoughts as identical to aggressive behaviour.
Why this is incorrect:
A person may experience an aggressive thought without acting on it.
How to improve:
Distinguish cognitive, emotional, physiological and behavioural outcomes.
Mistake 6
Mistake: Claiming that anonymity is desensitising.
Why this is inaccurate:
Anonymity reduces identifiability and responsibility. This is linked with disinhibition and de-individuation.
How to improve:
Connect anonymity with reduced public self-awareness and weakened restraint.
Mistake 7
Mistake: Claiming violent games always increase aggression.
Why this is incorrect:
Effects may depend on the player, game, social context and research measure. Catharsis is also a possible counterargument.
How to improve:
Use cautious probability language.
Mistake 8
Mistake: Describing a study without explaining a media mechanism.
Why this is ineffective:
The study may show an association but does not demonstrate that you understand why media might affect aggression.
How to improve:
Use evidence after explaining the mechanism.
Mistake 9
Mistake: Saying a correlation proves that games cause aggression.
Why this is incorrect:
Aggressive people may prefer violent games, or another variable may influence both.
How to improve:
Discuss direction of effect and third variables.
Mistake 10
Mistake: Evaluating a laboratory study without linking the criticism to aggression.
Why this is incomplete:
A methodological label does not explain why the conclusion is weakened.
How to improve:
State why an artificial aggression measure may not predict serious real-world violence.
Mistake 11
Mistake: Ignoring reinforcement within games.
Why this matters:
Players may receive points, progression or approval for aggressive behaviour.
How to improve:
Link rewards to the increased likelihood of repeating the aggressive response.
Mistake 12
Mistake: Saying catharsis is definitely correct.
Why this is too strong:
A player feeling calmer after gaming does not establish that aggression caused the reduction.
How to improve:
Present catharsis as a possible alternative effect and evaluate the evidence.
Mistake 13
Mistake: Assuming all computer games have the same effect.
Why this is inaccurate:
Games differ in violence, competition, rewards, realism and social context.
How to improve:
Refer to features of the particular game described in the question.
Mistake 14
Mistake: Confusing the effects of violent content with the effects of losing.
Why this is a problem:
Aggression after gaming may result from frustration or competition rather than violent imagery.
How to improve:
Consider the frustration-aggression hypothesis as an alternative explanation.
Exam-Style Questions ✍️
Question 1
Which of the following is the best definition of desensitisation? [1 mark]
A. Aggressive ideas becoming more accessible in memoryB. Copying the behaviour of an aggressive characterC. Reduced emotional and physiological response to violenceD. Weakened social rules against behaving aggressively
Question 2
Explain one difference between desensitisation and disinhibition. [2 marks]
Question 3
Outline how cognitive priming may lead to aggression. [4 marks]
Question 4
Maya regularly plays a computer game in which she receives points for attacking characters. After several months, she shows little emotional reaction when she sees real-life violence in a news report.
Use your knowledge of media influences to explain Maya’s response. [4 marks]
Question 5
Owen uses an anonymous username when playing online. His teammates regularly praise players who threaten opponents. Owen begins sending aggressive messages, although he would not make similar comments face to face.
Use your knowledge of disinhibition to explain Owen’s behaviour. [4 marks]
Question 6
Participants watched either a violent video or a neutral video. They then played an unfamiliar computer game. Their behaviour was classified as showing high or low aggression.
Video watched | High aggression | Low aggression |
Violent video | 16 | 4 |
Neutral video | 6 | 14 |
Describe the results and explain how cognitive priming could account for them. [6 marks]
Question 7
Explain one reason why a correlation between violent computer-game use and aggression would not demonstrate that the games caused the aggression. [3 marks]
Question 8
Briefly evaluate the effects of computer games on aggression. [4 marks]
Question 9
Discuss media influences on aggression, including the effects of computer games. [16 marks]
Answers and Mark Scheme
Question 1
Answer: C
Reduced emotional and physiological response to violence. [1 mark]
Question 2
Award:
One mark for accurately explaining desensitisation.
One mark for accurately explaining disinhibition or making the distinction explicit.
Example:
Desensitisation involves a reduced emotional or physiological reaction to violent content. Disinhibition involves weakened social or moral restraints, so the person becomes more willing to behave aggressively.
Maximum: 2 marks
Question 3
Award one mark for each relevant point, up to four marks:
Exposure to violent media activates aggressive thoughts or scripts.
The script is stored or becomes more accessible in memory.
A later similar or ambiguous situation acts as a cue.
The cue activates the aggressive script.
The person may interpret the situation as hostile.
An aggressive response becomes more readily available.
Aggression becomes more likely.
A full-mark answer should present cognitive priming as a connected process.
Question 4
Award up to four marks for effective application:
Maya has repeatedly been exposed to violent content.
Her aggressive actions are positively reinforced through points.
Repeated exposure may have produced desensitisation.
Desensitisation involves reduced emotional or physiological responsiveness.
Her limited reaction to the news report suggests that violence has become less disturbing.
Reduced concern or empathy may weaken an emotional restraint against aggression.
The effect has generalised from fictional game violence to real images.
Do not award full marks for stating only that Maya has become accustomed to violence.
Question 5
Award up to four marks for effective application:
Owen’s anonymous username conceals his identity.
This may reduce public self-awareness.
Owen may feel less personally responsible for his comments.
The expectation of identification or punishment is reduced.
His teammates establish an aggressive norm.
Praise for threats makes aggressive communication appear acceptable.
Normal restraints against aggression become weaker.
This explains why Owen behaves differently online and face to face.
Question 6
Award up to two marks for describing the results:
More participants showed high aggression after the violent video.
Sixteen participants in the violent condition showed high aggression, compared with six in the neutral condition.
Most participants in the neutral condition showed low aggression.
Fourteen participants in the neutral condition showed low aggression, compared with four in the violent condition.
Award up to four marks for explanation:
The violent video acts as an aggressive prime.
Aggressive images activate an aggressive script.
The script becomes accessible in memory.
The unfamiliar computer game provides a later situation in which the script can be used.
Participants may interpret events in the game more aggressively.
Aggressive responses become easier to select.
The neutral video does not activate the same aggressive script.
The results are consistent with priming but do not prove it is the only cause.
Question 7
Award one mark for identifying a valid problem and up to two marks for explanation.
Possible answers include:
Direction of effect
Aggressive people may prefer violent computer games. The pre-existing aggression could therefore cause game selection rather than the games causing aggression.
Third variable
A factor such as impulsivity, family conflict or aggressive peer groups could increase both violent gaming and aggression. The apparent relationship may therefore be explained by this third variable.
Measurement
The aggression measure may not represent real-life violence, so the correlation may not demonstrate an effect on meaningful aggressive behaviour.
Maximum: 3 marks
Question 8
Award up to four marks for clear and effective evaluation.
Possible content:
Evidence supports short-term increases in aggressive thoughts or experimental behaviour.
Physiological evidence supports desensitisation.
Some evidence supports a cathartic effect.
Much evidence is correlational.
Aggressive individuals may select violent games.
Personality or other third variables may affect both gaming and aggression.
Laboratory measures may lack ecological validity.
Effects may vary according to the player, game and social context.
Findings may have implications for age ratings and game design.
Example full-mark response:
Evidence that violent gaming is followed by reduced physiological responses to violent images supports desensitisation. However, reduced arousal does not necessarily lead to aggressive behaviour. Much research is also correlational, so aggressive individuals may simply prefer violent games. The evidence therefore suggests a possible influence but does not establish that games directly cause real-life aggression.
Question 9
A high-level response should include accurate knowledge and developed evaluation.
Indicative AO1 content
Effects of violent computer games.
Desensitisation.
Reduced sympathetic nervous system arousal.
Reduced emotional response or empathy.
Disinhibition.
Weakening of social and moral restraints.
Aggression appearing normal, justified or rewarding.
Anonymity and reduced personal responsibility.
Cognitive priming.
Aggressive thoughts and scripts.
Later cues activating stored scripts.
Hostile interpretation of ambiguous events.
Social learning, modelling and identification.
Positive and vicarious reinforcement.
Active rehearsal within games.
Catharsis as a possible reduction in aggression.
Indicative AO3 content
Evidence supporting increased aggression after violent gaming.
Physiological evidence for desensitisation.
Evidence supporting cognitive priming.
Evidence or arguments for catharsis.
Laboratory control and replicability.
Artificial measures of aggression.
Demand characteristics.
Correlational evidence.
Direction of effect.
Selective exposure.
Third variables.
Individual differences.
Variation between games.
Competition and frustration as alternative explanations.
Social context of gaming.
Cultural consistency.
Practical implications.
Environmental determinism.
Environmental reductionism.
Interaction between media, personality and situation.
Thirteen to sixteen marks: Knowledge is accurate and generally detailed. Discussion is thorough, focused and effective. Evidence is used to construct arguments, alternative explanations are considered and specialist terminology is precise.
Nine to twelve marks: Knowledge is mostly accurate and discussion is generally effective. Several mechanisms and evaluation points are included, although some lack development or precision.
Five to eight marks: Some relevant knowledge is present, but the answer is mainly descriptive. Mechanisms may be confused, or evaluation may be limited and generic.
One to four marks: Knowledge is very limited or inaccurate. The response may describe computer games generally without explaining desensitisation, disinhibition or cognitive priming.
Comments