Search PubMed⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 11752478

Human aggression.

Craig A Anderson·Brad J Bushman
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Research on human aggression has progressed to a point at which a unifying framework is needed. Major domain-limited theories of aggression include cognitive neoassociation, social learning, social interaction, script, and excitation transfer theories. Using the general aggression model (GAM), this review posits cognition, affect, and arousal to mediate the effects of situational and personological variables on aggression. The review also organizes recent theories of the development and persistence of aggressive personality. Personality is conceptualized as a set of stable knowledge structures that individuals use to interpret events in their social world and to guide their behavior. In addition to organizing what is already known about human aggression, this review, using the GAM framework, also serves the heuristic function of suggesting what research is needed to fill in theoretical gaps and can be used to create and test interventions for reducing aggression.

Explore related subjects

AffectAggressionArousalCognitionInterpersonal RelationsLearningMotivationPsychological TheoryJournal ArticleResearch Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Craig A Anderson, Brad J Bushman. 2002. Human aggression.. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2002

The borderline diagnosis II: biology, genetics, and clinical course.

In Part I of this three-part article, consideration of the core features of BPD psychopathology, of comorbidity with Axis I disorders, and of underlying personality trait structure suggested that the borderline diagnosis might be productively studied from the perspective of dimensions of trait expression, in addition to that of the category itself. In Part II, we review the biology, genetics, and clinical course of borderline personality disorder (BPD), continuing to attend to the utility of a focus on fundamental dimensions of psychopathology. Biological approaches to the study of personality can identify individual differences with both genetic and environmental influences. The aspects of personality disorder that are likely to have biologic correlates are those involving regulation of affects, impulse/action patterns, cognitive organization and anxiety/inhibition. For BPD, key psychobiological domains include impulsive aggression, associated with reduced serotonergic activity in the brain, and affective instability, associated with increased responsivity of cholinergic systems. There may be a strong genetic component for the development of BPD, but it seems clear, at least, that there are strong genetic influences on traits that underlie it, such as neuroticism, impulsivity, anxiousness, affective lability, and insecure attachment. The course of BPD suggests a heterogeneous disorder. Predictors of poor prognosis include history of childhood sexual abuse, early age at first psychiatric contact, chronicity of symptoms, affective instability, aggression, substance abuse, and increased comorbidity. For research purposes, at least, biological, genetic, and prognostic studies all continue to suggest the need to supplement categorical diagnoses of BPD with assessments of key underlying personality trait dimensions and with historical and clinical observations apart from those needed to make the borderline diagnosis itself.

Affect↗
PubMed2002

The influence of placebo awareness on stimulant drug response in a double-blind trial.

RATIONALE: Critics have called into question findings from double-blind placebo-controlled studies because subjects are given drug administration instructions informing them of a placebo condition. The assertion that these drug administration instructions bias estimates of effectiveness has undergone surprisingly little empirical investigation. OBJECTIVES: The primary objective of this study was to determine whether drug administration instructions informing subjects of a placebo condition affect the drug response and affect the saliva concentration of the stimulant. METHODS: We assessed caffeine responses and levels of saliva concentration of caffeine in 52 subjects who were randomly assigned to receive one of two drug administration instructions: (a) placebo-informed instructions (i.e., individuals informed of the placebo) analogous to those used in double-blind studies and (b) placebo-uninformed instructions (i.e., individuals informed they are taking an active stimulant). RESULTS: On most measures (systolic blood pressure, heart rate, hand steadiness, reaction time, fatigue, and tension), drug administration instructions did not significantly influence caffeine response. Instructions also had no significant effect on saliva concentration of caffeine. However, only individuals who were uninformed of the placebo condition showed significant diastolic blood pressure and vigor increases with 125 mg caffeine, and significant hand steadiness impairment and vigor increases with 325 mg caffeine compared to placebo. CONCLUSIONS: These overall findings suggest that a limited bias is introduced by drug administration instructions. The results do not support any suggestion that information about the existence of a placebo condition dramatically influences conclusions drawn about drug responses in placebo-controlled trials.

Affect↗