2. Title: Anderson and Dill (2000): Video games and aggression.
Date: 14th June 2017
Assessment Objective: To understand and know the study of Anderson and Dill (2000): Video games and aggression
Learning Outcomes and differentiation
Grade
Challenge questions
To be able to describe and evaluate the study conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000) and use this as evidence for video games and aggression.
A* - B
How were the participants of this study deceived? (2 marks)
Evaluate Anderson and Dill’s (2000) study. (4 marks)
To be able to describe and evaluate the study conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000)
C - D
To be able to describe and outline the study conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000).
E - F
Success Criteria
To describe and evaluate the study conducted by Anderson and Dill (2000) and be able to use this as evidence towards the debates of aggression and video games.
Do Now!
Write the new title and date in your book. (2 minutes)
Wait for the video to start.
Key words:
Video Games
Aggression
Columbine Massacre.

3. Anderson and Dill (2000): Video games and aggression.
New Title:
Anderson and Dill (2000): Video games and aggression.

4. The Columbine Shootings

5. Anderson & Dill wanted to know if video games would affect the behaviours of young people. It was run around the same time as the Columbine Shootings BUT WAS NOT the reason for the research.

6. Aim: To investigate whether people who played violent games became aggressive

7. Procedure:
210 Psychology Students
Laboratory Experiment
Split into 2 groups
(Independent groups design)
IV = The type of video game played (condition 1= non-violent, condition 2 = violent)
DV = The level of aggression shown after playing the video game (measured by how loud and long they gave a punishment to their opponent for)

8. Procedure:
•Participants told the study was about the development of motor skills so they would not know the true aims.
• Participants told to play a video game in a cubicle for 15mins against an opponent (who didn't really exist)
•After 15mins they were told to play a competitive game against their opponent and the winner would give out a punishment of a loud noise - they could choose how loud to make the noise.
•The experimenter measured how loud and long a punishment each participants gave to their 'opponent'.

9. Findings: - Longest and loudest punishments were given by those who played the violent video game. - Women gave bigger punishments than men.

10. Conclusion: Playing violent video games affected level of aggression
Conclusion: Playing violent video games affected level of aggression. Video games made the participants think in an aggressive way. Long term use of violent video games could result in a permanent change to aggressive thought patterns.

11. Evaluation : Strengths - Laboratory experiment so researcher had high control over experiences. - All participants had the same instructions and procedure meaning that results are reliable. - The findings have useful applications in the real world. It tells us that age restrictions are right on video games as they can affect behaviour.

12. Evaluation : Weaknesses - The participants could have guessed the aim of the experiment as they knew it was a psychology experiment  - Normally play video games at home or in arcades where behaviour isn't monitored.  - Not a realistic study as participants may not have acted naturally - Violated some ethical guidelines. DECEPTION - Did not fully inform participants of aim. PROTECTION- Could have been stressed by loud noise blasts

13. Question
How is Anderson & Dill’s (2000) study evidence towards the nature nurtured debate and what ethics were broken? Explain your answer. (10 marks)

14. How were participants of this study deceived (4 marks)
Extension Question 1
How were participants of this study deceived (4 marks)

15. Extension Question 2
What might have happened if the participants had been told the true aim of the study? (3 marks).