Examines the Dollard et al. (1939) frustration-aggression hypothesis. The original formulation's main proposition is limited to interference with an expected attainment of a desired goal on hostile (emotional) aggression. Although some studies have yielded negative results, others support the core proposition. Frustrations can create aggressive inclinations even when they are not arbitrary or aimed at the subject personally. Interpretations and attributions can be understood partly in terms of the original analysis but they can also influence the unpleasantness of the thwarting. A proposed revision of the 1939 model holds that frustrations generate aggressive inclinations to the degree that they arouse negative affect. Evidence regarding the aggressive consequences of aversive events is reviewed, and Berkowitz's cognitive-neoassociationistic model is summarized.

Noting that a wide variety of unpleasant feelings, including sadness and depression, apparently can give rise to anger and aggression, I propose a cognitive-neoassociationistic model to account for the effects of negative affect on the development of angry feelings and the display of emotional aggression. Negative affect tends to activate ideas, memories, and expressive-motor reactions associated with anger and aggression as well as rudimentary angry feelings. Subsequent thought involving attributions, appraisals, and schematic conceptions can then intensify, suppress, enrich, or differentiate the initial reactions. Bodily reactions as well as emotion-relevant thoughts can activate the other components of the particular emotion network to which they are linked. Research findings consistent with the model are summarized. Experimental findings are also reported indicating that attention to one's negative feelings can lead to a regulation of the overt effects of the negative affect, I argue that the model can integrate the core aspect of the James-Lange theory with the newer cognitive theories of emotion.

Research on violent television and films, video games, and music reveals unequivocal evidence that media violence increases the likelihood of aggressive and violent behavior in both immediate and long-term contexts. The effects appear larger for milder than for more severe forms of aggression, but the effects on severe forms of violence are also substantial (r = .13 to .32) when compared with effects of other violence risk factors or medical effects deemed important by the medical community (e.g., effect of aspirin on heart attacks). The research base is large; diverse in methods, samples, and media genres; and consistent in overall findings. The evidence is clearest within the most extensively researched domain, television and film violence. The growing body of video-game research yields essentially the same conclusions. Short-term exposure increases the likelihood of physically and verbally aggressive behavior, aggressive thoughts, and aggressive emotions. Recent large-scale longitudinal studies provide converging evidence linking frequent exposure to violent media in childhood with aggression later in life, including physical assaults and spouse abuse. Because extremely violent criminal behaviors (e.g., forcible rape, aggravated assault, homicide) are rare, new longitudinal studies with larger samples are needed to estimate accurately how much habitual childhood exposure to media violence increases the risk for extreme violence. Well-supported theory delineates why and when exposure to media violence increases aggression and violence. Media violence produces short-term increases by priming existing aggressive scripts and cognitions, increasing physiological arousal, and triggering an automatic tendency to imitate observed behaviors. Media violence produces long-term effects via several types of learning processes leading to the acquisition of lasting (and automatically accessible) aggressive scripts, interpretational schemas, and aggression-supporting beliefs about social behavior, and by reducing individuals' normal negative emotional responses to violence (i.e., desensitization). Certain characteristics of viewers (e.g., identification with aggressive characters), social environments (e.g., parental influences), and media content (e.g., attractiveness of the perpetrator) can influence the degree to which media violence affects aggression, but there are some inconsistencies in research results. This research also suggests some avenues for preventive intervention (e.g., parental supervision, interpretation, and control of children's media use). However, extant research on moderators suggests that no one is wholly immune to the effects of media violence. Recent surveys reveal an extensive presence of violence in modern media. Furthermore, many children and youth spend an inordinate amount of time consuming violent media. Although it is clear that reducing exposure to media violence will reduce aggression and violence, it is less clear what sorts of interventions will produce a reduction in exposure. The sparse ...

Research bearing on several popular conceptions of the major determinants of anger arousal indicates that the particular appraisals often identified as causes of anger frequently only serve to affect the intensity of the anger that is generated. Research into effects of physical pain or other physically unpleasant conditions or involving social stresses suggests that decidedly aversive conditions are a major spur to anger. Experiments are also reviewed showing that anger-related muscular movements can also lead to anger-related feelings, memories, cognitions, and autonomic responses. Alternative explanations for the findings are discussed. The authors urge emotion theorists to widen their methodology and analyses so that they give careful, detailed attention to the many different factors that can influence anger.A great many people are angry at one time or another. After surveying studies dating back to World War I, Averill (1982) concluded that "Depending upon how records are kept, most people report becoming mildly to moderately angry anywhere from several times a day to several times a week" (p. 1146). Perhaps because this emotion is so common, 1 specific definitions of this term often vary in detail (see Averill, 1982;Kassinove, 1995, for reviews of the many different usages of this word), and there are many different, and even opposing, cultural beliefs prescribing how and when this affective state should be managed.Although there certainly is no shortage of research articles dealing with anger, investigators inquiring into the development and functioning of emotions would do well to devote more of their effort and ingenuity to the study of this particular affective state. It obviously is a socially very important emotion, one that has attracted a great deal of attention in the mass media as well as in the various health fields, but it also presents emotion theorists with a number of intriguing conceptual questions. As just one example, there is the often-assumed relationship between hedonic valence and approach-avoidance inclinations. According to Watson, Wiese, Vaidya, and Tellegen (1999), positive affect is typically associated with approach tendencies, whereas negative arousal is usually linked to an urge to avoid the instigating stimulus. Anger seems to be relatively unique in this regard and is often associated with approach rather than with avoidance inclinations (see Harmon-Jones & Allen, 1998;Harmon-Jones & Sigelman, 2001). Then too, research into the conditions under which anger is aroused can also touch on the metatheoretical controversy as to whether emotions can be evoked independently of cognitions. Although we do not want to revive the now well-worn argument as to just what is involved in the concept cognition, if one adopts the relatively restricted definition favored by Izard (1993) and Zajonc Leonard Berkowitz and Eddie Harmon-Jones, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-Madison.We thank the individuals who provided valuable comments on previous versions of this article: Jack B...

No abstract