When God Sanctions Killing

Bushman, Brad J.; Ridge, Robert D.; Das, Enny; Key, Colin W.; Busath, Gregory

doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01873.x

Cited by 211 publications

(51 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, participants did not think that exposure to violent literature increased aggression. Although some studies have shown that reading violent literature can increase aggression (Stockdale, Coyne, Nelson, & Padilla-Walker, 2013), including violent stories from the Bible (Bushman, Ridge, Das, Key, & Busath, 2007), much more research is needed on this topic before firm conclusions can be drawn. Although pediatricians and media researchers thought violent sports increased aggression in children, parents did not.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

There is broad consensus: Media researchers agree that violent media increase aggression in children, and pediatricians and parents concur.

Bushman

Gollwitzer

Cruz

2015

Psychology of Popular Media Culture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

News reports and even some researchers suggest that there is no consensus on the basic question of whether violent media increase aggression in children. The purpose of this study was to test whether media researchers are in fact divided on this issue, and to compare the opinions of researchers with those of pediatricians and parents. Participants (n ϭ 371 media psychologists and mass communication scientists, n ϭ 92 pediatricians, n ϭ 268 parents) completed an anonymous online survey about whether exposure to different types of violent media (i.e., comic books, Internet sites, literature, movies, music, music videos, sports, TV programs, video games) increase aggression in children, whether that effect is causal, and whether it is a major factor in real-world violence. All groups agreed that exposure to media violence can increase aggression in children (overall d ϭ 0.49, a medium-sized effect). Ratings for violent video games and movies produced the highest level of agreement, whereas ratings for violent literature and comic books produced the lowest level of agreement. This pattern was highly consistent across all groups, indicating broad consensus on this issue. The only question on which groups differed in their opinions was whether media violence was a major factor in producing real-life violence: parents and pediatricians agreed that it was, media researchers did not agree. Although a few vocal researchers claim there is a "debate" on this issue, the overwhelming majority of researchers believe that violent media increase aggression in children, and that the relationship is causal. Pediatricians are even more convinced, and parents also have little doubt.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

There is broad consensus: Media researchers agree that violent media increase aggression in children, and pediatricians and parents concur.

Bushman

Gollwitzer

Cruz

2015

Psychology of Popular Media Culture

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Activating or priming a religious frame in order to enhance prosociality is as likely to potentiate particularism as it is to activate any general humanitarianism. As seen in studies such as Bushman et al (2007) or Saroglou et al (2009), religiosity may have an activating effect on submissive or conformist attitudes. One implication of this also seen in other areas of the literature is that relying on compliance or conformity with sanctified extemal norms in order to promote prosocial behavior is often antithetical to the development of more sophisticated moral reasoning.…”

Section: Nonprosocial Effects: the Negative Influence Of Religious Prmentioning

confidence: 91%

“…However, the priming literature shows that this is, at best, a double-edged sword because both positive and negative goals can be sanctified. As Bushman et al (2007) demonstrated, activation of sanctification can have a negative effect when the prevailing religious norm is not prosocial or the target group violates religious values, or is merely a religious outgroup. In a different example, Burris and Jackson (1999) found that the more religious a participant was, the more the participant sympathized with a target victim in a depiction of partner abuse, but only when the victim affirmed his or her religious values.…”

Section: Nonprosocial Effects: the Negative Influence Of Religious Prmentioning

confidence: 99%

Does religious belief promote prosociality? A critical examination.

Galen

2012

Psychological Bulletin

347

350

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Numerous authors have suggested that religious belief has a positive association, possibly causal, with prosocial behavior. This article critiques evidence regarding this "religious prosociality" hypothesis from several areas of the literature. The extant literature on religious prosociality is reviewed including domains of charity, volunteering, morality, personality, and well-being. The experimental and quasi-experimental literature regarding controlled prosocial interactions (e.g., sharing and generosity) is reviewed and contrasted with results from naturalistic studies. Conceptual problems in the interpretation of this literature include separating the effects of stereotypes and ingroup biases from impression formation as well as controlling for self-report biases in the measurement of religious prosociality. Many effects attributed to religious processes can be explained in terms of general nonreligious psychological effects. Methodological problems that limit the interpretation of religious prosociality studies include the use of inappropriate comparison groups and the presence of criterion contamination in measures yielding misleading conclusions. Specifically, it is common practice to compare high levels of religiosity with "low religiosity" (e.g., the absence of denominational membership, lack of church attendance, or the low importance of religion), which conflates indifferent or uncommitted believers with the completely nonreligious. Finally, aspects of religious stereotype endorsement and ingroup bias can contribute to nonprosocial effects. These factors necessitate a revision of the religious prosociality hypothesis and suggest that future research should incorporate more stringent controls in order to reach less ambiguous conclusions.

show abstract

“…Bushman and Gibson (2011), for example, describe the CRTT as "a weapon that could be used [by the participants] to blast their pariner" (p. 30). Bushman et al (2007) found suppori for "theories proposed by scholars of religious terrorism who hypothesize that exposure to violent scriptures may induce extremists to engage in aggressive actions" (p. 204) in their study on university students' noise blasts after reading a passage from the Bible in which God sanctions violence. They conclude that "to the extent that religious extremists engage in prolonged, selective reading of the scriptures, focusing on violent retribution toward unbelievers instead of the overall message of acceptance and understanding, one might expect to see increased brutality" (p. 205).…”

Section: Clinical Relevancementioning

confidence: 98%

Press CRTT to measure aggressive behavior: The unstandardized use of the competitive reaction time task in aggression research.

Elson¹,

Mohseni²,

Breuer³

et al. 2014

Psychological Assessment

145

130

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The competitive reaction time task (CRTT) is the measure of aggressive behavior most commonly used in laboratory research. However, the test has been criticized for issues in standardization because there are many different test procedures and at least 13 variants to calculate a score for aggressive behavior. We compared the different published analyses of the CRTT using data from 3 different studies to scrutinize whether it would yield the same results. The comparisons revealed large differences in significance levels and effect sizes between analysis procedures, suggesting that the unstandardized use and analysis of the CRTT have substantial impacts on the results obtained, as well as their interpretations. Based on the outcome of our comparisons, we provide suggestions on how to address some of the issues associated with the CRTT, as well as a guideline for researchers studying aggressive behavior in the laboratory.

show abstract

When God Sanctions Killing

Cited by 211 publications

References 6 publications

There is broad consensus: Media researchers agree that violent media increase aggression in children, and pediatricians and parents concur.

There is broad consensus: Media researchers agree that violent media increase aggression in children, and pediatricians and parents concur.

Does religious belief promote prosociality? A critical examination.

Press CRTT to measure aggressive behavior: The unstandardized use of the competitive reaction time task in aggression research.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About