MESSAGE UNCERTAINTY AS A PREDICTOR 0F AROUSAL AND AGGRESSION Thesis for the Degree of Ph. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY GERHARD J. HANNEMAN 1970 i" 1mm RY Michigan State University THt—‘n'g This is to certify that the thesis entitled MESSAGE UI‘ICERTAINTY AS A PREDICTOR O? AROUSAL AND AGGRESSION presented by Gerhard J. Hanneman has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph,D, degree in Communication A i 4? Majér/jloiessor ‘ 1 Date 9?” / 0-169 ABSTRACT MESSAGE UNCERTAINTY AS A PREDICTOR OF AROUSAL AND AGGRESSION BY Mb 0‘0 Gerhard~J§'Hanneman This experiment assessed the effect of a structural message variable, uncertainty, and a contextual message variable, violent content, on physiological arousal and aggressive feelings. Prior research using nonmeaningful stimuli indicated: a positive relationship between stimu- lus uncertainty and arousal; an increase in aggression after exposure to mediated violence; and more arousal when viewing highly uncertain stimuli among high dogmatic subjects but less arousal when viewing low uncertainty stimuli. It was predicted that increased message uncer- tainty would accentuate arousal and aggressive feelings, but arousal would vary with dogmatism. Subjects completed a dogmatism scale prior to the experiment. During the experiment, subjects' GSR arousal was measured during exposure to either a high or low un- certainty violent or nonviolent scene projected on a television set. Afterwards, subjects completed a series 0f aggression scale items. The results were: (l) (2) (3) Gerhard J. Hanneman High uncertainty elicited greater arousal than low uncertainty in the violent message context, and not in the nonviolent context; High uncertainty in the violent context elicited greater arousal than the same level of uncer- tainty in the nonviolent context; High uncertainty elicited greater arousal than low uncertainty among high dogmatics compared to low dogmatics regardless of context. MESSAGE UNCERTAINTY AS A PREDICTOR OF AROUSAL AND AGGRESSION BY ‘95 . 0 Gerhard J: Hanneman A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Communication 1970 047197 The research upon which this dissertation is based was performed pursuant to Contract No. HSM 42-70-32 with the National Institute of Mental Health, Health Services and Mental Health Administration, Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Accepted by the faculty of the Department of Communication, College of Communication Arts, Michigan State University, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Do or of Philosophy degree. Guidance Committee: jagl‘WL‘a/C/hairman ’ U / o 5/ , 4 4‘- AW- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The culmination of a graduate career is exciting. The anticipation of new challenges however becomes clouded not only because of imminent departure from good friends, but by the feeling that scholarship is inevitably a struggle across unproven grounds: a struggle, although savory, always frustrating. Much of this struggle is softened because of the presence of wiser scholars than myself. For the aid of Professor Bradley S. Greenberg, who chaired this thesis, I am grateful; his advice and friendship throughout my stay at M.S.U. was influential and warm. Professor Everett M. Rogers, who introduced me to communi- cation as an undergraduate is a ”together" human being who in various professional roles, and as a friend, provided me with counseling and care. I also still feel the kindness of Professor Elaine Donelson who equipped me and extensively tutored me. I thank Professor Nat Katzman for his help and friendship during my long hot summer; Professor John Gullahorn for his guidance throughout my graduate career. There are many others I have high respect and good feelings for because of their attention (in various ways) to me: Professor Gerald R. Miller, Chairman David K. Berlo and Professor Randall Harrison; my main colleague, Mike Burgoon. Most of all I say "grok" to Beverly; hi to Anita Immele, Jill, Bill Richards; and thanks to Claudia Marshall, Liz Monroe, Judy Nims, Mantha Vlahos, Gil Whiteman; and other colleagues. Many of those in this paragraph have done things for me which transcend this thesis, scholarship and friendship. ii I. II. III. IV. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . Overview of Problem . Uncertainty . . . . Dogmatism . . . . . Arousal: Aggression . . . Hypotheses . . . . METHODS AND PROCEDURES . Overview . . . . . Sample . . . . . . Design and Analysis . Stimuli and Apparatus . Procedures . . . . Independent Variables . Uncertainty . . . . Dogmatism . . . . . Dependent Variables . Control Variables . . Manipulation Checks . “SULTS O O O O O 0 Overview . . . . . Overall Arousal . . . Uncertainty and Arousal Dogmatism and Arousal . Violent Message Content Feelings . . . . Manipulation Checks . Supplemental Analyses . DISCUSSION . . . . . Overview . . . . . Summary . . . . . Discussion . . . . Uncertainty and Arousal Dogmatism and Arousal . Violence and Aggression Research Implications . iii An Interpretatio Violent Message Content, Arousal 000:0... Prob oooyoooo oooHoooo lem and (D U! o o o mo 0 o 0 P. < (D BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . APPENDICES Appendix A. B. C. D. Sequence of Shots in Experimental Stimuli Pre-Experimental Questionnaire. Instructions Read to Subjects . Aggression Scale and Post-Experimental Questionnaire iv 61 65 68 71 72 LIST OF TABLES Absolute GSR Arousal: Baseline, Time 1, and TimeZData OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO T-tests of GSR Arousal Differences from Baseline 0......OOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOO Correlational and T-test Analysis of Dogmatism and Arousal (GSR) ................ Two-way Analysis of Variance of Aggression . Two-way Analysis of Variance of Perceived Vialence Index OCOOOOOOOOOOOOIOOOOOOO0...... Perceived Scene Predictability ............. Two-way Analysis of Variance of Self-report Of Arousal OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOO...0.....00 T-tests of Mean Aggressive Responses for High and Low Arousal ....................... Correlational Analysis of Demographic, Independent, and Dependent Variables ....... 30 31 33 35 36 38 39 41 42 LIST OF FIGURES Relationship between Stimulus Uncertainty, Dogmatism, and Arousal ........................ 7 Conceptual Paradigm of the Experiment ......... 12 Experimental Conditions ....................... 16 vi CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION Overview of Problem Research by Berlyne (1960) and others has indicated that stimulus uncertainty is positively related to an individual's physiological arousal level. While Berlyne used "nonsense" stimuli (e.g., random patterns of geometric shapes), this experiment will attempt to confirm some of his results using "meaningful" stimuli (i.e., television scenes). Thus, 83 viewing highly uncertain violent or nonviolent television scenes should show more arousal than $8 viewing low uncertainty violent or nonviolent television scenes. It is also antici- pated that 83 will show more arousal when viewing a highly uncertain violent scene than $3 viewing a highly uncertain nonviolent scene due to the probable arousal eliciting quali- ties of the context--the violent act--itself. Likewise, the structural properties (i.e., the uncertainty) of the highly uncertain violent scene should combine with contextual pro- perties to produce stronger aggressive feelings from 53 than will be the case when 83 view the low uncertainty violent scene or the high uncertainty nonviolent scene. The study will also investigate the relationship of a personality characteristic to uncertainty induced arousal: dogmatism. Rokeach (1960) posited that high dogmatics are less able to cope with uncertainty. Therefore, high dog- matics should show more arousal, and possibly stronger aggressive responses than low dogmatics when viewing highly uncertain violent scenes. Thus, this experiment will examine: (a) whether uncer- tainty accentuates arousal and/or aggressive feelings in individuals watching violent scenes; and (b) whether dogmatism is a predictor of individual differences in arousal and aggressive feelings when viewing uncertain violent stimuli. This chapter will develop the conceptual bases for this experiment, review relevant prior research, and stipulate the hypotheses. The independent variable of uncertainty and its relationship to arousal will be discussed first, followed by an elaboration of a related but secondary independent variable dogmatism. This will be followed by an explication of the variable of violent message content and the dependent variables of arousal and aggressive feelings. Uncertainty A conceptual basis for the use of uncertainty originates with Shannon and Weaver (1949). Their promulgation of "infor- mation theory" prompted wide investigation of uncertainty in many diverse scientific fields. They stated that uncertainty is greatest in situations where there are the most possible alternative messages and the probabilities of occurrence of the alternatives are nearly equal. When uncertainty is maximum they said, the freedom of choosing among subsequent alternative events or messages is greatest. Miller and Prick (1949) applied the idea of information measurement based on probable alternatives to behavioral science. Others, such as MacKay (1950), Attneave (1959), Berlyne (1960), Luce (1960), and Garner (1962) also discuss behavioral applications of uncertainty and information theory. In the literature incorporating information theory con- cepts, uncertainty is variously defined as freedom of choice, disorganization, randomness, and lack of predictability. Usage here concurs with Schramm's (1955) definition of uncer- tainty as the degree of predictability of the communication situation. That is, uncertainty is defined as the degree of predictability of a series of events (alternatives) prior to the actual occurrence of a given event. The predictability of message events plays a major role in human symbolic behavior and provides a rationale for study- ing uncertainty in communication research (cf. Schramm, 1955). Internal symbolic activity, generating and manipulating signs and cues, consists in part of language behavior, mnemonic activities and perception (cf. Glucksberg, 1966). For example, the individual learns sets and labels to be able to predict and "explain" unfamiliar events and reduce many alternatives under one label; he stores data using mnemonic codes to reduce the number of alternatives he has to process (e.g., creating an acronym from the first letters of the first words in a long series of statements and memorizing the acronym as a guide to remembering the statements); symbolic control of attention permits ascertaining the relevant and irrelevant features of stimuli for mental processing and it facilitates reduction of perceptual alternatives, hence uncertainty. Experimental research into uncertainty has traditionally been divided into two areas: stimulus uncertainty--where uncertainty is the number of alternatives in the information theory sense--it is an attribute of the number of alternatives of the stimulus; response uncertainty--where uncertainty is an expression of the individual's conflict in making choices among a given number of alternatives. Berlyne (1957, 1960, 1963, 1965) has systematically stu- died stimulus uncertainty and arousal. He has found that when there is heightened arousal due to "collative" stimulus properties (e.g., novelty, surprisingness, complexity, and ambiguity), the individual will engage in subsequent explora- tion of the stimuli to reduce arousal. Exploratory behavior and arousal decrease when the information in the stimulus patterns has been assimilated and uncertainty falls to a threshold value. Berlyne's stimuli were presented for constant time intervals and no attempt was made to assess information overload (Miller, 1956). Lovibond (1968) found that GSR incidence to a series of predictable shocks tended to decline, while a series of unpre- dictable shocks maintained GSR incidence. Driscoll, Lanzetta and associates (Siebert and Lanzetta, 1964; Driscoll and Lanzetta, 1965; Driscoll, Tognoli, and Lanzetta, 1966) have investigated both stimulus and response uncertainty. They found that individuals will engage in information search behavior until one bit of stimulus/response uncertainty remains; that information search is a monotonic function of uncertainty; the greater the magnitude of the stimulus uncertainty of a decision task, the faster the individual began seeking information; subjective uncertainty (similar to arousal in this experiment) is directly related to stimulus and response uncertainty; and stimulus and response uncertainty are linearly related--limited only by information processing capabilities of the individual. There are individual differences, of course, in a person's capacity to process information and thereby reduce uncertainty. In addition, personality characteristics may lead to individual differences in their pattern of uncertainty reduction. One such characteristic--dogmatism--has been found to affect an individual's ability to cope with uncertain stimuli. Dogmatism Research by Rokeach (1960) into authoritarian personali- ties produced the construct "dogmatism." He considers his dogmatism scale a measure of learned inability to use novel responses, and dogmatism scores to represent 53 tolerance for ambiguity, novelty and uncertainty. Mikol (1958); Zagona and Kelly (1966); and Pyron and Kafer (1967) found respectively that high dogmatics preferred more conventional music pieces, were more apt to reject novel films, and recalled significantly fewer irrational and novel sentences than low dogmatics. Clark and Salomon (1970) confirmed formulations by Rokeach (1960) and Long and ziller (l965)-that . low dogmatics tend to be bored by low uncertainty stimuli and become aroused to engage in exploratory behavior for stimuli of greater uncertainty; high dogmatics prefer messages of less uncer- tainty and cannot tolerate high uncertainty. That is, they found an inverse relationship between dogmatism and information search. The research so far reported leads to a statement of the following relationships: stimulus uncertainty is positively related to arousal; exploratory behavior (information search) is positively related to uncertainty (and thus arousal) and inversely related to dogmatism; and high dogmatism, arousal, and stimulus uncertainty are directly related, but low dogmatism is inversely related to arousal and stimulus uncertainty. Figure 1 partially displays these relationships. To this point, the term "arousal" has been used in a general sense. Arousal can be defined as a state of motivational and emotional activation manifested psychologically, physiologically and/or behaviorally (cf. Berlyne, 1960). However, as Lacey (1967) suggests, the electrocortical, somatic, and behavioral components of arousal may be related but do not necessarily function alike. The next section presents a view of some of the constitutive and empirical connections of "arousal." high ' high Q '3 High g g Dogmatics o u a 2 Low Dogmatics low low low high low high Stimulus Stimulus Uncertainty Uncertainty Figure 1. Relationship between Stimulus Uncertainty, Dogmatism, and Arousal. Arousal: An Interpretation Problem Research dealing with physiological arousal has many labels. Communication researchers speak of fear arousal (not measured physiologically) and stress (as duress). Psycholo- gical researchers studying physiological arousal do so under labels including emotion and anxiety. There are two problems involved with the combination of names having what appear to be similar operationalizations: first, what is the constitu- tive connection between the terms, and second, what is the relationship between psychological stress and its verbal labels and physiological stress (that is, a measure of response of the autonomic nervous system)? Spielberger (1966) subsumes all conceptual relatives (of arousal) that are like anxiety. He dichotomizes anxiety into state anxiety that is transitory, and trait anxiety that is a function of an individual's personality. Traditionally such anxiety-arousal has been measured in one of six ways: intro- spective reports (paper and pencil anxiety scales), physiological signs, "molar" behavior (body posture, speech characteristics, etc.), task performance, clinical intuition, and response to stress. Introspective reports are the most widely accepted basis for inferring transitory anxiety. Krause (1961), in fact, questions the sufficiency of physiological measures as indepen- dent criteria for inferring transitory anxiety unless used in conjunction with introspective reports. Spielberger (1966, p. 16) further recommends that a distinction be made between stressor (in the broad sense) stimuli and the anxiety response itself: "there is considerable agreement that anxiety states are charac- terized by subjective, consciously perceived feelings of apprehension and tension, accompanied by or associated with activation or arousal of the autonomic nervous system." The differentiation between psychological and physiological stress then, is connected to the problem of determining the constitutive connection between identical terms with different operations. A more subtle distinction is pointed out by Lazarus gt 31. (1962, p. 1) "In the history of psychological stress research, there has been no clear separation between physical stressors which attack tissue systems and psychological stressors which produce their effects purely because of their psychological significance." Such physical stressors might include any type of noxious stimuli in the experimental setting: 9 pain, noise, and other features of the environment. In the present experiment (cf. Geen, 1968) no physical stress will be introduced into the setting and hopefully the confounding effect will be nonexistent. In conclusion, ”information search" and "exploratory behavior" are motivational aspects of the individual whereby he attempts to reduce the arousal (or transitory anxiety as an internal stimulus in Spielberger's sense) resulting from external stimuli (or internal, as may be the case). In this study an external stimulus--uncertain message content in the form of televised violence-~is designed to induce arousal. Consequent exploratory behavior will not be examined. The next section of this paper deals with one possible manifestation of behavioral arousal: aggression due to mediated violence. Violent Message Content, Arousal and Aggression While most research on uncertainty has used visual stimuli of meaningless patterns, it is probable that parallel research using meaningful stimuli might demonstrate a confounding effect between the contextual and structural (uncertainty) parts of the stimulus. This confounding may be particularly evident in the context of violent message content in television se- quences. Himmelweit, Oppenheim and Vince (1958) concluded that when (televisionl violence follows a conventional pattern, the outcome of which is predictable, very few children are 10 "disturbed." If "disturbed" is interpreted as indicating arousal, then the research cited demonstrating that unpre- dictable events cause arousal (up to a limiting plateau) is directly relevant. Media violence research, as summarized in Tannenbaum and Greenberg (1968), Weiss (1969), and Baker and Ball (1969), has yielded conflicting results. Survey studies summarized by Klapper (1960) found neither harmful nor beneficial effects from consuming mediated violence--except in children with delinquent tendencies. Case studies reported by Wertham (1954) disclose substantial effects to the general psychological makeup of children from prolonged exposure to violent television shows. Work by the experimentalists in media research has generally demonstrated an excitory effect from watching tele- vised violence, and in one instance a catharsis effect. Feshbach (1962) found that college students vicariously released hostility while watching a fight scene. However, a large body of work by Berkowitz (1968), and Bandura (1963), and others has shown that observed violence predisposes toward more aggressive behavior. Research by Geen (1968) and Berkowitz (1968) disclosed that attack or frustration produces a general state of physio- logical arousal which, in turn, increases the probability of aggression resulting from observed aggression. Geen (1968) indicated that aroused individuals, when viewing aggressive scenes, tend to become more aggressive. In both of these 11 studies however, arousal was an antecedent condition, i.e., induced by the experimenter prior to exposure to the experi- mental stimulus. In the present experiment, arousal will be evoked by the stimulus. There also exists a considerable body of research on film-induced stress. Lazarus and his colleagues (Lazarus, 1966) have consistently shown that when Ss are exposed to stressful films, the implied form of threat in the film will give rise to physiological stress in the viewers. Even though Lazarus posits an intervening variable, threat, in his exper- imental studies there are at least two aspects of his research directly relevant here. First, they have demonstrated that filmed presentations, seemingly out of the realm of experience of the viewer, do contain stimuli that evoke stressful responses--physiological arousal. Second, the major premise of Lazarus' research--and a major point of contention in the controversy concerning the effects of mediated violence--is that stressful filmed presentations are generalizable to real life situations where the individual has other ways to cope with stress he experiences. In both research endeavors (mass media and the study of psychological stress) it remains to be seen what variables are crucial in limiting the analogy between the experimental and real-life settings. The linkages between stimulus uncertainty and arousal, dogmatism, mediated violence and aggression are presented in the following conceptual paradigm. 12 Personality Structural Contextual Dependent Characteristic Property Property Behaviors VIOLENT AGGRESSIVE / SCENE "" AROUSAL" FEELINGS DOGMATISM—-—p UNCERTAINTY NONVIOLENT AGGRESSIVE SCENE "" AROUSAL ""‘ FEELINGS Figure 2. Conceptual Paradigm of the Experiment. With this paradigm in mind, the next section stipulates the particular relationships that will be tested. Hypotheses By investigating the effect of a structural stimulus property on arousal and aggressive responses it may ultimately be possible to resolve some confusing results yielded by media violence research. At the very least this study should provide another focus on mediated violence and viewer effects, by examining the linkage of a structural stimulus property to some personality and contextual factors of violent scenes. Based on the discussion about stimulus uncertainty and the work of Berlyne (1960) it is predicted that: H1. Violent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit more arousal than parallel violent television scenes of low uncertainty. 13 H2. Nonviolent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit more arousal than parallel nonviolent television scenes of low uncertainty. H3. Violent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit more arousal than nonviolent television scenes of high uncertainty. H1 and H2 comprise the main effects prediction for uncertainty and arousal, and H3 is a prediction that the contextual and structural properties of the stimulus will combine. In this experiment, dogmatism will not be related to information search behavior, but strictly to stimulus uncer- tainty. From the research of Rokeach (1960) and Clark and Salomon (1970) it is predicted that high dogmatics who view a highly uncertain sequence should show more arousal than low dogmatics viewing the same sequence. The former group prefers less uncertain messages and should be less able to tolerate uncertainty. Conversely, when viewing a low uncertainty sequence, high dogmatics should show less arousal than when viewing a highly uncertain sequence, and less arousal than the low dogmatics. The latter should be more bored by such stimuli and engage in exploratory behavior to alleviate their boredom. The following statements predict that the variable of uncertainty will interact with the variable of dogmatism, such that: H4a. High dogmatics will show more arousal in the high uncertainty condition than will low dogmatics. H4b. High dogmatics will show less arousal in the low uncertainty condition than will low dogmatics. 14 The following hypotheses relate aggression to uncertainty and televised Violence: H5. Violent television scenes will elicit stronger aggressive feelings than nonviolent television scenes. H6. Violent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit stronger aggressive feelings than nonviolent television scenes of high uncertainty. H7. Violent television Scenes of high uncertainty will elicit stronger aggressive feelings than parallel violent television scenes of low uncertainty. H5 is based on findings by Berkowitz (1968) and others that a violent scene elicits more aggression than a nonviolent scene. H6 and H7 are predicted on the basis of a possible combination of uncertainty of the stimulus, its aggressive violent content, and the consequent aggressive feelings expected. CHAPTER II METHODS AND PROCEDURES Overview Subjects completed a dogmatism scale one to two weeks before the experimental session. During the experiment subjects were shown either a violent or nonviolent television scene edited into low and high uncertainty versions. Subjects' arousal from viewing one of the four versions was measured as heart period and galvanic skin response (GSR). Immediately after exposure to the stimuli, subjects completed a paper and pencil aggression scale. This chapter details the methods and procedures of the experiment. The chapter begins with a description of the sample, design, stimuli and procedures. This is followed by the operationalization of the independent and dependent variables. Sample Subjects (N=106) were male, paid volunteers obtained through newspaper advertisements in the Michigan State University "State News." Subjects were randomized to four experimental cells: high uncertainty violent and nonviolent message content, and low uncertainty violent and nonviolent message content (see Figure 3). Of the original 106 subjects, 15 16 10 subjects admitted to the debriefing interviewer that they had seen the original television shows from which the scenes were chosen. Since familiarity with the scenes would preclude an uncertainty effect, these subjects were removed from the analysis, resulting in a total N=96. Subjects were run one at a time, over a two week period (July 20, 1970-July 31, 1970), at half hour intervals from 12:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. Contextual Conditions Violent Nonviolent Scene Scene High Uncertainty Structural Conditions Low Uncertainty Figure 3. Experimental Conditions Design and Analysis Two nested independent variables were included in the design: uncertainty and violent message content. In addition, a secondary independent variable, dogmatism, was included in the analysis. Two different dependent arousal indices--GSR and heart period-~were used to: (a) obtain multi-Operationalization of the same concept; and (b) to compare the GSR arousal, used in prior uncertainty-arousal research, with the heart period responses. 17 Dependent arousal measures were assessed at three time- points in the experiment: prior to presentation of the experi- mental stimuli (baseline); immediately prior to the violent or resolution segment of the television scene (time 1); and during the violent or resolution segment of the particular television scene (time 2). The baseline arousal was used as a control check on initial arousal among conditions. The time 1 measure was a sampling of arousal (to be discussed) during the uncertain portion of the stimulus (e.g., a discussion between the marshall and villain in the violent sequence which culminates in a shoot- out). In presenting shots in a scene, it was assumed that uncer- tainty was greatest immediately prior to resolution of the scene. This assumption was based on the contention that successive temporal and contextual cues demand a conclusion (closure) and should have a cumulative effect on anticipation and uncertainty. The time 1 measure, than, was assumed to reflect the effect of uncertainty only. The time 2 measure was assessed immediately after peak uncertainty and was taken to indicate arousal due to uncertainty plus context, i.e., uncertainty plus violent message content. The differences in mean arousal levels between base- line and time 1, and baseline and time 2, were analyzed within the design shown in Figure 3. Selected comparisons, analysis of variance and covariance were used to analyze the dependent variables. Dogmatism and arousal were analyzed correlationally and by means of t-tests. 18 Stimuli and Apparatus Two television scenes were used for the experimental stimuli. Both scenes were from episodes presented during the 1969-1970 television season. The violent television scene was an episode from Gunsmoke entitled "The Badge.” The non- violent television scene was an episode from Then Came Bronson entitled "Mating Dance for Tender Grass.” Each scene was edited into low and high uncertainty versions of equal length. The Gunsmoke scene versions were 2:00 minutes long; the Bronson scene versions were 1:33 minutes long. The shots in both scenes are listed in Appendix A. The shots deleted for the low and high uncertainty versions are as marked. In the violent scene (Gunsmoke) a shot was deleted if it gave or showed reference to the impending violent resolution (e.g., any shots of gunmen waiting in ambush were deleted. In the nonviolent scene (Bronson) a shot was deleted if it gave or showed reference to the impending nonviolent resolution. Given the ambiguous nature of the nonviolent scene, shots were also deleted for the low uncertainty version if they gave or showed reference to a highly uncertain resolution (that is, a shot was deleted if it signalled danger or violence which was not actually carried through). The edited versions were shown to two groups of judges. A11 scenes were recorded off-the-air and edited on l-inch magnetic tape. Editing was done on an Ampex 7800 video tape recorder (VTR). Playback during the experimental sessions 19 was on an Ampex 5100 VTR, and shown on a regular Motorola black and white 21-inch portable television. The VTR was set up in the equipment room with the polygraph. Only the television monitor, an easy chair, table and bookcase were located in the experimental room. Audio was played back through the television speaker. All scenes were on one tape; the tape was preset to the proper scene of the condition to which a subject was assigned before the subject was allowed to enter the experimental room. During the S-minute adapta- tion period the TV was on, but blank; it was also on, but blank, during the 2-minute waiting period after presentation of the stimulus. The polygraph equipment was a Grass Instrument Model 7. The driver amplifiers were Grass Model 70A D.C. driver ampli- fiers. Heart rate recording was made through a Model 7P4 Tachograph preamplifier (the tachograph was not used). GSR was recorded through a Model 7P1 low-level D.C. preamplifier, set in the "P.G.R." position. Both preamplifiers and amplifiers were calibrated before each subject was run. For the GSR measurement, balance voltage controls and sensitivity were set during the five-minute adaptation period. Heart rate elec- trodes were Sanborn Adult Limb EKG electrodes, while GSR was recOrded using Beckman Biopotential Skin electrodes (miniature). 20 Procedures Prior to the experiment a questionnaire assessed dogmatism scores, average television viewing times then and in high school, and other demographic information. During the experiment, subjects viewed one of the four experimental scenes while GSR and heart period were monitored. After ‘ viewing the stimuli, subjects completed an aggression Scale and were debriefed. Pre-experimental Procedures. Subjects answered a news- paper ad requesting male undergraduates to participate in a Communication Experiment for $2. Subjects came to an office to complete the questionnaire shown in Appendix B. The second part of that questionnaire is the Troldahl-Powell (1965) short form of Rokeach's (1960) dogmatism scale. After com- pleting the questionnaire, subjects made an appointment with an assistant E (who also was the debriefing interviewer) to View the stimuli. Time between completion of the initial questionnaire and the experimental session varied from a few days to two weeks. Subjects were told they would be paid after the experimental session. Experimental Procedures. Subjects (N=96) were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. Upon arriving for the experiment, the subject was greeted and checked off the appointment list by the assistant E. The subject was asked to go into the experimental room. In the experimental room a second assistant E asked the subject to be seated. The assistant E avoided answering questions 21 pertaining to the purpose of the experiment. The S was told his physiological responses would be measured, and he was told the purpose of the electrodes while they were being fastened. The heart electrodes were attached to the lower right calf and left forearm of the subject; the GSR electrodes were attached to the first and third fingers of the right hand. After the electrodes were fastened the assistant E read the instructions in Appendix C detailing the coming events in the experiment, left the room and closed the door. During the five-minute adaptation period baseline GSR and heart period readings were obtained. After the five-minute adaptation period, the VTR was turned on to play the respective scene version of the condition to which the subject was assigned. At the conclusion of the scene, the VTR was stopped and the assistant E waited two minutes before reentering the experimental room. Upon reentering the experimental room, the assistant E detached the electrodes and handed the subject the question- naire shown in Appendix D. The first page of this questionnaire is the aggression scale. The assistant E was again instructed not to answer any questions about the experiment. Post-experimental Procedures. When the subject completed the questionnaire, he was asked to go out of the experimental room to the debriefing interviewer who checked that the subject had completed all questions on the questionnaire and asked the subject four questions: whether he had seen the television scene shown, whether he was physically and mentally comfortable 22 during the experiment, and what the purpose of the experiment was. Subjects were told their attitudes would be related to active and passive television scenes and physiological arousal. No other description of the experiment was furnished. Subjects were asked not to describe the experiment or the purpose given to anyone else. Then they were thanked and paid $2. Neither assistant E was familiar with any of the hypotheses of the study. The next section of this chapter describes how the independent and dependent variables were operationalized, and specifies the control variables and manipulation checks. Independent Variables Violent Message Content. A television scene was chosen for presentation as a violent scene if it met Katzman's (1970) definition of aggressive violence: behavior (killing, fighting, shooting, yelling, etc.) that is intended to cause physical harm. The nonviolent scene was chosen if it neither met the definition above, nor Katzman's (1970) definition of aggression: an overt expression of intent to do any type of harm; nor the definition of violence as activity which normally results in physical harm. In addition to the g_priori determination of violent and nonviolent content, the two scenes were operation- ally considered to be violent or nonviolent if they were judged (a) the most significantly polarized on a 7-interva1 anchored rating scale of violence ("violent"--"nonviolent") 23 and aggression ("aggressive"--"nonaggressive"); (b) the scenes were ranked significantly apart in a forced order ranking of five tentative experimental scenes. In addition to these criteria, the ratings and rankings for the two criteria could not be signficantly different between the low and high uncertainty versions of the same scene. A group of 11 judges evaluated the five low uncertainty scenes; another group of 11 judges evaluated the high uncer- tainty versions. The Gunsmoke and Bronson scenes met all the criteria, and were chosen as the violent and nonviolent scenes respectively. Uncertainty In the time 1 analysis, uncertainty operated as an independent variable. For the time 2 analySis (violence or nonviolence plus uncertainty) uncertainty operated as a level variable (in a treatment by levels design). Uncertainty has been defined as the degree of predictability of a series of alternative events prior to the actual occurrence of a given event. Using this definition, the two television scenes were edited into versions in which the subsequent acts were predictable (low uncertainty) and one in which the subsequent acts were not predictable (high uncertainty). To operationalize stimulus uncertainty, the scenes were stopped immediately prior to the impact or resolution (1:30 into the Gunsmoke segment and 0:55 seconds into the Bronson scene), and the judges described above were asked to predict 24 what the next series of events would be in the scene being evaluated. In order to be operationalized as being low uncertainty, a scene had to have more right guesses than wrong guesses about the outcome. For a scene to be operationalized as high uncertainty, the scene had to have more wrong than right guesses. In both cases the difference between versions of the same scene had to be significantly different in the right directions: a greater proportion of wrong guesses about the outcome for the high uncertainty versions, and a greater proportion of right guesses about the outcome for the low uncertainty versions. The Gunsmoke and Bronson scenes were the only scenes to meet the Operational criteria for uncertainty and the criteria for violence and nonviolence. Dogmatism This variable was operationalized as the subjects' total score on the 20 item Troldahl-Powell (1965) dogmatism short form (Appendix B). Since this variable was not nested into the design, only descriptive relationships were examined. Dependent Variables Arousal. In this experiment arousal is operationally the response of the autonomic nervous system. The two physiological indices used were galvanic skin response (changes in skin conductance)and heart period (i.e., interbeat interval). 25 Physiological arousal was chosen primarily because physiological measures can be more easily monitored continuously over time. GSR is the index of primary interest only because the research alluded to in this paper generally measured GSR arousal. As already discussed, heart period changes are observed as an alternate way of operationalizing arousal. A subject's baseline arousal was considered his mean GSR level and/or his mean heart period during the 10 seconds immediately preceding start of the VTR. Time 1 arousal was measured during the 10 seconds immediately prior to the impact or resolution scene. GSR level was averaged from GSR scores at the l, 5 and 10 second marks during these periods. Heart period was computed by averaging the interbeat intervals (in millimeters) of the 10 beats closest to the 10 second mark in the periods indicated above. For the time 2 measures, the same method of scoring was used, except a 10 second period around the lowest GSR point (greatest arousal) was chosen for averaging. Similarly, the 10 heartbeats around the lowest GSR point were scored. Arousal was operationally specified for each time period as the difference between mean baseline arousal and time 1 mean arousal, and mean baseline arousal and time 2 mean arousal respectively. All charts were "blind-coded" by the same coder, who was unfamiliar with the hypotheses or purpose of the study. Aggressive Feeling. Aggression has been defined as the overt expression to do any type of harm. "Overt expression" 26 was interpreted as verbal expression for the purposes of this study. Appendix D shows the aggression form (the first page of the questionnaire) which all subjects completed. Items 1, 2, and 4 are from Sears (1961) anti-social aggression scales; items 3, 6, 8, and 9 are from the Buss-Durkee (1957) inventory; all other items are from Dominick (1970). Items 1, 4, and 6 were reversed prior to coding (i.e., a "1" was coded a "5," etc.). The items and the total were intercor- related and a factor analysis performed. 0n the basis of this analysis,* items 3, 7-11 were summed into an aggression index with a range of 6-30: a subject's aggressive feeling was operationalized as his total score on the constructed index. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the control variables and manipulation checks. Control Variables Sex. All subjects were male undergraduates enrolled at Michigan State University. Length of Scene. The time length of the scenes was held equal within violent and nonviolent versions for overall time and for time to impact or resolution. IThe items chosen for the index had the highest inter- and item-total correlations of all 11 items. When submitted to a Varimax factor analysis, the items chosen loaded highest as one factor with loadings ranging from .44 to .73. Another factor was yielded by the varimax rotation, but it consisted of only two clean loadings of items 1 and 4. The first factor accounted for 24% of the proportion of overall variance; the second factor accounted for 13% of the proportion of variance. 27 Content. The Content of the scenes was held constant within violent and nonviolent conditions. Initial Arousal. Mean group baseline arousal was checked for nonsignificant differences among all conditions. Manipulation Checks Violent Message Content. ‘The perceived violence and aggressiveness of the scenes presented were evaluated by each subject on the 7-interval scales listed in Appendix D. The two scales yielded a highly significant product moment corre- lation of r-.68 and were therefore summed into a single index. Uncertainty. Subjects were also asked to rate the pre- dictability of the scene shown. This evaluation enabled a com- parison with the pretest ratings of uncertainty of the scenes. Self-report of Arousal. This was obtained for heuristic purposes (in accordance with Krause's 1961 suggestion) and not specifically as a manipulation check, given the controversy concerning the relationship between physiological and verbal indicators of arousal and the short duration of the experi- mental stimuli. CHAPTER III RESULTS Overview The results are presented in this chapter in terms of three independent variables: uncertainty; dogmatism; and violent message content. For both uncertainty and dogmatism two indices of arousa1--GSR and heart period were assessed as the dependent variable. For violent message content, the aggression scale was the dependent variable. Reference will be made to the three (baseline, time 1, and time 2) measures of the arousal indicators. Overall Arousal The first step in the data analysis was an examination of whether change in arousal occurred overall for the entire sample. Inspection of the means of the difference scores showed no opposing trends. A correlated t test was performed for changes in GSR and heart period from baseline to time 1 and from baseline to time 2. Subjects showed highly significant increases in GSR arousal from baseline to time 1 (t-=3.73, p (.001) and from baseline to time 2 (ta-4.03, p<.0001). Subjects showed nonsig- nificant changes in heart period from baseline to time 1 or to time 2, and therefore the heart period data were excluded from further analysis. 28 29 Uncertainty and Arousal It was hypothesized that stimulus uncertainty and physiological arousal were related such that: H1. Violent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit more arousal than parallel violent television scenes of low uncertainty. H2. Nonviolent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit more arousal than parallel nonviolent television scenes of low uncertainty. H3. Violent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit more arousal than nonviolent television scenes of high uncertainty. Before the hypotheses were tested, a two-way analysis of variance was computed on baseline GSR to test for any significant baseline arousal differences among treatment groups. Table 1 presents the absolute cell means for the three measurements of GSR. The analysis of variance on baseline GSR indicated no significant mean arousal differences among treatment groups. Therefore, a t-test for independent samples was per- formed on the GSR measures to test the hypotheses. Results of the GSR analysis relevant for H1 and H2, both for time 1 (effect of uncertainty alone) and time 2 (effect of uncertainty buildup plus violent message content), are in Table 2. Hypothesis 1 was supported by the GSR data for time 1 at p (.10 and for time 2 at p4,025, Hypothesis 2 was not supported at either measurement time. Hypothesis 3 was not supported at time 1, but was supported for time 2 (t=l.87, p<.05). Table 1. 30 Absolute GSR Arousal: Time 1, and Time 2 Data. Baseline, High Uncertainty Low Uncertainty Baseline Cell Means Violent Scene 15.30 (n=27) 11.87 (n=24) Nonviolent Scene 12.02 (n=23) 13.24 (n=22) (The lower the score, the greater the arousal.) High Uncertainty Low Uncertainty Time 1 Cell Means Violent Scene 13.45 (n=27) 11.43 (n=24) Nonviolent Scene 10.55 (n=23) 11.75 (n=22) (The lower the score, the greater the arousal.) High Uncertainty Low Uncertainty Time 2 Cell Means Violent Scene 12.36 (n=27) 11.21 (n=24) Nonviolent Scene 10.73 (n=23) 11.95 (n=22) (The lower the score, the greater the arousal.) 31 Table 2. T-tests of GSR Arousal Differences from Baseline. Time 1 Data . High Low Condition Uncertainty Uncertainty t p Violent 1.85 0.44 1.51 (.10 Message Content (n=27) (n=24) Nonviolent 1.47 1.49 ( l n.s. Message Content (n=23) (n=22) (The higher the score, the greater the arousal.) Time 2 Data . . High Low Condition Uncertainty Uncertainty t p Violent 2.94 0.66 2.12 .(.025 Message Content (n=27) (n=24) Nonviolent “ 1.29 1.28 «(1. n.s. Message Content (n=23) (n=22) (The higher the score, the greater the arousal.) 32 Dogmatism and Arousal It was predicted that the variable of uncertainty would interact with the variable of dogmatism, such that: H4a. High dogmatics will show more arousal in the high uncertainty condition than will low dogmatics. H4b. High dogmatics will show less arousal in the low . uncertainty condition than will low dogmatics. Because dogmatism was not nested in the experimental design, the principal analysis was correlational, although t-tests were also performed. Dogmatism scores (range - 31-85) were split at the median (49) into high and low groupings and correlated with arousal within each scene. The significance of the difference between r's was determined using Fisher's 2. Table 3 presents the results of the correlational and t-test analysis. Hypothesis 4a was supported by the correlational GSR data, and partially by t-tests. Hypothesis 4b was not supported. Among high dogmatics, dogmatism accounted for 14% of the varia- bility at time 1 and 9% at time 2 in increasing GSR arousal when viewing highly uncertain stimuli. For low dogmatics, dogmatism accounts for 4% and 14% of the proportion of variance of decreasing GSR arousal. It should be noted, that although no predictions were made regarding differential rates of change for the two groups, it is as much the decreasing arousal (especially for time 2) among the low dogmatics as it is the increasing arousal among high dogmatics that makes for the support of H4a. 33 .mumou cocooflmwcmwm ooHfimuuoco How one mosam> ousoowuwsmam Had .mcowumaouuoo usoEOS posooum was csonm mucowOMMMOOO comumamuuoo Hams .m.cuu H¢.0|nu ma.ouuu .m.cuu mm.osnu so.ouuu .m.cum mm.onu ma.o mm.H .m.cum oH.Hnu No.1 om.H Avanso Ammuco Avauco Ammnsv mOflumEooo upwumsmoo moaumsooo mowumeooo 33 :3: 33 s3: wuswmuuooco 30A mucwmuumocp 30; N uses H mafia No.vm mo.~nn mm.ouuu m~.ouu vo.vo mh.Huu om.oun....H hm.onu .méua 34..» 34 HEN SOS 3.?» am; mm.~ Ammucv Amausv Ammnsv Amnucv mowucfimoo mpwueeooa mowumsooo muaumsooo 33 runs 33 seem Sucwcuumpco swam Sucwmuuoocp amen N wEwB H DEAR a.xmmov Amazons one Emwucsmoo mo namaamsd amouna one HMGOAuMHOHHOO .m OHQMB 34 Violent Message Content and Aggressive Feelings The following hypotheses predicted the relationship between aggression, uncertainty and violent message content: H5. Violent television scenes will elicit stronger aggressive feelings than nonviolent television scenes. H6. Violent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit stronger aggressive feelings than nonviolent television scenes of high uncertainty. H7. Violent television scenes of high uncertainty will elicit stronger aggressive feelings than parallel violent television scenes of low uncertainty. These hypotheses were analyzed using the aggression index already described. H5 was analyzed by a two-way analysis of variance. The results in Table 4 indicate the hypothesis is rejected. For H6 and H7, the mean aggression scores in the violent and nonviolent scenes did not differ significantly by t-test, in either the low uncertainty or high uncertainty treatments, and the hypotheses were not accepted. Manipulation Checks Violence and Aggression. Subjects were asked to rate the perceived violent and aggressive message content of the scenes they viewed. The separate scales were combined into a single index. A twosway analysis of variance was performed on the ratings of each scene. Results of the analysis are in Table 5. 35 Table 4. Two-way Analysis of Variance of Aggression. Cell Means Violent Nonviolent Scene Scene High Uncertainty 12.37 11.83 (n=27) (n=23) Low Uncertainty 12.13 12.68 (n=24) (n=22) (The higher the score, the greater the aggression.) Source of Variance SS df MS F p Uncertainty 0.00 l 0.00 0.18 n.s. Violence 2.25 l 2.25 0.00 n.s. Uncertainty x Violence 7.15 1 7.15 0.58 n.s. Error 92 12.42 36 Table 5. Two-way Analysis of variance of Perceived Violence Index. Cell Means Violent Nonviolent Scene Scene High Uncertainty 11.22 6.17 (n=27) (n=23) Low Uncertainty 10.88 6.77 (n=24) (n=22) (The higher the score, the greater the perceived violence.) Source of Variance SS df MS F p Uncertainty 0.02 1 0.02 0.08 n.s. Violence 20.98 1 20.98 110.40 (.001 Uncertainty x Violence 0.22 1 0.22 1.15 n.s. Error 92 0.19 37 The data confirm the pretest ratings that the Gunsmoke violent scene was perceived significantly more violent than the Bronson nonviolent scene. Uncertainty. After viewing the scenes, subjects were asked to rate the predictability of the scenes. Cell means and the results of a two-way analysis of variance of the data are in Table 6. The data indicate the high uncertainty scenes were perceived significantly less predictable than the low uncertainty scenes: the violent scene was perceived signifi- cantly more predictable than the nonviolent scene. A signifi- cant interaction between violent message content and uncertainty showed that the violent scene was perceived more predictable than the nonviolent scene and the low uncertainty violent scene was perceived more predictable than the high uncertainty scene. T-tests between the violent scene versions indicate the low uncertainty violent scene was perceived significantly more predictable than the high uncertainty violent scene (t-3.79, p«(.001). There was no significant difference in perceived predictability between the nonviolent scene versions. Self-report of Arousal. Subjects were asked to indicate the extent to which they felt anxious, and how much they were aroused. Responses on the two 7-interva1 scales were summed to yield a self report score. The self report for all subjects correlated 0.00 and -0.04 with time 1 and time 2 GSR arousal. Table 7 lists the results of a two-way analysis of 38 Table 6. Perceived Scene Predictability. Cell Means Violent Nonviolent Scene Scene High Uncertainty 4.59 2.78 (n=27) (n=23) Low Uncertainty 6.17 2.68 (n=24) (n=22) (The higher the score, the more predictable the scene.) Source of Variance SS df MS F p Uncertainty 0.55 1 0.55 6.91 (.001 Violence 7.05 l 7.05 89.07 (.001 Uncertainty x Violence 0.67 1 0.67 8.50 (.001 Error 92 0.08 39 Table 7. Two-way Analysis of Variance of Self-report of Arousal. Cell Means Violent Nonviolent Scene Scene High Uncertainty 6.78 6.70 (n=27) (n=23) Low Uncertainty 8.08 8.36 (n=24) (n=22) (The higher the score, the greater the arousal.) Source of Variance SS df MS F p Uncertainty 2.21 1 2.21 6. 81 (.001 Violence 0.02 1 0.02 0.06 n.s. Uncertainty x Violence 0.02 1 0.02 0.07 n.s. Error 92 0.32 40 variance on the self report scores for each condition. The data indicate the low uncertainty scenes were reported to arouse significantly more than the high uncertainty scenes. Supplemental Analyses Arousal and Aggression. Subjects were median split on each of the four arousal measurements. Mean aggressive response scores were calculated for each group and are presented in Table 8. None of the differences between means was significant. Correlational Analysis. A product moment correlational analysis was performed among most of the variables in this study (the uncertainty and violent message content dichotomies were excluded). Table 9 presents the resulting correlation matrix. The data indicate the following significant relation- ships (no causality is imputed to the stated relationships): (a) the greater the number of hours of TV viewed per day, the less violent and aggressive a TV scene was perceived; (b) perceived violent message content and perceived predictability are related; (c) the higher the self reported arousal, the higher the dogmatism score; (d) the greater the dogmatism, the more intense the aggressive feelings; (e) time 1 GSR differences are positively related to time 2 GSR differences. 41 Table 8. T-tests of Mean Aggressive Responses for High and Low Arousal. . High Low Condition Arousal Arousal t p Time 1 GSR 12.70 12.08 (1 n.s. Aggressive Responses (n=47) (n=49) Time 2 GSR 12.10 12.13 (1 n.s. Aggressive Responses (n=48) (n=48) (The higher the score, the stronger the aggressive response.) 42 0 00.H h o0m.0 00.H 0 NH.0 MH.0 00.H m H0.0I 0H.0 oNv.0 00.H e v0.0l 00.0 00.0 «0H.0 00.H m m0.0 m0.0l 0H.0I NH.0I m0.0 00.H «0.0 H0.0I N0.0 No.0! ~H.0 omv.0 00.H 50.0 0H.0 00.0 mH.0 H0.0I NH.0I on.0l 00.H “Gauze Sewn . m0.V m a moocouommwo mam N OEHB moosouommwo mmw H DEAF muoom sowmmouoma muons Emwumamoo Hmmsous mo unpopulmaom suaaeneuoeemua oo>fioouom soon“ ooso~oa> po>woouom hso\msw3mw> >9 mason M manuaum> .moancwus> unopcomoo one .usopcoompsH .Owcosumosoo mo mammacss Hmsowucaouuoo .m menus 43 ‘ CHAPTER IV DISCUSSION Overview In addition to summarizing the experiment, this chapter will discuss: (a) general methodological considerations in this laboratory experiment; '(b) the relationship between physiological indices and ‘ self reported arousal; (c) methodological and theoretical issues pertinent to the predicted relationships. The chapter concludes with a consideration of the study's research implications. Summary This experiment attempted to assess the effects of two levels of stimulus uncertainty in televised scenes of violent content on arousal and aggressive responses. Hypotheses were based on prior research indicating a positive relationship between stimulus uncertainty and viewer arousal. This rela- tionship had been investigated for nonmeaningful stimulus patterns and found to vary with the personality variable of dogmatism. In this study, it was generally predicted that highly uncertain violent television scenes would elicit more 44 arousal and aggressive verbal responses than low uncertainty violent scenes or nonviolent scenes. Subjects completed a dogmatism scale before the experi- ment. During the experiment, subjects viewed one of four television scene versions: high or low uncertainty violent scenes; or, high or low uncertainty nonviolent scenes. Changes in GSR level and heart period were measured as arousal, but heart period was excluded from the data analysis because overall subjects failed to show a heart period effect from baseline to time 1 and to time 2. After viewing the scenes, all subjects completed an aggression scale and rated the perceived violence, aggression, and predictability of the stimuli. Subjects also filled out a self-report of arousal. The data demonstrated the following relationships. Predictions about Arousal: Obtained Result: H1. Violent television scenes of high Supported for uncertainty will elicit more arousal time 1 and time than parallel violent television 2. scenes of low uncertainty. The GSR data indicated weak, but significant support for the first time period, the uncertainty effect alone, and highly significant support for the second time period, the effect of uncertainty and violent message content. H2. Nonviolent television scenes of high Not supported. uncertainty will elicit more arousal than parallel nonviolent television scenes of low uncertainty. 45 H3. Violent television scenes of high Supported for uncertainty will elicit more arousal time 2. than nonviolent television scenes of high uncertainty. Predictions about Dogmatism: Obtained Results: H4a. High dogmatics will show more arousal Supported for than low dogmatics when viewing time 1 and time highly uncertain violent or non- 2. violent televised stimuli. This hypothesis was supported correlationally for changes in GSR. H4b. High dogmatics will show less Not supported. arousal in the low uncertainty condition than will low dogmatics. Predictions about Aggression: Obtained Results: H5. Violent television scenes will Not supported. elicit stronger aggressive feelings than nonviolent television scenes. An analysis of variance indicated no significant differ- ences in aggressive feelings between subjects who viewed violent stimuli and those who Viewed nonviolent stimuli, regardless of uncertainty level. H6. Violent television scenes of high Not supported. uncertainty will elicit stronger aggressive feelings than nonviolent television scenes of high uncertainty. H7. Violent television scenes of high Not supported. uncertainty will elicit stronger aggressive feelings than parallel violent television scenes of low uncertainty. For the latter two hypotheses, while the data rejected the predictions, the means were in the direction 46 expected, i.e., high uncertainty and violent message content combined to intensify aggressive feelings. Discussion A complete discussion of the results of this experiment will be preceded by some general considerations. First will be a discussion of some factors affecting a laboratory experiment. Campbell and Stanley (1963) discuss certain factors affecting the validity of an experiment. Factors of internal validity generally need not jeopardize a laboratory experiment-- extraneous variables confounding the experimental stimuli are controlled--but laboratory experiments often suffer from a lack of external validity-~a lack of generalizability of the sample, settings, and variables. Two factors of external validity which may have impact on the results in this study are (a) the interaction effects of selection biases and experi- mental variables, and (b) reactive effects of experimental arrangements. A Subjects in this experiment were college students who responded to a newspaper ad offering financial reward for participation. They were run at various times of day (from 12:30 p.m. until 11:00 p.m.), although mean participation times did not differ significantly among conditions. Never- theless, failure to obtain predicted dependent behaviors may be caused in part by a sample which self-selected itself and hence may have had somewhat biased antecedent attributes. 47 Factor b, the reactive effects of the experimental arrangements precludes complete generalizability to non- experimental settings. That is, subjects were aware they were guinea-pigs, an awareness probably heightened by the placement of electrodes on the arms and legs. Such an aware- ness would not be evident in a typical home situation. Also, the sterility of the laboratory setting, while affording control of extraneous influences and allowing a clearer pin- pointing of cause and effect, is not comparable to the average living room. The Relationship Between Physiological and Self-reported Arousal. The next section explores the low intercorrelation of the autonomic measure with the self-report, and the bearing of this on the results. The correlation of the self-report and physiological measures ranged from -0.04 to 0.07. In terms of shared vari— ance of magnitude of relationship, these correlations are minimal. Lacey (1967, p. 15) states: "I think the evidence shows that electrocortical arousal, autonomic arousal, and behavioral arousal may be considered to be different forms of arousal, each complex in itself...the evidence also shows that one cannot easily use one form of arousal as a highly valid index of another." Lacey concludes there is little support for communcal or unidimensional arousa1--and that arousal theory incorporating such a viewpoint needs revision. He also cites evidence to point out that arousal is closely 48 connected to the variable studied, and other variables such as age. The phenomenon of multidimensional arousal is also supported by evidence cited by Shapiro and Crider (1969). The data they present provide support for Lacey's (1967) formulations and suggest that heart rate decreases due to reaction to external stimuli while GSR increases for similar stimuli, but both GSR and heart arousal increase for purely cognitive (problem-solving) stimuli. As the data and other research suggest, the arousal measures must be studied separately and with special attention given to the sample characteristics and variables. It is entirely possible that physiological arousal has little rela- tionship to behavioral arousal preliminary to verbal aggression. Or, in a natural setting, an individual's attention to environmental conditions may confound the directionality and strength of any physiological arousal index. What needs yet to be determined is which measure (EKG, EEG, GSR, etc.) is a valid operationalization of arousal as response to mediated violence. Earlier it was suggested that, given the short duration of the stimuli, a paper and pencil test of arousal might be too insensitive to pick up temporary variations in arousal level. This could be one reason for the lack of correlation between self reported arousal and the physiological index. Also, many subjects could have been physiologically aroused 49 but unable to report the related sensatiOn. The significant correlation between self reported arousal and dogmatism suggests that a dogmatic individual, given his rigid prior attitudes, may feel he has to be aroused from viewing violent stimuli if he believes mediated violence is "bad" and/or has affect. The next section examines the predictions concerning viewer effects due to uncertain stimuli. Uncertainty and Arousal The failure to obtain uncertainty effects from televised nonviolent stimuli may be due to a combination of the follow- ing factors: (a) difficulty in operationalizing uncertainty in the nonviolent scene; (b) conventionality of the scenes; (c) absolute differences in uncertainty between scenes; and (d) uncertainty in meaningful stimuli. A review of nearly twenty shows yielded only three scenes suitable for editing into low and high uncertainty nonviolent versions. Even the scene chosen had to be edited in a manner reverse from the violent scenes: in the Gunsmoke scene "cue" shots were edited out to make the resolution or impact uncer- tain, in the Bronson scene "cue" shots were edited out to make the scene certain, since as it stood it seemed a priori uncertain. Pretest evaluations confirmed that the editing had been successful. Nevertheless, such reversed procedures 50 may have contributed to cinematic effects which differentially affected the violent and nonviolent conditions. The nonviolent scene was ostensibly a violent scene with a nonviolent resolution. In fact, prior to time 2, the Bronson scene might have been the violent stimulus. The fact that the low uncertainty nonviolent scene elicited greater arousal than the low uncertainty violent scene, and that the arousal levels for the two versions of the nonviolent scene were nearly equal, indicates subjects probably expected something to occur-- reacting to standard violence cues--throughout the entire scenes. Himmelweit, Oppenheim, and Vince (1958) mention that the conventionality of a scene, in addition to the predictability of it, has bearing on reaction. That is, how recognizable or familiar the behavior in a scene appears to a viewer may also affect arousal. While conventionality could be a component of uncertainty, it can be argued that the action in a scene might be familiar to a viewer during the acts themselves, but the sequence of those acts could still be unpredictable. The nonviolent scene depicted a motorcycle gang and some modern Indian youths in a series of verbal encounters. The juxta- position of these two elements is less frequently portrayed on TV than Marshal-gunfight scenes, probably causing the non- violent scene to appear less conventional than the violent scene. The lack of conventionality of the nonviolent versions, may have increased the response of uncertainty of the subjects to the point that both edited versions were equally arousing. lent obta CORT vio 1111C COT tw 0V 51 Differences in absolute uncertainty levels of the vio- lent and nonviolent scenes also added to the difficulty in obtaining differences in arousal between the nonviolent conditions. In a pretest of scenes, both violent and non- violent scenes were rated most unpredictable in the high uncertainty versions. However, the manipulation check data confirm that there are the desired relative differences be- tween scene versions, but the nonviolent scene was rated overall much less predictable than the violent scene. The data also indicated that the more violent and aggressive the scene was rated, the more predictable it was rated, and conversely. Probably the major operational stumbling block, was the choice of a very active, potentially violent-looking scene for the nonviolent versions. Had the violent and nonviolent treatments been more dissimilar, the dependent measures should have indicated distinct differences between scene types. Un— fortunately, it is difficult to exactly specify the ideal type of "nonviolent" scene. It was reasoned that a very pastoral nonviolent scene would be so different from the violent scene, that any differences in dependent behaviors would be attributable to level of activity ("dynamism") the scenes exhibited rather than the presence of violent message content. The problem of determining the uncertainty in "meaning- ful" stimuli remains. It is one thing to have subjects View 52 random patterns and measure arousal, but it is quite another to have subjects View a television scene where at least the concomitant variables of learning, recognition and conven- tionality are present. Indeed, this experiment points up how difficult the task of specifying stimulus uncertainty in meaningful stimuli can be. Berlyne (1960, p. 184) discusses the mechanism of anticipatory arousal in coping with impending uncertainty. According to Berlyne, an individual's anticipatory arousal derives from the presence of a pattern of cues in the stimulus indicating how arousing the experiences of the next few moments are going to be. Anticipatory arousal (indicated, for example, by a slow but constant increase in GSR arousal until the impending event occurs) actually reflects the individual's uncertainty about the impending events, and it also reflects how important the individual perceives the im- pending event to be. Berlyne specifies that anticipatory arousal will increase gradually until the event occurs, and once the event occurs, arousal will not rise unnecessarily high since the individual is already somewhat aroused for it. _Berlyne (1960, p. 186) states, "time of anticipatory arousal will be times when exploratory behavior, serving to acceler- ate and maximize the receipt of information about the im- pending event, will be strongly reinforced by arousal reduc- tion and thus strongly evoked." Anticipatory arousal then, may explain the equivalent arousal levels in the nonviolent scene conditions. It can be 53 argued that the unconventional, overall more uncertain (as rated on the posttest of predictability) nonviolent scene prompted equally intense exploratory behavior (attempts to reduce uncertainty), and increased anticipatory arousal, in the low and high uncertainty conditions. However, the conven- tional and overall less uncertain violent scene, prompted greater exploratory behavior only in the high uncertainty condition. Dogmatism and Arousal Hypothesis 4a predicted that high dogmatics will show more arousal than low dogmatics when Viewing highly uncertain violent or nonviolent television scenes. Prior research indicated high dogmatics when compared to low dogmatics are less able to cope with uncertain music, and prefer less novel movies. In problem solving tasks it was found (Clark and Salomon, 1970) that high dogmatics prefer messages of lesser uncertainty. It was reasoned that high dogmatics would become more aroused when viewing highly uncertain televised messages, regardless of content. The correlational data and pattern of meanq supported the prediction. It was also reasoned, based on the formulations of Rokeach (1960) that low dogmatics would prefer stimuli of higher uncertainty and would thus be more aroused than high dogmatics by low uncertainty messages to seek more uncertain stimuli. The prediction incorporating such reasoning was rejected by the data. The means in Table 3 indicates that 54 high dogmatic subjects were more aroused than low dogmatics regardless of the uncertainty level of the stimuli. It is possible that in the low uncertainty conditions the relative uncertainty level was so low that subjects were "bored" by the presentations. And, since they knew ahead of time that the stimuli were of short duration, they made little effort to engage in exploratory behavior to overcome their boredom. It is interesting to note the differential rates of change (slopes) of the correlations in Table 3. Although no predictions were made regarding rates of change, in the time 2 high uncertainty condition low dogmatics tended to adapt faster than high dogmatics become aroused. In the low un- certainty condition, low dogmatics tended to adapt faster than high dogmatics for GSR. Violence and Aggression Hypothesis 5 was a main effects prediction that subjects watching violent television scenes would elicit stronger aggressive feelings than subjects watching nonviolent tele- visions scenes. The data rejected this hypothesis and the selected compariSons of H6 and H7. Berkowitz (1968) and Geen (1968) have shown physiological arousal resulting from stress or frustration predisposes the individual toward aggression from observed aggression. [How- ever, Berkowitz and others studying manifested aggression 55 usually structure the experiment so as to elicit aggressive behavior from subjects--e.g., administering electric shocks: in this experiment the setting was not structured to elicit aggressive behavior.] It was reasoned that the stimulus itself could create the physiological arousal due to the un- certainty, and this arousal would increase the strength of aggressive responses resulting from watching an aggressive- violent scene. For both the violent and nonviolent scenes, where changes in physiological (GSR) arousal were highest, mean aggression scores were also highest. For the self-report, arousal was also greatest in the nonviolent scene where ag- gressive responses were strongest, but was smallest in the violent scene where aggressive responses were strongest. Thus, although the data were not significant for the hypoth- eses, the patterns of means tentatively indicate that arousal due to stimulus uncertainty tends to be positively related to aggressive responses. Nevertheless, a conclusion that regardless of preconditions, a stimulus can elicit its own arousal from the structure (uncertainty), and the created arousal consequently intensifies aggressive feelings from the context (violent message content) remains to be confirmed by further work. The correlational analysis also provided a highly sig- nificant correlation between dogmatism and aggressive verbal responses. This relationship needs to be tested in an experi— mental design so more conclusive statements may be made about 56 causality. For example, the relationship provides support for the notion that high dogmatics tend to be less tolerant (of villains or "wrongs," for example) than low dogmatics. This intolerance is possibly manifested in stronger aggres- sive feelings. The correlation also provides additional support for the idea (c.f. Klapper, 1960) that personality differences brought to the media setting determine certain responses to violent messages. It is of course possible that the aggression scales used, since they tap attitudes toward aggression, may be unrelated to the propensity to aggression. Such attitudes are long in forming during the period a child matures and could be more immune to change from short exposure to violent stimuli. At least such exposure did not change the attitudes for these male college students. What effect it has on younger children remains to be investigated. Research Implications' It is not a clear-cut task to recommend additional re- search when the variables discussed are relatively untested and interacting. An established research tradition for stimulus uncertainty using recognizable stimuli does not exist; dissociation between arousal indices makes the task of finding suitable physiological indices--re1ated to be- havioral arousal--difficu1t. A number of studies concerning stimulus uncertainty, including a variety of Operationalizations must be completed 57 before results will become clearer. First, different ways of specifying stimulus uncertainty might be incorporated: rating scales instead of predictions about the outcomes could be used; subjects could be asked to predict from one shot to the next and uncertainty calculated in bits. Second, scenic variations could be shown without musical sound tracks. Third, other media effects might be systematically varied and observed. 1 In addition, other contextual variations of the violent scene could be studied: the significance of recognition (and learning) of behaviors, the conventionality of the scene-- already alluded to as a possible major variable of influence. This study might be repliCated using the edited experi- mental scenes embedded into the entire length of the show and including younger children. Additional ways of obtaining indices of aggressive intent must be devised. An attitudinal survey of feelings about violence and aggression may be too insensitive to pick up small variations due to stimulus uncertainty. The items just specified are methodological refinements necessary in adjusting the usual social scientific balance scale: tradeoff between experimentation with many variables (all possibly related) and investigating methodological tools of greater sensitivity. The concept of varying levels of stimulus uncertainty evoking arousal appears to have face validity for meaningful stimuli. However, more refined de- pendent measures of stimulus uncertainty effect are needed. 58 The research described here has lent some support to prior reports about the influence of dogmatism on the dif- ferential reaction to stimulus uncertainty. The next step is to test dogmatism in an experimental design and make more powerful conclusions about the relationship of meaningful stimulus uncertainty in communication events to dogmatism. On a theoretical level, the relationships between per- ception (and possibly understanding) of communication events and stimulus/response uncertainty seems worth investigating and defining. Correlational data indicated that when per- ceived predictability was judged high, violence and aggres— sion of the stimulus were also perceived high (r=.45). This relationship, whatever its ultimate causal direction, might indicate a "list" of attributes (like an information proces— sing list) connected to stimulus uncertainty that are rated in the same manner stimulus uncertainty is perceived. For example, if stimulus uncertainty is perceived high, then the communication event is complex, or ambiguous, or channel overlead is taking place, but is the communication source consequently perceived more intelligent, informed, or more credible? In the case of human communication, what is the threshold uncertainty level that dictates approach or avoid- ance of the communication transaction? Finally, do the correlational indications of perceptual relationships suggest that when predictability is low, and thus the violent act is unpredictable, that it will be rated 59 less violent (regardless of its violent content) because individuals consider it implausible and thus unrealistic? The implications of a combining of differential component effects from messages provide far reaching research paths for communication researchers. Research by Driscoll, Lanzetta and associates (1964; 1965; 1966) is one possible direction: they have studied information search behavior and found it to be a monotonic function of uncertainty. This suggests that an optimum communication strategy calls for structuring a message with a specified amount of uncertainty for the effects desired. The degree of that uncertainty needs yet to be determined. The interaction effects of structure and content need to be ascertained. For example, in some instances it could be desirable to increase message uncertainty to the point that consequent arousal becomes so high as to inhibit rather than facilitate any contextual effect. In cases where arousal is pleasing to the individual the uncertainty effect may not interact with contextual cues. Or, if reduction of uncertainty--information processing--is related to intelli- gence then why not determine the uncertainty level that would give a message greatest impact, regardless of content, on the less intelligent, the urban poor, or even peasants? The idea that the structure of a message has affect in terms of arousal and information search provides theoretical and methodological support for a communication research approach that is content free. It will be interesting to observe whether message strategies based on structural com- ponents are culturally bound. 60 Additional research on information processing and somatic arousal, when coupled to television viewing behavior, may yield important findings not only for social scientists studying mass communication, but also for those investigating psychophysiology and information processing. BIBLIOGRAPHY BIBLIOGRAPHY Attneave, Fred. Applications of information theory to s cholo . New York: HOIt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., I959. Baker, Robert K. and S. J. Ball. Mass media and violence. Staff Report to the National Commission on the Causes and Prevention of Violence, 1969. Bandura, A. Imitation of film-mediated aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1963, 66, 3-11. Berkowitz, L. The frustration-aggression hypothesis re- visited. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Roots of aggression: A re-examination of the frustration-aggression hypothe- gig. New York: Atherton, 1968. Berlyne, D. E. Structure and direction in thinking. New York: John Wiley, 1965. Berlyne, D. E., M. A. Craw, P. H. Salapeatek, and J. L. Lewis. Novelty, complexity, incongruity, extrinsic motivation and the GSR. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1963, 66, 560-567. Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, arousal and curiosity. New York: McGraw Hill, I960. Berlyne, D. E. Conflict and information-theory variables as determinants of human perceptual curiosity. Journal of Experimental Psycholpgy, 1957, 53, 399-404. Buss, A. B. and Ann Durkee. Assessing different kinds of hostility. Journal of Consulting Psychology, 1957, 21, 343-348. Campbell, D. T. and J. C. Stanley. Experimental and quasi- experimental desi ns for research. ChiCago: Rand McNally and Co., I963. Clark, Richard E. and G. Saloman. Pre-decisional infor- mation search as a function of subjective response un— certainty, importance, prior knowledge and dogmatism. Paper presented to International Communication Associ- ation, Minneapolis, Minn., May 1970. 61 62 Dominick, J. R. The influence of social class, the family, and exposure to television violence on the socialization of aggression. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970. Driscoll, J. M. and Lanzetta, J. F. Effects of two sources of uncertainty in decision making. Psychological Repprts, 1965, 11, 635-648. Driscoll, J. M., J. J. Tognoli, and J. T. Lanzetta. Conflict choice and subjective uncertainty in decision making. Psychological Reports, 1966, 18, 427-432. Feshbach, S. The stimulating versus cathartic effects of a vicarious aggressive activity. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1962, pg, 381-385. Garner, Wendell R. Uncertainty and structure as psychological concepts. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1962. Geen, R. G. Effects of frustration, attack, and prior training in aggressiveness on aggressive behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1968. Glucksberg, S. Symbolic processes. Dubuque, Iowa: William Brown and Company, 1966. ' Himmelweit, H., A. N. Oppenheim, and Pamela Vince. Television and the child. Published for the Nuffield Foundation, London: Oxford, 1958. Katzman, N. Aggression and violence: One stab at a defi- nition. Department of Communication, Michigan State University, 1970. (Mimeographed) Klapper, J. The effects of mass communication. New York: Free Press, 1960. Krause, M. S. The measurement of transitory anxiety. Psychological Review, 1961, fig, 178-189. Lacey, J. I. Somatic response patterning and stress: Some revisions of activation theory. In M. H. Appley and R. Trumbull (Eds.), Psychologicgl stress. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1967. Pp. 14-42. Lazarus, Richard S. Psychological stress and the coping process. New York: McGraw—Hill Book Co., Inc., 1966. 63 Lazarus, Richard S., and E. M. Opton, Jr. The study of psy- chological stress: A summary of theoretical formula- tions and experimental findings. In Charles D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiet and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966. Pp. 225-262. Long, B. H. and R. C. Ziller. Dogmatism and predecisional information search. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1956, .49, 636-638. Lovidbond, S. H. The aversiveness of uncertainty: An analysis of terms of activation and information theory. Australian Journal of Psyghology, 1968, 39(2), 85-91. Luce, R. Duncan. The theory of selective information and some of its behavioral application. In R. D. Luce (Ed.), Developments in mathematical psycholo New York: The Free Press of Glencoe, 1960. Pp. -110. MacKay, D. M. Quantal aspects of scientific information. Philospphy Magazine, 1950, 4, 289-311. Mikol, B. The enjoyment of new musical systems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, 1958. In Clark and Saloman, Pre- decisional information search as a function of subjective response uncertainty, importance, prior knowledge and dogmatism. Paper presented to International Communi- cation Association, Minneapolis, Minn., May 1970. Miller, G. A. The magical number of seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity to process informa- tion. Psychological Review, 1956, £3, 81-97. Miller, G. A. and F. C. Prick. Statistical behavioristics and sequences of responses. Psychological Review, 1949, §§, 311-324. Osgood, C. E., G. Suci, and P. Tannebaum. The masgof meaning. University of Illinois, Urbana, 1957. Owen, J. L. The effect of uncertainty on the retention of messages presented in an informative speech. Unpub- lished doctoral dissertation, University of Denver, 1967. Pyron, B. and J. Kafer, Jr. Recall of nonsense and atti- tudinal rigidity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1967, 5(4), 46 34466. Rokeach, M. The open and closed mind. New York: Basic Books, 1960. 64 Schramm, W. Information theory and mass communication. Journalism Quarterly, Spring 1955, 13, 131-146. Sears, R. R. Relation of early socialization experiences to aggression in middle childhood. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, fig, 466-492. Shannon, C. E. and W. Weaver. The mathematioal theory of communication. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1949. Shapiro, D. and A. Crider. Psychophysiological approaches in social psychology. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology. (2nd ed.) Vol. III. Reading, Mass.: AddiSon-Wesley Publishing Co. 1969. Pp. 1-49. Sieber, J. E. and J. J. Lanzetta. Conflict and conceptual structure as determinants of decision making behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1964, 32, 622-639. '_' Spielberger, C. D. Theory and research on anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger (Ed.), Anxiety and behavior. New York: Academic Press, 1966. Pp. 3-22. Tannenbaum, P. H. and B. S. Greenberg. Mass communication annual review of psychology, 1968, 19, 351-386. Weiss, Walter. Effects of the mass media on communication. In G. Lindzey and E. Aronson (Ed.), The handbook of social psychology. VOl. V. Reading, Mass.: Addison- Wesley, 1969. Pp. 77-195. Wertham, F. Seduction of the innocent. New York: Holt, Rine Rinehart, 1954. Zagona, S. V. and M. A. Kelly. The resistance of the closed mind to a novel and complex audio-visual experience. Journal of Social Psychology, 1966, 1(1), 123-131. APPENDICES APPENDIX A SEQUENCE OF SHOTS IN EXPERIMENTAL STIMULI Description of shots in Gunsmoke scene. 1; 1. 2. 3. *4. *5. 6. 7. 8. 9. *10. 11. 12. 13. *14. 15. *16. 17. *18. 33 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. Matt nods his head to Kitty and walks of out door. Marshal (Matt Dillon) walks out of saloon. Pan to villain standing at opposite end of the street. Villain signals gunman on a balcony. Sheriff in his office with 2nd gunman (at window with rifle) discussing Sheriff's dead father. Villain shouts: "Marshal!" Marshal walks toward villain, villain greets him. Villain states he wants to talk to Marshal about grazing fees and water rights; shot of Marshall's face. Villain states "I've always operated on pure reason" while camera is on Kitty coming out of saloon, looking around. Sheriff to 2nd gunman: "Ambush doesn't bother you Lok?" Second gunman: "No, but you're beginning to.” During last line Marshal comes into View of Sheriff's office window. Marshal asks villain what point he's trying to make. Villain answers he always tries to make everybody happy. Close-up of Marshal: "You're a fraud, Steiffer!” Second gunman in Sheriff's office lowers rifle at Marshal. Villain: ”I don't know how you can say that Marshal." Villain lifts his hat in signal to 1st gunman on balcony. Shot of Kitty looking suspicious; barmaid comes into view behind her. Balcony gunman stands up. Kitty shouts: "Matt, behind you on the balcony.” Marshal turns around, shoots balcony gunman. Sheriff clubs 2nd gunman on head from behind before he can fire. Sheriff walks out to Marshal. Marshal stares at Sheriff; villain looks frightened. Sheriff says ”Do me a favor Marshal, let me take care of him." *Deleted in high uncertainty version. 65 25. 26. 27. 66 Marshal nods; barmaid smiles. Villain says: "You'll be sorry for this, John." Sheriff: "Oh no, I won't” and leads villain into the jail. 67 Description of shots in Then Came Bronson scene. $1. 2. #3. #4. #5. #6. #7. *8. *9. *10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. Two Indians with motorcycle parts strapped around shoulders ride into shot on motorcycles; in the background Bronson is surrounded by a motorcycle gang. First Indian gets off cycle, walks toward gang. First Indian stops half way; backs up with frightened look on face. Pan of 5 ”tough-looking" faces of motorcycle gang. First Indian to 2nd Indian: “I guess he told them.” Shot of gang and Bronson with gang member standing at Bronson's motorcycle. Second Indian to lst Indian: "I think we've had it." Indian chief sitting near gang laughing in reaction to firght of two other Indians. First and 2nd Indian wave to Bronson. Bronson motions to the two Indians to come over. The two Indians walk toward Bronson apprehensively. Bronson: ”I just want you guys to know you do good work." Shot of Indians' faces: slight apprehensive grimace. Gang member standing next to Bronson: “Aren't those your parts?" Bronson: “You bet." Shot of all four standing around motorcycle. Hold shot. First Indian beckons Bronson away from cycle and others. Bronson to the others: ”Excuse me a moment.” Bronson walks toward lst Indian; they both crouch. First Indian: ”We'll put them back, honest." Bronson: "Oh no, not a chance.“ Bronson walks back to cycle: “No, I'm gonna race it just the way it is." Hold shot. Indians look at each other, pause, drop their parts. Indians walk back to their cycles, begin to tinker with rear wheels. #Deleted in low uncertainty version. *Deleted in high uncertainty version. APPENDIX B PRE-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE UIV STUDY DATA SHEET The following items are questions about yourself and your television viewing behavior. Please fill out the information as accurately as possible. 1. Name: 2. Phone: 3. Age: l). Class: (circle one) F‘reshmn Sophomore Junior Senior 5. Do you live: (circle one) in a dormitory off-campus 6. When you were in high school approximately how new hours per day did you watch television? Ans. 7. Approximately how new hours per day do you now watch television during an average week? Ans. Please continue on to the next page. 68 69 page 2/UZW The following statements have been offered by people as their opinion on several topics. You may find yourself agreeing strongly with some of the statements. . .disagreeing just as strongly with others.. .and perhaps uncertain about others. Whether you agree or disagree with any statement, you can be sure many others feel the same as you do. We want your mrsonal opinion on each statement. For the statements below- write in the answer blank 3 "1" if you disa ve much "2" if you disagree on the whole "3" if you disagree 0. little "’4" if you age a little "5" if you eggs on the whole "6" if you eggs veg much ”0" if you don't know the answer In this complicated world of ours the only way we can know what's going on is to rely on leaders or experts who can be trusted. My blood boils whenever a person stubbornly refuses to admit he's wrong. There are two kinds of people in this world: those who are for the truth and those who are against the truth. Most people just don't know what's good for them. Of all the different philosophies which exist in this world there is probably one which is correct. The highest form of government is a democracy and the highest form of democracy is a government run by those who are most intelligent. The main thing in life is for a person to want to do something important. I'd like it if I could find someone who would ‘ tell me how to solve my personal problems. Most of the ideas which get printed nowadays aren't worth the paper they are printed on. Ans. Ans. Ans. Ans. Ans. Ans. 70 page 3/U1V 10. Man on his own is a helpless and miserable creature. 11. It is only when a person devotes himself to an ideal or cause that life becomes meaningful. 12. Most people just don't give a damn for others. 114. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. To compromise with our political opponents is dangerous because it usmlly lead stto the betrayal of our own side. It is often desirable to reserve judgment about what's going on until one has had a chance to hear the opinions of these one respects. The present is all too often full. of unhappiness. It is only the future that counts. The United States and Russia have Just about nothing in common. In a discussion I often find it necessary to repeat mself several times to make sure I am being understood. While I don't like to‘admit this even to myself, my secret ambition is to become a great man, like Einstein, or Beethoven, or Shakespeare. Even though freedom of speech for all groups is a worthwhile goal, it is unfortunately necessary to restrict freedom of certain political groups. It is better to be a dead here than to be a live coward. Thank you. Ans. Ans. Ans. Ans. Ans. Ans. Ans. APPENDIX C INSTRUCTIONS READ TO SUBJECTS Before I begin reading the instructions I want to assure you that at no time will. you receive electric shock. We are interested in measuring your pl'ysiological response to a television scene. The pickups on your right hand meame the galvanic skin response which is basically a reaction of your sweat glands: the pickups on your arms measure changes in your heart-rate. Because the accurate recording of these various measures involves very small signals. it is important for you to remain as still as possible-aspecially your arms and hand s--so please try to get comfortable before the experiment begins. Shortly after I return to the equipment room you will be presented with the television scene. However, before playing the first scene it will take 5 minutes to adjust the equipnent: also after showing you the television scene there will be a 2—minute pause before I come back into the room to unhook you. In other words. before and after the scene you are going to see, there will be 5 and 2 minutes of "waiting time. " It is very important to remain as still as possible during the entire procedm‘enespecially yom' arms, hands, and leg. Am; questions before we begin? Remember to remain as still as possible. 71 APPENDIX D AGGRESSION SCALE AND POST-EXPERIMENTAL QUESTIONNAIRE Here are a number of statements. Some people agree; others disagree with them. We are interested in the extent to which 123 agree or disagree with each of them. For these statements please mark in the box provided a: "1" if you strongly disagree "2" if you disagree "3" if you neither agree or disagree "an if you agree "5" if you strongly agree We are interested in your first response—do not dwell too long on any one item. 1. Football would be a better game if you could be sure that nobody would get tough and mean. 2. You have to stand up for your rights—even to the extent of fighting-u-if you want to get along in the world. 3. I often do things which I regret afterward. 1L. There is too much fighting and arguing shown on TV. 5. It's perfectly natural to want to fight sometimes. 6. I never say mean things to hurt other people. 7. I don't see anything especially wrong about a fight between two gangs of teenagers. 8. I lose my temper easily. 9. Whoever insults me or my family is asking for a fight. 10. The best way to deal with someone who keeps bothering you is to rough him up a little. ll. It's okay with me if two of my friends get into a fight. '72 73 You were shown one television scene. The next set of items are scales which you are being asked to fill out to indicate how u rso feel about the scene just shown. The following example should help you in marking these scales. A typical scale looks like this: Fair : : 3. : : : Unfair very fair somewhat half & somewhat unfair very fair fair half unfair unfair You would place a mark (X) above the words that HCBT CLOSELY represented your feelings. The scene you just saw was: Dynamic : : : : : Passive very dynamic somewhat half & somewhat passive very dynamic dynamic half passive passive I'Eon- : : : : : : Aggres- Aggressive very non-ag- somewhat m & somewhat aggres- very sive non-ag- gressive non-ag- half aggres- sive aggres- gressive gressive sive sive Violent : : : : : : Non- very violent somewhat half & somewhat non- very violent violent violent half non- violent non- violent violent The sequence of events in the scene was: Prod ic table : : : : Unpre- very pred ict—: somewhat half & somewhat unpre- very d ic table pred iot- able prod ict- half unpre- d ic table unpre- able able dictable dictable While watching the scene how did you feel: Anxious . : : : C8111) very anxious Hsomewhat half & somewhat calm very anxious anxious half calm calm Relaxed : : : : : : Aroused very relaxed somewhat half & somewhat aroused very relaxed relaxed half aroused aroused TY M'clflifibfiifikfljfljflflkflflflflTflLfihmlflflRflmfif“