Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2018-11
Effects of Weapons on Aggressive Thoughts,Angry Feelings,Hostile Appraisals,and Aggressive Behavior: A Meta-Analytic Review of the Weapons Effect Literature
A landmark 1967 study showed that simply seeing a gun can increase aggression—called the “weapons effect.” Since 1967, many other studies have attempted to replicate and explain the weapons effect. This meta-analysis integrates the findings of weapons effect studies conducted from 1967 to 2017 and uses the General Aggression Model (GAM) to explain the weapons effect. It includes 151 effect-size estimates from 78 independent studies involving 7,668 participants. As predicted by the GAM, our naïve meta-analytic results indicate that the mere presence of weapons increased aggressive thoughts, hostile appraisals, and aggression, suggesting a cognitive route from weapons to aggression. Weapons did not significantly increase angry feelings. Yet, a comprehensive sensitivity analysis indicated that not all naïve mean estimates were robust to the presence of publication bias. In general, these results suggest that the published literature tends to overestimate the weapons effect for some outcomes and moderators.
AguinisH.WernerS.AbbottJ. L.AngertC.ParkJ. H.KohlhausenD. (2010). Customer-centric science: Reporting significant research results with rigor, relevance, and practical impact in mind. Organizational Research Methods, 13, 515-539. doi:10.1177/1094428109333339
2.
AguinisH.PierceC. A.BoscoF. A.DaltonD. R.DaltonC. M. (2011). Debunking myths and urban legends about meta-analysis. Organizational Research Methods, 14, 306-331. doi:10.1177/ 1094428110375720
3.
*AndersonC. A.AndersonK. B.DeuserW. E. (1996). Examining an affective aggression framework: Weapon and temperature effects on aggressive thoughts, affect, and attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 366-376. doi:10.1177/0146167296224004
4.
*AndersonC. A.BenjaminA. J.Jr.BartholowB. D. (1998). Does the gun pull the trigger? Automatic priming effects of weapon pictures and weapon names. Psychological Science, 9, 308-314. doi:10.1111/1467-9280.00061
5.
AndersonC. A.BushmanB. J. (1997). External validity of “trivial” experiments: The case of laboratory aggression. Review of General Psychology, 1, 19-41. doi:10.1037//1089-2680.1.1.19
6.
AndersonC. A.BushmanB. J. (2002). Human aggression. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 27-51. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135231
7.
AndersonC. A.ShibuyaA.IhoriN.SwingE. L.BushmanB. J.SakamotoA.. . . BarlettC. P. (2010). Violent video game effects on aggression, empathy, and prosocial behavior in Eastern and Western countries: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 136, 151-173. doi:10.1037/a0018251
8.
ArcherJ. (1988). The behavioral biology of aggression. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9.
BanksG. C.KepesS.McDanielM. A. (2015). Publication bias: Understanding the myths concerning threats to the advancement of science. In LanceC. E.VandenbergR. J. (Eds.), More statistical and methodological myths and urban legends (pp. 36-64). New York, NY: Routledge.
10.
BarlettC. P.AndersonC. A. (2011). Reappraising the situation and its impact on aggressive behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1564-1573. doi:10.1177/0146167211423671
11.
BaronR. A.RichardsonD. (1994). Human aggression. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
12.
*BartholowB. D.AndersonC. A.CarnageyN. L.BenjaminA. J.Jr. (2005). Interactive effects of life experience and situational cues on aggression: The weapons priming effect in hunters and nonhunters. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 48-60. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.05.005
13.
*BartholowB. D.HeinzA. (2006). Alcohol and aggression without consumption: Alcohol cues, aggressive thoughts, and hostile perception bias. Psychological Science, 17, 30-37. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2005.01661.x
14.
BenjaminA. J.Jr.BushmanB. J. (2016). The weapons priming effect. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, 45-48.
15.
*BenjaminA. J.Jr.CrosbyM.BushmanB. J. (2015). Guns prohibited images prime aggressive thoughts. Unpublished manuscript.
16.
BerkowitzL. (1968). Impulse, aggression, and the gun. Psychology Today, 2, 19-22.
17.
BerkowitzL. (1971). The “weapons effect,” demand characteristics, and the myth of the compliant subject. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 20, 332-338. doi:10.1037/h0031804
18.
BerkowitzL. (1974). Some determinants of impulsive aggression: Role of mediated associations with reinforcements for aggression. Psychological Review, 81, 165-176. doi:10.1037/h0036094
19.
BerkowitzL. (1982). Aversive conditions as stimuli to aggression. In BerkowitzL. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 15, pp. 249-285). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
20.
BerkowitzL. (1983). The experience of anger as a parallel process in the display of impulsive, “angry” aggression. In GeenR.DonnersteinE. I. (Eds.), Aggression: Theoretical and empirical reviews (Vol. 1, pp. 103-133). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
21.
BerkowitzL. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoassociationistic analysis. American Psychologist, 45(4), 494-503. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.45.4.49
22.
*BerkowitzL.LePageA. (1967). Weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7, 202-207. doi:10.1037/h0025008
23.
BettencourtB. A.KernahanC. (1997). A meta-analysis of aggression in the presence of violent cues: Effects of gender differences and aversive provocation. Aggressive Behavior, 21, 447-456. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1098-2337(1997)23:6<447:: AID-AB4>3.0.CO;2-D
24.
BettencourtB. A.MillerN. (1996). Gender differences in aggression as a function of provocation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 422-447. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.3.422
25.
BettencourtB. A.TalleyA.BenjaminA. J.Jr.ValentineJ. (2006). Personality and aggressive behavior under provoking and neutral conditions: A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 751-777. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.751
26.
BlanchetteI. (2006). Snakes, spiders, guns, and syringes: How specific are evolutionary constraints on the detection of threatening stimuli?The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 59(8), 1484-1504. doi:10.1080/02724980543000204
27.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.HigginsJ. P.RothsteinH. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
28.
BorensteinM.HedgesL. V.RothsteinH. R. (2007). Meta analysis: Fixed effect versus random effects. Retrieved from http://www.Meta-Analysis.com
29.
BoscoF. A.AguinisH.SinghK.FieldJ. G.PierceC. A. (2015). Correlational effect size benchmarks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 431-449. doi:10.1037/a0038047
30.
BushmanB. J. (2016). Violent media exposure and hostile appraisals: A meta-analytic review. Aggressive Behavior, 42, 605-613. doi:10.1002/ab.21655
31.
*BushmanB. J. (in press). Guns automatically prime aggressive thoughts, regardless of whether a “good guy” or “bad guy” holds the gun. Social Psychological and Personality Science. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1948550617722202
32.
BushmanB. J.AndersonC. A. (1998). Methodology in the study of aggression: Integrating experimental and nonexperimental findings. In GeenR. G.DonnersteinE. (Eds.), Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for policy (pp. 23-48). New York, NY: Academic Press.
33.
BushmanB. J.HuesmannL. R. (2006). Short-term and long-term effects of violent media on aggression in children and adults. Archives of Pediatrics & Adolescent Medicine, 160, 348-352. doi:10.1001/archpedi.160.4.348
34.
*BushmanB. J.KerwinT.WhitlockT.WeisenbergerJ. M. (2017). The weapons effect on wheels: Motorists drive more aggressively when there is a gun in the vehicle. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 73, 82-85. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.06.007
35.
*BussA. H.BookerA.BussE. (1972). Firing a weapon and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 296-302. doi:10.1037/h0032869
36.
*CapraraG. V.RenziP.AmoliniP.D’ImperioG.TravagliaG. (1984). The eliciting cue value of aggressive slides reconsidered in a personological perspective: The weapons effect and irritability. European Journal of Social Psychology, 14, 313-322. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420140306
37.
CarlsonM.Marcus-NewhallA.MillerN. (1990). Effects of situational aggression cues: A quantitative review. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 622-633. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.58.4.622
38.
CooperH. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
*da GloriaJ.DudaD.PahlavanF.BonnetP. (1989). “Weapons effect” revisited: Motor effects of the reception of aversive stimulation and exposure to pictures of firearms. Aggressive Behavior, 15, 265-271. doi:10.1002/ab.2480150401
41.
DaltonD. R.AguinisH.DaltonC. M.BoscoF. A.PierceC. A. (2012). Revisiting the file drawer problem in meta-analysis: An assessment of published and non-published correlation matrices. Personnel Psychology, 65, 221-249. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2012.01243.x
42.
*De OcaB. M.BlackA. A. (2013). Bullets versus burgers: Is it threat or relevance that captures attention?The American Journal of Psychology, 126, 287-300. doi:10.5406/amerjpsyc.126.3.0287
43.
DienstbierR. A.RoeschS. C.MizumotoA.HemenoverS. H.LottR. C.CarloG. (1998). Effects of weapons on guilt judgments and sentencing recommendations for criminals. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 20(2), 93-102. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp2002_1
44.
DuvalS. J. (2005). The “trim-and-fill” method. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 127-144). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
45.
*EllisD. P.WeinirP.MillerI. I. I. (1971). Does the trigger pull the finger? An experimental test of weapons as aggression-eliciting stimuli. Sociometry, 34, 453-465.
46.
EngelhardtC. R.BartholowB. D. (2013). Effects of situational cues on aggressive behavior. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 762-774. doi:10.1111/spc3.12067
47.
*EpsteinJ. F. (1980). Firearms experience and the weapons effect (Doctoral dissertation). Tulane University, New Orleans, LA.
48.
FergusonC. J.BrannickM. T. (2011). Publication bias in psychological science: Prevalence, methods for identifying and controlling, and implications for the use of meta-analyses. Psychological Methods, 17, 120-128. doi:10.1037/a0024445
49.
FergusonC. J.HeeneM. (2012). A vast graveyard of undead theories: Publication bias and psychological science’s aversion to the null. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 555-561. doi:10.1177/1745691612459059
50.
FiedlerK. (2011). Voodoo correlations are everywhere—Not only in neuroscience. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 163-171. doi:10.1177/1745691611400237
FrodiA. (1975). The effect of exposure to weapons on aggressive behavior from a cross-cultural perspective. International Journal Of Psychology, 10(4), 283-292. doi:10.1080/00207597508247340
53.
*GallinaM. F.FassW. (2014). The weapons effect in college females. Violence and Gender, 1, 165-169. doi:10.1089/vio.2014.0020
54.
*GoffK. E. (1995). The relation to violent and nonviolent toys to play behavior in preschoolers (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Iowa State University, Ames.
55.
GreenhouseJ. B.IyengarS. (2009). Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). (pp. 417-433). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
56.
GreenwaldA. G. (1975). Consequences of prejudice against the null hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 82, 1-20.
57.
GreitemeyerT.MüggeD. O. (2014). Video games do affect social outcomes: A meta-analytic review of the effects of violent and prosocial video game play. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 578-589. doi:10.1177/0146167213520459
58.
*GuoX.EganV.ZhangJ. (2016). Sense of control and adolescents’ aggression: The role of aggressive cues. Psych Journal, 5, 263-274. doi:10.1002/pchj.151
59.
*HaldermanB. L.JacksonT. T. (1979). Naturalistic study of aggression: Aggressive stimuli and horn honking: A replication. Psychological Reports, 45, 880-882. doi:10.2466/pr0.1979.45.3.880
60.
HarrisonJ. S.BanksG. C.PollackJ. M.O’BoyleE. H.ShortJ. (2017). Publication bias in strategic management research. Journal of Management, 43, 400-425. doi:10.1177/0149206314535438
61.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed- and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504.
62.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (2005). Selection methods approaches. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment, and adjustments (pp. 145-174). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
63.
*HemenwayD.VriniotisM.MillerM. (2006). Is an armed society a polite society? Guns and road rage. Accident Analysis and Prevention, 38, 687-695. doi:10.1016/j.aap.2005.12.014
64.
*HolbrookC.GalperinA.FesslerD. M. T.JohnsonK. L.BryantG. A.HaseltonM. G. (2014). If looks could kill: Anger attributions are intensified by affordances for doing harm. Emotion, 14, 455-461. doi:10.1037/a0035826
65.
HunterJ. E.SchmidtF. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
66.
IoannidisJ. P. A. (2005). Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Medicine, 2(8), e124. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.0020124
67.
IoannidisJ. P. A. (2012). Why science is not necessarily self-correcting. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 645-654. doi:10.1177/1745691612464056
68.
JickT. D. (1979). Mixing qualitative and quantitative methods: Triangulation in action. Administrative Science Quarterly, 24, 602-611. doi:10.2307/2392366
KepesS.BanksG. C.OhI.-S. (2014). Avoiding bias in publication bias research: The value of “null” findings. Journal of Business and Psychology, 29, 183-203. doi:10.1007/s10869-012-9279-0
71.
KepesS.BennettA. A.McDanielM. A. (2014). Evidence-based management and the trustworthiness of our cumulative scientific knowledge: Implications for teaching, research, and practice. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 13, 446-466. doi:10.5465/amle.2013.0193
72.
KepesS.BushmanB. J.AndersonC. A. (2017). Violent video game effects remain a societal concern: Comment on Hilgard, Engelhardt, and Rouder (2017). Psychological Bulletin, 143, 775-782.
73.
KepesS.McDanielM. A. (2013). How trustworthy is the scientific literature in industrial and organizational psychology. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 6, 252-268. doi:10.1111/iops.12045
74.
KepesS.McDanielM. A. (2015). The validity of conscientiousness is overestimated in the prediction of job performance. PLoS ONE, 10, e0141468. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0141468
75.
KepesS.McDanielM. A.BrannickM. T.BanksG. C. (2013). Meta-analytic reviews in the organizational sciences: Two meta-analytic schools on the way to MARS (the Meta-analytic Reporting Standards). Journal of Business and Psychology, 28, 123-143. doi:10.1007/s10869-013-9300-2
76.
*KlinesmithJ.KasserT.McAndrewF. T. (2006). Guns, Testosterone, and aggression: An experimental test of a mediational hypothesis. Psychological Science, 17, 568-571. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2006.01745.x
77.
*KorbA. (2016). Life experience as a moderator of the weapons priming effect (Unpublished master’s thesis). Texas A&M University Corpus Christi.
78.
KrahéB. (2013). The social psychology of aggression (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
79.
*LeyensJ.ParkeR. D. (1975). Aggressive slides can induce a weapons effect. European Journal of Social Psychology, 5, 229-236. doi:10.1002/ejsp.2420050207
80.
*LindsayJ. J.AndersonC. A. (2000). From antecedent conditions to violent actions: A general affective aggression model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 533-547. doi:10.1177/0146167200267002
81.
LoerschC.PayneB. K. (2011). The situated inference model: An integrative account of the effects of primes on perception, behavior, and motivation. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 234-252. doi:10.1177/1745691611406921
82.
*MahjoobA.LeyensJ.YzerbytV. (1992). The weapons effect among children in an armed-conflict environment. Unpublished manuscript.
83.
*MendozaA. (1972). The effects of exposure to toys conducive to violence (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Miami, FL.
84.
MoldenD. C. (2014). Understanding priming effects in social psychology: What is “social priming” and how does it occur?Social Cognition, 32(Suppl.), 1-11. doi:10.1521/soco.2014.32.supp.1
85.
MorenoS. G.SuttonA.AdesA. E.StanleyT. D.AbramsK. R.PetersJ. L.CooperN. J. (2009). Assessment of regression-based methods to adjust for publication bias through a comprehensive simulation study. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 9, Article 2.
86.
OakesW. (1972). External validity and the use of real people as subjects. American Psychologist, 27, 959-962.
87.
O’BoyleE. H.RutherfordM. W.BanksG. C. (2014). Publication bias in entrepreneurship research: An examination of dominant relations to performance. Journal of Business Venturing, 29, 773-784. doi:10.1016/j.jbusvent.2013.10.001
88.
Open Science Collaboration. (2015). Estimating the reproducibility of psychological science. Science, 349, Article 6251. doi:10.1126/science.aac4716
89.
OrlitzkyM. (2012). How can significance tests be deinstitutionalized?Organizational Research Methods, 15, 199-228. doi:10.1177/1094428111428356
PashlerH.CoburnN.HarrisC. R. (2012). Replicate effects on Social and food judgments. PLoS ONE, 7(8), e42510. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0042510
92.
PashlerH.WagenmakersE. J. (2012). Editors’ introduction to the special section on replicability in psychological science.Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 528-530. doi: doi:10.1177/1745691612465253
93.
PetersJ. L.SuttonA. J.JonesD. R.AbramsK. R.RushtonL. (2008). Contour-enhanced meta-analysis funnel plots help distinguish publication bias from other causes of asymmetry. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 61, 991-996. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.11.010
94.
RichardF. D.BondC. F.Jr.Stokes-ZootaJ. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology, 7, 331-363. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.7.4.331
95.
RosenthalR. (1979). The file drawer problem and tolerance for null results. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 638-641. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.86.3.638
96.
SapolskyR. M. (1998). The trouble with testosterone: And other essays on the biology of the human predicament (p. 150). New York, NY: Scribner.
97.
SchmidtF. L.HunterJ. E. (2015). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings (3rd ed.). Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
98.
SchwarzerG. (2007). Meta: An R package for meta-analysis. The Newsletter of the R Project, 7, 40-45.
99.
SearsD. O. (1986). College sophomores in the laboratory: Influences of a narrow data base on social psychology’s view of human nature. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 515-530.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2011). False-positive psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science, 22, 1359-1366. doi:10.1177/0956797611417632
102.
*SimonsL. S.FennM. R.LaytonJ. F.TurnerC. W. (1976). Aggressive behavior in a game at the amusement park. In KochJ. (Ed.), Altruismus und aggression: Das fieldexperiment in der sozialpsychology1 (Altruism and aggression: The field experiment in social psychology 1) (pp. 141-148). Weinheim, Germany: Beltz Verlag.
103.
*SimonsL. S.TurnerC. W. (1975). A further investigation of the weapons effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1, 188-190. doi:10.1177/014616727400100164
104.
*SimonsL. S.TurnerC. W. (1976). Evaluation apprehension, hypothesis awareness, and the weapons effect. Aggressive Behavior, 2, 77-87. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1976)2:1<77:: AID-AB2480020108>3.0.CO;2-A
105.
StanleyT. D.DoucouliagosH. (2014). Meta-regression approximations to reduce publication selection bias. Research Synthesis Methods, 5, 60-78. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1095
106.
StanleyT. D.JarrellS. B.DoucouliagosH. (2010). Could it be better to discard 90% of the data? A statistical paradox. The American Statistician, 64, 70-77. doi:10.1198/tast.2009.08205
107.
SterneJ. A. C.SuttonA. J.IoannidisJ. P. A.TerrinN.JonesD. R.LauJ.. . . HigginsJ. P. T. (2011). Recommendations for examining and interpreting funnel plot asymmetry in meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials. British Medical Journal, 343, 302-307. doi:10.1136/bmj.d4002
108.
StrackF.SchwarzN. (2016). Editorial overview: Social priming—Information accessibility and its consequences. Current Opinion in Psychology, 12, iV-Vii. doi:10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.11.001
109.
*SubraB.MullerD.BègueL.BushmanB. J.DelmasF. (2010). Automatic effects of alcohol and weapon cues on aggressive thoughts and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1052-1057. doi:10.1177/0146167210374725
110.
*SulikowskiD.BurkeD. (2014). Threat is in the sex of the beholder: Men find weapons faster than do women. Evolutionary Psychology, 12, 888-906. doi:10.1177/147470491401200505
111.
TerrinN.SchmidC. H.LauJ.OlkinI. (2003). Adjusting for publication bias in the presence of heterogeneity. Statistics in Medicine, 22, 2113-2126. doi:10.1002/sim.1461
112.
TochH.LizotteA. J. (1992). Advocating gun control. In SuedfeldP.TetlockP. E. (Eds.), Psychology and social policy (pp. 223-249). New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing.
113.
TrikalinosT. A.IoannidisJ. P. A. (2005). Assessing the evolution of effect sizes over time. In RothsteinH. R.SuttonA. J.BorensteinM. (Eds.), Publication bias in meta analysis: Prevention, assessment and adjustments (pp. 241-259). West Sussex, UK: John Wiley.
114.
*TurnerC. W.GoldsmithD. (1976). Effects of toy guns and airplanes on children’s antisocial free play behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 21, 305-315. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(76)90044-8
115.
*TurnerC. W.LaytonJ. F.SimonsL. S. (1975). Naturalistic studies of aggressive behavior: Aggressive stimuli, victim visibility, and horn honking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1098-1107. doi:10.1037/h0076960
116.
TurnerC. W.LeyensJ. (1992). The weapons effect revisited: The effects of firearms on aggressive behavior. In SuedfeldP.TetlockP. E. (Eds.), Psychology and social policy (pp. 201-222). New York, NY: Hemisphere Publishing.
117.
*TurnerC. W.SimonsL. S. (1974). Effects of subject sophistication and evaluation apprehension on aggressive responses to weapons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 30, 341-348. doi:10.1037/h0036894
118.
TurnerC. W.SimonsL. S.BerkowitzL.FrodiA. (1977). The stimulating and inhibiting effects of weapons on aggressive behavior. Aggressive Behavior, 3, 355-378. doi:10.1002/1098-2337(1977)3:4<355:: AID-AB2480030405>3.0.CO;2-G
119.
VeveaJ. L.WoodsC. M. (2005). Publication bias in research synthesis: Sensitivity analysis using a priori weight functions. Psychological Methods, 10, 428-443. doi:10.1037/1082-989X.10.4.428
ViechtbauerW.CheungM. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 112-125. doi:10.1002/jrsm.11
122.
YongE. (2012). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature, 485, 298-300. doi:10.1038/485298a
123.
*ZhangQ.TianJ.ZhangD.RodkinP. (2016). Exposure to weapon pictures and subsequent aggression during adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 113-118. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.017
ViechtbauerW.CheungM. W. L. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 112-125. doi:10.1002/jrsm.11
126.
YongE. (2012). Replication studies: Bad copy. Nature, 485, 298-300. doi:10.1038/485298a
127.
*ZhangQ.TianJ.ZhangD.RodkinP. (2016). Exposure to weapon pictures and subsequent aggression during adolescence. Personality and Individual Differences, 90, 113-118. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2015.09.017
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
