Sentence examples for virtual aggression from inspiring English sources

But their suggested role of virtual aggression i.e., only additional to children's aggressive predisposition, pre-existing behavioural problems and secondary to aggression seen in real-life, coheres with the more recently proposed "catalyst" model [ 34].

Direct behaviors include acts such as physically and verbally assaulting someone, destroying objects, arguing, threatening, ridiculing, etc. Indirect behavior includes acts such as disturbing the environment, practicing virtual aggression, making intrigues, gossiping, or damaging the image of people, etc. (Little et al. 2003; Smith et al. 2008).

Carers talked about a generation gap, remembering growing up with less, or a "different breed" of, virtual aggression (e.g., Tom and Jerry).

Virtual aggression seems to play a secondary role to real-life aggression, hence validated measures of aggression in both contexts, distinguishing between types of aggression (verbal and physical) are still needed.

Carers' explanations for any behavioural influences of virtual aggression included "desensitisation" (becoming used to aggression and think "it's the norm"); provision of "role models" to be "copied"; and "mirroring" or reinforcement of real-life aggression.

One child noted a positive, protective aspect of virtual aggression: "it's got to have violence because then you can see how bad it actually is and the effects of it so then people wouldn't do it".

Our findings of multiple real and virtual sources of seeing aggression, with severe forms seen more often in the latter, agree with earlier Israeli research with primary school children [ 22].

They see aggression in multiple real and virtual settings.

Children tend to see more severe forms of aggression, e.g. "stabbing" or "shooting", in the virtual world.

Most carers emphasised the vital role of family and community in helping children use the virtual world "within a controlled environment", i.e., to explain that aggression "isn't a good act", and the nature and consequences of aggression, thus limiting its behavioural influences.

The Constitution's drafters knew to a virtual certainty that Congress would only declare war in response to actual or perceived aggression against the United States, i.e., only in self-defense.