more video game c1I.araam (Mario Brothers) than cooperation- primed w.bjeas. ... Auchors' Note: Experiment 2 was conducted as a aenior baDen theais .... we enter new situations. Such a knowledge structure approach has proved useful in understanding a varieo/ ..... tendo video game Super Mario Brothers under either a.
,
--..,--
,--
-'-'
-, - .- .
-
--, ,------
----
.,
..' '.,'
Meliss Morro whi the circ we kn 45 w c terms woul incm Deu (19 rec su m re o sion and on coo cir ~ptor ture. Our violen crime rate is cons lUgh than PSP 21 No 10, Oc 19 10 C 1Vo by the Soc fur Pe 99 ao So Pl ID Competitive Aggression Without Interaction: Effects of Competitive Versus Cooperative Instructions on Aggressive BehaviQr in Video
Games
Craig A. Anderson
993)
theoryof
(I
~
and tested Deutsch
proximal cause of most violent encounters is anger, often
~
e:amded
of Missouri
Two
University
to tMn1r.
of an ambi.gu.owly
for
murders
of
1990,
argument.
In
of
were
being
arguments.
26%
Another
to
due
as
tied
that peopu view competitive situations as inherently more aggressive than cooperative ones. Furthernum, it was predicted
that kading peopu
the
in
context
an
competition tffeas. A knowl8dge structure approach predicted
classified as "miscellaneous non-felony o/Pes, " a category
aggressive
that includes murderscommitted
sit1.UJtiml. ifi competitive aggressive bM.aoior. In &periment I, knowl8dge structures of competitive situations had more aggressive content than cooperative ones. In
narcotics"
&periment 2, competition1Jrimul w.bjects unnecessarily 1cill8d more video game c1I.araam (Mario Brothers) than cooperation-
COOPERATION
primed w.bjeas. The #urease in kill ratio occurred in the ahsena of changes in hostility, .friendlinas, or liking for one~ game partner. Implications for undmtanding cooperation and c0m.. petition, and for fu:rlher mearch on w.ch affict1as agression, "
Thus, one important aspect of violence concerns the circumstances that promote arguments, anger, and aggression and possible alternative circumstances that promote agreement, affection, and affiliation. Morton
"during
brawls while
offend6: was under
tlNWediscussed.
the influence of alcohol and/or (U.S. Department of Justice, 1991, p. 14). AND COMPE1Tl10N
the role of competitive circumstances as precmsors to the destructive pattern of argument, anger, and aggres-
build
to
society
L'I
peaceful
creating
cooperation and less competition into many of our societal structures. This position is not a new one, either
Auchors' Note: Experiment 2 was conducted as a aenior baDen theais by the IeCOnd author uncia' the direction of the 1int author. We thank the ibllowing Individuab fur their he1pt\1l comments on earlier drafts of thia article: Katbryn Andenon, Ann Bettencourt, WUIiam Deuser, Karen DiD.CorrapoDdenc:e conc:ernlng th1awod: Ihould be addieI8ed to Qaig A. Andenon, Department o£ PaychoJogy,Mc:Aleater' HaD, ma1llhould
be IeDtvlaBlTNBT
to
65211.
Unlger8ky
,
MO
'
Columbia,
Department ofJustice, 1991). Numerous variables influence the frequency of violent crime. The known variables differ in many ways, inclucting level of analysis. For instance, there are many int1uential80ciological variables such as poverty, education, age, and culture. These variables neceuarily 0perate through the individual, though, by way of such psychological variables as trait hostility, attitudes toward violence, and feelings of frustration. Ultimately, the
of
. 1990 .murder and serious assault rates for the larger European and North American countties, displayed in Table 1. Furthermore, in 1990 the United States experienced 2S,4S8murdersand nonnegligent tn2n,,12ugh~ and an additionall,O54,86S aggravated assaults (U.s.
more
the constructive pattern of agreement, affection, and affiliation. Deutsch (1993) cogently argues that one way
as shown by the
more
nation,
of U.S. cul-
a
that of any other tmY°r Western
characteristic
MiAouri-Columbia,
is a distinguishing
o£
Violence
E1ectron1c
PSlt:AAOMIZZOUl.
1020
\
TABL 1: Murd and Serio Assa Rate (per 100, pop Murd Rau any exc goa By de on p c West Germ coo last tim so it's my tu by fo o t th h typ of con and the sa ~ b f in . o though in recent years politi even have led som any wo rec or fam en We lear this bot in the rel po se o for infl phy or ps ha o t ~ h 5-6-ye childr displ more aggr beha compo mostl of wins. Aron work on racia inte Ind ma of the us su ar fr th create by the stand comp class stru as wen as utilio the coop 'jigsa tech sive term We dev ric kn st a from sto com (e Bo 19 to p -.-----.-
-
---
'
~-'~
--
Anderson,
/ COMPETETIVE AGGRESSION
Morrow
"
JO21
..
"p'hysical'~o~~.
NoI1hAmeri.c:an
1990
~e"frequ~tly
in everyone's
life, even in early childhood. the
choose
cookie,
Only
last
more than %5,000,000),
Such'~~ces'
encountered
Countries
the
and
person
(population
European
have
Large
can
for
one
tion)
Country
United
States
Canada
France
8.4
S70.%
5.5 4.6
lSO.5 76.S
4.%
10%.7
%.S
Spain
Kingdom
%5.2
2.0
SO5.4
1.5
19.0
of force (as wheri"the
stronger
child takes the television,
.
weaker),
SOURCE: WorlilAtla.s (1991). a. Historically, Turkey is not
(as in the spelling
included
in European
contest).
skills
superior
or
the
from
control
remote
by
Turlteya
attain his or her desired goal in such situations, and some sort of competition usually determines the winner, either by persU3Sive argument (as in "Dad, she got the last
SM
%.S
Italy
United
television show to watch, or win the spelling contest. In other words, interacting people frequently have mutu-
&riotu Assault Rau
Adult examples
of the same
comparisons,
social
scientists
to include it occasionally as a European country.
(among other things) that competitive games can break up initial friendsWps, create hostilities, and induce aggressive behaviors among boys at a summer camp. Nelson, Gelfand, and Hartmann (1969) found that
incompetitive
playing
contests
than
after
noncomwere
competitions
prior
the
competi-
of
lifetime
this
from
learn
people
that
settings
gration
Stephan.
classroom
in
children
we
citizens,
ponents. Participants are expected to try to trounce, demolish, destroy, or blow away their opponents, figuratively if not literally. People also experience many cooperative episodes in normal daily life. As parents, educators, and concerned
Aronson,
(e.g.,
if
even
petitive
contests,
after
assertive and in the more negative sense of inflicting harm.. One need only attend a football g-...m. or a debate and listt:Jl,to the contestants, coaches, and spectators to get a feel for how all view the contest as the proper scene
adults)
showed
(and
1953)
She-rif,
hope
Be
tive goal conflicts? Certainly, one general lesson most people learn is that competition is necessarily aggressive.
certamly
(Sherif
Sherif
What
to Deutsch (see his dissertation research: Deutsch, 1949a, 1949b) or to social psychology in general. Investigators have empirically demonstrated a number of the aggressive negative consequences of excessive competitiveness. The classic Robber's Cave studies by Muzafer and Carolyn
do
Cognitive Contribution
BeIkowitz (1989),
"Competitive
encounters
areat least
partly frustradng as the contestants b10~ each other's attempts to reach the ctisput.ed goal" (p. 66). When people perceive that they are compedngwith each other over a valued commodio/, they naturally behave in ways that produce ill feelings, arguments, and (occasionally)
goal.
.
the participants' perceptions of the task (as in labor /
competitive
and
cooperative
situations.
These
knowl-
and behavior as
a
structure
edge structures guide our perceptions knowledge
In an of this past work on competition and cooperation, an appropriately interpersonal dynamic approach has been taken. That is, competitive situations are seen as leading to interpersonal conflict and aggression by means of the cognitive, affective, and behavioral exchanges that take place between coactors. According to
to reach a shared
management negotiations) . At.a fairly early age, then, most people learn to think of competitive situations in hostile, aggressive terms and to think of cooperative situations in friendly. nonaggres-
Such
Dynamic Approach
of cooperation
dynamic literature on cooperation and competition re- volve around changing apparently competitive situations into cooperative ones, eithe'I' by restx:ucturing the task (as in classroom activities) or by restructuring
situations.
to restructuring classrooms. More recently, 1josvold and Cbia (1989) successfully demonstrated that Deutsch's (1973) theory of cooperative and competitive goals ap. plies to the dynamics and outcomes in work settings in a non-Western culture (Singapore).
learn the benefits
new
the problems
enter
1978) illustrated
we
Sikes, Blaney, Be Snapp,
approach has proved useful in understanding a varieo/ of phenomena across domains of psychology ranging tion ofpo1itical defecton (e.g., Sedikides BeAnderson, 1992). In addition, this knowledge structure approach
to understanding cognitive effects of competitive versus cooperative situations is wholly compatible with a m~or
\
. --. .-----........-----.---
PSYCHOLOGYBUlLETIN Berk~'
'.",
,
-,
.
'~uenc~"
'..
'"
,.."
. .. .
important
perception
person
influence can
indeed
tions
What cognitive
owitz's
neoassociationmodeL
we
(1990)
"
descrip-
.
on' 3ggr~on-namely,
ambiguous
.
'theo~eticai 'Pe~Pective
abo~t
SOCIAL
think
PERSONALITY AND
people
1022
.. ._h
h_-"--
'.-'_Uh
how
.
as and
competitive
coop-
~ur
contentions
concerning
for
network..
support
study
this
claim
cannot
we
processes. However,
in
elements
linked
a
are essentially sets of
associatively
structures
semantic
calling knowledge
are
these
knowledg~
structures
or associative
links
erative knowledge
structures.
Wann and
The
Branscombe primes the
of
hostility
varied intended),
(as
the view
we
because situation
in
competitive/cooperative
nacompetitive
both and
held
that
manipulation
a
constant the content (and thus thf: inherent aggressiveness) of the activity while systematically varying subjects' competitive versus cooperative perspective on the task.
is
behavior
ver-
competitive
concerning
questions main
two
Our
(aggressively).
competitively
This
perceived
eration presumably plays a role in the dynamics of interpersonal interactions. Once one participant defines a situation as competitive, he or she will likely behave
was
needed
we
What sports.
coop-
cognitive
This
of
competition
boxing
are
and Golf
them.
ture
or cooperative. effect
as competitive purely
situation
of
given
they
the
not
a
sively
merely
aggres-
the
manipulation
priming
more
behave
to they
us
lead
exist,
may
less)
(or
Once
sus cooperative knowledge structures wex:eaddressed in two studies. The first assessed peOple's beliefs about competitive and cooperative situations in general, with
is
~
interpreted
the
coactor
the
situation,
ascompeti-
~
.
,
The concerning
aggression.
beliefs
their
on
focus
a
com-
to
structure knowledge
this
However,
approach
tive (aggressive), and is instrumental in inducing a similaraggressive response (cf.Kelley &.Stahe1ski, 1970).
-
:inanycircumstances to produce significant increases in
dologically, . the task was useful because it allowed a
in
main
The
which
ag-
in
task
novel
a
of
presentation
standardized
aggres.~e
behavior.
which
second assessed the effects of competitive versus cooperative instructions on the aggressiveness of behavior in a novel video game task. The video game task was chosen for both methodological and ecological reasons. Metho-
circumstance
petitive aggression does not require true interpersonal interaction in order to produce aggressive behavior. The main thesis of this article is that simply defining a situation as competitive (vs. cooperative) is sufficient in
when
this is likeJy to occur is the si~tion is ambiguous along two dimensions. First, the situation must be ambiguous with regard to how much aggression is called for.
If someonepunches you in the nose, being told that this is act1Jally a cooperative
situation is unlikely to be con-
grcssiveJJ~avior was possible but not necessary. In addition, each subject's style of play could be videotaped and coded for aggressiveness. .
The videogame taskwasusefulecologicallyin that the
growing use of such games in U.s. society has been a
If
re1ativelynoveL
be
must
the
of
effects
the
many.
to
concern
of
source
By
e~mining
vincing.
Second,
situation
Gor 198 Sil Be W 19 F o closes study was ahmore prim expe ostil by Wan hosti and as mor like situation
the general literature on potential positive and negative
view
to
instruction
some
cooperative versus competitive instructions on the aggressiveness of style of play, this research contributes to games.
video
of
effects
ctifferent1y.
less
of
the
one has been in the same situation repeatedly, one is likely to have already formed a standard way of behaving in it; such behavioral scripts are likely to be used regardThe research
reported
in this article was designed
to
EFFECl'SOFVIOLRNTVIDEOGAMES
aggressive
than
more
answer two related questions. F:irst, do people view com.petitive situations in general as
&
aggression.
in
increases
produces
might be expected, playing violent video games also decreases prosocial behaviors (Chambers Be Ascione, 1987). '
The results of the relatively few violent video game studies are very similar tb those reported in the massive show
clearly
both
that
in
violence,
and Branscombe (1990). These researchers primed hostility by having subjects think about aggressive sports (e.g., boxing) or nonaggressive sparta (e.g., go1t). When Jater asked to rate an ambiguous description of a target person, subjects Who had been primed ,with aggressive sparta rated the person as to prefer hostile activities than subjects primed with nonaggressive sports. This study provides a beautiful demonstration that subtle manipulations designed to
media
Perhaps the
play
studies of either of these two questions.
hostility and anxiety have been linked to video game violence (Anderson &.Ford, 1986). Cooper and Mackie (1986) showed that even passive observation of violent
on
up
directly
turned
search
literature
Our
no
rel~t
the aggressiveness of the behavior in that task. even when interpersonal interaction is kept to a minimum? This is the competitive aggressiveness question.
game
. erattve.structure for a novel task significantly influence
In recent years, several investigators have demonsl1'ated that playing aggressive video games can produce some unwanted consequences in the game player. For instance, playing a violent video game can increase subsequent aggressive behavior (Schutte, Malouff, BePost-
video
structure quesversus a coop-
literature
cooperative ones? This is the knowledge tion. Second, does priming a competitive
that under many drct:anatances violent material can produce increases in aggression (see Geen, 1990, for an
\
oudine earlie No studie have expli man one fea pe lin T t li a l o e we should be able to detec these know struc sca ask the ext to wh ea ty o s i sion, excite and pleas dime Fma Sim tas Th ta w b fr o other and with the word comp coop Each wor sub are pre wi all po pa o w from a l of 10 agg ist an 10 am F siOD conten then comp situa shou lead to wo are to ea ot T a g /mi wo Th am w ar task wit the wo PIW Ten femal and seven male intro psyc boo we con so th ha th su w wer dro fro all fin an of the study we are inter in find out rece aw de Ad qu ri w afmome to think ew abou ~diffe com Morrow
Anderson,
/ COMPf!TETIVE
,,',
,"
,
1028
, ,,'
,,'
':
"'", " "" " overview). Important as these results are, they do not directly address the competitive aggression hypothesis
,.'"
..'"
versus cooperative
instructions
for the same
1) and should be able to influence aggresby simple manipulations of competitive
versus cooperanve mstructional EXPERIMENT
2) .
sets ~eriment
about
think
the task before generating features. Following scale were these additional instructions:
,
task and then followed up by assessing purely cognitivebased (i.e., in the absence of dynamic interaction) aggressive behavior in that task context. This gap exists not only in the video game literature but also, as noted earlier, in the competition/cooperation literature. If knowledge structures about competition and cooperation do exist, and if they operate as hypothesized, then (Expenmen.; sive behavior
to
time
some
take
did
that
subjects
.g~bjects then rated how easy or difficult it was to think about these situations. This rating was included only to ensure
competitive
this rating
What are the common features or characteristics of most competitive siwations? Please list the most common or most characteristic features of c6mpetitive situations 'that you have experienced or that you know about. List three, but do ndtlist more than 10.
These mstructions were followed by 10 blank. lines. Instructions for the generation of cooperative features were the same,. ex~ept that the word, cooperative replaced
"..
competitive.
Dimensionalrati~. The words competitiveand cooperOr tive were each rated on six unipolar scales. Four of the
1
Overview
beliefs
on
focus
main
concerning
This experiment was designed to assess differences in beliefs about competitive versus cooperative situations. behavior.
Subje\:ts
aggressive
was
The
generated
common
cha]:acteristics
of
competitive and cooperative situations. They then rated competitive and cooperative situations on several aggresa cognitive
similarity
task
with
ambiguous
were
words
Bushman's (1991) work on the cognitive networks of hostile and nonhostile people. In that line of research,
pair was rated for similarity/relatedness. If people do indeed have knowledge structures about competitive and cooperativ,e situations, and if they differ in aggresof more
aggression-related
features,
each
word
pair,
or related
the
the subject
to
btacher,
blood,
are
words
the generation
called for aggression-relevant behaviors (forceful, aggressive, hurtful. and destructive). These scales were anchored at not at all (1), moderately (8), and extmnely (5). One scale asked the extent to whk.h each type of situation was very dull (1) vers:us very exciting (5). The final scaleasI{ed the extent to which each type of situation was very unpleasant (1) versus very pleasant (5).
inwhich ageach
completed
paired
they
and
"
gressive
:'
,
,
AGGRESSION
higher aggression'ratings, and to higher similarity/ relatedness ratings when paired with aggressive words.
Method
rates
how similar, associated,
choM, fight, gun, hatchet, hurt, kill,
bottle, drugs, movie, night, police, Ted,rock, stidt. Subjects in the present study performed this san'le word-pair rating
,
compete and cooperate added.
roBJECI'S
students participated in the experiment for course credit. Preliminat")' analyses yielded no consistent effects of sex of subject, and so it was dropped from all final analyses. MKIER1ALS
Common ftatu-m questionnaim. Instructions for the generation of competitive features began as follows: People are often involved in competitive. situations. In
this part how you think about tive
siwat;ionsthat
competitive
situations.
are familiar to you.
Please take
After completing consent forms, subjects were given booklets containing all experimental materials. The
randomly
assigned
to generate
competitive
features
first;
the other half generated cooperative features first. Crossing this manipulation was another counterbalancing factor. Half the subjects did the dimensional ratings for competitive situations first; the other half did these rat-
ings for cooperative situations first. Because these counterbalancing
factors yielded no consistent effects, they
After completing all experimental materials, subjects
answered
by the experimenter.
\.
'4
- -_.,-- __h
~t_-------IQ24
"--
PSYCHOLOGYBUILE11N
PERSONAU1Y AND SOCIAL
- ,-
.,. f
so
-,',
.-
""
, ,
,- --
-
s TY\)CofSilualion
% M e 20.1 P < . mo ag 00 F( 16 = 6 P < .000 mo hur F( 16 = 6 P < . a m 0 . Featu feature listed by subje were cJass into one of thre atio we rat as ex catego Aggre featu those that desc .OS -bu les ple 4 th from sub sim ra ta (a Nonag featur were those tb3t desc lack rw-nt2 which essen aggr VB co X 2 ( C AN As pre bo th sit m e a .P aation: and nonag ggres were analy in 2 ( Sit pa ~ . Th me 00 dis in FJ S r th e coope VI. comp X 2 ( aggr Fea (p< and to am ag w (p (ANO The result were essen the sam and so .petitiv < As can be 0001. seen in FIgU I, subje gene atio in mu mo ag te th co situati as callin for more force F(I, 16) = .
~
.
130
0
Cooperative
011
Nona~ve
~
3
0
4
...c ......
Aggzasive
=:
20
~
{? to. 0
';no
II, Compeliti~
~
~40
Tyoe of Feature
~
~
~
III 4.1
2
10
~
gf
0
Cooperative
Competitive
-- - -- --
Type
Competitive
Cooperative
Aggressive Hw'Iful DeslnlCtive ~ling
FoR:eCul
of Situation
Pleasant
Dimensio'n
Figure 1 Relative frequency
(percentage) of aggressive and DOI18I'" greaive features generated for cooperative and compedtive situations.
FIgure
ratings
of competidve
and cooperative
situations
on six
dimensions.
explicitly aggressive
behavior
P
=
.10. The dyad analy once again yield no relia Ifwe assum the popul gend stere of fem par or the ow cu m st If th p rien wh som int pe ex a a blam the targ ofm or he an fo so ag 1028
PERSONAUIYAND
SOCIAL
PSYCHOLOGY
.
II
CocnpecItM
0
CooperaIive
~ndencies,
relative
to the competitive
condition.
One
obvious question is whether the cooperative frame of mind decreases aggressive tendencies or the competitive frame of mind inaeases .~em, or whether bod;1 these effects occur. This question assumes, however, that there
is some natural
~
"control"
condition
with which
the coop-
0
be
might
com-
competitive
erative
and
'-'
"""-
BUlLETIN
80
60
-- .- - --
_.
..
....
condition
"
--
-
---
the
'"
io1O ~
pared. In the context of dyadic game playing, such a conCrol condition is difficult to envision. Players typically see themselves as either competing or cooperating with the other player. An instruction set to "ignore" the other player could be used, but that solution merely masks the experimenter's ignorance of how the subject is actually viewing the task with an untenable ass\!Dlption that the subject is not paying attention to his or her partner's
~
-
20
0
Females
Males
--
'SexofSubject
cant,
sex
interaction
were
the game
nonsignifi-
by
and
both
FJgUre 4 Percent8&'J of creatares Jdlled by the main character u a function of sex of sabjectand compecitiveversas cooperative perspective.
ps> .15. The
dyad analyses of hostility yielded no
game by sex
competitive.
3.24),
(M
whereas
the
In
paradigm, for instance, one
vid~
which two subjects take t1.JniS but play totally different games. If one of the conCrol s~jects is pJaying the same game as is used in the competitive and cooperative instruction conditions, then the relative magnitudes of the cooperative and
'
higher
60%
about
Experiment 2 is the first to empirically assess the theoretical proposition that putting people in a competitive frame of mind increases their aggressive tendencies even though the aggression is not directed at the competitor. The kill ratios of both male and female subjects in the competitive .
condition
than in the cooperative condition.' An altemative way of framing this finding is to note that the cooperative frame of mind reduced aggressive
relative
the
apart
teasing
of
task
the
them. Specifically, people' often appear to get angry at another for no apparent reason. The angry person person's
Discussion
up in ~ent research, it suggests oneanswer to the puzzlement children and adults frequently expe-
holds
the
unrelated to the main point of the article, and so it will not be discussed further.
of
fit their preferred is speculative and
source
. females felt best after a task that interaction style. This expJanatioD
the
males
Both
DJ3kes
measure
sense.
and
on the
is
and males preferring
act
situations
agreeableness
.
cooperative'
competitive ones, then the obtained interaction
instigadng
preferring
~
ps> .20. This is to be expected, as the onlyre1iable effect involved sex, which is not precisely assessed in the dyad analyses.
effects;
effects of competitive and cooperative' instructions to future research. For present pmposes, it seems sufficient to have discovered that cooperative and competitive frames of mind can produce such vastly different rates of aggressive game play, as displayed in FIgUre 4. The'lack of similar cooperative/competitive effects on the perceptu3l, liking, and affect measures is intriguing. Subjects apparently differed in their level of aggressive behavior without concomitant differences in how they felt about the game, how they felt about their
act;
main effects of game and sex were both nonsignificant,
leave
We
sessed.
meaningfully
as-
can
effects
competitive
instruction
be
=
game
an opti-
tions that might still allow a rough assessment of whether the cooperative instructions decrease aggression, the competitive ones increase aggression, or both effects game
the
after
than
(or some mix of the two), thereby precluding
m.aI1y similar control condition. However, there are op-
occur.
reliable effects, ps > .20. Agreeableness yielded an intereSting
were
--
anger. The instigator is fuRy unaware that he or she has done anything to annoy the now-angry person and is truly puzzled by the uncomfort3ble situation in which he
or she finds himself or herself.The current theoretical
analysis of competition and aggression suggests that the instigators. in such situations may very well have been \
red unn ag an vi H c ,.~ and in the live oT tho aro th A s app to red ec ag u th tion has focuse on dynam inter of peop We few agg ele W a le op a r the effi of thi ap ho H c is o edg stru are lik to fa pa in s l alit the com lin m n negati emoti and confl wher ~hen we thin And C. A., De W E Be De K ( H ~ 1 . Ber L. (19 FI' hy E agg A c an og A P Bow G. H. Ex on sto un a r e ations that promo affec aggre Of part to affectl aggre as well as how. aggr sive behav may lead to serio ange Coo J., Ie Ma D. (19 Vi ga an ag in chi of Ap &u P~ 16 72 Deu M. (19 A tof co he co H Anderson,
Consequently,
impossible
aggressive.
as
it
interpret
to
them
is
it
for
them
to predict
or
to understand
the
. angry reactions of the '\rictims" of their aggression. Their reactions to being "falsely" accused of inappropriately aggressive behavior are likely to exacerbate the conflict cycle that began so innocuously.
AGGRESSION
1029
'"
of
frame
competitive
the
of
understanding
better
i
