Aggression: Raine - Evaluation

Question 1

Generalisability

Answer 1

LOW - Ps were American murderers who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity - not generalisable to other criminals and non-Americans

HOWEVER - sample size was 41, large for PET scan study - increase representativeness

Question 2

Reliability

Answer 2

HIGH - lab conditions, control over extraneous variables & standardised procedure (e.g. 32 mins for continuous performance task) - reproducible

Question 3

Applications

Answer 3

THERE ARE PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS - provides explanation for violent criminal behaviour - use when assigning sentences in court (e.g. Raine defended a criminal who was not given the death penalty)

Question 4

Validity

Answer 4

LOW - Ps were scanned after committing murder, we can’t identify brain abnormality as definite cause - can’t establish cause and effect relationship

LOW TASK VALIDITY - a task involving aggression would show more differences - more clear assessment of brain areas involved in aggression

HIGH - matched pairs participant design (age, sex and mental disorder) - clearer comparison due to reduced participant variables

Question 5

Ethics

Answer 5

LOW - Ps asked to stop taking medication - negative impact on wellbeing

HIGH - informed consent and right to withdraw - Ps made aware and could withdraw to avoid stress and anxiety

HOWEVER - for prisoners, RTW may have been compromised - they may have felt pressured to take part due to personal circumstances

Question 6

Was the research objective?

Answer 6

YES - results relied solely on PET scan - no researcher bias as brain scans are interpreted in the same way by many people, increased validity

Question 7

Was the research reductionist?

Answer 7

YES - only considered brain abnormality - ignored social/environmental factors

Question 8

Was the research credible?

Answer 8

YES - scientific - lab conditions, based on PET scan