Biological Practical.

Question 1

What was the aim?

Answer 1

To investigate whether there is a positive correlation between masculinity score and aggression score as measured from self report questionnaires.

Question 2

What is the research that is related to this practical?

Answer 2

That men may be more aggressive due to survival of genes.
Research previously investigated a relationship between testosterone and aggression through correlations.

Question 3

What were the co-variables? (fully operratioinalised)

Answer 3

Masculinity-personal attributes questionnaire (out of 40)
Aggression-busy-perry scale 1992 (out of 145)

Question 4

What is the alternate and null hypothesis?

Answer 4

There will be a SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP between masculinity and personal attributes questionnaire and aggression (bussy-perry)

-null hypothesis would be NO significant relationship.

Question 5

What was the method and sample?

Answer 5

Method-correlations using questionnaires
Sample-opportunity.

Question 6

Who were the participants?

Answer 6

15 years 12s from Dame Elizabeth Cadbury Sixth Form.
3 17 year olds and 12 16 year olds
12 girls and 3 boys.

Question 7

Apparatus used.

Answer 7

2 questionnaires
Personal attributes questionaire and bussy-perry scale.
These were already in existence and can be accessed through the internet.

Question 8

Procedure?

Answer 8

Participants sat down and were told to fill out both questionnaires.
This was out of their free will and had the chance to reject.
Scored were counted and used for calculated values.

Question 9

Controls.

Answer 9

There was one reverse scored question in the personal attributes questionnaire and 2 in the bussy-perry scale.

Question 10

Ethical issues and solutions.

Answer 10

Lack of informed consent- was debriefed at end.
Privacy and confidentiality was good and answers were anonymous.

Question 11

Results/conclusion.

Answer 11

There was NO SIGNIFICANT RELATIONSHIP between aggression scores on a scale and masculinity scored on a scale.

Could mean that other factors have Moore of an influence on aggression rather than masculinity.

(Calculated value of -0.03 is lower than the critical value (0.521) for a two-tailed hypothesis at 0.05.)

Question 12

Reference to prior research.

Answer 12

Our findings dont support the research that is already out there for aggression and masculinity.

Question 13

Improvements for future research.

Answer 13

More men-improved diversity.
Get participants to do it individually-more disclosure and anonymous answers.
Larger sample-improves application and generalisability as can be used for studies elsewhere.

Question 14

What statistical analysis was used and why?

Answer 14

Spearman’s rho as the practical is finding a correlation with ordinal data.

Question 15

Generalisability of the practical.

Answer 15

Low as we only used 15 participants from a school in Birmingham ages 16-17, the aggression and masculinity results cannot be applied beyond this group and therefore lacks external validity.

Question 16

Reliability of the practical.

Answer 16

High, the same 2 questionnaires were used for all participants. Both scores will be consistent as the same questions were asked to participants and this increases o internal reliability.

Question 17

Where could this practical be applied to?

Answer 17

We could reduce the stigma associated with males and aggression as we found no correlation between masculinity and aggression scores. This highlights that there are other factors which cause aggression reducing stereotypes with males and aggression.

Question 18

Validity of the practical.

Answer 18

Low as participants may have been dishonest when answering questions due to the nature of what wee are measuring. This will cause answers to be inaccurate and wrong conclusions will be drawn, lowering internal validity.

Question 19

Ethics of the practical.

Answer 19

Good as all participants chose to answer the two questionnaires and they were kept anonymous. Participants wouldn’t be pressured into giving their aggression judgements allowing no psychological or physical harm to be caused.