comtemporary and content studies

Question 1

Brendgen - biological
(Aim)

Answer 1

Aim: investigate if there’s a genetic component to aggression
investigate relationship between social and physical aggression

Question 2

Brendgen (procedure)

Answer 2

sample: 322 twin pairs from Quebec at start then 234 at end (high attrition)

method: - gave teachers questions (in english and french) and asked them to rate each child in the class on a likert scale (e.g. most likely to hit or kick another child)
- peers also asked to rate them - shown pictures of children and asked them to circle who fits the description best
- given in english and french
- repeated at different age intervals (e.g. 12months, 24months, 54 months)

Question 3

Brendgen (results)

Answer 3

• physical aggression had a higher concordance rate in mz twin pairs
• physical and social aggression related as children who were more physically aggressive were also more socially
• as children got older physical aggression was replaced by social aggression

Question 4

Brendgen (conclusion)

Answer 4

• move from physical to social aggression as you get older
• is a genetic component to physical aggression

Question 5

Brendgen (strengths)

Answer 5

:) changed the method to suit the children by asking them to circle the photos rather than use a scale - increases validity as they are more likely to understand what’s being asked of them so will give a more accurate response
:) large sample (234 twin pairs) so high population validity - more generalisable to aggression in wider population

Question 6

Brendgen (weakness)

Answer 6

:( likert scale subjective as down to interpretation - less valid study of agg
:( only in Quebec so can’t generalise to aggression in other cultures - less diverse sample
:( high attrition rate

Question 7

Kety (biological content study)
(Aim)

Answer 7

is there a genetic component to sz

Question 8

Kety (sample)

Answer 8

sample: - 34 participants with sz who were adopted
- split into groups based on sz severity
- matched w 33 mentally healthy controls

Question 9

Kety (method)

Answer 9

• gathered data from Danish adoption registry and medical records
• panel of 4 psychiatrists had to diagnose participant and their relatives (biological and adoptive) with sz based on the data
• double blind procedure - researchers and psychiatrists didn’t know which relatives were biological or adoptive
• couldn’t agree if 4 cases had sz or not so removed them from study

Question 10

Kety (results)

Answer 10

• found more clinical signs of sz in the biological than adoptive relatives than adoptive

Question 11

Kety (conclusion)

Answer 11

sz is genetic to an extent

Question 12

Kety (conclusion)

Answer 12

sz is genetic to an extent

Question 13

Kety (strengths)

Answer 13

:) double blind so no researcher bias to try find a higher concordance in either bio or adoptive
:) 4 psychiatrists had to agree on an outcome so high in interrater reliability
:) small sample can be justified because people with sz who have been adoptive is a very specific group

Question 14

Kety (weaknesses)

Answer 14

:( only 34 participants so not generalisable to sz in wider population
:( all from Denmark so can’t be generalised to sz in other cultures - less diverse sample so low in population validity

Question 15

Li (contemporary for child)
(Aim)

Answer 15

to see the impact of quality of daycare on development

relationship between infant and preschool daycare quality

Question 16

Li (sample)

Answer 16

• secondary data
• 1364 from multiple sample sites around USA
• controlled for many EVs such as birth order, temperament and internal employment status

Question 17

Li (method)

Answer 17

• ORCE observation - 44 minute obs of caregiving environment (3.0+ indicated good quality care)
• repeated at varying intervals - 24 months and 54 months
• at 24m (end of infant period) did woodcock johnson development scale
• at 54m (end of preschool period) did bayley mental developmental index and preschool language scale)

Question 18

Li (results)

Answer 18

• children with high quality care at both 24m and 54m performed best on cognitive tasks (e.g. language and maths)
• high quality at infancy shows improves but is cancelled out if followed by low quality at preschool level
• low quality care at both levels produces worst skill development

Question 19

Li (conclusion)

Answer 19

high quality daycare is beneficial for development

Question 20

Li (strengths)

Answer 20

:) high sample of 1364 so more diverse - can be generalised to development in wider population
:) standardised IQ tests (woodcock johnson and baylee index) so can be repeated - more reliable study of development
:) useful for parents to decide how to provide the best cognitive outcome for their children
:( controlled EVs so increases validity as know you’re truly measuring effects of daycare

Question 21

Li (weaknesses)

Answer 21

:( socially sensitive as some parents can’t afford to provide best quality care at both stages
:( reductionist as reduces care quality to a number based on caregiving environment scale

Question 22

Cohrs (contemporary for social)
(Aim)

Answer 22

to see relationship between big 5 personality dimensions, social dominance orientation and right wing authoritarianism and generalise prejudice using self report data

to see relationship between self and peer ratings

Question 23

Cohrs (sample)

Answer 23

• 193 in first study and 424 in second
• opportunity sample from Germany

Question 24

Cohrs (method)

Answer 24

• had to complete self-report questionnaires on big 5 personality traits, RWA, SDO, prejudice towards: disabled ppl, homosexuals and foreigners in Germany
• assed on scales (1-7 for first and 1-5 for second)
• peers completed same questionnaires based on the main participant
• compared self-report to peer report

Question 25

Cohrs (results)

Answer 25

• less open = more RWA and more prejudiced
• less agreeable = more SDO, RWA, more prejudiced

Question 26

Cohrs (conclusion)

Answer 26

-