Evaluate Brendgen et al 2005 (8 marks) Flashcards
How does the study have High Generalisability?
Point: High generalisability
Example: Large sample (234 twins) so unusual children (anomalies).
Explain: Higher levels of aggression out be averaged out by the study by the size of the data. This makes the sample representative
How does the study have Low generalisability?
Point: Low generalisability
Examples: Researchers said the sample was too small. The study looked at 6 year old
Explain: May not be representative, because some children, will be slow developers and others will be fast developers.
How does the study have high reliability?
Point: High Reliability
Example: Brendgen uses questionnaires to measure aggression. Two researchers visited each classroom. The study has high inter rate reliability. Strong correlation between teachers and peer ratings
Explain: These can be easily replicated, making the study reliable.
How does the study have low reliability?
Point: low reliability
Example: Language difference. Brengden’s original questionnaire were in french but the English translation might means its unreliable.
Explain:
How does the study have application ? (strength - bullying)
Point: strength
Examples: Social aggression linked to environment - reduces the worst effects of bullying and trolling
Explain: Classes and worships might help children learn less aggressive ways of interactin
How does the study have application ? (strength - parents and children)
Point: strength
Examples: Family and friends are a big influence on social aggression
Explain: Suggests that educating patients into better ways of handling their children and being a better role models might prevent the children from being socially aggressive
How does the study have high internal validity?
Point: High Internal validity
Example: Twins studying are valid way of studying nature vs nurture. Since Mz twins share 100% of their genotype, Dz twins no more than 50% but share the same home life
Explain: If Mz twins have similar behaviours whereas Dz twins do not this is likely to be due to the genotype
How does the study have low external validity?
Point: low external validity
Example: Correlations like Brendgen’s do not prove causation could be another factor affecting Mz twins. For example they get mistaken for each other. One twin could have been stereotyped on the other twins behavior. Peer ratings may have influenced this.
Explain: As a natural experiment, this study cannot show cause and effect. E.g. the twins might have influence each other’s behaviour, leading the other twin astray. The stidy avoids taking a reductionist view of human behaviour. It looks at genetics but also environmental factors. Links the findings about aggression by Bandura and Raine et al
How does the study have high ethics?
Point: high ethics
Example: presumptive consent was given by a responsible adult. The teachers also agreed.
Explain:
How does the study have low ethics?
Point: low ethics
Example: The study get children to look at pictures of their class mate and judge them. Creates bad impact of friendships, especially if children told them they selected “hitter and bitter”
Explain: This goes against social responsibility of ethical research and might create risk for the children who participated.
