TOPIC C - case studies

Question 1

what was the design of Ramirez et al (2001)?

Answer 1

Quantitive
Between groups
400 volunteer psychology students
From universities in Japan and Spain

Question 2

What was the procedure for Ramirez et al (2001)?

Answer 2

Each participant answered each question on the questionnaire which measured verbal aggression, physical aggression, anger and hostility

Question 3

What were the findings of Ramirez et al (2001)?

Answer 3

Japanese students showed more physical aggression
Spanish students showed for verbal aggression
In both cultures, men displayed more verbal and physical aggression
Males and females in both cultures showed the same level of anger

Question 4

What was the conclusion of Ramirez et al (2001) ?

Answer 4

Stereotype of Japanese is shy but males and females showed more physical aggression
supported the stereotype for Spanish being expressive of their emotions
supports that males are more aggressive than females (hormonal differences / males are raised to be more masculine)

Question 5

What are the strengths of Ramirez et al (2001) ?

Answer 5

• Quantitative data was used that couldn’t be interpretation differently by researchers
• All participants were volunteers and were fully aware that the results would be published - ethical

Question 6

What were the weaknesses of Ramirez et al (2001) ?

Answer 6

• Participants were psychology students so they could’ve guessed the aim of the study (response bias)
• students may have answered the questions according to how they think they would act but in real life situation may behave differently - not realistic

Question 7

Describe the questionnaires that Ramirez et al (2001) used

Answer 7

• Likert-style questions

- Responded by saying to what extent they agree with each statement on a five point scale

Question 8

What was the aim of Anderson and Fill (2000)?

Answer 8

they wanted to see whether people who played violent video games became more aggressive

Question 9

What was the design of Anderson and Dill (2000)?

Answer 9

• 2 groups (violent video game and non-violent video game)
• participants weren’t told the aim - they were told the study was about the development of motor skills
• laboratory experiment

Question 10

What is the independent variable of Anderson and Dill?

Answer 10

type of video game they played (violent or non-violent)

Question 11

What is the dependent variable of Anderson and Dill?

Answer 11

level of aggression shown after playing the game

Question 12

What is the procedure of Anderson and Dill?

Answer 12

• placed in a cubicle and were told they would be playing a game against an opponent
• no opponent
• after 15 mins, they were asked to play a competitive game
• person who pressed button fastest gave the opponent a blast of loud noise
• they controlled length and volume
• once over, debrief by an experimenter who entered the cubicle and answered any questions

Question 13

What were the findings of Anderson and Dill?

Answer 13

• The longest and loudest blast of noise were given by participants who played the violent video games
• Women face a greater punishment than men

Question 14

What was the conclusion of Anderson and Dill?

Answer 14

• Playing violent video games increases the level of aggression in participants, especially women
• Playing violent video games mar participants think in an aggressive way which in long-term use could result in permanent aggressive thought patterns

Question 15

what were the strengths of Anderson and Dill?

Answer 15

• the study was a laboratory experiment so the researcher had a lot of control
• All participants had the same instructions and procedure so it was reliable because the study can be repeated using the exact method
• findings have useful applications in the real world (we’re right to have age restrictions on video games)

Question 16

what are the weaknesses of Anderson and Dill?

Answer 16

• Even though they were told the aim was about motor skills they might’ve guessed the aim because they knew it was a psychology experiment
• Video games are normally played at home but participants were watched in a cubicle so it wasn’t realistic (normal)
• participants may have experienced stress when receiving loud blasts of noise or believing that they were harming someone

Question 17

what was King (1961) experiment?

Answer 17

he described a case of a women whose amygdala was electrically stimulates during an operation. She became threatening and verbally aggressive until the electrical current was turned off

Question 18

what is the aim of Charlton et al (2000)?

Answer 18

to investigate the effect of television on children’s behaviour

Question 19

What is the design of Charlton et al (2000)?

Answer 19

• natural experiment
• IDV = no TV was happening naturally
• D

Question 20

what was the aim of Ramirez et al (2001)?

Answer 20

to investigate whether aggression varied between cultures and to measure the difference in levels of aggression between males and females

Question 21

what is Charlton et al (2000) procedure?

Answer 21

• began two years before tv was introduced to the island
• they used questionnaires and parent/teacher reports to gather info on children’s behaviour
• behaviour in playground observed
• researchers monitored how much TV was watched, content analysis, how much aggression was watched
• video cameras placed in classrooms and playgrounds to measure aggression a week before behaviour was monitored

Question 22

What were Charlton’s findings?

Answer 22

• very little difference in children’s behaviour
• no significant increase in the rate of behavioural problems
• a small community allows parents to have a high level of control
• the impact of TV may have been greater in a less isolated place

Question 23

Charlton’s conclusion

Answer 23

the study suggests that the introduction of TV doesn’t have any significant effect on the children’s behaviour. violence was watched on TV wasn’t copied and that a small community controlled their children contributing factor

Question 24

What were Charlton’s strengths?

Answer 24

• natural experiments have a greater realism than laboratory experiments as the researchers didn’t set up the situation
• the cameras used were deiscret so children acted naturally

Question 25

what were the weaknesses of Charlton’s study?

Answer 25

• relying on a teacher/parent report could mean the results were biased as the island wouldn’t want any negative reviews on behaviour gor their reputation
• the programmes watched weren’t the same as the mainland

Question 26

what was Willian’s et al aim?

Answer 26

measure children’s behaviour before and after television has been introduced to the town

Question 27

William et al design

Answer 27

natural experiment

10 children

Question 28

Willian’s et al procedure

Answer 28

2 observers watched the children
observed a week after so that the children were used to their presence
measured number of physical aggression and verbal
observed two neighbouring towns
3 towns studies before TV was introduced in notel and 2 years after

Question 29

what were the findings of Willian’s et al?

Answer 29

• children were twice as aggressive after TV was introduced
• children and adults spent less than half the time they have previously spent on leisure activities
• Children began to see increased gender differences between boys and girls
• IQ scores dropped slightly

Question 30

what is Williams et al conclusion?

Answer 30

notel showed increased levels of aggression because of the introduction of TV
aggression increased far more than in towns that already had TV
TV reduced time spent on leisure activities

Question 31

strengths of williams et al

Answer 31

natural experiment so greater realism as the situation isn’t set up
same children were followed for 2 years, behaviour before and after TV could be directly compared = more reliable
children were observed in natural surroundings and they didn’t make observations until a week after so they didn’t behave differently

Question 32

weaknesses of Willian’s et al

Answer 32

the researchers didn’t control the amount of TV the children watched because it was a natural experiment
observations may be biased because they knew what they wanted to see

Question 33

describe to towns used for Willian’s et al

Answer 33

Notel - has no television
Unitel - has one TV channel
Multiel - has many TV channels

All towns were studied before TV was introduced and two years after

Unit and Multiel = neighbouring towns with similar population and economy

Question 34

what is Bandura BoBo Doll study aim?

Answer 34

to demonstrate that if children were witness to an aggressive display by an adult they would imitate this aggressive behaviour and interactions with other people

Question 35

what is Bandura BoBo Doll study procedure?

Answer 35

• tested 36 boys and girls aged between 3 and 6 years old
• under controlled conditions he arranged for 24 boys and girls to watch a male or female model behaving aggressively towards a toy called a BoBo doll
• he used a hammer and threw it across the room
• 24 children were exposed to a non-aggressive model
• 24 children were used as an control group and not exposed to any model
• they were pre tested how aggressive the children were on four 5-point rating scales

Question 36

what were the first stage of Bandura BoBo doll study referring to SLT theory?

Answer 36

stage 1:

• room contained materials to make pictures
• there was a tinker toy set, a mallet and a 5ft inflatable BoBo doll
• in the non-aggressive the model ignored the BoBo doll
• In the aggressive the model was aggressive towards the BoBo doll
• The model was verbally and physically aggressive

Question 37

what was the second stage of the Bandura Bobo study referring to SLT?

Answer 37

• taken to a room with relatively attractive toys

- children played with the toys

Question 38

what is stage three of the Bandura BoBo study referring to SLT?

Answer 38

• next room contained some aggressive and non-aggressive toys
• children was in room for 20 minutes and their behaviour was observed

Question 39

what is Bandura BoBo Doll study findings?

Answer 39

• children who observed the aggressive models were more aggressive than the others
• the girls in the aggressive model conditions showed more physical aggressive responses if the model was male, more more verbal aggressive responses if the model was female
• boys imitated more physically aggressive acts than girls

Question 40

what is Bandura BoBo Doll study conclusion?

Answer 40

• the findings support the social learning theory

- children learn aggressive behaviour through the observation learning

Question 41

what is Bandura BoBo Doll study strengths?

Answer 41

• variables controlled other than independent variables
• experimenters are the only means by which cause and effect can be established
• variables were controlled e.g. time the children were observed
• experiments can be replicated

Question 42

what is Bandura BoBo Doll study weaknesses

Answer 42

• critical of laboratory studies of imitation - low ecologically validity
• demonstrations are measured almost immediately - no long term effects
• unethical as don’t know if children suffered any long-term consequences

Question 43

what are the strengths of using animal studies?

Answer 43

• similar to humans
• they are simpler than humans
• their environment can be controlled
• they can be used in deprivation experiments
• they are interesting and can benefit

Question 44

what are the weaknesses of experiments using animals?

Answer 44

• animals are different from humans
• can cause harm to animals
• social isolation - animals that are used to being in groups are kept on their own - may cause distress
• many experiments use more than one animal