The Influence of Locus of Control and Aggressiveness of Rock Music Videos on Aggression - Book Report/Review Example

Psychology-Research Review Assignment Introduction Conducting research on the basis of certain hypotheses and analyzing the data from the samples collected to arrive at inferences which prove or disprove the hypotheses, offer authentic empirical evidence and have the potential to suggest solutions to a given set of problems. Sometimes, either due to small numbers of samples or improper methods, the results may be unclear or inaccurate and may warrant further sampling or other corrective methods in order to arrive at more precise conclusions. In such cases, a secondary analysis of the initial research is done to identify the weaker aspects of the initial research, giving pointers to future line of action. A good example is the article by Arlin James Benjamin Jr. titled "The influence of Locus of Control and Aggressiveness of Rock Music Videos on Aggression: A Reanalysis and Methodological Critique of Wann and Wilson (1996)", published in the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality. This essay shall very briefly consider this article, and attempt to understand the following aspects in its content: a) the question(s) that this research has tried to answer or its hypotheses; b) the methods used by the researchers to test their idea(s) or find the answers; c) the major findings of the research and d) the conclusions of the researchers. Analysis of the Article The research hypotheses of this article is that, Wan and Wilson's (1996 cited in the source, 493) study and their conclusion on the subject of 'the influence of 'Locus of Control' and Aggressiveness of Rock Music Videos on Aggression' is "questionable", given the "small sample" (Source, 493) the study entailed. By altering the sample size, or increasing the number of samples, "significant findings could be obtained" (Source, 493). The second hypotheses is that, some of the dependant and independent values stated in the fact statement, have been accepted without ascertaining the accuracy of their relationship. By skeptically questioning the relationship of the published data, hitherto "ignored" or "potential data analytic errors" may be uncovered (Source, 493). Data from the primary research is recalculated using the DSTAT software (Johnson 1989, cited in Source, 493), "based on the means and standard deviations" provided in the original research. Additionally, assuming equality of cell sizes, the ANOVA effect sizes were also computed in the secondary research (Source, 493-4). The major finding of the research is that there is a "strong relationship between the locus of control and change in aggression score," and stronger or weaker aggression varied according to the type of 'locus of control' that the control-group of the individual (Source, 494). This suggested that larger sampling may indeed alter the interaction pattern. The conclusion arrived at by afore mentioned secondary analysis is that, the current findings are 'inconsistent' with the hypothesis of Wann and Wilson (1996) though it is found to be consistent with some previous research (source, 495). Furthermore, article concludes that the hypotheses assumed by the researcher is found to be consistent (Source 495) and the reanalysis and has helped in uncovering analytic errors. Conclusion The research article by Benjamin Jr. (1999) questions the accuracy of the research conducted by Wann and Wilson (1996) on the grounds that the latter research consisted of very small sampling to produce precise findings. By recalculating the sample data using DSTAT software and changing ANOVA effect sizes, the researcher has concluded that the findings of this secondary research support the hypotheses. Such activity, it is hoped, shall result in improving the inferring and interpretative skills of the student and aid in future research. Source: Arlin James Benjamin Jr. "The influence of Locus of Control and Aggressiveness of Rock Music Videos on Aggression: A Reanalysis and Methodological Critique of Wann and Wilson (1996)", in the Journal of Social Behavior and Personality (1999) Vol. 14, No. 2, 491-8. Psychology-Research Review Assignment -2 Introduction The importance of primary research cannot be overstated. They are the very foundations that give credence to what would otherwise remain empty theories and posits of scientists. In order to validate or invalidate scientific theories, they are tested in the field by means of posing relevant questions to an appropriate section of the society, and obtaining their answers. These are then tabulated and the data is analyzed statistically, applying means, standard deviation, regression methods and so on, to arrive at precise conclusions and their implications, which serve to correct the postulations or give them credence. This essay shall briefly study one such primary research conducted by Ewing, Stukas Jr. and Sheehan (2003) entitled "Student Prejudice Against Gay Male and Lesbian Lecturers," published in the Journal of Social Psychology (2003), and try to gain knowledge regarding the different aspects of primary research. In the process, the essay shall attempt to answer the following questions 1) what questions does this research try to answer 2) what methods do the researchers use to test their ideas 3) what are the major findings of the research 3) what conclusions do the researchers arrive at, based on the findings Analysis of the Primary Research Article This primary research seeks to understand the manner in which the "subtle prejudices' against gay men and lesbians may manifest itself" (Source, 573). The first hypothesis is: "Students would rate the gay male and lesbian lecturers more negatively than they would unspecified lecturers overall;" The second hypothesis is: "when giving a strong lecture, unspecified lecturers would receive somewhat more positive ratings than gay male and lesbian lecturers;" The third hypothesis is: "when giving a weak lecture, gay male and lesbian lecturers would be rated much more negatively than hetero sexual lecturers" (source 573). The research methodology has involved sampling from undergraduate students form Colorado, aged between 18-22 years, predominantly white, of whom were 148 women, 88 men, and 25 students with their gender undisclosed. Each student was given a 10 item questionnaire, and was asked to grade the lecturer (strong lecture and weak lecture) in a Likert -type scale, ranging from 1 - standing for 'strongly disagree' and 5 - standing for 'strongly agree.' Four classes of students were given the opportunity to participate in the research with an extra credit as an incentive for participants. The participants were divided into two, one section to which the sexual orientation of the lecturer was hinted at, and the other in which the sexual orientation of the lecturer was left ambiguous. The findings are that 'lecture quality' emerged as the strongest factor that influenced the ratings, and "no main effects were found for lecturer sexual orientation or lecturer gender" (source 575). To put it simply, when sexual orientation of the lecturer was not disclosed, the lecture quality became the strongest determinant of rating. However, when the sexual orientation of the lecturer was disclosed, the students tended to moderate their ratings; also weak male lectures seemed to attract more negative ratings, whether or not their sexual orientation was disclosed (Source 575-7). The researchers have concluded that on the basis of the findings, it can be understood that student prejudice against gay male and lesbian lecturers may have been exhibited in a subtle manner, "not through explicitly negative evaluations, but rather through denial of deserved positive ratings" (source, 577), proving the hypotheses to be partly correct. Conclusion Primary research conducted by the Ewing, Stukas Jr. and Sheehan (2003) sought to uncover the subtle ways in which gay male and lesbian lecturers may be discriminated against, by their students. The study involved a total of 262 students for Colorado, and the findings have partially proved to be consistent with the research hypotheses. It has revealed that there are indeed subtle ways in which the student community expresses its prejudice towards gay male and lesbian lecturers, although future research may show a reduction in the level of prejudice. This proves the importance of primary research, as a validating tool to testify scientific theories as credible or non-credible. Source: Ewing, Lynn Vanessa., Stukas Jr. A. Arthur., and Sheehan. P. Eugene (2003) entitled "Student Prejudice Against Gay Male and Lesbian Lecturers," published in the Journal of Social Psychology (2003), 143(5), 569-79. Read More