Classic study: Raine et al

Question 1

What was the aim of Raine’s study?

Answer 1

to use brain scanning tech to identify brain impairments in people charged with murder who had pleaded nGRI

Question 2

how many participants were there?

Answer 2

82

Question 3

How many murderers and non murderers were there in the sample?

Answer 3

41 murderers
41 non murderers

Question 4

what was the independent variable of the study?

Answer 4

the murderer or non-murderer

Question 5

what was the dependent variable of the study?

Answer 5

glucose metabolism in specific brain areas

Question 6

were the participants assigned to conditions?

Answer 6

No

Question 7

what was the experimental design?

Answer 7

Matched pairs design
murderers matched on sex, age and ethnicity with the control group of non-murderers

Question 8

What were the participants free from 2 weeks up to the brain scan and how was this confirmed?

Answer 8

medication
confirmed through a urine test

Question 9

how were the control pp’s examined before the study?

Answer 9

a physical examination and psychiatric interview

Question 10

how many participants had schizophrenia and how were they matched?

Answer 10

6
they were matched with based on this characteristic too

Question 11

what were all participants injected with?

Answer 11

a radioactive tracer

Question 12

why were the participants injected before the brain scan?

Answer 12

to light up the brain metabolism on the scanner to see where was more/less active in the brain

Question 13

which type of brain scan was used?

Answer 13

PET scan

Question 14

how long was the brain scan?

Answer 14

32 minutes

Question 15

how many images were taken during the scan and through what size intervals?

Answer 15

10 images
10 mm intervals

Question 16

what did the pp’s do during the scans?

Answer 16

a CPT (continuous performance task) which involved identifying targets and pressing a button for the whole interval

Question 17

why did the pp’s engage in an activity during the brain scan?

Answer 17

to encourage uptake of the radioactive tracer in the areas of the brain that the researchers wished to investigate

Question 18

What were the results of Raine’s study?

Answer 18

murderers had more activity in the amygdala but less activity in the pre frontal cortex

Question 19

What did Raine conclude in terms of holism about his study?

Answer 19

dysfunctions in a single brain area cant explain violent behaviour and not in a cause-and-effect matter

Question 20

what was the main conclusion of Raine’s study?

Answer 20

murderers pleading NGRI have different brain activity from people who aren’t violent offenders. They have impaired functioning in areas of the brain previously identified as involved with violent behaviour.

Question 21

What was a strength of the sample?
(G.r.a.v.e)

Answer 21

82 is a relatively large sample and so anomalies wouldn’t skew the data

Question 22

what was a weakness in terms of generalisability?
(G.r.a.v.e)

Answer 22

NGRI’s are unusual offenders and so they’re not really representative of “typical” murderers, still less of typical violent individuals

Question 23

How was the method reliable?
(g.R.a.v.e)

Answer 23

PET scans produce objective + replicable results, they can be tested and re-tested

Question 24

How was the method standardised?
(g.R.a.v.e)

Answer 24

All pp’s had the same CPT which ensured they had the similar brain activity

Question 25

What did Raine admit which weakens the reliability? (g.R.a.v.e)

Answer 25

there were problems with reliability as sometimes results were unclear and had to be interpreted- subjectivity

Question 26

How can the results of Raine's study be applied to young people? (g.r.A.v.e)

Answer 26

early intervention with at-risk children in school programmes can be set up to steer young people away from drugs and monitoring people who have received brain injury

Question 27

How can the results of Raine's study be applied in terms of treatment? (g.r.A.v.e)

Answer 27

in the deficient parts of the brain can be stimulated (drug therapy/counselling) then they may be less likely to engage in impulsive, aggressive behaviour

Question 28

How was there low ecological validity? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 28

Laboratory setting Artificial CPT

Question 29

how was the internal validity compromised? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 29

PET scans could show misleading results + had to identify different brain areas

Question 29

How was validity controlled? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 29

potential extraneous variables were controlled as experimental and control groups were matched in terms of age, sex and ethnicity

Question 30

What was a weakness in the validity due to the quasi- experiment? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 30

cannot show a cause-and-effect

Question 31

How is there concurrent validity? (g.r.a.V.e)

Answer 31

Bufkin & Luttrel (2005) carried out a meta-analysis where they analysed 17 studies that used brain imaging to study aggression in humans and found similar results

Question 32

How was the study ethical? (g.r.a.v.E)

Answer 32

they all gave consent NGRIs consented as it would help their case either by showing they were not fit to stand trial or acting as evidence that they weren't in control of themselves when they committed crime controls gave consent to be tested and for their data to be used

Question 33

What is a potential ethical issue of the study? (g.r.a.v.E)

Answer 33

invasive procedure because the participants have to be injected with a radioactive tracer