practical

Question 1

research question

Answer 1

• do people who report more stressful life events in the last 12 months report themselves as responding more aggressively in situations?

Question 2

abstract

Answer 2

• aim: investigate if people who report more stressful life events also report more aggression
• alternative hypothesis: positive relationship between self-reported stress (over last 12 months) and aggression
• null hypothesis: no relationship, any correlation due to chance
• research method: 10 ppts completed a standardised questionnaire on self-reported aggression and stress
• data collection: quantitative data using Likert-style questions on agreement with given statements

Question 3

introduction (research)

Answer 3

• 2014 study: early stress in mice led to more aggression later in life
• 2004 study: rats given electric brain stimulation showed stress response through blood hormone levels
• strength: animal studies are objective and easily replicable
• weakness: low ecological validity and poor generalisability to humans

Question 4

aim

Answer 4

• to see if there was a relationship between stress and aggression

Question 5

hypothesis

Answer 5

• alternative hypothesis (one-tailed)
• there will be a positive relationship between the self-reported amount of stress events (over the last 12 months) and self-reported aggressive tendencies

Question 6

null hypothesis

Answer 6

• there will be no relationship between the self-reported amount of stress events (over the last 12 months) and self-reported aggressive tendencies, any relationship is due to chance
• the null hypothesis would be accepted if the alternative hypothesis is not proven

Question 7

research method used (method)

Answer 7

• correlation method
• ppts: completed questionnaires

Question 8

ppts (method)

Answer 8

• 10 ppts were involved
• no experimental group design, as the practical is correlational

Question 9

sampling method (method)

Answer 9

• opportunity sampling was used
• ppts were chosen based on availability and fitting the criteria
• it is time and cost-effective

Question 10

apparatus (method)

Answer 10

• a questionnaire with closed-ended questions using a Likert scale to measure stress events and aggressive tendencies
• question 3 was open-ended, allowing ppts to add more info if needed

Question 11

procedure (method)

Answer 11

• 10 ppts were given a paper with a questionnaire
• questionnaire included 3 questions on stress events and aggressive tendencies
• ppts were given 8 minutes to answer
• answers were collected, added up, and compared to question 1 (circle if you’re stressed or relaxed (events) and circle withdrawal, anger, not emotional (emotional reactions recently)) to evaluate the relationship between stress and aggression

Question 12

data gathered (method)

Answer 12

• quan data collected from likert scale was put in pool table

Question 13

iv and dv

Answer 13

• no iv or dv
• correlational practical
• there’s two co variables: stress and aggression

Question 14

ethical considerations (method)

Answer 14

• ppts received standardised instructions: same questions, time, and quiet space
• brief was given to explain the study and ensure informed consent
• ppts were informed about anonymity and their right to withdraw
• all info was kept confidential

Question 15

results (descriptive statistics)

Answer 15

• mode for stress events scores: 15 and 12 (bi-modal)
• mode for aggressive reaction scores: 14
• median for stress events scores: 13.5
• median for aggressive reaction scores: 12
• this indicates stress events scores over last 12 months are higher, with little difference between stress events and aggressive tendencies scores

Question 16

results (graphical representations of findings)

Answer 16

• a scatter diagram was drawn to show the relationship between reported ‘stress events’ scores and reported ‘aggressive reactions’ scores for the last 12 months

Question 17

results (statistical test data)

Answer 17

• spearman’s rho
• the observed value was 0.24, which is below the critical value of 0.564, indicating that the result is not significant

Question 18

results (hypothesis accepted or rejected)

Answer 18

• i accepted the null hypothesis (“there will be no relationship between the self-reported amount of stress events and self-reported aggressive tendencies, any relationship is due to chance”) and rejected the alternate hypothesis

Question 19

results + discussion (interpretation of data)

Answer 19

• the overall findings suggest that there is no significant difference between the stress events scores and aggressive tendencies scores, as both sets of scores were similar
• can be seen is the statistical test as there’s no relationship between 2 co-variables

Question 20

strength (reliability)

Answer 20

• high controls and standardised procedures were used
• all ppts received the same instructions, brief, and debrief
• environment was consistent (quiet room for 8 minutes)
• ensures results were testable, repeatable, and reliable
• quan data from Likert scale made the results scientific, objective, and reliable

Question 21

strength (ethics)

Answer 21

• strong ethical considerations were upheld
• no harm or distress came to ppts
• complete confidentiality was maintained (no names or addresses)
• ppts were reminded of their right to withdraw

Question 22

weakness (gen)

Answer 22

• small sample size (10 sets of results)
• ethnocentric due to opportunity sampling (from local area/available at time)
• limited cultural and ethnic diversity
• potential for researcher bias in selecting participants (e.g., favouring those of similar age or appearance)

Question 23

weakness (questionnaire layout)

Answer 23

• questionnaire layout had Likert Scale questions close together
• risk of response bias if ppts were lazy or unmotivated
• results may not represent true opinions or feelings

Question 24

improvement (layout)

Answer 24

• space out and mix up the Likert Scale questions
• prevent lazy responses
• improve accuracy of results

Question 25

improvement (sampling)

Answer 25

- **random sampling** - include more ppts from **different areas** - ensure a more **diverse sample** - gather more data to **improve generalisability** and **reduce ethnocentrism**