What are some problems with the following research study and how can I improve them?
A researcher is interested in testing whether violent films make people more
aggressive (the hypothesis). He asks his research assistants to wait outside the
Friday night showing of Die Cheerleader Die! and ask for volunteers to fill out
a questionnaire. Willing participants complete a scale of aggressive feelings,
including questions such as, “ How aggressive do you feel right now?” and “ If someone challenged you to a fistfight, how likely would you be to accept the challenge?” After compiling the scores of 100 volunteers, the researcher finds that, on average, respondents scored very high on the scale. He concludes that violent films do, in fact, make people more aggressive, and when they don’ t, it still doesn’ t invalidate this hypothesis because people are just in denial about their aggressive urges. He immediately calls a press conference to announce his findings and to say that he’ll be talking about them on the Oprah show.
PLEASE HELP D:
First, the volunteers are self-selecting. Did those who volunteered experience more aggression than those who didn't volunteer?
Are people who are prone to aggression more likely to attend such a film?
How can you measure how they felt before seeing the film?
Also, where is the control group?
There are several problems with the research study described above. Here are some of them along with suggestions on how to improve them:
1. Sampling Bias: The researcher relies on volunteers who attend a Friday night showing of a specific violent film. This can lead to sampling bias, meaning the participants may not be representative of the general population. To improve this, the researcher should use a more random sampling method, such as selecting participants from different movie theaters or cinemas at different times and days.
2. Lack of Control Group: The study does not include a control group of participants who did not watch a violent film. Without a control group, it becomes difficult to differentiate the effects of the film from other factors that might influence aggression levels. To address this, the researcher should include a control group that watches a non-violent film or engages in a different activity to provide a baseline for comparison.
3. Self-report Measures: The study relies on self-report measures, which may introduce bias and subjectivity. Participants may not accurately report their true feelings or actions. To improve this, the researcher could use additional objective measures, such as observing participants' behavior in a controlled environment or using physiological measurements like heart rate or cortisol levels.
4. Small Sample Size: The study only includes 100 participants, which may not be sufficient for drawing generalizable conclusions. Increasing the sample size would improve the study's statistical power and enhance the reliability of the findings.
5. Overgeneralization: The researcher jumps to a conclusion and overgeneralizes the findings based on the data from the 100 participants. Instead, the researcher should acknowledge the limitations of the study and its potential for generalization to a larger population.
6. Premature Announcement: The researcher immediately calls a press conference and plans to discuss the findings on a TV show without undergoing proper peer review or conducting further studies. It is important to go through the scientific process, including publishing and receiving feedback from other experts in the field before making public announcements.
By addressing these issues, the research study can be improved, leading to more reliable and valid conclusions about the relationship between violent films and aggression.