Summary: <\/p>\n\n\n\n
Berkowitz and\nLepage (1967) designed a study to test the hypothesis that individuals who are\nin a state of anger are more likely to act out their aggression if cues\nassociated with violence and aggression are present. The sample consisted of 100 male students from\nthe University\n of Wisconsin\nwho were all enrolled in an introductory level psychology course. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
This study used an experimental research method because it manipulated the independent variable and presumably involved random assignment (although this was not stated in the text). There were two main independent variables. The first one was the subject\u2019s level of anger and this was determined by whether the subject was shocked once or seven times. The second independent variable was the kind of cue present near the shock button when it was the subject\u2019s turn to evaluate the confederate. For one group there was no object, in the control group there was a neutral object (a badminton racquet), and for the last group there was a gun that was supposedly part of a different study. This last group was further separated into 2 subgroups with some being told that the gun belonged to the confederate while others were told that it was left behind by someone else. These independent variables were then combined to see how they affected the dependent variable, which was the level of aggression the subject displayed. The dependent variable was measured by how many shocks the subject delivered to the confederate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The procedure ran\nas follows: volunteers were told that they were participating in a study to\ntest the physiological effects of stress. \nTo do this the subject and the other participant (who was actually a\nconfederate) were both given a social problem and they had to think up ways to\nsolve it. After they completed this task\n(in separate rooms) their problem solving ideas were then exchanged so they\ncould evaluate each other. The\nevaluation was done by pushing a button that was supposed to shock the person\nin the other room (although they still could not see each other); 1 shock\nrepresented the best rating while a lesser evaluation was communicated through\na higher number of shocks. The\nconfederate was the first to do the evaluation. \nThe number of shocks given to the actual volunteer was already\ndetermined as 1 or 7 though (depending on the random assignment) and was not\nbased on a real rating. After this came\nthe volunteer\u2019s turn to do the same evaluation, but the number of shocks was\nnot predetermined. Next to the shock\nbutton was one of the previously stated objects, and the gun was the only cue\nhypothesized to elicit increased aggression.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
The results of this\nstudy confirmed the hypothesis. Those\nparticipants who were more angered (given 7 shocks) and were cued by the violent\nobject (a gun) and told that it belonged to the person they were rating,\noutwardly expressed their aggression the most by giving the confederate a\nhigher number of shocks. The next\nhighest number of shocks was by the group in the presence of a gun, but had\nbeen told the gun was left behind by someone else. Those who did not see any objects gave on\naverage one less shock and the least number of shocks were given by those in\nthe presence of the badminton racquets. \nOn the other hand, when the volunteer was not as angered (only shocked\nonce by the confederate), outward expression of aggression was relatively low\nand stable regardless of what type of cue was present. The researchers used these results to\ntheorize that a person who is already aroused and is then cued by a violent object\nis more likely to have an impulsive reaction to act more aggressively.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Critique:<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Overall this study\nwas well designed in order to test the given hypothesis that weapons are\naggression-eliciting stimuli. The method\nof using different objects to induce a given response is very similar to the\nproven phenomenon of priming. Priming is\nwhere certain information is more attended to when related cues are presented. Therefore the results of Berkowitz and Lepage\n(1967) make sense because weapons are connected to aggression, which increases the\nperson\u2019s awareness of his or her aggressive feelings, and consequently makes\nthe outward act of aggression more likely. \n<\/p>\n\n\n\n
Based on the results, chances are high that these men would always act in this way when in a similar situation, so this study can be considered reliable (that is, it is repeatable).\u00a0 Validity is not as strong, though.\u00a0 Validity refers to whether the study is measuring what it purports to measure. When the participant was already aroused (given 7 shocks) there was a significant difference in the amount of retaliation depending on which cue was present.\u00a0 However, this retaliation did not depend on the cues if the participant was not as initially aroused (only given 1 shock).\u00a0 So how can they be measuring the impact of a priming mechanism like the gun in the room if they need participants to already be aroused? I am not sure they are measuring their variables correctly. That being said, it did show that although the cues do have an effect on aggressive behavior, initial aggression level plays a much larger role in the causal relationship.\u00a0 The ethicalness of this study is also questionable.\u00a0 Receiving and delivering shocks could potentially cause physical pain and also have a negative effect on one\u2019s emotional well-being.\u00a0 Nonetheless, most participants probably did not suffer any serious consequences.\u00a0 Also, due to the nature of this specific research question it does not seem like there is another way to measure aggression that would be anymore ethical. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/homeworkaider.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2019\/11\/weer.png\")
<\/a><\/figure><\/div>\n\n\n\n