Physical Aggression Subscale of The Aggression Questionnaire Case Assignment
Order ID 53563633773 Type Essay Writer Level Masters Style APA Sources/References 4 Perfect Number of Pages to Order 5-10 Pages
Physical Aggression Subscale of The Aggression Questionnaire Case Assignment
Helping and Hurting 283
approved by the Iowa State University’s Institutional Review Board and all participants were treated in ac- cordance with APA ethical guidelines.
Materials and Measures
Trait aggression. The 9-item physical aggres- sion subscale of the aggression questionnaire was ad- ministered prior to the experimental manipulation to assess trait aggression [Buss and Perry, 1992]. The Buss–Perry aggression questionnaire has been suc- cessfully used to assess trait aggression with a range of age groups including elementary school children [e.g., Reynes and Lorant, 2001, 2003, 2004; Walters et al., 2010; Zhen et al., 2011]. Participants rated their agreement with statements on a 5-point scale (1 = “Extremely uncharacteristic of me,” 5 = “Extremely characteristic of me”), alpha = .81.
Video games. Four E-rated video games were used: two violent (Ty2, n = 31, Crash Twin sanity, n = 32); and two neutral (Pure Pinball, n = 30, Su- per Monkey Ball Deluxe, n = 30). One E-10 game was used for the prosocial category (Chibi Robo, n = 671). Ty2 and Crash Twin sanity are action adventure games in which the goal is to complete various stages by defeating the enemies and bosses, while overcom- ing any obstacles on the way. The goal of Pinball is to keep the ball on the table using the left and right trig- gers. Super Monkey ball requires the player to guide a monkey through various puzzles toward the goal within the time limit. Chibi Robo lets the player con- trol a robot whose job is to make its family happy by cleaning up, helping them out in their chores, and everyday tasks. As the player cleans up throughout the house, they earn Happy Points that improve their robot’s ranking. The player can do several things to get happy points (e.g., picking up trash and throwing it in a trashcan, scrubbing stain marks with a tooth- brush). All video games were played for 30 min.
Helping or hurting behavior. Helping or hurt- ing behavior was assessed using the tangram puzzle procedure [Gentile et al., 2009]. Tangrams are based on seven differently shaped plastic pieces (e.g., small square, large triangle) used to form a specified out- lined shape. Participants chose 11 puzzles that their “partner” would attempt to complete from a set of ten easy, ten medium, and ten hard puzzles. Participants were told that their partner would win a $10 gift cer- tificate if he/she completed at least ten of the assigned puzzles within 10 min. Thus, participants could help
1A second prosocial game (as in Gentile et al., 2009) was initially tested, but its difficulty prevented many children from getting to the prosocial parts of the game.
their partner by assigning easy puzzles, or hurt their partner by assigning hard puzzles.
Postexperimental questionnaire. Participants rated their game on several dimensions using 10-point scales: action-packed, enjoyable, exciting, entertain- ing, fun, involving, hard to play, frustrating. They also rated their “ability on the video game task.” Repli- cating prior work [Anderson and Dill, 2000], these individual ratings formed a “fun” scale (alpha = .92) and a “difficulty” scale (alpha = .70). They were not significantly correlated with each other (r = .06). Par- ticipants also indicated their agreement with a state- ment that “The game involved helping other people” and a statement that “The game was violent.”
After arrival, both parent and child completed con- sent forms explaining the overall purpose2 and pro- cedures. Participants were told that the research in- volved how playing different video games affected performance on puzzles. Participants were told that they would play a video game by themselves, work together with a partner on a puzzle task, and that they would choose 11 tangrams for their partner to complete (there was no actual partner). If their part- ner completed ten of the 11 tangrams within 10 min, their partner would win a $10 gift certificate. They were told that after selecting tangrams for their part- ner they would receive 11 tangrams from their partner, and that although their performance would be scored they were not eligible to win a gift certificate. To jus- tify this unequal treatment, participants were told that one of the study’s goals was to determine whether a potential prize influences performance within this tangram task.
Participants received standardized tangram instruc- tions and a practice packet. After demonstrating un- derstanding of the tangram task, participants received video game instructions and practiced until they demonstrated mastery of the controls. Participants played the assigned game for 30 min by themselves. Then they chose 11 tangrams to assign their partner, and were encouraged to pick from multiple difficulty categories. Finally, participants completed the pos- texperimental questionnaire (including demograph- ics) and a funnel debriefing with open-ended probes for suspicion. Fourteen suspicious participants were identified and excluded from analyses, 11 males and
2The child was given a slightly different version of the consent form in which they were led to believe that there is an actual partner they will be participating with. The parent’s consent form revealed that there is no actual partner in this study.
284 Saleem et al.
three females. Suspicion was unrelated to experimen- tal condition, P > .20.
Scoring Tangram Choices
Participants chose medium difficulty tangrams most frequently (Mmedium = 4.65), followed by the hard (Mhard = 3.67), and easy tangrams (Measy = 2.70). Because the task had ten puzzles per difficulty level, participants had to pick from at least two cate- gories. It is possible for someone to pick ten medium tangrams and one easy (or hard) tangram to com- plete the 11 required. However, this individual is not necessarily intending to help (or harm) their partner, because the partner needed to complete only ten tan- grams to win the gift certificate. Thus, “helping” was operationally defined as the number of “easy” puzzles greater than one. Similarly, “hurting” was defined as the number of “hard” puzzles greater than one3.
Manipulation check. Participants’ perceptions of helpful and violent content in their assigned game were analyzed with a 3 (game type: prosocial, neu- tral, or violent) × 2 (rating type: helping or violent) analysis of variance, with rating type as a repeated measures factor. The predicted game type by rating type interaction was significant, F(2, 157) = 117.43, P < .001. The prosocial game (M = 7.18) was rated sig- nificantly higher on helpfulness than either the neutral (M = 2.13) or violent games (M = 1.84), Fs(1, 157) = 129.58 and 162.12, Ps < .001, respectively. The latter two conditions were not significantly different, F < 1.00. Also, the violent games (M = 4.54) were rated significantly higher on violence than the neutral (M = 1.07) or prosocial games (M = 1.28), Fs(1, 157) = 106.42 and 104.84, Ps < .001, respectively. The latter two were not significantly different, F < 1.00.
Covariates. Separate one-way ANOVAs (game type: prosocial, neutral, or violent) were conducted on the fun and difficulty game ratings. Difficulty ratings differed by game type, F(2, 169) = 20.07, P < .001. Contrasts revealed that the violent games (M = 4.68) were perceived as more difficult than the prosocial (M = 2.78) and neutral (M = 3.74) games, Fs(1, 169)
3For example, participants who chose 3 easy tangrams were assigned a “helping” score of 2. As in Gentile et al., 2009, the correlation between the raw # of easy and hard tangrams was large, r = −0.61, p < .001. Also as in that study, the “greater than one” scoring procedure reduced this correlation, r = −0.51, p < .001. Note that using the raw scores in the main analyses yielded results that were essentially the same as those reported here, also as in Gentile et al., 2009.
= 40.14 and 9.29, Ps < .001 and .01, respectively. The neutral games were rated as more difficult than the prosocial game, F(1, 169) = 9.51, P < .01. Thus, difficulty rating was used as a covariate in all analyses of the help/hurt tangram choices.
Fun ratings did not differ by game type, nor were any specific game contrasts significant, Fs < 2.00, Ps > .15. Furthermore, preliminary analyses found no significant effects of fun ratings or participant sex on helping and hurting behavior. Therefore, these pre- dictors were dropped.
Main Analyses: Tangram Choices
A 3 (game type: prosocial, neutral, or violent) × 2 (behavior type: helping or hurting) analysis of covari- ance was conducted on helping and hurting tangram behavior, with behavior type as a repeated factor, and trait aggression and game difficulty as covariates. The game type by trait aggression interaction was not sig- nificant and thus was not included in the final model. Game difficulty yielded no significant effects, Ps > .50, and is not discussed further.
Video game effects. The main prediction was that playing a prosocial game would lead to increased helpful and decreased hurtful behavior, relative to vi- olent games, with neutral games yielding intermediate behaviors. The means (shown in Fig. 1) fit this model quite well, and the specific contrast testing this model (decreasing linear contrast from prosocial to neutral to violent games for helpful behavior, increasing lin- ear contrast for hurtful behavior) accounted for 97% of the predicted interaction variance, F(1, 152) = 9.02, P < .001. Furthermore, deviations from the predicted pattern were nonsignificant, F < 1.
Fig. 1. Helpful and hurtful puzzle choices as a function of video game played.
Helping and Hurting 285
For both helpful and hurtful behavior, the proso- cial and violent game conditions were significantly different. Those who played a prosocial game were significantly more helpful (M = 2.25; SD = 2.23) than those who had played a violent game (M = 1.43; SD = 1.48), F(1, 152) = 4.65, P < .05, d = 0.35. Those who played a violent game were significantly more hurtful (M = 3.23; SD = 1.86) than those who played a prosocial game (M = 2.01; SD = 2.03), F(1, 152) = 9.20, P < .01, d = 0.49. The neutral condition means for helpful (M = 1.77; SD = 1.47) and hurtful (M = 2.82; SD = 1.89) behaviors fell between the other two game conditions.
Trait aggression effects. The behavior type by trait aggression interaction also was significant, F(1, 152) = 5.82, P < .05, d = .39. As expected, trait aggression was positively related to hurtful behavior and negatively related to helpful behavior, bhurtful = 0.15, P < .05, bhelpful = −0.16, P < .05, respectively. This further validates the tangram task as a measure of both prosocial and aggressive behavior.
Physical Aggression Subscale of The Aggression Questionnaire Case Assignment
QUALITY OF RESPONSE NO RESPONSE POOR / UNSATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY GOOD EXCELLENT Content (worth a maximum of 50% of the total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 20 points out of 50: The essay illustrates poor understanding of the relevant material by failing to address or incorrectly addressing the relevant content; failing to identify or inaccurately explaining/defining key concepts/ideas; ignoring or incorrectly explaining key points/claims and the reasoning behind them; and/or incorrectly or inappropriately using terminology; and elements of the response are lacking. 30 points out of 50: The essay illustrates a rudimentary understanding of the relevant material by mentioning but not full explaining the relevant content; identifying some of the key concepts/ideas though failing to fully or accurately explain many of them; using terminology, though sometimes inaccurately or inappropriately; and/or incorporating some key claims/points but failing to explain the reasoning behind them or doing so inaccurately. Elements of the required response may also be lacking. 40 points out of 50: The essay illustrates solid understanding of the relevant material by correctly addressing most of the relevant content; identifying and explaining most of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology; explaining the reasoning behind most of the key points/claims; and/or where necessary or useful, substantiating some points with accurate examples. The answer is complete. 50 points: The essay illustrates exemplary understanding of the relevant material by thoroughly and correctly addressing the relevant content; identifying and explaining all of the key concepts/ideas; using correct terminology explaining the reasoning behind key points/claims and substantiating, as necessary/useful, points with several accurate and illuminating examples. No aspects of the required answer are missing. Use of Sources (worth a maximum of 20% of the total points). Zero points: Student failed to include citations and/or references. Or the student failed to submit a final paper. 5 out 20 points: Sources are seldom cited to support statements and/or format of citations are not recognizable as APA 6th Edition format. There are major errors in the formation of the references and citations. And/or there is a major reliance on highly questionable. The Student fails to provide an adequate synthesis of research collected for the paper. 10 out 20 points: References to scholarly sources are occasionally given; many statements seem unsubstantiated. Frequent errors in APA 6th Edition format, leaving the reader confused about the source of the information. There are significant errors of the formation in the references and citations. And/or there is a significant use of highly questionable sources. 15 out 20 points: Credible Scholarly sources are used effectively support claims and are, for the most part, clear and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition is used with only a few minor errors. There are minor errors in reference and/or citations. And/or there is some use of questionable sources. 20 points: Credible scholarly sources are used to give compelling evidence to support claims and are clearly and fairly represented. APA 6th Edition format is used accurately and consistently. The student uses above the maximum required references in the development of the assignment. Grammar (worth maximum of 20% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 5 points out of 20: The paper does not communicate ideas/points clearly due to inappropriate use of terminology and vague language; thoughts and sentences are disjointed or incomprehensible; organization lacking; and/or numerous grammatical, spelling/punctuation errors 10 points out 20: The paper is often unclear and difficult to follow due to some inappropriate terminology and/or vague language; ideas may be fragmented, wandering and/or repetitive; poor organization; and/or some grammatical, spelling, punctuation errors 15 points out of 20: The paper is mostly clear as a result of appropriate use of terminology and minimal vagueness; no tangents and no repetition; fairly good organization; almost perfect grammar, spelling, punctuation, and word usage. 20 points: The paper is clear, concise, and a pleasure to read as a result of appropriate and precise use of terminology; total coherence of thoughts and presentation and logical organization; and the essay is error free. Structure of the Paper (worth 10% of total points) Zero points: Student failed to submit the final paper. 3 points out of 10: Student needs to develop better formatting skills. The paper omits significant structural elements required for and APA 6th edition paper. Formatting of the paper has major flaws. The paper does not conform to APA 6th edition requirements whatsoever. 5 points out of 10: Appearance of final paper demonstrates the student’s limited ability to format the paper. There are significant errors in formatting and/or the total omission of major components of an APA 6th edition paper. They can include the omission of the cover page, abstract, and page numbers. Additionally the page has major formatting issues with spacing or paragraph formation. Font size might not conform to size requirements. The student also significantly writes too large or too short of and paper 7 points out of 10: Research paper presents an above-average use of formatting skills. The paper has slight errors within the paper. This can include small errors or omissions with the cover page, abstract, page number, and headers. There could be also slight formatting issues with the document spacing or the font Additionally the paper might slightly exceed or undershoot the specific number of required written pages for the assignment. 10 points: Student provides a high-caliber, formatted paper. This includes an APA 6th edition cover page, abstract, page number, headers and is double spaced in 12’ Times Roman Font. Additionally, the paper conforms to the specific number of required written pages and neither goes over or under the specified length of the paper.
GET THIS PROJECT NOW BY CLICKING ON THIS LINK TO PLACE THE ORDER
Do You Have Any Other Essay/Assignment/Class Project/Homework Related to this? Click Here Now [CLICK ME] and Have It Done by Our PhD Qualified Writers!!
Tired of getting an average grade in all your school assignments, projects, essays, and homework? Try us today for all your academic schoolwork needs. We are among the most trusted and recognized professional writing services in the market.
We provide unique, original and plagiarism-free high quality academic, homework, assignments and essay submissions for all our clients. At our company, we capitalize on producing A+ Grades for all our clients and also ensure that you have smooth academic progress in all your school term and semesters.
High-quality academic submissions, A 100% plagiarism-free submission, Meet even the most urgent deadlines, Provide our services to you at the most competitive rates in the market, Give you free revisions until you meet your desired grades and Provide you with 24/7 customer support service via calls or live chats.