Some General Information about the Midterm Answers

Midterm Scores

Distribution of Grades: The following is the distribution of raw scores on the midterm exam. The highest possible raw score was 70. As you can see, the large majority of you scored within the ten points of the maximum. This is really very good! Congratulations. Both Heather and I were very impressed. (By the way, if you can' t see the distribution below, it is because you are using an older Internet browser. You need to use Internet Explorer 4.0 or higher or a more recent version of Netscape.)

 

Score

            Number of People

 

If you divide your score by 70 and multiply the result by 100, you will obtain the percentage of total points that you got out of the total number possible. For example, a score of 64 equals 91.4% correct while a score of 55 equals 78.6% correct. We have assigned TEMPORARY letter grades to your midterm score based largely on these percentages (however, your final grade in the class will be based on a combination of your numerical grade on the midterm and your numerical grade on the final exam):

 

90% or above is an A (although something near 90% is more like an A- and something like 97% is more like a A+). Anything less than 90% but 80% or above is B. Anything below 80% but above 70% is a C. Anything between 60 and 70% would be around a D. Anything less than 60% would be an F. Thus, anything less than a 42 would be an F. If you received a grade lower than a C, you should contact Heather or myself.

 

Table of scores for those who can't see figure:

 

Score      Number of People

33            1

41            1

44            1

46            1

48            1

52            1

53            1

54            1

55            2

56            1

57            1

58            1

59            2

60            1

61            6

62            4

63            3

64            7

65            4

67            1

68            3

70            1

 

Some problems with your answers:

One of the key ideas that some of you seem to have extracted from the lectures and readings in the class is the notion that there are many different theories in psychology that might be used to justify or design particular social policies. This is certainly a true idea. There are many different theories of aggression, of violence, and of crime. Sometimes the evidence for these different theories seems strong, as far as the evidence goes. Thus, Freedman agrees that much of the laboratory research dealing with the effects of TV violence on some measures of aggression is fairly consistent. However, he still concludes that it is not fair to generalize this evidence to the actual effect of TV violence on crime or other measures of aggression in the "real world." While many of you seemed to get this far, many of you went one step further, a step that is not necessarily logically justified. Namely, you concluded that because different theories are available and each seems to be supported by some evidence, we can not make use any of them to help us decide what social policy to pick. Stated differently, because there is disagreement, we have to reject all theories.

 

But what is the consequence of this view? One that many of you seemed to prefer is to "give up." That is, you said things like: "This theory hasn't been proven, therefore it can't guide social policy."  "The theories contradict, so we can't use any of them."  "The lab data is correlational."  "No theory has

ever been proven, therefore, we shouldn't use any." My question to those of you who said things like this is, "What do we use instead? Go ahead, tell me! If you said, intuition or personal experience or religion or you whatever the republicans tell you to do, or whatever seems reasonable, what evidence do you have that any of these "naďve theories" are better than any one or more of the conflicting, and generally more formal, theories? Your answer almost surely is that you have no such evidence.

 

Just because it is hard to figure out which of the many different theories might be used to justify social policy doesn't mean that you should reject them all! Science is not an easy process. It is not foolproof, but it is often better than intuition and personal experience! There are many examples of people firmly believing things based on personal experience that have later been shown to be incorrect by the careful collection of relevant evidence. For example, many Europeans once believed that the earth is flat. Many believed that the sun moves around the earth. Many believed that bacteria and viruses do not exist. You believe that you see motion when you watch movies and TV but actually both are a sequence of rapidly presented still pictures.

 

You have discovered a good rule: don't believe a claim just because someone makes it. This is good. However, you have over generalized this rule to mean that you can't believe any claims that people make. This is not good. We will be working on this issue more during the second half of the quarter now that I see we have some problems in understanding. To do this, we shall have to discuss methodology more generally. We will do this as we read about other areas of social policy concern, e.g., racism, affirmative action, education, intelligence, family values, and such.

 

One of the reasons that you may not have seen the implications of your general rejection of the theories that you learned about is a failure to appreciate the consequences of the fact that we live in a complex "multi-causal" social world. Once we realize that we live in a multi-causal world, a number of conclusions follow. We shall examine these conclusions one by one as we proceed through the class.

 

Here is the first conclusion that follows from the fact that we live in a multi-causal world. I present it to get you started thinking about this issue. Some of you claim that there are too many conflicting theories to be able to pick one. Well, rather than reject them all, what if we accepted most of them and assumed they were all true, at least in part. Why can't aggressive behavior be "caused" by multiple mechanisms? Frustration might increase aggression. So might TV violence. So might arousal. So might alcohol. So might reinforcement. Different theories might all be correct in one of a number of different ways:

  1. Different mechanisms might work for different people.
  2. Different mechanisms might work in different situations.
  3. Different mechanisms might work in the same person in a given situation simultaneously.

Thus, in the first case above, one person might aggress primarily because aggression provides that person with reinforcement, e.g., money. Another might aggress primarily when they drink. And so on. That is, different mechanisms might work for different people. We need to think about how to design social policies if this is way the world of human behavior really works. You might want to go back and rethink your answers to the midterm questions with the above in mind. Would it change how you answered the questions?

 

In the second case above, different mechanisms might work at different times for the same people. For example, alcohol might only increase aggression when there are appropriate instigations to aggression, e.g., if someone calls me a "fatso," I might not react with aggression unless I had consumed sufficient alcohol. In addition, if I consume alcohol, I might not aggress unless someone calls me fatso. The point is, the alcohol might only have effects when certain situational variables are present. When I am not drunk, frustration might be a key factor in determining aggression. And so on. The point is that the different theories might describe causal processes that take over in different circumstances.

 

In the third case, all of the theories might act simultaneously. Each might contribute to a small increase of decrease in the probability that people will behave aggressively.

 

So, you see, just because there are so many theories, does not mean that we must reject all of them. We might wind up accepting most of them, but in a more thoughtful and carefully manner. Then again, we might not.

 

Grading Criteria Used on Midterm

 

Global

 

1.      Answer goes beyond conclusions such as, “There is so much evidence and it all conflicts; therefore, nothing should be done.”  Shouldn’t stop here, instead, ought to evaluate what crucial piece(s) of evidence is lacking in theoretical and empirical claims, and why this crucial evidence is needed to inform policy.  If research was done and evidence points away from the theory or policy, then what would be the conclusion?

 

2.      Value judgments and personal experience claims are minimal; policy analysis should be data/evidence driven.

 

3.      Terms are used precisely:  Clear statements about what is meant by aggression, poverty, violence, gun control, crime, etc.

 

Specific

 

Question 1.  (20 points)

1.      Accurate/precise description of TV violence theory  (2 pts)

2.      Precise statement of psychological mechanisms underlying theory (2 pts)

3.      Critical evaluation of whether theory can inform policy decision (e.g., What is aggression?  What is violence?  What critical ages?  Internal/Face Validity? Generalization? Etc.) (6)

4.      Proposal of alternative theories; should compare with 1 and evaluate (2 pts)

5.      Critical evaluation of theoretical strengths, weaknesses, and limitations.  What controls behavior according to theory?  Does evidence suggest that this accurate?  Individual differences? (4 pts)

6.      Evidence supporting theoretical claim to which the author adheres. (4 pts)

 

Question 2.  (20 points)

1.      3 or more aggression theories described (5)

2.      3 or more evaluated with regard to crime control policy (5)

3.      Proposal for changing the current system:  Must state who, to what extent and in what manner; claim should rely upon evidence from readings/lecture/web used (10)

4.      Super Brownie Points:  Cost/benefit analysis given

     

Question 3.  (20 points)

1.      Author takes a position on the issue, delimiting what is meant by “gun control” (4)

2.       Argument based on evidence is made concerning why this type is more sound/effective than other types of control policies. (6)

3.      Precise statement of psychological mechanisms involved (4)

4.      Limitations of translating this position into a social policy (2)

5.      Based on evidence, scope of policy is clearly laid out (e.g., who, to what extent, in what manner.) (4)

 

Question 4. (10 points)

1.      Psychological theory of behavior that the program assumes is given (2)

2.      Scope of program questioned/addressed (2)

3.      In light of 1 & 2 above, how should program be tested?  Outcome measures:  should realize that multiple are needed, or at least point out the limitations if one is suggested.  Should critically delimit “recidivism.” (4)

4.      Discussion of what evidence would be crucial in order to evaluate program (2)