Week 4!

Every week I discover more and more in regards to this sensitive subject. What measures must we take in order to determine the truth behind this theory? Last week, we looked at the myth in regards to "laboratory experiments being irrelevant". I came to my own conclusion that they are in no way irrelevant because I feel that one taking the proper steps to uncover this should look at it from every angle.

(http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2003/10/anderson.aspx)

This week's myth from the American Psychological Association, explores a different type of irrelevancy, which revolve around field experiments rather than laboratory experiments. Myth number 4 that the APA uncoveres reads below:

"Myth 4. Field experiments are irrelevant (aggression measures based either on direct imitation of video game behaviors (e.g., karate kicks) or are normal play behaviors.

Facts: Some field experiments have used behaviors such as biting, pinching, hitting, pushing, and pulling hair, behaviors that were not modeled in the game. The fact that these aggressive behaviors occur in natural environments does not make them "normal" play behavior, but it does increase the face validity (and some would argue the external validity) of the measures."

Continuing from last week, I feel that all measures should be taken. Laboratory experiments, and field experiments. Just because a select few may think that either of these ways are irrelevants, they are both relevant in some way or another. How can it be irrelevant for someone to test the aggression level of a person who is imitating the movements they witnessed first hang in a video game? Maybe when the person being tested performs these type of movements, they become extremely violent or more aggressive than usual. Perhaps this has something to do with them seeing it in a video game? I feel that the tester would be more successful if he/she did participate in field experiments.

tbc...