RIGHT TO WITHDRAW
All members must be advised that they may drop out of the research at any point without any issues. members will be able to have any data that was collected from them in regard to the research removed, so the researchers won’t be able to use the information.
PROTECTION OF PARTICIPANTS
All research ought to be led under skilful supervision to ensure that health and safety guidelines are being followed. All researchers have a responsibility to ensure that all members who are taking part within the group are shielded from any danger or harm.
Researchers ought to receive the permission of the members before all research starts. It isn’t acceptable to just allow possible members to state “Yes”. They additionally require to completely understand what exactly they are signing up to and this needs to be put in writing and kept in order to carry out any research. Researchers must not under any circumstances put any pressure on any of the possible members to get involved with the research.
Once the research is in its final phase, the member should be enlightened as to what their part was within the research and also, what the researcher was exploring and why. Debriefing is important and required to be done as soon as possible, especially if the research has misled the member.
The researcher ought to abstain from misleading members about the idea of the exploration, except if there is no other option. Then in that case it would need to be done under strict conditions and would need to be deemed acceptable by an independent advisor. There are many kinds of research that can’t be completed without in any event some element of misleading.
Any information or data provided by the member including sensitive or any details of research outcomes are to be kept private and confidential and stored correctly along the guidelines of the data protection act. The member must be informed of where it shall be saved, time scale of storage and who can access the data and also what the information will be used for. In certain circumstances data will be shared, however the member will be made aware of this before giving any of their information.
Questionnaires are inquiries to gather data from respondents using open or and closed questions.
Strengths – This way of gathering information is cheap and it gives the responder the opportunity to express how they really feel without becoming embarrassed. This type of research can gather a lot of information to form data.
Weaknesses – The downsides to this sort of research is that it may not be reliable as some people may twist the truth as they try to impress others with their answers. Also, this research tends to produce biased results.
In a structured interview there will be a set of inquiries that are asked in a precise order and each interviewee will be asked exactly the same inquiries.
Strengths – Structured interviews are anything but difficult to repeat as a set arrangement of shut inquiries are utilized, which are anything but difficult to evaluate – this implies it is anything but difficult to test for dependability. Structured interview are reasonably quick, which implies that numerous interviews can occur inside a short measure of time.
Weaknesses – Structure interviews are not adaptable. This implies new inquiries can’t be asked as a meeting plan must be pursued. The responses from the interview are insufficient which implies that it will only produce quantitative data such as graphs.
The biological approach to behaviour assumes that all conduct such as behaviour is driven by hereditary qualities and a humans natural/ chemical arrangement. It believes that the surrounding such as the environment, can’t change a person’s behaviour. It’s their belief that all activities, choices and the manner in which a person lives can be followed back to coming from the persons biological parents from their DNA.
Weaknesses – Reductionist and doesn’t take into consideration the cognitive processes.
Strengths – The biological hypothesis gives clear expectations. This implies clarifications can be logically tried and backed up by supporting evidence. Numerous investigations to help support hypothesis such as, Cuccaro et al (1997) He studied pairs of adult twins and established that almost half of the fluctuation in direct forceful conduct could be ascribed to hereditary components.
The Behavioural approach to behaviour is that it assumes a person’s behaviour is a result of the environment that surrounds them. They believe that as infants all humans are conceived as a clear slate and from that moment their behaviour is formed and affected by the people surrounding them and the environment they are in.
Weaknesses – Reductionist and doesn’t take biology into consideration.
Strengths – The behaviourist methodology gives clear forecasts. This implies clarifications can be logically tried and backed up with supporting evidence. Numerous investigations to help support hypothesis such as Watson and Rayner 1920 experiment. A little boy known as little Albert who was only 9-month-old was tried on his responses to different stimuli. At first, he was shown a white rodent, a rabbit, a monkey and a few masks. Albert demonstrated no emotion to any of these stimuli. However, when Albert heard a hammer strike a piece of steel it startled him, and he began to cry. At this point “little Albert just needed to see the rodent and he instantly demonstrated dread. He would cry every time he saw the rodent (regardless of whether the hammer was hit against the steel) and he would endeavour to creep away. Watson and Rayner had demonstrated that classical conditioning could be utilised to create a phobia.
Behavioural vs Biological approach on criminal behaviour
The biological hypothesis of criminal behaviour fundamentally indicate that criminal conduct is the aftereffect of some defect in the organic cosmetics of the person. This physical defect could be caused by, heredity neurotransmitter dysfunction, brain variations from the norm that were caused by one of the above, improper development, or Trauma (Seiken, 2016) However the behaviourists hypothesis argues that people learn from their surrounding and the people who they associate with and from what they observe. For example, the bobo doll experiment, where children were shown a short video of person beating up a doll, they were shown the video twice and when it ended they copied what they viewed. (McLeod, 2018)