Lesson 3.3.1
3.3.1 Raine, Li, Brendgen and Van den Oever biological studies Quiz: Pearson Edexcel Psychology, Unit 3
20 questions
In partnership with Revision Ninja
Lesson 3.3.1, Raine, Li, Brendgen and Van den Oever biological studies: 20 multiple choice questions for the Pearson Edexcel Psychology (9PS0), Unit 3: Biological psychology, written with Revision Ninja.
Host it live on the board and students join with a game code on their own devices, or revise alone with Free Play. The answers are revealed in the game.
The 20 questions
-
Raine et al. (1997) used PET scans to study which group of participants?
- Convicted murderers who pleaded not guilty by reason of insanity, compared with a matched group of non-offending controls
- Adolescent drug users who were attending treatment programmes in a hospital setting in the United Kingdom at the time
- Children who showed high levels of aggression in school playgrounds and were referred to a clinical psychologist for help
- Adults who had been convicted of violent crime and were serving sentences in prison at the time of the scan
-
What did Raine et al. (1997) find about glucose metabolism in the prefrontal cortex of murderers?
- Metabolism was higher in the prefrontal cortex of murderers, which suggested that these areas were overactive during the scan
- Metabolism was lower in the prefrontal cortex of murderers, which suggested reduced activity in these regions compared to controls
- Metabolism did not differ between murderers and controls, so the study found no evidence of any brain differences at all
- Metabolism was only measured in the cerebellum, so the study could not say anything about the prefrontal cortex specifically
-
Why was PET used in Raine et al.'s study rather than CAT?
- PET shows the functional activity of brain regions, which is needed to examine prefrontal metabolism, whereas CAT shows structure
- PET is cheaper to run than any other scanner, so the researchers chose it because of budget limitations in the study
- CAT measures glucose metabolism, so PET was not suitable for a study that focused on the function of the prefrontal cortex
- PET shows the skeleton of the skull in detail, which is needed to measure how thick the bone is around the prefrontal cortex
-
Which of these is a valid limitation of Raine et al.'s study that limits causal conclusions?
- Because the murderers were all children, the results cannot be applied to any adult population of offenders in any country
- Because it used a PET scan, the study could not identify any brain region, so its conclusions about the brain are invalid
- Because it is a correlational group comparison, it cannot show that reduced prefrontal activity causes murderous behaviour
- Because the study used a control group, it is impossible to show any difference between the two groups at all
-
A critic suggests that the reduced prefrontal activity in Raine et al.'s murderers might have been caused by factors other than the crimes. Which is the best example?
- The use of a PET scanner, which always produces lower prefrontal metabolism in every participant regardless of any other factor
- A history of head injury or substance use, which can affect brain function and could explain the differences in scan results
- The use of a control group, which always makes the prefrontal cortex appear less active in comparison with the murderers
- The use of informed consent, which is known to reduce glucose metabolism in the prefrontal cortex of all participants in studies
-
Which ethical concern is most relevant to Raine et al.'s study of murderers?
- The use of a control group, which means that some participants received no treatment during the scanning procedure at all
- The risk of stigmatising offenders and misusing brain findings, such as to label people as dangerous or predict future crime
- The use of a radioactive tracer, which is never allowed in any psychology study regardless of the potential benefits of research
- The use of a large sample, which always causes participants to feel excessively anxious about the results of their scan
-
Why is the Raine et al. study sometimes described as a classic study in biological psychology?
- It is widely cited in discussions of biological explanations of aggression and of the use of brain scanning in criminal behaviour
- It provided the only evidence that aggression is caused entirely by genes, and it is therefore cited in every textbook on the topic
- It disproved all earlier biological explanations, so it is taught as the final word on the causes of violence and aggression
- It was the first study ever to use a brain scanner, so it marks the beginning of brain imaging in all psychological research
-
A researcher wants to show that the prefrontal cortex is involved in regulating aggression. Which combination of evidence would be strongest?
- A questionnaire about how often participants feel angry, with no measure of any brain activity or structure at all
- Converging evidence from scans, lesion studies and experiments linking prefrontal activity to impulse control and aggression
- A single case study of one offender with a head injury, which proves the function of the prefrontal cortex in all people
- A survey of public opinion about violence, which shows how the public believes the prefrontal cortex controls behaviour
-
Which is the best explanation of why Raine et al. used murderers with an insanity plea rather than a random sample of prisoners?
- The insanity-plea group was chosen because the law requires all convicted murderers to undergo brain scanning as a condition of sentence
- The insanity-plea group was chosen because they have no brain abnormalities at all, which makes them an ideal control group
- The insanity-plea group was chosen to represent a particular subtype of violent offending, which the researchers wanted to examine
- These participants were the only prisoners who agreed to take part in any study involving brain scans, which made sampling easy
-
Which best describes a limitation of the sample size in Raine et al.'s study for generalising the findings?
- A small sample means that the study cannot use a control group, so no comparison of prefrontal activity was possible at all
- A small sample always proves the findings are correct, because fewer participants reduce any noise in the brain scan results
- A small, specific sample of murderers may not represent all violent offenders, so findings cannot be safely applied to all of them
- A small sample only affects the PET tracer, not the results, so generalisation to other offenders is not a concern at all
-
Which statement about glucose tracers in PET scans is accurate?
- A tracer such as radioactive glucose reduces neural activity, so areas that take it up show less activity than areas that do not
- A tracer such as radioactive glucose accumulates in regions of higher metabolic activity, which the scanner then detects
- A tracer such as radioactive glucose is a structural dye, which shows the shape of neurons but not their level of metabolic activity
- A tracer such as radioactive glucose is absorbed only by the spinal cord, so it cannot reveal any activity in the brain at all
-
Which of these is an important implication of Raine et al.'s findings for society?
- Violence can be eliminated completely by scanning all children at birth, since scans always reveal future criminal behaviour
- Violent offenders should not be treated at all, since their brain differences are fixed and cannot change through any intervention
- Brain findings may inform understanding of violence, but they should not be used to label individuals or predict crime alone
- Brain scans should be used routinely to identify future offenders before any crime has taken place, since they predict violence
-
Which of these criticisms of Raine et al. is most closely linked to the issue of reductionism?
- The study reduces the need for a control group, since the murderers are sufficient on their own to demonstrate the effect
- The study reduces violence to brain metabolism and may ignore social and environmental factors
- The study reduces the amount of glucose available to the brain, which is the only factor that could affect the outcome
- The study reduces the number of participants below the level needed for a scan, which means its results are not reliable
-
A replication of Raine et al. finds similar prefrontal differences in a different sample. Which conclusion is best supported?
- The original finding is now proven to be caused by genes, since replication shows that all violent people share the same genetic profile
- The original finding is worthless, since any study that replicates an earlier one must have made the same methodological error
- The original finding has more support, though replications in different samples still cannot show that the difference causes violence
- The original finding is more reliable, because replication shows that the findings are valid for all people in all societies
-
A researcher wants to compare prefrontal metabolism between groups using PET. Which control is most important?
- Using only men in both groups, so that the scanner does not need to be calibrated separately for each participant in the study
- Matching the groups on relevant characteristics, such as age and sex, so that differences are less likely to be due to these factors
- Ensuring that the control group has higher prefrontal metabolism, which then acts as a benchmark against the offender sample
- Scanning the participants at different times of day, so that any fluctuation in glucose levels is spread evenly across groups
-
Which statement best describes the evidence that Raine et al. obtained about the prefrontal cortex?
- It is correlational evidence of lower metabolic activity in the prefrontal cortex in a group of murderers compared with controls
- It is direct evidence of a cause of violence, because the scan showed the exact region that produced the violent act
- It is qualitative evidence drawn from interviews with the murderers about their feelings and thoughts during the crime
- It is experimental evidence, because the researchers randomly assigned participants to receive either a brain injury or a scan
-
Which of these would be the strongest reason to conclude that Raine et al.'s findings are not sufficient to show that brain differences cause murder?
- Because the study took place in a laboratory, which means that the findings cannot be applied to any real-world setting at all
- Because the scan was carried out after the crime, which means the researchers could not record any brain activity before it happened
- Because the PET scan measured the brain activity of the control group, which should have been measured in a different way entirely
- Because the murderers may have experienced other factors, such as abuse or drug use, which could affect both brain and behaviour
-
A researcher argues that the Raine et al. study shows biology determines violence. Which response best evaluates this claim?
- The study proves biology determines violence completely, since it found differences in every murderer that was scanned in the research
- The study is irrelevant to biology, because PET scans measure only the chemistry of the blood and never the function of the brain
- The study shows that violence is caused by environment alone, since a PET scan cannot detect any biological difference at all
- The study shows a correlation between brain function and violence, but biology alone does not determine behaviour
-
Raine et al. is a biological study of aggression. Which assumption underlies this approach?
- Aggression is caused only by social learning from parents, so brain function plays no part in the behaviour at all
- Violence is a conscious moral choice, which is unaffected by any physiological processes in the brain or the body
- Brain structure is identical across all humans, so differences in violent behaviour can never be explained biologically
- Brain function, which can be measured, contributes to individual differences in violent behaviour across people
-
What design would best show whether prefrontal differences existed before offending rather than after it?
- A longitudinal study that scans individuals before and after any offence, to see whether the difference precedes the crime
- Repeating the same PET scan on the same murderers a single time, so that the results are confirmed by a second measurement
- Asking the murderers to describe their childhood, since memory alone is enough to show whether brain differences came first
- Using a larger control group of non-offenders, since a larger group always shows which event came first in the sequence
Related quizzes
- Neurons, neurotransmitters and recreational drugs Quiz · 3.1.1 · 20 questions
- Brain structure and aggression Quiz · 3.1.2 · 20 questions
- Evolution, natural selection and hormones Quiz · 3.1.3 · 20 questions
- Biological versus Freudian explanations of aggression Quiz · 3.1.4 · 20 questions
- Individual and developmental differences in biological psychology Quiz · 3.1.5 · 20 questions
- Correlational research and Spearman's rho Quiz · 3.2.1 · 20 questions
- Brain scanning, twin and adoption studies Quiz · 3.2.2 · 20 questions
- Key question: drug therapy and nature versus nurture in aggression Quiz · 3.4.1 · 20 questions
- Issues and debates in biological psychology Quiz · 3.6.1 · 20 questions
- Theories of obedience: agency theory and social impact theory Quiz · 1.1.1 · 20 questions