Introduction
The literature review is accurately represented by the research paper. It has explored various theories and presented hypotheses to explain how children react to victimisation. First, it assumes that temperament and sex determine the contribution of peer victimisation to a child’s aggression and depressive symptoms (Sugimura and Rudolph 2012). This assumption helps to develop intervention programmes to alleviate the effects of peer victimisation.
The reviews include theoretical perspectives from previous researches conducted by other people to explain the impacts of sex in determining children’s reactions to victimisation. This includes researches done by scholars like Stephen G. West and Leona S. Aiken on how to test and interpret interactions amongst teenagers that experience peer victimisation (Aiken and West 1991). The authors have used research findings and reports from other scholars like John Archer to explain how sex determines aggression levels in children.
The data review prepares audiences for what is to be covered in the research paper. The author cites quotes from researches done by other people and this shows that the issues being covered are not new in this field. This enables readers to link this paper to other research findings that were done to understand various issues that affect the reactions of children to peer victimisation. It is important to explain that a good introduction must ensure that the reader is directed from a general subject to a specific topic covered in a paper.
This research paper explored various issues that determine the outcome of children’s reactions to peer victimisation. In addition, it narrowed its scope and focussed on sex as a key determinant of the reactions of children to peer victimisation. This enables the reader to concentrate on the issues covered by the research and thus understand the relationship between different variables explored by the researcher.
On the other hand, this has enabled the researcher to focus on a single issue to avoid wasting time and presenting unguided findings. The research focus enables the researcher to plan and know what to do to avoid conducting a research that does not have a schedule. It is necessary to explain that this focus ensures the researcher plans his time properly to avoid giving some issues a lot of concentration and ignoring others. Therefore, this research focus ensures there is adequate time allocated to all activities to make the project successful.
The research questions and hypotheses of the paper have been clearly stated and this enables readers to know what the researcher intends to do. The paper has clearly stated its hypothesis that temperament and sex moderate the contribution of peer victimisation to children’s subsequent adjustment.
It seeks to answer questions related to child development; for instance, it examined whether the effects of victimisation are determined by children’s temperament or other factors like parental care and social groups (Sugimura and Rudolph 2012). The paper defines technical terms used in the research to ensure readers understand their meanings. This paper has been cited and used by other scholars and institutions, including the Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology.
Methods
This involves the procedures the researcher has used to collect data from various sources. The designs used by the researcher are effective because they represent the actual data on the ground. It is necessary to explain that the researcher sampled his respondents before collecting data. The research involved 283 participants (158 girls and 125 boys) from different towns in Midwestern to increase the chances of getting varied outcomes.
In addition, those children were from different racial and ethnic backgrounds (13.9% African-Americans, 77.7 % whites and 8.4% from other races) to ensure all groups were represented proportionally (Sugimura and Rudolph 2012). These groups involved participants from different economic backgrounds and some were given subsidised school lunch to persuade them to participate in the research. Parents were requested to allow their children to participate in the research to ensure there was consent from all participants.
Questionnaires were used twice to ensure there was consistency and accuracy of the data provided by participants. That is why the research allowed them to provide feedback twice with an interval of one year between the first and second responses.
Mails and home visits were used to collect surveys from parents while teachers returned their responses through locked boxes (Sugimura and Rudolph 2012). The researchers saw it necessary to involve the University of London’s Institutional Review Board to approve the procedures used in the research.
The experimental and control groups were well matched to ensure the research achieved a high level of accuracy. A perfect research develops two sets of data for the actual and control experiments. Children were classified into two broad categories that included the majority and minority groups. Those in the majority group were the main subjects in the experiment while those in the minority were used as control samples.
They provided parallel data that enabled researchers to compute and record findings in two sets. The data obtained from these sets did not show major differences in the behaviour of children towards peer victimisation (Sugimura and Rudolph 2012). Therefore, the standard deviation obtained did not show major disparities from the theorised data. Even though, the control and experimental groups were randomly selected they were well matched to ensure the experiment had a reference set.
The data collection methods were well operationalised to ensure the outlined constructs were covered. For instance, the focus of this research was on obtaining different results from children regarding their responses to peer victimisation. This was achieved by using samples from different schools and homes. In addition, the research questions were well answered using questionnaires that were given to children, parents, and teachers (Godleski and Ostrov 2010).
The research hypothesis was proved to be correct and this was shown in the results obtained and the information collected from different literature reviews. Reliability and validity were reported in a cumulative representation in various forms, including tables and questionnaires to record quantitative measures. Moreover, the process of the construction of the interview passed the research requirements regarding quantitative measures.
The research process enabled replication of the procedures used. The procedures were outlined in the methodology and it is easy for a different researcher to conduct this research and find the same answers as provided in the paper.
Therefore, the procedures outlined in the research paper have sufficient details that will allow other researchers to understand what has been done. This enables them to conduct this research and find similar answers; therefore, the procedures described are adequate to enable replication. Moreover, there are no obvious flaws in the data presented in this research.
Ethical issues were appropriately addressed in the research. For instance, the researcher obtained consent from parents before involving their children in the research. In addition, relevant bodies were consulted before the research started. This shows that the researchers fulfilled all research requirements that guide participants, samples, methods and ethical concerns.
Results/Findings
The researcher described the sample and context of various issues in the study to ensure the recipients understand the relationship between sex and response to peer victimisation amongst children (Sugimura and Rudolph 2012).
The researcher described different methods that were used to select samples. They include sex, race and economic status to ensure all groups were represented in the research. This was important in ensuring that the data collected represented the actual events in the context of the research (Lau and Eley 2008).
In quantitative research, all hypotheses and questions were tested and the results obtained were recorded in tables. Inferential tests were used where the researcher was required to direct the research and enable other people to compare their findings with what they expected before conducting this exploration (Card and Hodges 2008). These tests are correct because they provided accurate and appropriate results that enabled the researcher to compute the data obtained and record it without confusing the audience.
The need to obtain credible results compels all researchers to use inferential tests to guide them and ensure they do not deviate from their objectives. Researchers may be influenced by research outcomes, participants or other factors and this may affect the results of their projects. Therefore, inferential tests are used to determine whether researchers are on track or have missed some important steps.
The sample size collected may not have been sufficient to support the research analysis because the researcher used a small population. However, it is necessary to explain that research samples are obtained depending on the size of the targeted population (Lengua, Bush, Long, Kovacs and Trancik 2008).
Therefore, it is not necessary to use a large sample size if a small one can provide the information required by the researcher. This means that sample sizes may be small but suitable to represent the entire population targeted by a researcher. T-tests are used to compare data of large sample sizes, but they are sometimes applied in researches that involve a small population. Therefore, the researcher cannot be condemned for using this test to compare the sets of data obtained in this experiment.
It is necessary to explain that the methods of collecting or analysing data should be evaluated depending on their accuracy and how the user understands them (Graham, Bellmore, Nishina and Juvonen 2009).
The write-up does not evoke a real picture regarding the process of analysing data collected in this experiment. The researcher has not provided information to support the validity, reliability and accuracy of the research finding. For instance, the coding system used does not represent the differences between the categories of samples used.
Discussion
The research results were clearly summarised and the author has presented pertinent issues in a clear manner. It is necessary to explain that this research involved a lot of experiments and data and this made it difficult to summarise its findings. However, the most important issues in the research were presented without interfering with their qualities and quantities. The research findings were summarised properly and this enables the audience to know what the project was about without necessarily going through the whole paper.
The researcher answered all questions and this shows that the paper has achieved its objectives. For instance, the researcher wanted to know if there was a relationship between sex and reactions of children to peer victimisation (Sugimura and Rudolph 2012). In addition, it explored the possibilities of age, race and economic effect on children’s victimisation.
The data collection and analysis methods support the interpretations of the information presented by the researcher. It is necessary to explain that the findings of this research were presented in a qualitative and quantitative manner and this is important in ensuring the audience understands various issues about children’s reactions to victimisation (Ostrov 2010). However, some claims were not supported by the sample design used by the researcher.
For instance, the criteria used to select participants were applied to children and not their teachers, parents or caretakers. Therefore, this means that the sample was biased since it did not follow similar criteria in all cases (Benjet, Thompson and Gotlib 2010). The researcher made comments, hypotheses and assumptions based on co-relational designs and forgot that the cases used were broad and thus required complicated criteria to select participants.
The findings are linked to previous researches and theories advanced by other people, including Stephen West, Leona Aiken and John Archer. The researcher identified key limitations like poor support and ineffective schedules by participants. However, these were not influential in determining the outcome of the research findings because the researcher had expected and planned to manage any complication that could have occurred during the study.
The paper discuses future implications and recommendations that may affect children’s reactions to peer victimisation. The researchers observed that low inhibitory control puts girls at risk of becoming more aggressive after victimisation. Therefore, it recommends that it is necessary to strengthen their abilities to participate in organised responses to discourage victimisation.
In addition, it presents that it is necessary for teachers and parents to teach children the importance of regulating their emotions to prevent them from blaming themselves or having a low self esteem (Keenan, Hipwell, Feng, Rischall, Henneberger and Klosterman 2010). The findings of this paper will help scientists, teachers and parents to understand the causes and effects of peer victimisation. This will help educators and scientists to develop effective programmes that target children according to their needs (Sugimura and Rudolph 2012).
References
Aiken, L. S. and West, S. G. (1991). Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. California: Sage Publications.
Benjet, C., Thompson, R. J. and Gotlib, I. H. (2010). 5-HTTLPR moderates the effect of relational peer victimization on depressive symptoms in adolescent girls. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 51, 173–179.
Card, N. A. and Hodges, E. V. E. (2008). Peer victimization among school children: Correlations, causes, consequences, and considerations in assessment and intervention. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 451–461.
Godleski, S. A. and Ostrov, J. M. (2010). Relational aggression and hostile attribution biases: Testing multiple statistical methods and models. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 38, 447–458.
Graham, S., Bellmore, A., Nishina, A. and Juvonen, J. (2009). ‘‘It must be me’’: Ethnic diversity and attributions for peer victimization in middle school. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 38, 487–499.
Keenan, K., Hipwell, A., Feng, X., Rischall, M., Henneberger, A. and Klosterman, S. (2010). Lack of assertion, peer victimization, and risk for depression in girls: Testing a diathesis–stress model. Journal of Adolescent Health, 47, 526–528.
Lau, J. Y. F. and Eley, T. C. (2008). Attribution style as a risk marker of genetic effects for adolescent depressive symptoms. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 117, 849–859.
Lengua, L. J., Bush, N. R., Long, A. C., Kovacs, E. A. and Trancik, A. M. (2008).
Effortful control as a moderator of the relation between contextual risk factors and growth in adjustment problems. Development and Psychopathology, 20, 509–528.
Ostrov, J. M. (2010). Prospective associations between peer victimization and aggression. Child Development, 81, 1670–1677.
Sugimura, N. and Rudolph, D. K. (2012). Temperamental differences in children’s reactions to peer victimization. Journal of Clinical Child and Adolescent Psychology, 41:3, 314-328.