MilDVE: Sherman et al. (1992)

Question

Please review this essay/ I send out the first draft and the second draft is due next Sunday, therefore please take this week to review each question and revise everything that needs to get done. Add another page somewhere. Thank you
MilDVE: Sherman et al. (1992)
"This study represents a modified replication of the Minneapolis Domestic Violence Experiment (SPECIFIC DETERRENT EFFECTS OF ARREST FOR DOMESTIC ASSAULT: MINNEAPOLIS, 1981-1982 [ICPSR 8250]). The Minneapolis study found arrest to be an effective deterrent against repeat domestic violence. The two key purposes of the current study were (1) to examine the possible differences in reactions to arrest, and (2) to compare the effects of short and long incarceration associated with arrest. Research protocol involved 35 patrol officers in four Milwaukee police districts screening domestic violence cases for eligibility, then calling police headquarters to request a randomly-assigned disposition. The three possible randomly assigned dispositions were (1) Code 1, which consisted of arrest and at least one night in jail, unless the suspect posted bond, (2) Code 2, which consisted of arrest and immediate release on recognizance from the booking area at police headquarters, or as soon as possible, and (3) Code 3, which consisted of a standard Miranda-style script warning read by police to both suspect and victim. A battered women's shelter hotline system provided the primary measurement of the frequency of violence by the same suspects both before and after each case leading to a randomized police action. Other forms of measurement included arrests of the suspect both before and after the offense, as well as offenses against the same victim. Initial victim interviews were attempted within one month after the first 900 incidents were compiled. A second victim interview was attempted six months after the incident for all 1,200 cases. Data collected for this study included detailed data on each of the 1,200 randomized events, less detailed data on an additional 854 cases found ineligible, "pipeline" data on the frequency of domestic violence in the four Milwaukee police districts, official measures of prior and subsequent domestic violence for both suspects and victims, interviews of arrested suspects for eligible and ineligible cases, criminal justice system dispositions of the randomized arrests, results of urinalysis tests of drug and alcohol use for some arrestees, and log attempts to obtain interviews from suspects and victims. Demographic variables include victim and suspect age, race, education, employment status, and marital status. Additional information obtained includes victim-offender relationships, alcohol and drug use during incident, substance of conflict, nature of victim injury and medical treatment as reported by police and victims, characteristics of suspects in the Code 1 and 2 arrest groups, victim and suspect reports of who called police, and victim and suspect versions of speed of police response."

URL: https://www.icpsr.umich.edu/icpsrweb/ICPSR/studies/9966?q=Milwaukee+Domestic+Violence+Experiment%2C+1987-1989+%28ICPSR+9966%29
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIPllNFrhDE&feature=emb_title
herman, L. W. et al. (1992). The Variable Effects of Arrest on Criminal Careers: The Milwaukee Domestic Violence Experiment. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, Vol. 83,
Issue 1, p. 137-169.
All answers must be full English sentences and all quotes must be compliant with APA citation rules. Failure to follow APA format will tigger a 20 point penalty!


Absolutely, NO late papers!


Due 3/20/2020, Friday, 11:59 PM (EST)


Instructions: Answer all questions using Question and Answer format.
*** John Jay A Guide to the APA Documentation Style ***
Question/Answer Format is Required for all Papers
Below is an example of the Question/Answer format that I require for the papers. Only Q/A format will be accepted!

Example Paper -- Doob and Gross (1968)

1. Who conducted/assisted the current study?

A. N. Doob and A. E. Gross conducted the study. Tina Fox and Mike Rosenberg acted as field observers and Professor Lorraine Soderstrum of Foothill College assisted by making her class of introductory psychology students available as subjects for the classroom question experiment (Doob and Gross, 1968).

2. What is (are) the source(s) of study funding, if any?

The immediate source of the study funding was not mentioned. However, it was indicated that A.N. Doob was supported by a “Public Health Service Predoctoral Fellowship” (Doob and Gross, 1968, p.213).
....

12. What is (are) the research design(s)? Is (Are) the research design(s) strong on internal validity, discuss?
The field experiment employed the two-group post-test only randomized experimental design. The design is strong on internal validity. Randomization for the field experiment was alluded to by the statement: “Approximately equal numbers of high and low status trials were run at each intersection” (Doob and Gross, 1968, p. 214). Additionally, Doob and Gross (1968) stated that “[h]igh and low status trials were run simultaneously at different intersections,” which supports the claim (in terms of time ordering) that the two-group post-test only randomized experimental design was employed (p. 215).
The class room experiment, likewise, used two-group post-test only randomized experimental design. The cryptic statement saying that “[f]orms were alternated so that approximately equal numbers of subjects received the Chrysler and Rambler versions” provides evidence of randomization.
As for internal validity, both the field experiment and questionnaire experiment should be strong on internal validity if randomization worked to evenly balance potential confounders over the two conditions. The questionnaire experiment utilized manipulation checks by asking subjects whether they heard of the car type that appeared in their respective questionnaires. The purpose of the manipulation check for the questionnaire experiment was to provide evidence that the subjects understood the independent variable (namely, status) in the way Doob and Gross intended. Finally, the questionnaire experiment did not appear to run the risk of failure of homogeneity of experimental conditions for the subjects. As for the field experiment, Doob and Gross attempted to conduct the trials compliant to three criteria to maintain homogeneity of experimental conditions. These conditions consist of choosing intersections characterized by “(a) a red light sufficiently long to insure that a high proportion of potential subjects would come to a complete stop behind the experimental car before the signal changed to green, (b) relatively light traffic so that only one car, the subject's, was likely to pull up behind the experimental car, and (c) a narrow street so that it would be difficult for the subject to drive around the car blocking him” (Doob and Gross, 1968, p. 214).

....

Reference
Doob, A. N. and Gross, A. E. (1968). Status of frustrator as an inhibitor of horn honking response. The Journal of Social Psychology, 76, 213-218.

QUESTIONS_Doob_and_Gross_1968.doc
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H1_OE0yvjFs&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VlbnpxFzP78&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULL5BsdUGPk&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k563Rxd96u8&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bj479snx4tI&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ph5gtyMx310&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SIrwUNi3678&feature=emb_logo
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BpOKAdMUGc&feature=emb_logo