澳洲靠谱代写：攻击性行为相关变量的研究分析
研究人员认为，越来越多的攻击性行为是因为孩子们玩的暴力视频游戏。作者对现有的电子游戏研究文献进行了荟萃分析，表明暴力电子游戏暴露会导致生理唤醒和与攻击性相关的思想。在meta分析综述中，研究人员利用了来自学术数据库(如Psyc INFO)的文献。建立了关联准则和编码框架准则。采用统计分析系统SAS和固定效应模型、随机效应模型进行meta分析。就攻击性行为而言，我们注意到结果中存在某种形式的关联。研究结果表明，当孩子们接触暴力电子游戏时，他们很有可能会卷入极端程度的攻击。
Anderson等人(2008)的文章试图调查接触暴力电子游戏是否会增加青少年的身体攻击性。作者在这里的目的是测试美国(暴力高)和日本(暴力相对低)的情况。本研究以三个独立样本和181名日本学生(第一次)和1050名日本学生(第二次)为研究对象，进行了初步研究。第三个样本是来自美国的364名学生。研究结果表明，经常玩暴力游戏的学生变得更具攻击性。因此，玩暴力游戏是一个重要的风险因素。
The increasing aggressive behavior argues the researchers because of the violent video games that the children play. The authors conduct a meta analytic review of the exiting research literature on video games to show that violent video games exposure would result in physiological arousal and also aggression related thoughts. In the meta analytic review, researchers made use of literature from scholarly databases such as Psyc INFO. Relevancy criteria and coding frame criteria were both developed. Meta-analysis was done by means of Statistical Analysis system SAS and fixed and random effects models. In terms of aggressive behavior, it is noted that there is some form of associations in the results. The results indicate that when children are exposed to violent video games, then there are good chances that they would be involved in extreme levels of aggression.
The article of Anderson et al (2008) attempts to investigate whether the exposure to violent video games will result in increased physical aggression for youth. The authors objective here was to test for both the United States (where the violence is high) and Japan where the violence is relatively low. A primary research study is conducted here where three independent samples and 181 Japanese students (in the first run) and 1050 students (in the second run) were selected. The third sample was 364 students from the United States. The results suggest that the students who played a lot of violent games become more aggressive. Playing violent games is hence a significant risk factor.
澳洲靠谱代写：攻击性行为相关变量的研究分析
这些文章相互支持。在第一个研究中，研究了许多与攻击性行为相关的变量。在第一个研究中发现，这个研究并不是很具体。可以看出，不同年份的研究实际上选择了不同的研究重点。另一方面，第二个研究是一个初步的调查。因此，调查的重点更具体地针对一个问题。从第二项研究中可以看出，初步调查也支持Meta分析综述。
这是两种截然不同的研究风格。第一篇文章是一个元分析综述。利用预先形成的学习材料是元分析复习的本质。这些研究是由其他研究人员进行的，因此有可能在研究中存在一定程度的偏见。另一方面，第二项研究是一个初步的研究，因此作者应用了他们想要研究的确切变量。我相信我更相信初等研究而不是初等研究，因为初等研究更具有时代性，因此数据对当前的研究人员更有效，更切题。另一方面，次级研究可能不是最新的，数据可能不可靠。
These articles support one another. In the first study, many variables in relation to aggressive behavior were studied. It was found out that in the first study, the study is not quite specific. It was seen that different studies from different years and research focus was in fact selected. On the other hand, the second study is one that is a primary investigation. So the focus of investigation is more specific to a problem. It can be seen from the second study that primary investigation also supports the Meta analytic review.
These are two very different styles of research. The first article is a meta analytic review. It is the nature of the meta analytic review to make use of study materials that are pre-formed. These are studies that are conducted by other researchers and hence there is a chance that there could be some amount of bias in the study. On the other hand, the second research is a primary study and hence the author has applied the exact variables that they want to research on. I believe I would trust the primary study more than the secondary study, as the primary study is more current and hence the data would be more valid and pertinent for current researchers. On the other hand, the secondary study might not be current and data might not be reliable.
