This naturalistic observational study was done to assess the behavior of two groups. The girls were insistent that they expressed less aggression than their male counterparts. For this study we are assuming age similarities and surrounding environmental conditions being equal. This study was done in during recess sessions over the course of a week on school property. Breaking this study into the simplest definitions will assist in determining the accuracy of this study and help to explain the observation in a sensible manor enabling the undereducated to understand the results. The mean is considered the average. Or the sum of all scores divided by the number of scores used. For girls the total score is 49 divided by 10 or 4.9. The boys the total score is 51 divided by 10 or 5.1. Once again this would seem to indicate that the boys are more aggressive. The mode is the most frequently appearing score in the distribution of numbers. These numbers are presented for analysis as below. For girls 1 show up 1 time, 4 show up 4 times etc….
1-1, 4-4, 5-2, 7-2, 8-1, therefore the mode for girls is 4. For boys 2-1, 3-2, 5-4, 6-1, 8-1, 9-1 therefore the mode is 5. By this simple analysis it would appear that boys are more aggressive. The median score is determined by the exact middle of the scores laid out from lowest to highest. Using the same information, the exact middle for girls is 4.5 and for boys it would be 5.0, Indicating that boys are more aggressive. The Range of each group is a measure of variability the highest score less the lowest score. Using the same information for girls, 8 is the highest aggressive behavior occurrence less the lowest which is one, the resulting range is 7. The range is calculated the same for boys, however note that the largest number of occurrences is higher and the lowest are also higher and their range result is the same as the girls. This indicates that that further considerations need to be brought into better understand the similarity. Regardless of the sample size if the range is held true for even more students than the results would be unchanged. The range will remain steady. This is the way to get a solid view of the variance between the two results. Overlaying these results of the two groups on a chart would show the nature of these variances and the placement of the variance on the scale. Since both ranges are the same the variation in the score occurs at the same place on the graph. In this difficult portion of the analysis these numbers occasionally become negative numbers; they must be squared to eliminate the negative results. Deviations are discovered by subtracting the mean from the score. Then the sum of the deviations is divided by the number of occurrences. This then is the new standard measure for analyzing the results of this study. Using this we must reconsider the information in total and reassess the results. The deviation for this study reveals that the difference between the medians and the difference between the modes is well within the standard variances and are close enough to disregard the boy’s higher scores; the Girls variance is1.92 and the boy’s variance 2.18. This difference also leads us to consider the possible short comings of the small sample taken. There are many flaws in the presented scenario which must be ignored for time consideration of this paper. The sample size is much too small to draw conclusions that a larger population’s results would be the same. In general this is true of observation research; the biggest flaw is that this is done for the convenience of the study and is unreliable. While this is true, people tended to act normally under these conditions and the results are more honest. When doing a study of this kind we rely on the interpreter’s view of the behavior and disregard the variables within an uncontrolled setting.Pycology4a.com article see ethical problem in preparing this kind of study. It also sees problems of cause and effect due to confounding variables. Behaviors observed are also not repeatable to be reexamined. We must also not stretch this study‘s observation skills or question the integrity of their self-interest in the outcome. Who determines what it means to be aggressive? How many of the observers are male or female or their ages? Dr. Gonnerman’s article for UNI sees naturalistic observation as problematic as well. In a related, but not directly related is the discussion of correlation. Correlations are often drawn from to apparently related activities. Apparent relationships may not have direct or resulting in another activity or action. Our text defines correlation to include any relationship between two variables. These relationships may be assigned a numerical value or coefficient. Using these values there may be a positive or an increase in one causes an increase in the other. There also may be a negative or an increase in one variable causes a decrease in the other. Correlations allow us to know these relationships without which we would not understand this relationship; bringing connections to an experience or action. On the other side of correlation are miss understandings or drawing the wrong conclusions. The data gathered is tested against pre-existing notions and assumptions which may be entirely incorrect. Another is missing the pieces of information that link these two variables and the answer is not direct, but indirect or other variables are also contributing to this connection; creating an apparent correlation. Do these correlations exist for violent behavior? Frequently people perceive the connection between violence and watching violent television. Conclusions of this kind have been substantiated over a long period of time. The supporting evidence for the connection between media and violence is profound. Study after study support this contention. In a brief examination of this issue and surfing the web found more than just a few articles citing the APA support this contention. Referring to their findings, the American Psychological Association in 1982 writes of their conclusions find 'Children who watch the violent shows, even 'just funny' cartoons, were more likely to hit out at their playmates, argue, disobey class rules, leave tasks unfinished, and were less willing to wait for things than those who watched the nonviolent programs,' says Aletha Huston, Ph.D., now at the University of Kansas. (cmu.edu 1999)

References
Gonnerman, D. (2007). Module
Heidi , E. (2013, Janurary 21). Naturalistic observation. Retrieved from http://prezi.com/ssmfqwcsvgs5/naturalistic-observation/
Research methods. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.psychology4a.com/RM6.htm
Unspecified. (1999). Violence on television: What do children learn? what can parents do?. Retrieved from http://www.cmu.edu/CSR/case_studies/tv_violence.html

Web sites for further research http://www.uni.edu/gonnerm/Module_4b.pdf http://prezi.com/ssmfqwcsvgs5/naturalistic-observation/ http://www.psychology4a.com/RM6.htm http://www.cmu.edu/CSR/case_studies/tv_violence.html