Introduction to Prescribed Studies
Welcome to one of the most important parts of your Psychology course! In Units 1 and 2, we don't just look at theories; we look at the evidence. These "prescribed studies" are the actual experiments and research papers that prove (or challenge) the theories you've learned about Social and Cognitive psychology. Think of these studies as the "case files" that psychologists use to understand why humans act the way they do.
In this chapter, we will break down the classic and contemporary studies you need for Topic A (Social Psychology) and Topic B (Cognitive Psychology). Don't worry if the names and dates seem overwhelming at first—we will focus on the "story" of each study: what they did, what they found, and why it matters.
Note: This chapter focuses on the studies themselves. For the underlying theories like the Multi-Store Model or Agency Theory, please refer to the specific theory chapters in this section.
Topic A: Social Psychology Studies
These studies look at how other people influence our behavior, specifically through obedience, conformity, and minority influence.
Classic Study: Moscovici et al. (1969)
The Aim: To see if a consistent minority could influence a majority to give an incorrect answer in a color perception task.
What they did: They put groups of six people (four real participants and two "confederates" who were in on the experiment) in a room. They were shown 36 blue slides that varied in intensity. In the "consistent" condition, the two confederates called every single slide "green." In the "inconsistent" condition, they called 24 slides "green" and 12 slides "blue."
The Results:
- In the consistent group, participants agreed with the minority on over \( 8\% \) of the trials.
- In the inconsistent group, agreement dropped to almost nothing (\( 1.25\% \)).
The Takeaway: For a minority to change the mind of a majority, they must be consistent. If they waver or disagree among themselves, the majority will just ignore them!
Contemporary Study: Burger (2009)
The Aim: To see if people would still obey an authority figure today, just as they did in Milgram’s famous 1963 study, while making the experiment much more ethical.
What they did: Burger used a "150-volt solution." He knew from Milgram's data that if someone was willing to go past 150 volts (the point where the learner first protests), they were very likely to go all the way to 450 volts. To protect participants, he stopped the experiment as soon as they tried to go past 150 volts. He also screened participants for mental health issues beforehand.
The Results: Burger found that obedience rates were only slightly lower than Milgram’s. About \( 70\% \) of participants were willing to continue past 150 volts, compared to \( 82.5\% \) in Milgram’s original study. Gender made no significant difference in obedience levels.
The Takeaway: Time hasn't changed us much! People are still highly likely to obey authority figures, even when it involves hurting someone else.
Contemporary Options (You study one of these):
Option 1: Yi Huang et al. (2014)
This study looked at how long conformity lasts. They found that if people changed their opinion to match a group, that change only lasted for about 3 days. After that, the "social influence" wore off, and people went back to their original views.
Memory Aid: "Conformity has a 3-day expiration date."
Option 2: Haun et al. (2014)
This study compared human children to Great Apes (chimpanzees and orangutans). They found that human children (around age 2) were much more likely to conform to the behavior of their peers to fit in, whereas apes tended to "stick with what they know" worked for them individually. This suggests conformity might be a uniquely human social strategy.
Topic B: Cognitive Psychology Studies
These studies investigate how our memory works, how it can be "reconstructed," and what happens when the brain is damaged.
Classic Study: Bartlett (1932) "War of the Ghosts"
The Aim: To investigate how information is reconstructed based on schemas (mental shortcuts based on past experience).
What they did: British participants were told a Native American folk tale called "The War of the Ghosts." It contained cultural concepts that were unfamiliar to them (like hunting seals or "canoes"). Bartlett asked them to recall the story after different lengths of time (this is called serial reproduction).
The Results: The story changed significantly. Participants used levelling (dropping details that didn't fit their culture, like the "black substance" from the ghosts) and sharpening (changing details to fit their own culture, like changing "canoes" to "boats").
The Takeaway: Memory is not a video recording. We reconstruct our memories to make sense of them using our existing schemas.
Contemporary Study: Schmolck et al. (2002)
The Aim: To investigate the effects of brain damage on semantic knowledge (our memory for facts and meanings) by looking at patient HM and others with lesions in the temporal lobe.
What they did: They gave patients several tests, such as pointing to pictures of animals based on their names or describing the features of an object. They compared patients with damage restricted to the hippocampus to those with wider damage to the medial temporal lobe.
The Results: Most patients, including HM, did well on basic semantic tests. However, those with extensive damage to the anterolateral temporal cortex struggled significantly. HM had some slight trouble with very specific details but generally performed better than those with wider damage.
The Takeaway: Semantic memory and episodic memory are located in different parts of the brain. The temporal lobe is crucial for our factual knowledge of the world.
Contemporary Options (You study one of these):
Option 1: Darling et al. (2007)
This study provides evidence for the Working Memory Model. They used "interference tasks" to show that the visuo-spatial sketchpad has two separate parts: one for visual information (what things look like) and one for spatial information (where things are). If you try to do two visual tasks at once, you fail; but you can do one visual and one spatial task quite easily!
Option 2: Sacchi et al. (2007)
This study investigated reconstructive memory using doctored photographs. They showed participants famous historical photos (like the Tiananmen Square protest) that had been digitally altered to show more people or more violence. Participants who saw the fake photos actually "remembered" the events as being more crowded or violent than they really were. This shows how secondary data (like photos) can create false memories.
Quick Review: Key Comparison Table
| Study Type | Social Psychology (Topic A) | Cognitive Psychology (Topic B) |
|---|---|---|
| Classic | Moscovici (1969): Consistency in minorities leads to influence. | Bartlett (1932): Schemas lead to memory reconstruction. |
| Contemporary | Burger (2009): Obedience remains high even with ethical safeguards. | Schmolck (2002): Brain damage affects semantic knowledge differently. |
Common Mistakes to Avoid
- Mixing up Moscovici and Asch: Remember, Asch looked at the majority influencing a minority. Moscovici looked at the minority (the two confederates) influencing the majority.
- HM’s memory: Students often think HM lost all memory. Actually, Schmolck (2002) showed that HM still had quite a lot of semantic knowledge (facts), even though he couldn't form new episodic memories (events).
- Burger vs. Milgram: In an exam, if you are asked about Burger, make sure you mention the ethical changes he made (like the 150v "point of no return")—that is the main reason his study is famous!
Key Takeaway
Social studies show us that we are deeply influenced by the people around us, whether they are authority figures (Burger) or consistent minorities (Moscovici). Cognitive studies show us that our minds are not perfect storage units; we use schemas to fill in the gaps (Bartlett) and rely on specific brain structures to hold onto our knowledge (Schmolck).