Welcome to the World of Core Studies!
Welcome! In this part of your OCR AS Psychology course, we are going to look at the "greatest hits" of psychological research. Think of these Core Studies as the stories that shaped how we understand human behavior. For every topic, we look at one Classic Study (the famous older one) and one Contemporary Study (the more modern one) to see how our knowledge has grown over time.
Don't worry if it seems like a lot of names and dates at first—we'll break each one down into a simple story: why they did it, how they did it, and what they found.
1. The Social Area: Responses to People in Authority
This area looks at how the people around us and the situations we are in influence our behavior. Specifically, why do we do what we are told, even if it feels wrong?
Classic Study: Milgram (1963) – Obedience
Background: After WWII, Milgram wanted to know if the German people were "different" or if anyone would obey an authority figure to the point of hurting someone else.
Method: A controlled observation in a lab. 40 men were told they were taking part in a "learning" study. They were the "Teacher" and had to give electric shocks to a "Learner" (who was actually an actor and didn't get shocked) every time they got a word pair wrong.
Results: Every single participant went up to 300 volts. Shockingly, 65% of them went all the way to the maximum 450 volts, just because a man in a lab coat told them to "please continue."
Conclusion: People are highly obedient to authority figures, even when it goes against their own morals.
Contemporary Study: Bocchiaro et al. (2012) – Disobedience and Whistle-blowing
Background: Bocchiaro wanted to see if people would whistle-blow (report someone for doing something wrong) or just obey an unethical request.
Method: 149 students were asked by a researcher to write a letter encouraging other students to take part in a sensory deprivation study that was actually dangerous.
Results: Most people (76.5%) obeyed. Only 9.4% whistle-blown (reported the researcher). Interestingly, when asked beforehand, most people thought they would be the ones to whistle-blow, but they didn't do it in reality!
Conclusion: It is much harder to be a hero/whistle-blower than we like to think. Situation is more powerful than personality.
Quick Review Box:
• Milgram: Focuses on physical obedience (shocks).
• Bocchiaro: Focuses on verbal obedience and reporting wrongdoing.
• Key Takeaway: We often overestimate our own "goodness" and underestimate the power of a person in charge.
2. The Cognitive Area: Memory
Cognitive psychology is all about the "mental hardware" of the brain—how we think, perceive, and remember things.
Classic Study: Loftus and Palmer (1974) – Eyewitness Testimony
Background: Can the way a question is asked change your memory of an event?
Method: Students watched film clips of car crashes. They were asked "About how fast were the cars going when they [verb] each other?" Verbs used were: smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted.
Results: The verb "smashed" led to the highest speed estimate (40.5 mph), while "contacted" led to the lowest (31.8 mph). A week later, those who heard "smashed" were also more likely to wrongly remember seeing broken glass.
Conclusion: Leading questions can actually change our memory. Memory isn't like a video tape; it's more like a puzzle we reconstruct.
Contemporary Study: Grant et al. (1998) – Context-Dependent Memory
Background: Does studying in the same environment where you take your test help you remember better?
Method: Participants read an article in either a silent or noisy environment. They were then tested in either a matching or mismatching environment (e.g., studied in noise, tested in silence).
Results: Participants performed significantly better when their study environment matched their testing environment (Silence-Silence or Noise-Noise).
Conclusion: Context cues (the things around us) help us "unlock" memories. If you study with music, you might remember better if you have music during the test!
Memory Aid: Think of Loftus as "Lost memory" (because the truth gets lost) and Grant as "Granted better grades" (if you study in the right place!).
3. The Developmental Area: External Influences on Children
This area looks at how we change and grow, especially how the world around us shapes our behavior as children.
Classic Study: Bandura et al. (1961) – Transmission of Aggression
Background: Do children learn to be aggressive just by watching adults?
Method: Children watched an adult act aggressively toward a "Bobo Doll" (punching and kicking it) or act non-aggressively. Then, the children were left alone with the doll.
Results: Children who saw the aggressive adult were much more likely to copy those exact physical and verbal aggressive acts. Boys were generally more physically aggressive than girls.
Conclusion: Children learn through observation and imitation (Social Learning Theory).
Contemporary Study: Chaney et al. (2004) – The Funhaler Study
Background: Can we use positive reinforcement to make children take their medicine properly?
Method: 32 children with asthma used a standard inhaler for a week and then a "Funhaler" (which had a whistle and a toy spinner that only worked if they breathed in correctly) for a week.
Results: Children (and parents!) were much more likely to stick to the medical routine when using the Funhaler because it was rewarding and fun.
Conclusion: If we make a "boring" or "scary" task rewarding, children are more likely to do it. This is called Operant Conditioning.
Key Takeaway: Bandura shows us how children copy bad behavior (aggression), while Chaney shows us how to encourage good behavior (taking medicine).
4. The Biological Area: Regions of the Brain
Biological psychologists believe that everything psychological is first biological—our brains, hormones, and genes dictate who we are.
Classic Study: Sperry (1968) – Split Brain Study
Background: What happens when you cut the connection (the corpus callosum) between the two halves of the brain?
Method: Sperry studied people who had this surgery to treat epilepsy. He showed images to just their left eye or just their right eye.
Results: If an image was shown to the Right Visual Field (processed by the Left Hemisphere), the person could say what it was. If it was shown to the Left Visual Field (processed by the Right Hemisphere), they couldn't say it, but they could point to it with their left hand!
Conclusion: The Left hemisphere is the "speech" center, while the Right hemisphere is better at spatial and visual tasks.
Contemporary Study: Casey et al. (2011) – Neural Correlates of Delay of Gratification
Background: Why can some people resist temptation (like a cookie) while others can't? Is it in the brain?
Method: Researchers tracked down people who took a "Marshmallow Test" as 4-year-olds 40 years later. They used fMRI scans to look at their brains while they did a "Go/No-Go" task (resisting a "happy face").
Results: "Low delayers" (those who ate the marshmallow as kids) had more activity in the ventral striatum (the brain's reward center). "High delayers" had more activity in the prefrontal cortex (the brain's "brakes").
Conclusion: Our ability to resist temptation is linked to specific areas of the brain that remain consistent throughout our lives.
Analogy: Think of the Prefrontal Cortex as the "Strict Parent" of the brain and the Ventral Striatum as the "Toddler" who wants candy now!
5. Individual Differences: Understanding Disorders
Instead of looking at how people are the same, this area looks at what makes us unique, focusing specifically on mental health and disorders.
Classic Study: Freud (1909) – Little Hans
Background: Freud wanted to prove his theory of the Oedipus Complex (that boys are subconsciously jealous of their fathers).
Method: A case study of a 5-year-old boy ("Little Hans") who had a phobia of horses. Freud analyzed letters from Hans's father about the boy's dreams and behavior.
Results: Freud claimed the horse represented Hans's father. The dark bits around the horse's mouth were the father's mustache. Hans was afraid the horse (father) would bite (castrate) him.
Conclusion: Phobias are not about the object itself, but are symbols of deep-seated unconscious fears from childhood.
Contemporary Study: Baron-Cohen et al. (1997) – Autism in Adults
Background: People with Autism/Asperger’s often struggle with Theory of Mind (understanding that other people have different thoughts and feelings).
Method: The "Eyes Task." Adults with Autism, Tourette’s, and "Normal" adults were shown photos of just the eye region of faces and asked to pick the correct emotion (e.g., "concerned" or "unconcerned").
Results: The Autism group scored significantly lower on the Eyes Task than the other groups, even though they had normal intelligence.
Conclusion: Adults with Autism have a specific deficit in "reading" the mental states of others, which is a core part of the disorder.
Common Mistake to Avoid: Don't confuse Theory of Mind with intelligence. Baron-Cohen showed that someone can be very smart (high IQ) but still struggle to understand emotions.
Summary: Comparing the Studies
In your exam, you will be asked how these pairs are similar or different. Here are some quick tips:
1. Similarities: Often, both studies in a pair use the same Area (e.g., both Loftus and Grant are Cognitive).
2. Differences: Usually, the Classic study is more about general principles, while the Contemporary study uses more modern technology (like fMRI) or looks at more diverse groups of people.
3. Methodology: Pay attention to the Sample (who was in the study). Older studies often used only men or only students, while modern studies try to be more representative.
Don't worry if this seems tricky at first! The more you read the "stories" of these 10 studies, the easier it will be to remember them. You've got this!