Welcome to the World of Core Studies!
Welcome, future psychologists! In this part of your OCR AS Level course, we dive into the "Core Studies." Think of these as the "greatest hits" of psychology. These are famous experiments and investigations that changed how we understand human behavior.
Don't worry if it feels like a lot of names and dates at first. We aren't just memorizing facts; we are learning to "tell the story" of each study and then look at them with a critical eye. By the end of this, you’ll be able to explain why people obey authority, how our memories can be tricked, and even how a "Funhaler" helps children take their medicine!
Section 1: How to "Tell the Story" of a Study
For every study in this chapter, you need to be able to describe it using a specific structure. If you can answer these five points, you’ve got the story covered!
1. Aim: What did the researchers want to find out? (Example: Do people obey an authority figure even if it hurts someone?)
2. Method: This is the "how" of the study. It includes:
• Design: Was it a lab experiment? A field study?
• Sample: Who were the participants? (e.g., 40 men, 10 children).
• Materials/Apparatus: What "tools" did they use? (e.g., a shock generator, a Bobo doll).
• Procedure: Step-by-step, what happened to the participants?
3. Results: What data did they collect? (The numbers and the descriptions).
4. Conclusions: What does the data actually mean about human behavior?
5. Relation to Topic: How does this study help us understand the specific area (like Social or Cognitive psychology)?
Quick Review: The Method Mnemonic
To remember what’s in a Method section, just think: Dogs Smell Many People.
Design, Sample, Materials, Procedure.
Section 2: The Social Area
Social psychology looks at how the people around us and the environment influence our behavior. It’s all about situational factors.
1. Milgram (1963) - Obedience to Authority
The Story: Milgram wanted to see if "ordinary" people would obey an authority figure to the point of harming an innocent person. Participants were told to give electric shocks to a "learner" (who was actually an actor) every time they got a memory task wrong. The shocks weren't real, but the participants didn't know that!
Key Result: 65% of participants went all the way to the maximum 450 volts, even when the learner was screaming and then went silent.
Takeaway: We are incredibly likely to obey someone we perceive as a legitimate authority, even if it goes against our morals.
2. Piliavin et al. (1969) - Helping Behaviour
The Story: Conducted on a New York subway. A "victim" (actor) would collapse. Researchers wanted to see who would help more: a "drunk" victim or an "ill" victim (with a cane).
Key Result: The "ill" victim received help 95% of the time, while the "drunk" victim was helped only 50% of the time.
Takeaway: We calculate the "costs and rewards" of helping. Helping a drunk person feels "riskier" or they are seen as responsible for their own trouble.
Key Takeaway: Social Area
Behavior is often driven by the social context (who is with us and where we are) rather than just our personality.
Section 3: The Cognitive Area
Cognitive psychology compares the human mind to a computer. It studies internal processes like memory and attention.
1. Loftus and Palmer (1974) - Eyewitness Testimony
The Story: Participants watched film clips of car accidents and were then asked questions. The researchers changed one word in the question: "About how fast were the cars going when they smashed/collided/bumped/hit/contacted each other?"
Key Result: Participants who heard the word "smashed" estimated higher speeds and were more likely to "remember" seeing broken glass a week later (even though there was none).
Takeaway: Our memories are not like video recordings; they can be reconstructed and changed by "leading questions."
2. Grant et al. (1998) - Context-Dependent Memory
The Story: Does studying in the same environment where you take a test help you remember better? Students studied in either a silent or noisy room and were then tested in either a silent or noisy room.
Key Result: Students performed significantly better when the learning and testing environments matched (Silent/Silent or Noisy/Noisy).
Takeaway: Environmental "cues" help us retrieve information. Try to study in a quiet place if your exam will be quiet!
Quick Review: Cognitive Comparison
Think of Loftus and Palmer as showing how the "data" in our brain gets corrupted, and Grant et al. as showing how to retrieve the right "file."
Section 4: The Developmental Area
This area looks at how we change and grow over time, specifically how we learn behaviors as children.
1. Bandura et al. (1961) - Transmission of Aggression
The Story: Children watched an adult act aggressively toward an inflatable "Bobo doll." Later, the children were left alone with the doll.
Key Result: Children who saw the aggressive model were much more likely to imitate the physical and verbal aggression.
Takeaway: Behavior is learned through observation and imitation (Social Learning Theory).
2. Chaney et al. (2004) - Adherence to Medical Regimes
The Story: Researchers created a "Funhaler" for children with asthma. It had a spinner and a whistle that only worked if the child used the inhaler correctly.
Key Result: Children used the Funhaler more often and more correctly than their standard inhaler because it was rewarding.
Takeaway: We can improve health behaviors through positive reinforcement (making the "chore" fun).
Did you know?
Bandura’s study is a classic example of "monkey see, monkey do." It’s the reason why TV shows have age ratings!
Section 5: The Biological Area
This area argues that our behavior is a result of our physical body—our brain structure, genes, and hormones.
1. Sperry (1968) - Split-Brain Research
The Story: Sperry studied people who had their corpus callosum (the bridge between the two halves of the brain) cut to treat epilepsy. He tested what each half of the brain could do alone.
Key Result: He found that the left hemisphere is usually responsible for language, while the right hemisphere is better at spatial tasks and drawing.
Takeaway: Different functions are lateralised (located on one side of the brain or the other).
2. Casey et al. (2011) - Delayed Gratification
The Story: This was a 40-year study! Researchers tracked children who were "high delayers" (could wait for a second marshmallow) or "low delayers" (ate it immediately). As adults, their brains were scanned while doing impulse-control tasks.
Key Result: "Low delayers" showed more activity in the ventral striatum (the brain's reward center), while "high delayers" used their prefrontal cortex (the brain's "brakes") more.
Takeaway: Our ability to resist temptation has a biological basis in the brain.
Section 6: Individual Differences
Unlike the other areas that look for "general rules," this area focuses on what makes us unique and how people differ from the "norm."
1. Freud (1909) - Phobias (Little Hans)
The Story: A case study of a 5-year-old boy who was terrified of horses. Freud analyzed the boy's dreams and letters from his father.
Key Result: Freud claimed the horse phobia was actually a fear of his father, linked to the Oedipus Complex (a stage where boys have unconscious feelings for their mothers).
Takeaway: This highlights the psychodynamic view that our childhood and unconscious mind shape our behavior.
2. Baron-Cohen et al. (1997) - Autism and Theory of Mind
The Story: Adults with Autism, Tourette’s, and "normal" adults were shown photos of just the eye region of faces and asked to identify the emotion.
Key Result: The Autism group struggled significantly more with the "Eyes Task" than the other groups.
Takeaway: People with Autism may lack "Theory of Mind"—the ability to understand that other people have different thoughts and feelings.
Section 7: Evaluating the Studies (The Critical Thinking Bit)
To get top marks, you must be able to say what was good and bad about these studies. Don't worry if this seems tricky; just use these standard "checks":
1. Ethics: Did they protect the participants? (Milgram failed this—he caused huge stress!)
2. Ecological Validity: Was it like real life? (Loftus and Palmer watched a film; that's not as scary as a real car crash.)
3. Reliability: Can we repeat the study and get the same result? (Lab studies like Bandura are usually very reliable.)
4. Ethnocentrism: Was it only done on one culture? (Many of these studies only used Western participants.)
5. Sampling Bias: Was the group of participants fair? (Milgram only used men initially, which is a bias.)
Summary Table: Key Terms to Use
Generalisability: Can we apply these results to the whole world?
Standardisation: Keeping everything the same for every participant.
Quantitative Data: Numbers (easy to compare).
Qualitative Data: Words and descriptions (rich in detail).
Final Tip: When comparing two studies, look for one similarity (e.g., "Both Bandura and Chaney look at how children learn") and one difference (e.g., "Bandura used a lab, while Chaney used a real-world field setting"). You've got this!