AS level Psychology Revision

My OCR psychology AS level core studies revision

[as-ocr-psycho]

Bocchiaro et al. (2012) To defy or not to defy: An experimental study of the dynamics of disobedience and whistleblowing

Area

Social

Sample

149 undergraduate students (originally 160 but 11 removed because they became suspicious of the studies nature)

53 men, 96 women

Mean age 20.8

PPs got €7 or course credit for taking part

Research Method

IV

The study had no independent variable

Laboratory experiment as it took place in a lab at VU University in Amsterdam

Conditions were highly controlled and standardised over the 149 PPs

To some it may not be considered an experiment as it does not meet all necessary criteria 

Procedure

PPs were informed of their task, potential risks/benefits, their right to withdraw at anytime with no penalty and assured of confidentiality. PPs were greeted at the lab by a stern, male, Dutch experiment who were formally dressed. The experimenter proceeded with a seemingly unjustified request for each PP to provide a few names of fellow students and then presented the cover story. The experimenter left the room for 3 minutes to allow PPs to reflect on the decisions they were about to make. PPs were then moved to a second room where there was a computer for them to write the statement, a mailbox and the Research Committee forms. PPs were told to be enthusiastic when their statements and had to use 2 strong adjectives among ‘exciting’, ‘incredible’, ‘great’ and ‘superb’, the negatives were not to be mentioned. The experimenters told PPs to begin and left the room for 7 minutes. If a PPs believed the proposed research on sensory deprivation violated ethical norms they could anonymously challenge it by putting a form in the mailbox. After the 7 minutes the experimenter returned and invited the PPs to follow him back to the first room where two personality tests were administered, PPs were probed for suspicion, fully debriefed and asked to sign a second consent form, this time fully informed. In all the session lasted roughly 40 minutes.

Roughly the cover story:

The experimenter and an Italian colleague were investigated the effects of sensory deprivation on brain function. A recently conducted experiment on 6 PPs in Rome who spent some time completely isolated, unable to see or hear, had disastrous effects- all panicked, cognitive abilities were temporarily impaired, some experienced visual and auditory hallucinations. 2 PPs asked to stop because their symptoms were so strong but were not allowed to because it could produce invalid results. The majority had said it had been a frightening experience. The experimenter went on to say he wanted to replicate the study at VU University using a sample of college students as there was currently no data for young people and some scientists felt their brains may be more sensitive to the negative effects of isolation. Although it was hard to predict the results, the experimenter wanted to proceed with the experiment. A University Research Committee was evaluating whether to approve the study and were collecting feedback from students who knew details of the experiment to help make the decision. PPs were told that Research Committee forms were in the next room. PPs were also to write a statement to convince the students they had put forward earlier that would be sent to identify students by mail.

Findings

76.5% obeyed to the experiment, 14.1% disobeyed and 9.4% blow the whistle

Among the whistleblowers 6% had written the message and 3.4% had refused to do so openly

No significant difference were found in any groups in relation to gender, religious affiliation or religious involvement, but a significant difference was observed in regards of faith

Conclusions

People tend to obey authority figures even if they are unjust, what people think they and other will do in a given situation often differs from reality, individuals behave in completely different ways than expected when they find themselves in certain circumstances that are unfamiliar and extreme, behaving in a moral manner is challenging for people even when the reaction appears to observer as the simplest path to follow, and with regard to faith there appears to be a trend suggesting that whistleblowers have more faith than those that obey or disobey.

Data

Both quantitative and qualitative data collected 

Allows for ease of comparison between personality types

Quantitative data will prove more helpful if replicated in other countries as suggested by Bocchiaro

Reasons for obedience given by some PPs in debrief

Ethics

Confidentiality respected, consent was given twice, could withdraw from the study and they were debriefed at the end

High levels of deception used and first round of consent was not given fully informed

Reliability 

Highly standardised with all PPs getting the same cover story and the same timings followed

Validity 

Bocchiaro et al. worked hard to make the stuudy as ecologically valid as possible

Names given by PPs may not have been peope the PPs cared about or people they did not actually know

Its possible that obedience was not actually being measured but instead PPs actually wanted the sensory deprivation study to go ahead

[as-ocr-psycho]

Milgram (1963) Journal of abnormal and social psyhology

Area

Social

Sample

40 men from the New Haven area (obtained through a news paper advert)

Aged between 20 and 50 years

Held a range of jobs

Paid $4.50 for turning up

Research method

IV

The study had no independent variable 

Laboratory experiment but also observation as it occurred in a lab at Yale University and had the researchers watching the PP

This study is sometimes seen as a base-line or control experiment to compare further studies of different variables

Does not satisfy all scientific criteria but was highly controlled

Procedure

Prior to the study 14 Yale Seniors estimated that 1.2% of people would go to the full 450V shock.

The 40 PPs took the test the test separately, they were always given the role of a teacher (through a fixed lottery) and saw the learner (a confederate) strapped into the chair with (non-active) electrodes attached to his arm. PPs were then given a trial shock of 40V to simulate genuineness. The ‘teacher’ then sat in front of an electric shock generator (shown below) in an adjacent room from the ‘learner’. He conduct a paired word test on the learner and gives him an electric shock of increasing intensity for every wrong answer. The machine had 30 switches ranging from 15-450V, in 15V increments. The ‘learner’ produced a set of predetermined responses giving approximately 3 wrong answers for every right one. At 300V the ‘learner’ kicked the wall and then gave no more responses. If the PP showed an unwillingness to continued a series of standarised prods were used (Prod 1: ‘Please continue’ or ‘Please go on’, prod 2: ‘The experiment requires you to continue’, prod 3: ‘It is absolutely essential that you continue’ and prod 4: ‘You have no other choice, you must go on’). The study finished when the PP refused to continue or reached 450V. The PP was then fully debriefed.

Findings

Break off points

Voltage        No. of PPs to quit

300                            5

315                            4

330                            2

345                            1

360                            1

375                            1

450 the end point   26

26 PPs were obedient, 14 disobedient

Many PPs showed signs of extreme stress ie sweating, trembling, stuttering, laughing nervously, nervously fumbling cigarettes and 3 had full blown seizures

Conclusions

Inhumane acts can be done by ordinary people, people will obey people they see as legitimate authority figures even if what they do is against their morals, individual differences influence the extent to which people will be obedient, and people obey because of certain situational features.

Data Type

Quantitative data was collected with a little qualitative data

Allowed for comparison to different variations of the study

Allowed for reason for obedience to be recorded

Allowed for stress factors to be recorded

Ethics

84% of PPs reported to be glad to have taken part in the study one year after it

Consent given but deception used

Could withdraw but were seemingly discouraged to be experimenter

Could have caused the PPs lasting psychological harm

Was carried out in the 60s when there was very little in the way of ethical guidelines and it is arguable the value to society was enough that the end justifies the means

Reliability

Highly replicable

Same results (voltage break off point) would have been recorded by any observer

Sample large enough to establish consistent effect

Validity

Has high level of face validity as it measures what it says it measures

Low ecological validity as its not an every day setting

[as-ocr-psycho]

Sperry (1968) Hemisphere deconnection and unity in conscious awareness

Area

Biological

Sample

11 patients who had undergone ‘an extensive midline section of the cerebral commissures in an effort to control severe epileptic convulsion not controlled by medication’

2 PPs had the split brain surgery a long time before the study

9 PPs has the spit brain surgery not long before the study

Research Method

IV

Having split brain or not/ Hemisphere used

Natural experiment as the researchers had no impact on the IV

Strictly control of test to make up for lack of control of IV

The DV’s result could not be changed by the IV as it is a biological process

Procedure

(Focus is just on key tests)

1) Presenting visual information: The PP with one eye covered centred their gaze on a fixed point in the centre of an upright translucent screen. Visual stimuli on 35mm transparencies were arranged in a standard projector and were then back projected at 1/10 of a second or less- too fast for eye movements to get information into the wrong visual field. Everything projected to the left of the central meridian of the screen is passed through via the left visual field (LVF) to the right hemisphere and vice versa (regardless of the eye used).

2) Presenting tactile information: Below the translucent screen was a gap so that PPs could reach objects but not see their hands. Objects were then placed in either the PPs right or left hand or both hands. Information about objects placed in the left hand is processed by the right hemisphere and vice versa.

PPs undertook a variety of both visual and tactile tests.

A  variety of other tests were undertaken that highlighted the lateralisation of the brain function.

Findings

1) Visual tests:

i. Information shown and responded to in one field can only be recognised again if shown in the same visual field.

ii. Information presented in the RVF could be described in speech and writing. If the same information was presented to the LVF, the PP insisted they didn’t see anything or that there was only a flash of light on the left side, i.e. the information could not be described in speech or writing. However they could point to a matching picture/object amongst a collection of pictures/objects.

iii. If different figures were presented simultaneously to different visual fields e.g. $ to the LVF and ? to the RVF, PPs could draw the $ with their left hand but said they saw a ?.

2) Tactile tests:

i. Objects placed in the right hand could be described in speech or in writing (with the right hand). If the same object were placed in the left hand PPs could only make a guess and were often unaware they were holding anything.

ii. Objects felt by one hand were only recognised by the same hand

iii. When two objects were placed simultaneously in each hand and then hidden in a pile of objects, both hands selected their own object and ignore the others object

Conclusion

People with split brain have 2 separate visual inner world each with its own train of visual images, split brain patients have a lack of cross integration where the second hemisphere does not know what the first hemisphere has been doing, and split brain patients seem to have two independent streams of consciousness each with its own memories, perceptions and impulses

Data

Qualitative but some quantitative

Statistical analyses can be done

Gives rich data source

Ethics

No deception was used, PPs were in no harm or unduly stressed

Reliability

Found general trend in lateralisation of the brain

Some PPs results went against the trends (important in such a small sample group)

Validity

Sample size was very small

It may not be possible to generalise results of abnormal brains to normal ones

Some PPs results went against the trends (important in such a small sample group)

[as-ocr-psycho]

Chaney et al. (2004) A new asthma spacer device to improve compliance in children: a pilot study

Area

Developmental

Sample

32 children from Perth, Australia

10 male, 22 females

Age range 1.5-6 years (mean age 3.2)

Average duration of asthma 2.2 years

Research Method

IVs

1) Whether the child used a standard spacer device

2) Whether the child use the funhaler

Repeated Measure design used as child experienced both the standard inhaler and the funhaler

Participant variable controlled

Parents could work out what the study was about so demand characteristics may have been shown 

Field Experiment as it took place in the child’s own home

High ecological validity

Less control of extraneous variables

Procedure

PPs were asked to use a funhaler instead of their normal spacer inhaler to administer their medication. Matched questionnaires were completed by parents after sequential use of a normal spacer and funhaler. The first questionnaire was completed at the beginning of the research before the funhaler was used, a second was done after the funhaler had been used for 2 weeks. Data collected from the self report related to ease of use, compliance of parents and children, and treatment attitude. During the course of the study each parent was called at random to find out if they had attempted to medicate their child the day before. 

Stimuli

It isolates incentive toys (i.e. spinner and whistle) in a separate branch to the standard inhaler circuit to avoid contamination and interference with drug delivery

Design of toys ensures sufficient inspiratory resistance to minimise entertainment of inspired air through the toy circuit

Design attempts to link the optimal function of the toys to deep breathing pattern for effective medication intake

Design anticipated potential boredom from the child so the toys are interchangeable

Findings

Funhaler was associated with improve parental and child compliance

Random survey found 38% more parents had medicated their child than when they were using regular spacers

60% more children took the recommended four or more cycles per aerosol delivery when using funhaler

Significantly more parents said they were always successful in medicating their child when using funhaler.

Conclusion

Improved adherence and satisfactory delivery characteristics suggest funhaler may be useful in managing youth asthma, use of funhaler could translated to improved measures of clinical outcome, the use of functional incentive devices such as funhaler may improve the health of children, and that more researcher is recommended to establish long term effects of this treatment

Data

Quantitative data collected

Data can easily be compared and statistically analysed 

Doesn’t tell us why there was difference in attitude and behaviour

Ethics

Ethical guidelines adhered to

By using repeated measures no child was unable to have medical treatment that may have helped them

Reliability

Although conducted in the field there were many standardised aspects (i.e. the questionnaire and length of time using funhaler) which aided the reliability

Sample size may not have been big enough to establish a consistent effect

Validity

Taking place in the field means the ecological validity is higher

Parents may have just tried fulfill social desirability when reporting to the self report

Participant variables may have lead to the child not taking the funhaler or inhaler (i.e. parent is too tired to be persistent with the child taking the medication)

2 weeks isn’t really long enough to establish that the funhaler being new isn’t the reason its being used

[as-ocr-psycho]

Grant et al. (1998) Context-dependent memory for meaningful material: information for students

Area

Cognitive

Sample

Eight members of a psychology laboratory class served as experimenters

Each experimenter recruited 5 acquaintances to be PPs (1 PPs results were omitted from analyses

39 PPs

Age range 17 to 56 years (mean age 23.4)

17 male, 23 female 

Research methods

IVs

1) If the PPs read the 2 page article in silent or noisy conditions

2) If the PPs were tested under matching or mismatching conditions

Independent measures design as each PP was only subject to one condition

Could easily make comparison between conditions

Could be individual difference within the groups (including interest in article, general ability to focus and usual learning condition)

Laboratory experiment

Fulfills all scientific criteria and has control of extraneous variables

Wasn’t in a natural setting for recall

Procedure

Each experimenter ran one PP through each of the 4 condition (decided randomly), the additional PPs condition was determined by the the instructor. Stimuli

Each experimenter provided their own cassette player and headphone, the eight cassettes were exact copies made from a master tape of background noise recorded in the university cafeteria at lunchtime. The background noise consisted of the occasional words/phrases embedded within a general conversational hum mixed with the sound of moving chairs and dishes. It was played at a moderately loud level

A two pages, three columned article on psychoimmunology (Hale, 1984) was chosen as the material to be studied

16 multiple choice question, each consisting of a stem and 4 alternatives were generates, all testing the memory for points in the article. 10 short answer questions were generated from the multiple choice questions that could easily be stated to produce a question that could be answered unambiguously by a singe word or phrase. The questions followed the same pattern as the article. The short answer test was administered first to ensure recall of information from article was tested not recall from the multiple choice test

Instructions describing the experiment as a class project and that participation was voluntary were read aloud. PPs were asked to read the given article once and that they could highlight and underline it as they read. PPs were informed of the tests they would have afterwards. All PPs had headphones on while they read, those in the silent condition were told they would not hear anything and those in noisy condition were told they would hear moderate background noise but should ignore it. Reading times were recorded. A 2 minuted long break was taken between the study phase and test phase. Short answer test was given, followed by the multiple choice test. PPs were given either silent or noisy condition and were informed of their condition before testing, regardless of condition all PPs wore headphones. At the end PPs were debrief as to the purpose of the experiment. In all it lasted about 30 minutes.

Findings

                                           Study Condition

Test condition                 Silent               Noisy

Reading- Silent               15.0 mins         13.8 mins

Reading- Noisy               11.8 mins         14.0 mins

Short answer- Silent        6.7/10              5.4/10    

Short answer- Noisy        4.6/10              6.2/10

Multiple choice- Silent     14.3/15            12.7/15

Multiple choice- Noisy     12.7/15            14.3/15

There was no overall effect of noise on performance

Conclusion

There are context-dependency effects for newly learnt meaningful material regardless of whether its a short answer test or multiple choice test, study and testing in the same environment leads to enhanced performance, and due to exams being taken in silence students would be likely to preform better with minimal background music

Data

Quantitative data collected

Data can be easily summaries and compared which is vital in a study like this with multiple condition combinations

Ethics 

Conducted entirely within ethical guidelines 

Informed consent given, PPs briefed about the task they were going to preform, told the study was voluntary and were fully debriefed on the purpose of the study at the end

Reliability

High controlled lab experiment so all scientific criteria reached and it is replicable 

Validity

Highly controlled lab experiment and highly standardised so has high design validity 

PPs may not fully represent the entire population in question

As it was conducted as part of a study instead of part of a lesson the ecological validity is slightly decreased

Test material tends not to have been learnt a few minutes before the test which also decreases validity

[as-ocr-psycho]

Loftus and Palmer (1974) Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of interaction between language and memory

Area

Cognitive

Sample

Experiment 1: 45 students from Washington University, divided into 5 groups of 9 PPs

Experiment 2: 150 students from Washington University, divided into 3 groups of 50 PPs 

Research Method

IVs

1) Experiment 1: Wording of critical question “About how fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/collided/contacted/bumped each other?”

2) Experiment 2: Wording of critical question (one group asked “about how fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?”, the second group was asked the same question but with hit instead of smashed, the third group was not asked about speed) “Did you see the broken glass?” 

Independent Measure Method as all PPs went through only one condition

PPs cannot get confused bydifferent use of word

PPs cannot work out the true meaning of the study so it’s not effected by demand characteristics

PPs may have different judge of speed regularly which may have effected the study

Laboratory experiment

Fulfills all scientific criteria

Control of extraneous variables increases validity

Set up wasn’t in the natural setting for leading questions to be asked so ecological validity was lower

Procedure

Experiment 1

All PPs shown the same 7 film clips of different traffic accidents which had been made as part of a drivers safety film. After each clip PPs were given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and answer a series of questions. There was the critical question, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed/collided/contacted/bumped each other?”, in the questionnaire; the PPs answer formed the results.

Experiment 2

All PPs were shown a one-minute film which contained a 4 second multiple car crash. They were then given a questionnaire which asked them to describe the accident and answer a set of questions. There was a critical question on speed, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit/smashed each other?” or no question about for the third group. One week later all PPs without seeing the film again completed another questionnaire which included another critical question, “Did you see the broken glass? Yes/No” there had been no broken glass in the film. 

Findings

Experiment 1

Verb                     Mean speed estimate (mph)

Smashed                  40.5

Collided                    39.3

Bumped                   38.1

Hit                            34.0

Contacted                31.8

Film of a crash at 20 mph estimate was 37.7

Film of a crash at 30 mph estimate was 36.2

Film of a crashes at 40 mph estimate were 39.7 and 36.1 

Experiment 2

Response     Smashed      Hit     Control

Yes            16             7            6

No             34            43          44

Conclusions

Verb used in question influences a PPs response, people are generally poor at judging vehicular speed, misleading post event information can distort memory, and two kinds of information go into our memory, information gained at the event and post event information as both integrate over time it is hard to decipher the source of the information

Data Type

Quantitative data collected

Data can easily be summarised and compared 

Reason for estimate difference not given PP

Ethics

Researchers chose to use images of non gruesome crashes so not to upset PPs or cause them undue harm

PPs knew it was a test of memory but not the exact hypothesis on leading questions

Distracter questions used to hide true nature of the study but this was necessary for the study

Reliablity

Very reliable as highly controlled 

Subsequent study correlated to the results of the study (test-retest reliablity high)

Validity  

Highly controlled and standardised so has high design validity

PPs knew they were in a study so they might have tried to show demand characteristics, especially with the broken glass as they might have felt they were supposed to remember broken glass through they didn’t actually remember any

As in a lab the ecological validity maybe lower, they knew they had to watch the clip and recall information, and accidents are spontaneous in the real world which would effect ability to remember it

Hard to generalise the results beyond the sample of just university students as they were the only group used 

[as-ocr-psycho]

Bandura et al. (1961) Transmission of aggression through imitation of aggressive models

Area

Developmental

Sample

72 children, 36 girls + 36 boys 

Enrolled at Stanford University Nursery 

Age ranged from 37 to 69 months, while the mean age was 52 months

Research Method

IVs

1) Aggressive or non-aggressive model

2) Gender of the model

3) Gender of the child (PP)

Matched Pair Method as children were matched on their previous levels of aggression

Controls participant variables so increases validity of the study

You can never be 100% sure they have the same levels of agression

Laboratory experiment as the nursery set up was actually a laboratory

The control of extraneous variable increases the validity

The set up wasn’t natural so the ecological validity was lower

Procedure

Phase 1- Children in experimental conditions were individually taken into a room and sat at a table to play with potato prints and stickers for 10 minutes while 1) The aggressive model began by assembling a tinker toy for a minute then turning to a Bobo doll and spent the remainder of the time being physically and verbally aggressive to it using a standardised procedure. 2) The non-aggressive model assembled the tinker toy in a quiet subdued manner, ignoring the Bobo doll. 3) The control group did not participate in phase 1

Phase 2- All children were taken individually into another room and subjected to mild aggressive arousal. At first they were able to play with some good quality toys but after about 2 minutes the toys were taken away saying they were reserved for other children but there were toys in another room they could use

Phase 3- Children were taken individually into a third room which contained both aggressive and no-aggressive toys. For 20 minutes they were observed through a one way mirror and their behaviour recorded into imitative aggression (physical, verbal and non aggressive speech), partially imitative aggression, non-imitative physical and verbal aggression, and non-aggressive behaviour

Findings

Children in the aggressive group showed significantly more imitation of physical and verbal aggressive behaviour and non-aggressive verbal responses than children in the non-aggressive or control group

Children in the aggressive group showed more partial imitation and non-imitative physical and verbal aggression (Results were not always significant)

Children in non-aggressive group showed very little aggression (Results not always significant when compared to control group)

Children imitated same sex models more

Overall boys showed more physical aggression

Conclusion

Supported the claim that simply observing behaviour would produce imitative behaviour which would not have been expected if the behaviour had not been observed

Data Type

Both Quantitative and Qualitative data collected

Allowed for detailed statistical analyses

Gave a rich data source

Ethics

The parents consented to research when the children were enrolled into the nursery but unaware exactly what their child may have to do 

The children were unaware of their right to withdraw so had no choice about taking part 

The childs behaviour could have been changed negatively on a long term basis

It would be hard to debrief children of such a young age

Was carried out in the 60s when there was very little in the way of ethical guidelines and it is arguable the value to society was enough that the end justifies the means

Reliability

Highly replicable 

It is arguable the same was not large enough to establish reliable effect (only 6 children in each condition

Validity

Very controlled so little effect of extraneous variable (They went as far as putting the toys in the same place in each room) and was highly standardised

The pretest of the children and putting them into matched pairs removed ‘natural’ aggression that would have created anomalies

If the children continued long term aggressive behaviour is unknown

[as-ocr-psycho]

Author name (Date published) Title of study

Subtitle

Basic information

Pros

Cons