Core Studies - Section A Flashcards
What do you include when comparing similarities or differences between studies?
- Name one similarity and difference
- Elaborate / explain point
- Give specific example from one study
- Specific example from other study
What do you write about if it is to what extent?
The strengths (positives) and the weaknesses (negatives)
Can add conclusion - justify how much changed / develop understanding
When looking at key how a study relates to understanding key theme, compared to other study. What should you talk about?
Link to conclusion and the results.
How they produced results which improves understanding
eg using quantitative data = objective
Give examples from each study to prove this
Relate back to question / how it helps
Compare
How would you structure a to some extent question?
To some extent it is (eg ethnocentric)
However…
Finally overall
How do you increase the reliability of the research
Standardise the procedure
It Controls extraneous variables
———
Say why the standardisation is needed / what would happen if don’t have it
eg EV effecting DV not the IV
Explain how you would get the marks for this question.
Freud used the case study method in his research.
Describe how he used this method in his study of Little Hans. 3 marks
Define a case study (2 marks)
Link to Hans study (1 mark)
Name 7 examples of bias
Selection bias -
. By sampling method or recruitment of ppt (not representative)
Gender bias -
. tendency to favor one gender over another. involve assumptions, stereotypes, or prejudices about gender that influences results
Eg. Assuming males more aggressive female or having more females in research than males
Age bias -
. Only represents a certain age group
Cultural bias
. Only use one culture
Intellectual bias -
. Can have higher or lower cognitive ability / intelligence than general population
Eg. Undergraduates have higher cognitive ability = intellectual bias
Occupation bias
Class bias
Outline the structure for questions that ask about issues such as ethics, validity and reliability
identify what makes something reliable/unethical/lack validity i.e.
standardisation,
say why this makes results consistent/accurate or unethical,
contextualise with the study.
Explain how Milgram’s (1963) study into obedience may be considered ethnocentric.
Outline the structure for this question
3 marks
1 mark: knowledge of the concept of ethnocentrism (definition)
1 mark: briefly relating to Milgram’s study
1 mark: further development to Milgram
———————————
Examiners report:
Many had a reasonable understanding of ethnocentrism and were able to outline how ethnocentric bias is shown through sample selection.
For full marks, a more developed link to Milgram’s research was required.
It is good practice to get students to reflect on how findings of research could differ between cultures to fully develop their understanding of ethnocentric bias e.g. other countries may show higher or lower levels of obedience to authority depending on cultural norms. More collectivist cultures may show higher levels of obedience.
Outline the structure for writing a study relating to its background
3 marks
1 mark - identify background
1 mark - developing the information on the background
1 mark - link to the aim of investigation
What you should remember to do include first when writing a similarity or a difference between two core studies?
Identify the difference or similarities
E.g. research design
What is the sentence starter for linking something to an area?
This is linked to (E.g. social) area because …
Outline the structure for saying a study is useful?
3 marks
- Identify element that is useful
- Support with a key finding of the study
- Say why it is useful
Outline how you would say how a core study supports one side of the debate?
3 marks
E.g Explain how Lee et al study may support the view that behaviour is determined.
1 mark for definition
1 mark for linking debate to study
1 mark for specific findings or conclusion that relates to a concept of the debate
————————-
Example:
1 mark for demonstrating an understanding of the concept of determinism
1 mark for making a link between determinism and Lee et al.’s study
1 mark for a specific finding or conclusion that relates to the concept of determinism
Could also be about usefulness etc
How to structure questions relating a study to a area. 3 marks
Example:
Explain why Grant et al (1998) study into context dependent memory can be placed in the cognitive area.
3 marks
- Show understanding / knowledge of area
- Give findings of study
- Link the study/ finding of study to the area
Example :
Grant
Most likely answers:
Knowledge of Cognitive area: The cognitive area assumes that behaviour can be largely explained in terms of information processing so behaviour such as memory has a cognitive basis.
(1)
Finding from Grant et al: Grant found that memory was influenced by the environmental context of noisy or silent conditions (1)
Links Grant et al’s study to the cognitive area: Therefore, the same environmental context can have a positive effect on performance of memory (1)
Briefly explain how Simons and Chabris’ (1999) study into visual attention changes our understanding of attention, when compared to Moray’s (1959) study into auditory attention.
3 marks
1) What is this question asking you to do?
2) How do you structure the answer?
1)
How the contemporary study (newer) has increased our understanding / advanced our knowledge compared to classic ( older)
2)
1. Finding of classic study (old)
2. Finding of contemporary study (new)
3. How the new has expanded our understanding of the theme (added to old studies work)
——————————————-
Example:
3 marks - A clear and accurate explanation that refers to:
• How Simons and Chabris’ study changes/expands our understanding of attention/inattention.
• Moray’s findings in relation to attention/inattention.
• Simons and Chabris’ findings in relation to attention/inattention
2 marks - A reasonabie
Possible answer for :
Moray found that individuals are not aware of the content of an unattended auditory message, such as numbers. (1)
Simons and Chabris found that individuals tend to fail to notice an unexpected event (e.g. a person wearing a gorilla costume) walking through an event, when their visual attention is focused on something else. (1)
Therefore, Simon and Chabris’ study expands our understanding of attention by showing that the inability to divide our attention can be related to visual information, and not just auditory information. (1)
Outline the structure for describing a control of a study
(3 marks)
Key words:
Same
All participants
Each
——————————————————-
3 marks - A clear and accurate description that includes:
• Identification of a control. (what)
• Identifies that all participants experienced this control. (who)
• Identifies how this control was carried out. (how)
How would you structure this key theme question :
From Levine et al.’s (2001) study into cross-cultural altruism:
Explain how this study links to the key theme of responses to people in need.
3 marks
- Outline what study is about
- Give a feature of study
- Finding of study
(Same for all key theme questions)
————————————-
Example :
3 marks for a clear answer which:
- Recognises helping is affected by culture/countries
- Features of cities or types of helping
- An accurate finding of one measure.
Possible answers:
Levine et al,’s study links to the key theme of people in need by showing that the willingness to help people in need differed across cultures/cities.
Features of cities or types of helping:
Cultural values (Individualism- Collectivism, simpatia)
• Economic prosperity/ wealth
•Population size
.Walking speed/ pace of life
• Dropped pen/ hurt leg/ blind victim (types of helping)
Findings:
• Individualistic cultures showed lower levels of helping
• Countries which were more helpful had lower PPP/ less wealth
• No relationship between population size and helping
• Faster cities showed less likelihood of help (small correlation)
• Simpatia cultures, such as Brazil, were more helpful than non-simpatia cultures, such as Malaysia
• A cities helping rate was relatively stable across all three measures.
• The most helpful city was Rio de Janeiro (Brazil)
Explain how research from the developmental area can be considered to support the nurture side of the nature/ nurture debate.
Support your answer with evidence from one appropriate core study.
(3 marks)
Outline the structure of this question
- A understanding of nurture side of the debate
- A understanding of the developmental area
- Supported with evidence from appropriate core study
Explain one difference between Experiment 1 of Moray’s (1959) study into attention and Simons and Chabris’s study into inattention
(4 marks)
Explain one similarity between Experiment 1 of Moray’s (1959) study into attention and Simons and Chabris’s study into inattention
(4 marks)
How would you structure these questions
• identifies a difference / similarity
• further outlines that difference / similarity
• illustrates the difference / similarity with reference to one study
• illustrates the difference / similarities with reference to the other study
Outline one strength and one weakness of the type of data collected by Kohlberg in his study of moral development.
4 marks
- How do you structure this question
- What points could you write
1)
For both the strength and the weaknesses:
1 mark for a valid evaluative point
Plus
1 mark for considering this point in the context of the study
—————-
2)
Possible strengths:
• rich in detail
• high construct validity allows for individual response
• more valid than quantitative data
Possible weaknesses:
• too subjective/open to interpretation
• harder to draw comparisons/look for patterns
• less reliable than quantitative data
• Difficult to analyse
. Difficult to generalise
Explain one way Lee et al (1997) attempted to ensure the reliability of their study into lying and truth-telling.
- How would you structure the question
- What answers can you give.
3 marks
1)
3 marks for a clear response which:
- identifies a relevant way the study’s design increased reliability
- outlines how/why it did (context)
- demonstrates an understanding of reliability in the process. (E.g. uses words such as all, everyone, consistent, same, results being similar over time)
—————-
Structure
. Define what reliability is
. identifies a relevant way the study’s design increased reliability
. outlines how/why it did (context)
. Demonstrates an understanding of reliability in the process. (E.g. uses words such as all, everyone, consistent, same, results being similar over time)
——————
Examiners report
Candidates who performed well on this question gave a clear response identifying how the design of Lee et al. increased reliability with clear context to Lee et al.’s research.
To achieve full marks, candidates also needed to demonstrate their understanding of reliability in their responses. This was not always clear in the responses given.
Candidates who missed out on full marks did not give clear details of Lee et al. (e.g. referred only to ‘rating scale’ without detailing the scale ‘very very good to very very naughty”).
————————
Answers:
Possible ways:
• matching samples e.g., age, province
• random assignment of children to conditions
• use of rating scale across conditions
. randomisation of order of conditions
• All asked- was what (s)he did good or bad?’
. Standardised procedures
——————-
Point -
State a way in which Lee et al tried to ensure reliability
Explain -
explain how in context of Lee et al’s study
Elaboration -
explain how this tries to increase reliability
—————-
Example answer:
One way in which Lee at al tried to ensure reliability in their study was to have many controls within their procedure. For example, Lee gave all of the Chinese and Canadian participants of all ages the same 7 point rating scale in response to the social or physical stories. This ensures internal reliability by having a standardised procedure that can be replicated with other participants.
