OCR A Level Psychology KEY STUDY SUMMARIES · OCR A LEVEL Psychology KEY STUDY SUMMARIES: ... the memory representation of the accident in the direction of being more similar to a

OCR A Level Psychology

KEY STUDY SUMMARIESPsychological Themes Through Core Studies

www.tutor2u.net/psychology

Page 8 OCR A LEVEL Psychology KEY STUDY SUMMARIES: COMPONENT TWO

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permittedwww.tutor2u.net/psychology

PILIAVIN ET AL. (1969) [A‐LEVEL ONLY] Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? Background and Aim: After Kitty Genovese’s murder in New York, Darley and Latané (1968) and Latané and Rodin (1969) conducted a series of experiments that introduced the theory of “bystander apathy” because of the “diffusion of responsibility”. In other words, a negative event, such as a public attack on a person or a person falling ill on the street and collapsing and needing help, was less likely to result in such help being given if there were many witnesses than if there were few. In fact the fewer the witnesses, the more help was given. If many people saw an attack, for example, each one was likely to believe that others had already called for help, were assisting, or had decided it was not an emergency situation. Anyway, the result was the same: inaction. Many of these studies were conducted in the laboratory. Piliavin et al.’s study moved the research into the field. The aim of this study was to conduct a field experiment to investigate the effect of several different variables on who responded to help, the speed of responding and the likelihood of responding. The main focus of the research was to investigate the effect of the type of victim (drunk or ill) and the ethnicity of victim (black or white) on the speed and frequency of the response and the ethnicity of the responder. Method: The emergencies were staged in the short 7.5 min journey between two stations on the New York subway (underground). These were trains that did not stop at the stations in between. On each trial four researchers (two males and two females) entered the train. Four different research teams gathered data from 103 trails. The procedure was always the same: The female confederates took seats and kept notes as unobtrusively as possible, while the male “victim” and male model (potential “helper”) stood near a pole in the centre of the train. The four victims were male, three white and one black, aged between 26 and 35 years, all identically casually dressed. In 38 trials the victim smelled of alcohol and carried alcohol in a brown bag; in 65 trials he appeared sober and carried a cane. All victims participated in both conditions. The models were all white and aged between 24 and 29. After passing the first station (approximately 70 secs) the victim collapsed. In the “no help” condition, the model did nothing until the train slowed to stop, and then helped the victim to his feet. In the “helping” condition, the helper came to the victim’s assistance. There were four different helping conditions used in both “drunk” and “cane” situations: 1. Critical area – early. The model stood in the critical area and waited until after the train passed the fourth station, and then helped the victim. (Approx. 70 secs after collapse.) 2. Critical area – late. The model stood in the critical area and waited until after the train passed the sixth station before helping the victim. (Approx. 150 secs after collapse.)

Copyright tutor2u Limited / School Network License / Photocopying Permitted www.tutor2u.net/psychology

OCR A LEVEL Psychology KEY STUDY SUMMARIES: COMPONENT TWO Page 9

3. Adjacent area – early. The model stood a little further way, adjacent to the critical area and waited until after the train passed the fourth station, and then helped the victim 4. Adjacent area – late. The model stood in the adjacent area and waited until after the sixth station before helping. Results: In all but three of the “cane” situation model trials, the victim received help before the model was due to help (62 out of the 65 trials). In the “drunk” situation, the victim received help in 19 out of the 38 trials. Spontaneous help before 70 secs had lapsed in the model trials was therefore more likely in the “cane” situation. Men were more likely to help than women. Table 1: Percentage of trials in which help was given.

There was no difference between the help given to the white and black victims in this situation. The “drunk” black victim was the only one who was more likely to receive help from someone of his own ethnicity. The victims received help in 81/103 trials, and in 60% of these cases the help was received from more than one person. In fact, once the first person had moved to help, two or three others often followed quite quickly. The longer the victim went without help, the more likely were travellers to move away from the area or to verbally justify their non‐intervention. Conclusions: More assistance was given, and more quickly than would have been suggested by Darley and Latané’s “diffusion of responsibility” hypothesis. However, this was a public face‐to‐face situation, which was different from the lab studies previously run. Looking at the patterns of helping, Piliavin et al. suggest a negative‐state relief model that explains why people help and, alternatively, why people move away or justify their behaviour. This would also explain why fewer women help: in all cases the victim was a man and sometimes “drunk”. It would be difficult for a woman to lift and assist a man who has collapsed, and potentially risky to assist a drunk man. Not assisting would earn little if any blame. However, more field studies would be needed under different circumstances to confirm this model. In summary, an individual who appears ill is more likely to receive help than someone who seems drunk. With mixed groups of men and women, men are more likely than women to help a male victim. People are more likely to help people of the same race especially if they are drunk. There is no strong link between the number of bystanders and speed of helping in a visible incident. When escape from a situation is not possible and bystanders are face‐to‐face with a victim, help is likely. People carry out a cost‐reward analysis before deciding whether or not to help a victim. Evaluation Research Method: The field experiments were not subject to demand characteristics, as the travellers

on the underground train did not know they were part of an experiment. Several different experimental conditions that added to the validity of the findings.



Reliability: Because of methodological problems, there were more cane trials than drunk trials and more white victims than black victims. Therefore the results from each group’s trials cannot always be reliably compared with each other. The victims and helpers were all male and the results cannot be generalised to females or a mixed group. Further research could investigate if women are more likely to help if the victim and the helper are both female.

Ethical Considerations: There a number of ethical issues associated with Piliavin et al.’s study.

Participants were unaware that they were taking part in an experiment, therefore they could not consent to take part and it was also not possible to withdraw from the study or be debriefed. Furthermore, seeing a victim collapse may have been stressful for the participants, they also may have felt guilty if they didn’t help, therefore leading to psychological harm.

Exam Style Questions 1. Which of these is a weakness of Piliavin et al.’s study. (1)

A. Data obtained is difficult to analyse B. Demand Characteristics C. Lacks ecological validity D. Lacks population validity

2. Outline one ethical issue in Piliavin et al.’s study. (2)

3. Describe why Piliavin et al.’s study relates to the area of psychology? (3)

4. Describe one similarity and one difference between Piliavin et al and Levine et al.’s studies. (4)



LOFTUS AND PALMER (1974) Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory. Background and Aim: The background to this comprises theories of the reconstructive nature of memory, including studies into schema theory, flashbulb memory and autobiographical memory. At the end of their journal article, Loftus and Palmer state: “(I)t is natural to conclude that the label, smash, causes a shift in the memory representation of the accident in the direction of being more similar to a representation suggested by the verbal label” (Loftus and Palmer, 1974, p.588). This is very similar to schema theory, and it could be argued that “smashed” suggests a “serious accident” schema that then triggers the higher estimate of speed, and the suggestion of broken glass at the scene. However, it is worth noting that Loftus and Palmer’s study itself is not an investigation of schema theory. The aim of the study was to investigate how information provided after an event had occurred influenced the memory of a witness for that event. In this case, the information was a change in wording of a critical question. Method: Two laboratory experiments were used for two segments of the study, each adopting an independent measures design. The researchers used a sample of 45 college students of the University of Washington for the first experiment and 150 participants for the second.

Experiment 1 ‐ Participants were shown seven 5‐30 seconds film clips of traffic accidents. The clips were excerpts from safety films made for driver education. After each film they filled a questionnaire about what they had seen. They were also asked some questions about the accident. The critical question (IV) here was, “About how fast were the cars going when they hit each other? ”Different conditions were used, where the verb was changed to “smashed”, “collided”, bumped” and “contacted”. Participants had to estimate the speed in miles per hour.

The films were shown in different orders in each condition. This experiment was conducted over one and half hours.

Experiment 2 ‐ 150 participants were divided into three groups. All participants watched a one‐minute film on a multiple‐car accident. They then answered some questions about the film. The critical question was, “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?” The verb was changed to “smashed” in the comparison group. The control group was not asked to estimate the speed.

The participants were asked to return a week later. They were not shown the film again but asked several questions about the accident in the film. The critical question was, “Did you see into broken glass?” They had to answer in terms of “yes” or “no”. The question was placed in a random position in each question paper. The video did not have any broken glass. Results Experiment 1: When the critical question had the word “smashed” or “collided”, speed estimates were



higher than for the other words. For “smashed” it was 40.8 mph, for “collided” 39.3mph, while for “contacted” the estimate was 31.8 mph.

Experiment 2 The word “smashed”, which implies a more forceful impact, drew more than twice as many “yes” responses as when the word “hit” was used and as compared with the control group. Conclusions Experiment 1: The speed estimate was moderated by the verb used to describe the intensity of the crash. The greater the intensity

conveyed by the word, the higher the speed estimate to match it. The researchers also suggested that the estimate could be the result of demand characteristics. Since the participants were unsure of the speed, they offered a figure that they thought would be most suited for the purpose of the study. Again, the choice of verb acted as cue to make the participant guess what range of speed the researcher might be looking for. Experiment 2: The estimates of the presence of glass increased with the intensity of the verb used to describe the crash. General Conclusion: Leading questions can alter the memory of events and lead to distortions. One initial change in wording can have prolonged effects on memory. Loftus and Palmer offered the reconstructive hypothesis to explain the phenomenon: A person obtains two kinds of information about an event (complex occurrence) – the first is the information obtained from perceiving the event itself; the second is the information supplied or acquired after the event. If there is some difference between the two sources, integration of post‐event information can lead to memory distortions. The experiments demonstrate how external cues, such as leading questions or a suggested line of thinking, made available after an event can affect our subsequent memory of that event. Information from the two sources integrates over time and we are therefore unable to tell whether our memory is accurate because we do not know which of the sources it came from. Evaluation Data: Loftus and Palmer obtained quantitative data from their study, this allows for subsequent

statistical analysis. Mean speed estimates were calculated, percentages of yes and no responses could also be easily found, results could be represented in graphs charts quite easily. However, quantitative data does not gives us detail of the reasons for their answers.

Validity: The ecological validity of the study is low, because it was a laboratory experiment so the

results cannot be generalised unconditionally to a larger population. Being conducted in an artificial environment, the study also lacked in realism. People are likely to react differently when witnessing a real life scenario similar to the one shown in the video, because of their actual presence and likely personal involvement. The participants might have also responded to demand characteristics, as they may worked out the aim of the study.

Sampling Bias: Participants were all students, such a group would be typically more intelligence and

have better memories than other populations. No information is available about the driving skills or experiences of the participants, but is likely to much less in a younger group of participants. This ability



(or lack of it) could have influenced their estimate of speed more so than older, more experienced drivers.

Exam Style Questions 1. In Loftus and Palmer’s study what was the experimental design that was used? (1)

A. Independent Measures B. Lab experiment C. Matched Pairs D. Repeated Measures

2. Identify the two types of information that go into a complex occurrence. (2)

3. Describe the results in Loftus and Palmer’s second experiment. (3)

4. Describe why Loftus and Palmer’s study may have sampling bias. (4)



4. Describe the different research methods used by Hancock? (4)



PILIAVIN ET AL. (1969) – SUGGESTED ANSWERS Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon? Exam Style Questions 1. Which of these is a weakness of Piliavin et al.’s study. (1) A. Lacks population validity 2. Outline one ethical issue in Piliavin et al.’s study. (2) Because participants were unaware that they were taking part in an experiment, they were unable to give informed consent to the situation of a man collapsing on the subway. 3. Describe why Piliavin et al.’s study relates to the area of psychology? (3) Piliavin’s study relates to social psychology because they were investigating the effect of other people on our behaviour, such as those who are ill or drunk and situational factors such as being able to escape an emergency situation or not, and whether other people are present. 4. Describe one similarity and one difference between Piliavin et al and Levine et al.’s studies. (4) One similarity between the studies is that they are both field experiments, whereby the IV is manipulated in the real world to measure helping behaviour. In Piliavin’s study helping behaviour on the New York Subway was measured and in Levine et al.’s study, helping in the street was measured. One difference is that Piliavin study has sampling bias, all participants were travellers on the New York Subway therefore results cannot be generalised beyond this group, while Levine’s study was a cross‐cultural study, individuals from 23 different countries participated.



LOFTUS AND PALMER (1974) – SUGGESTED ANSWERS Reconstruction of Automobile Destruction: An Example of the Interaction Between Language and Memory. Exam Style Questions 1. In Loftus and Palmer’s study what was the experimental design that was used? (1) A. Independent Measures 2. Identify the two types of information that go into a complex occurrence. (2) The first kind of information is from witnessing the event and the person’s perception of what happened. The second type of any post‐event information that has been provided, this could be misleading information or a leading question. 3. Describe the results in Loftus and Palmer’s second experiment. (3) Although there was no broken glass ‐ 32% of smashed condition reported that there was, this compared to only 14% of those in the hit condition and 12% of participants in the control. The results showed that misleading information can distort people’s memories. 4. Describe why Loftus and Palmer’s study may have sampling bias. (4) Participants were all American students, therefore they are not a generalisable group of people. Students are likely to have better memories than a ‘normal’ person because they are used to remembering things for exams. Undergraduates are also above average intelligence and are also more likely to have worked out the aim and showed demand characteristics. A final issue with the sample is that they are less likely to be drivers, or if they are, they would have limited experience and therefore would not be as good at estimating speeds as other samples and so could have been influenced more by the post‐event information. Overall, the results could have been very different if another sample had been used.

OCR A Level Psychology

KEY STUDY SUMMARIESIssues in Mental Health


Page 2 OCR A LEVEL Psychology KEY STUDY SUMMARIES: issues in mental health


GOTTESMAN ET AL. (2011) Severe Mental Disorders In Offspring With Two Psychiatrically Ill Parents Background and aim: There has been little research into psychiatric dual‐mating studies, with only case histories of small clinical samples being published. However, the research that Gottesman et al. reported found that if both parents had schizophrenia, the concordance rate for their offspring was 48%, while the risk of bipolar disorder presenting itself in offspring of 2 such parents was 28%. These rates are up to 4 times greater than the risk of children with only 1 affected parent developing these disorders. Gottesman et al.’s aim was to investigate the genetic transmission of psychological disorders if both parents had the same disorder, as well as the consequences for offspring if parents had two different disorders. This study aimed to add to previous research, but with a much larger sample size in order to obtain more conclusive findings. Method: Danish Central Psychiatric Register ‐ A sample of 2.6 million people from Denmark who were born during or after 1968 and before 1997, with a link to their mother and father, was gained from the Civil Registration System. From the population four groups were identified:

‐ Both parents had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or unipolar depressive disorder and had been admitted to a psychiatric facility.

‐ One parent had been diagnosed with schizophrenia, bipolar disorder, or unipolar depressive disorder and had been admitted to a psychiatric facility.

‐ Neither parent admitted with a diagnosis ‐ No data available

The diagnosis of a psychiatric disorder in the children of these groups was checked. Because both the parents and their offspring may have been admitted more than once with different diagnoses, they may appear in more than one of the groups and some of the offspring may have their own children, so may appear as both offspring and in one of the groups of parent couples. Results: The risk of developing schizophrenia if both parents had the disorder was 27.3% and increased to 39.2% when schizophrenia‐related disorders were included. If one parent had schizophrenia the child’s risk was 7%, while in the other two groups it was 0.86% and 1.12%. For bipolar disorder the risk was 24.9% in the parent couples group, which increased to 36% if unipolar depressive disorder was included. This compared to 4.4% when only one parent had been admitted with bipolar disorder. Admittance rates in the other two groups were only 0.48% and 0.63%. Moreover, risks of schizophrenia and bipolar disorder in the children of couples where one parent had schizophrenia and the other bipolar disorder were 15.6% and 11.7%, respectively. The maximal risks of any psychiatric disorders in the offspring of parents both with schizophrenia or both with bipolar disorder were 67.5% and 44.2%, respectively; this compared to 11.9% and 14.1% in the general population groups. Conclusions: Children of dual mating couples diagnosed with psychosis constitute a ‘super‐high‐risk sample of psychosis’. The risk of offspring being admitted to hospital with a diagnosis of


OCR A LEVEL Psychology KEY STUDY SUMMARIES: issues in mental health Page 3

schizophrenia is higher if both parents have been admitted with this disorder, compared to offspring who have had just one parent admitted with the diagnosis, or neither parent ever having been admitted with the diagnosis. These conclusions are also true for bipolar disorder. These findings provide strong evidence to support the genetic explanation of mental illness. These risks may be useful and informative for counselling, particularly genetic counsellors, to inform personal decisions in relation to marriage, family planning, adoption, and health insurance planning. Evaluation Sampling bias: A huge sample of 2.6 million was obtained, which included a wide range of individuals

from Denmark. Therefore, the study was high in population validity and results would be representative of people of different classes and socio‐economic statuses. However, results would not be generalisable to different cultures, as other factors may be more important in other countries.

Ethical considerations: The study was approved by the Danish Data Protection Agency. Because data

was available for register‐based research and did not include information that could lead to the identification of individuals, approval from the National Scientific Ethical Committee was not required. Therefore all data was anonymous and confidential and informed consent from individuals was not required.

Free will/determinism: Gottesman et al. conclude that individuals who have two parents with the

same mental disorder have a ‘super high’ risk of developing the disorder themselves. Gottesman’s view is biologically determined in that mental illness will be passed on through our genes. It is also suggested that two individuals with a mental illness should carefully consider whether to have children due to the high chance of passing on the disorder. This study ignores the role of free will and the fact that concordance rates are not 100%; therefore other factors such as environment do play a part.

Exam Style Questions With reference to the key research, discuss the genetic explanation of mental illness. (10) Discuss the free will/determinism debate in relation to the biological explanation of mental illness. (10)

More Psychology revision and support at:


@tutor2uPsych ALevelPsychStudentGroup tutor2uPsych

Documents

OCR A Level Psychology KEY STUDY SUMMARIES · OCR A LEVEL Psychology KEY STUDY SUMMARIES: ... the memory representation of the accident in the direction of being more similar to a