BIOLOGICAL APPROACH

Assumptions:
- Behaviour, cognition, and emotions can be explained in terms of the working of the brain and the
effect of genetics, hormones, and evolution.
- Similarities and differences between humans can be understood in terms of the structure and
function of the brain and its interaction with outside factors.

Case study 1: Dream recall

Psychology being investigated
- Circadian rhythm
- The effect of eye movement on dreams and dream recall
- Investigate the relationships between dream recall, dream content, and subjective estimation of
duration of the dream and stage of evemovement.
- Eye movement was detected using EEGs and EOGS

Background
- The REM stage was associated with the vivid recall of dreams.
- This visual imagery would be difficult to test, which is why the researchers tried to make use of
objective measures such as EEGs and EOGs.

Aims
- To investigate the correlation between dream recall and stages of eye movement (REM/nREM)
- Investigate whether there is a positive correlation between subjective estimation of dream
duration and actual duration of the dream.
- Investigate correlation between dream content and eye movement patterns (horizontal v vertical)

Research methodology and design

- Longitudinal study (participants slept in the lab from 1-17 times)
- Repeated measures design (Each participant participated in all the conditions)
- Lab experiment
- Used EEG and EOG, electrodes and EEG attached to the participants' scalp.
- IV1: REM sleep/nREM sleep DV1: Dream recall
- IV2: REM sleep 15 minutes/REM sleep 5 minutes DV2: Subjective estimate of dream duration
- IV3: Eye movement (Vertical or horizontal) DV3: Dream content

Sample
- Volunteer sampling
- 9 participants (7 men, 2 women)
- 5 participants were studied in detail during the final analysis, the other four were used to back up
the findings and results.

Procedure
- Lab experiment, controlled conditions.
- Participants were asked to abstain from alcohol and caffeine. (improved validity of results)
 - They were asked to report to the lab at their usual sleeping time, where they then had EEGs and
EOGs and electrodes attached to their scalp and near their eyes (to detect eye movement) and
wound into a single chord ponytail, so as not to disturb their sleep.
- For AIM 1 : They were all woken up from their sleep using a standardised doorbell and were then
asked to give a detailed account of their dreams to the recorder (if appropriate) if they had dreamt
at all.
- Participants were sometimes told that they were going to be woken up in REM sleep, but it was
up to the researcher in which stage they wanted to wake the participant up in. The researcher
occasionally entered the room to ask the participants more questions about their dream (brief
interview)
- For AIM 2 : Participants were finding it very hard to randomly estimate the length of their dream
duration, so the experimenters started waking them at either 5 minutes or 15 minutes into REM,
and they were asked to estimate which one. The number of words in each dream narrative were
counted.
- For AIM 3 : The electrodes attached to the scalp and near the eyes were detecting eye movement
patterns (mainly horizontal and vertical).
- Only detailed reports of dreams were used in the final analysis.
- They were given an operationalized definition of a dream.
- The environment was highly controlled.
- Detection of eye movement was done using electrodes.

Results
- Dreams were longer later on in the night.
- Participants were more likely to report a vivid narration of their dreams during REM sleep.
- 152 dreams were recalled by the 7 participants in REM sleep whereas 11 were recalled in nREM.
- Dreams lasted from 3-50 minutes, with an average of 20.
- The duration from one REM stage to the next was between 70-104 minutes.
- When participants were asked to estimate whether they had been dreaming for 5 (45 correct 6
incorrect) or 15 minutes (47 correct 13 incorrect) the accuracy of the estimation was very high
(88% and 78% respectively)
- Eye movements were mixed, there were only 3 dreams which had only horizontal and vertical eye
movements, which correlated to the activities in the dream.

Conlcusions
- Dreaming occurs in REM
- Dreams are longer later on in the night, as REM stages are longer
- Dreams progress in real time (are as long as they seem to be)

Evaluation
Strengths
- Lab experiment - (highly controlled environment) They were able to control confounding
variables that could potentially have reduced the validity of the results.
- The procedure was standardised, which improves reliability of the experiment, as all participants
were woken up using a standardised doorbell.
 -
Definition of ‘dream’ was operationalized, which improves validity and reliability.
-
Longitudinal experiment - allowed researchers to collect and measure a larger amount of data
which thus improves the validity of the results as the experiment was conducted over a long
period of time.
Weaknesses
- Extremely small and biased sample size (more men than women) reduced generalisability (the
results of the experiment cannot be representative of the entire population)
- Ethical concern - deception - participants, when woken up, were not told what stage of sleep they
were woken up in, this could have potentially lead to distress.
- The participants slept in the lab and were asked to abstain from alcohol and caffeine, which
reduces ecological validity as their sleeping patterns may have been different from how they
naturally would be.

Case study 2: Monkey toy preferences

Psychology being investigated
- Investigate whether some differences in the behaviour of genders and their preferences are
biologically determined or a result of socialisation and gender stereotyping
- Gender appropriate behaviour
- Gender stereotypes

Background
- Children were observed
- Our behaviour is affected by social environments as well as biology
- Whether gender differences in behaviour could be a result of biological influences, rather than
social differences.
- Hormones (infants exposed to hormones) affect toy preferences.

Aim
- This study aimed to investigate whether gender differences in toy preferences in human children
resembled those in monkeys. It aimed to investigate whether the sex differences in toy preference
were biologically determined by sex.

Research methodology and design

- Independent measure design
- Cross sectional study
- Used observations (structured) to collect data
- Field experiment

Sample
- Opportunity sampling
- 135 rhesus monkeys were housed in a 25x25 outdoor enclosure, where they had been living
together for 25 years.
- Temperature controlled, given fruits and vegetables once a day, standard monkey feed twice a
day.
 - 21 males and 61 females were considered
- 14 adults were not used in the experiment as they had been exposed to hormonal treatments
during other experiments, 39 infants were not used because it would have been difficult to
determine sex differences.
- Eventually, the monkeys used in the analysis came down to 11 males and 23 females because the
researchers had to have a minimum of 5 recorded behaviours for analysis.
Procedure
- Field experiment
- Toys were categorised into two: Wheeled toys (cars, tractors, trolleys, trucks) and Plush toys
(winnie the pooh, teddy bear, etc)
- The behaviour of the monkeys was recorded (videotaped) and 2 observers (covert observations)
analysed it using a structured behavioural checklist which had items such as Touch, Punch,
Throw, Hug, etc.
- There were 7 trials, itching lasting 25 minutes, with the last trial cut short because the monkey
ripped the toy apart, and there was no way to tell whether this was done in a playful manner or if
it was due to distress.
- The monkeys were all in a group indoors while the toys were placed outside, 10 m apart…
- The toys were placed 10 m apart (equal distances) and the plush/wheeled toys were
counterbalanced to ensure that the choice of toy was not affected by outside factors. (to improve
validity)
- One video camera was directed towards each toy and the video-tape was later analysed by the two
observers (covert) to calculate the frequency and duration of play with each toy.
- The procedure was standardised for each trial - improving reliability/replicability.
- Frequency of play and duration of play were calculated and used as measures of play.

Results
- Males showed considerable preference of the wheeled toys over the plush toys and both
frequency and duration of play was greater for wheeled toys for male monkeys. For females, there
was no considerable difference, but frequency and duration of play was slightly greater for plush
toys.
- Males played with wheeled toys for an average of 4.76 minutes and plush toys for an average of
0.53 minutes.
- Females played with wheeled toys for an average of 1.27 minutes and plush toys for an average
of 1.49 minutes.
- There was a positive correlation between the social rank of monkeys and the duration of play.

Evaluation
Strengths
- Counterbalancing of toys and same distance for each trial (standardised) improved reliability and
validity of results and helped ensure that the toy preferences were not due to other factors (such as
less distance to the monkey)
- Ethically, the monkeys were protected from distress, housed in a large area, proper food and
nutrition, allowed to play and socialise, and were kept in a temperature controlled environment.
- Field experiment - improved ecological validity of the results.
Weaknesses
- For human children, the toys were gender stereotyped and not just classified on the basis of
wheeled or plush, which helped make the results more specific (and valid)
- There were other differences in comparison of humans and monkeys too: for children, frequency
was used as the main measure, and for monkeys, duration of play was used as the primary
measure, rather than frequency for both. (this alters the validity of the comparison)
- The last trial was cut short, because a monkey ripped a toy apart, no way to tell whether this was
because of distress or some other factor. (ethical concern)
- Small sample size - reduces generalisability.

Case study 3: Mindfulness (Holzel et al)

Psychology being investigated
- Localisation of function (Hippocampus)
- Grey matter concentration in regions of interest + whole brain

Background
- Previous studies to measure mindfulness have been cross sectional
- Mindfulness cannot be measured through a one-time scan, and needs to be measured in terms of
the change in grey matter concentration due to participant variables.
- This study was a revised version of the original, with changes that make it possible to objectively
measure mindfulness.

Aim
- Investigate whether grey matter concentration increases in the regions of interest as well as the
whole brain following the 8 week long mindfulness based stress reduction course.

Research method and design

IV: MBSR course (8 week long)
DV1: Grey matter concentration in the ROI and whole brain analysis
DV2: Results on the FFMQ
- Longitudinal study
- Independent measure design
- Use of mri for the brain scans

Sample
- Experimental group (avg 38) - 16 participants (10 females, 7 males) (2 dropped out due to
discomfort in the MRI)
- Control group (avg 39) - 17 participants (10 females, 7 males)
- Opportunity sampling
- Participants were already part of a psychology course in University of Massachusetts and were
offered a discount on the MBSR course.

Procedure
- For 8 weeks, 2.5 hour long session every week, full day session in the 6th week
 - MRI scan before the course and after the course
- Gap of 56 days between scans for control group, gap of 66 days for experimental group.
- Participants were given mindfulness homework to complete
- Sitting meditation and mindful yoga
- Responded to a Five Facet Mindfulness questionnaire which had 39 items that measured
observing, acting with awareness, non judging, and non reactivity.
- MBSR participants were asked to mail back the questionnaire after the MBSR course.
- 14 participants from both the control and experimental group were used in the final analysis.

Results
- No correlation between the results of the FFMQ and the amount of mindfulness homework
completed.
- Grey matter concentration in the left hippocampus and bilateral insulae increased significantly, as
well as in the whole brain analysis.
- In the control group, there was a slight decrease in grey matter.
- On average, the participants completed 27 minutes of mindfulness homework per day (mindful
yoga and sitting meditation)
- On average, participants spend 22.6 hours (27 minutes per day) on mindfulness homework
- Grey matter concentration increased significantly in the left hippocampus, in four clusters, in the
experimental group. Increased by 0.01 in the left hippocampus of the MBSR group, increased by
0.001 in the control group.

Evaluation
STRENGTHS
- Ethically sound - the study was approved by the University of Massachusetts ethics committee
and participants had the right to withdraw
- Longitudinal experiment - allowed for accurate results to be collected, measured over a long
period of time.
- MRI scans allowed for the collection of objective, measurable data that did not need to be
analysed.
WEAKNESSES
- No correlation between the amount of mindfulness homework completed and the scores on the
FFMQ, which calls for further investigation.
- Participants in the control group were experiencing stress and were not attended to for 8 weeks,
which risks a failure to protect them from harm.
- Small and biased sample - all participants were already part of a psychology course, which may
lead to biased results. The small sample size was not representative of the entire population, so
this leads to lower chances to generalise the results.

COGNITIVE APPROACH
Assumptions:
- There are similarities and in the ways that humans and computers process information
(inputs-processing-outputs)
 - Individual differences in cognitive processes such as memory, learning, language and others can
be used to explain the differences in the ways that humans behave and process emotions.

Case study 1: Doodling

Psychology being investigated
- Divided attention tasks take up the brain's processing capacity.
- Aimed to investigate whether the act of doodling when presented with boring information could
take away attention from the task at hand or increase concentration.
- By making our information processing system perform a divided attention task, doodling should
therefore worsen performance, but it prevents daydreaming etc.

Background
- A divided attention task does take away from the individual's ability to concentrate, therefore
doodling should worsen concentration, however it is known to improve concentration by keeping
the individual focused, for eg. by preventing day-dreaming and keeping the mind working.
- Used several strategies to increase boredom in the participants, which would then affect attention,
thus creating a situation where doodling would either worsen concentration or aid it, and thus
increase recall.
Aim
Aimed to see whether doodling aids concentration or takes away from it during a boring task.

Research method and design

- Cross sectional
- Independent measure design
- IV: Doodling v Non Doodling
- DV: Recall of monitored (names) and incidental (place names) information.

Sample
- Opportunity + volunteer sampling (psychology students, were offered a small sum for their
participation)
- 40 Participants aged 18-55 were part of a medical council for cognitive research
- Control group (18 females, 2 males)
- Experimental group (17 females, 3 males)

Procedure
- Participants had just participated in a colleagues study and were asked for 5 minutes of their time.
- They were all made to listen to a 2.5 minute audio recording about a party, with 227 words per
minute.
- The participants were given standardised instructions to listen to the audio call and write down
the names of the people who were definitely going to the party, but they were told they did not
need to remember any information.
- The audio contained 8 names of people going to the party (monitored information) 8 names of
people not going to the party and 8 names of places (incidental information)
 - The experimental group was given A4 sheets with wide margins to write names and shapes to
shade within, and were told to shade as something to relieve the boredom
- The control group was given lined sheets and were not given any instructions as to doodling
- Both groups were asked to recall the names of the 8 party goers from the call and were later asked
to recall the place names as well
- After the monitored task, the researchers went and talked to the participants for 1 minute where
they were apologised to for being mislead about the memory task.
- Operationalised definition of false alarms - the names that were not party-goers but were part of
the phone call.
- To operationalise the DV, plausible mishearings (mishearings such as Greg for Craig) were
counted as correct.
- The final score was calculated: number of correct place/party names - false alarms
- Participants were debriefed about the study afterwards

Results
- The Doodling group had better recall of both monitored and incidental information.
- The memory performance of the doodling group was significantly better. On average, they were
able to recall 7.5 pieces of correct information out of 8 with 1 person making a false alarm. The
control group was able to recall 5.8 pieces of correct information out of 8, with 5 false alarms.
- Doodling group = 7.8 correct party-goers Control group = 7.1 correct party goers
- The recall of the doodling group was 26% greater than that of the control group.
- The average number of shapes that were drawn in/doodled was 36.3

Evaluation
STRENGTHS
- Procedure was heavily standardised - all participants were equally bored + all participants were
given clear instructions about what to record.
- Operationalized definition of a false alarm.
- Lab experiment - able to control and minimise the effect of confounding variables.

WEAKNESSES
- Small sample size - reduced generalisability + bias (all psychology students, more females than
males)
- Demand characteristics - many students suspected that it was a memory recall test.
- No way to control participant variables - some participants may just have better concentration
than others
- Deception - the participants were not told that they had to remember the place names, which
prevented them from being able to give informed consent.

Case study 2: Eyes Test (Baron-Cohen et. al)

Psychology being investigated
- People with autism/aspergers will have a lower Theory of Mind (Ability to recognize and
understand someone's emotions by looking at their face)
Background
- Previous eye test was heavily flawed:
- Had 25 items with basic and complex questions both, which created a ceiling effect as
participants were scoring unnaturally high - revised had 36 sets of eyes (18 male 18 female) with
only complex items
- Previous test had only 2 options for the words which were opposites, the new test had 3 foils and
1 target word.
- Previous test had more females, this test had an equal number of males and females
- This test had a glossary which the participants could refer to for the meanings.

Aim(s)
Aimed to investigate the effectiveness of the revised eye-test in finding the impairments of the AS/HFA
group while performing the eyes-test.

Aimed to investigate the following five hypotheses:

- The ASD group would score higher on the AQ test than the control group, but they would not be
impaired on the control task of gender judgements.
- The ASD group would score lower on the revised eye test than other groups.
- To investigate whether an inverse correlation would be found with the scores on the eye test and
the AQ test.
- Females would score higher than males on the eyes test.
- Males would score higher than females on the AQ test.

Research methodology and design

- Lab experiment
- Cross-sectional study
IV : Type of participant (Normal, student, AS/HFA) (Quasi-natural experiment since autism is naturally
occurring)
DV: Score on the eye test (For all groups) + score on AQ Test (for AS/HFA group and Matched pairs
group)

Sample
- opportunity/volunteer sampling for group 1
4 groups:
GROUP 1 (AS/HFA) - 15 males (Average age 29.7, IQ 115)
GROUP 2 (Normal adults/control group) - 122 (Average age 46.5)
GROUP 3 (Students from Cambridge) 103 (Average age 20.8)
GROUP 4 (Matched pairs) 14 (similar to group 1 in their age and IQ) (IQ 116, Average age 28)

Procedure
- 8 judges making the new test - if all judges chose a foil word while taking the test, that word was
removed and then replaced, to ensure validity of the experiment and to ensure that the only factor
affecting results on the eyes test was autism or lack thereof, not any other variables.
 - Quasi-natural experiment (autism is naturally occurring and so this variable cannot be
manipulated)
- On the eye test, there were a total of 36 sets of eyes (18 male 18 female) with 3 foil words and 1
target word.
- Each participant read through a glossary of words that they could revert to at any point
throughout the experiment. (it contained the word, the definition, and a sentence in which the
word was used)
- Each participant was then shown a practice item followed by the eye test.
- Carried out in a quiet room in Exeter or Cambridge to minimise the effect of confounding
variables.
- All groups then mailed the AQ test back to the researchers after completion, except for Group 2.
(the AQ test was a 50-item self-report measure of autistic traits within humans with natural
intelligence).

Results
- Participants in the AS/HFA group scored significantly higher on the AQ test and significantly
lower on the Eyes test than other groups, but scored 33 above out of 36 on the gender recognition
test.
- Females scored higher than males on the Eyes test and lower on the AQ test.
- AQ test and Eyes test scores were negatively correlated but there was no correlation between the
scores on the Eyes test and the IQ test.
- Group 1 eye test score - 21.9 AQ (34.4)
- Group 2 - 26.2
- Group 3 - 28.0
- Group 4 - 30.9

Evaluation
Strengths
- Lab experiment (quiet room) reduced the effect of confounding variables and improved the
validity of the results,
- Reliable, replicable, and standardised - same procedure for all participants and the test can easily
be replicated in any environment.
- Reformed the mistakes on the previous eye test to make the results more valid and reliable.
Weaknesses
- Biased sample - all males in AS/HFA group, all smart, high-level university students in the
student group.
- In real life, eyes are never still, and emotions are not still, so it is difficult to test whether these
results could be applicable to real life situations with autism. (low ecological validity of
experiment)

Case study 3: Line-ups (Pozzulo et. al)

Psychology being investigated
 - False memory (during the stage where information is being processed in the brain, if we are
exposed to more information during that stage, it could create a ‘false memory’ and lead us to
conclusions that may actually not be true)
- False positive response: giving an affirmative but incorrect answer to a question (eg. identifying
a target when the culprit is not even present in the line-up)
- Children are more likely to develop false memories as compared to adults.

Background
- The system of ‘line-ups’ in criminal situations to identify suspects can lead to many mistakes.
- Researchers found that even if the culprit is not among the group of people in a line-up, children
are more likely to identify an innocent person due to pressure, for eg. by an authority figure,
which is referred to as a false positive response.

Aims
To investigate the following four hypotheses:
- Children are better than adults at identifying the cartoon target in a target-present line up
- Children are worse than adults at rejecting cartoon faces in a target-absent line up
- Children are worse than adults at identifying human faces in a target-present line up
- Children are worse than adults at rejecting human faces in a target-absent line up

Sample
- Opportunity sampling (children picked from 3 private kindergartens in East Ontario, adults
picked from the East Ontario University)
- 59 children (21 females, 38 males) Average age 4.98 years
- 53 adults (36 females, 17 males) Average age 20.54 years

Research methodology and design

- Lab experiment
- Cross-sectional study
- Independent measures design
IV1: Age (young children vs adults)
IV2: Line-up type (identification, target present or rejection, target absent)
IV3: Level of cognitive demand (cartoon v human)

DV: Correct identification of target in target-present line up and correct rejection in target-absent line up.

Procedure
3 female researchers went to the private kindergartens and got written consent from the parents of the
children that were to participate in the study. They were wearing smart-casual clothing eg. blouse,
trousers, so as not to scare/intimidate the children.
(MATERIALS)
Researchers prepared video clips + photo arrays:
For HUMAN targets, 2 caucasian students were used:
 - Video (6 second video, human faces shown for 2-3 seconds - showed a female brushing her hair
and a male putting his coat on) (No sound, in colour)
- Picture arrays (students wearing different clothes than in the video, shown from the shoulders up,
one target and 3 foil photographs in the target present line up)
For CARTOON targets, Diego and Dora were used:
- Video (6 seconds, showed Dora talking to the audience and Diego doing something…)
- Picture arrays (Black and white so as not to distract the participants from the faces)

For target present line ups, there were 3 foils and 1 target. For target absent lineups there were 4 foils.
The order of the photos was counterbalanced and randomised (to avoid order effects)
Each participant watched 4 videos for all four cases, which were then followed up by the line-up task.
All photos were in black and white.
Each child’s parents/guardians gave written consent forms (informed consent) (the researchers told the
children it was for a project about TV shows and computer games) and the adult participants were told it
was a brief study about memory (deception).
Children were told that they could drop out of the experiment at any point. The female researchers did
some craft work with the children to make them comfortable before starting the experiment.

CHILDREN
- After watching the videos, the children were asked a filler question: “Do you remember anything
else?” If they did not respond to the initial probing question they were then asked “Do you
remember anything from the video?”
- The children’s responses were recorded by the researchers.
- After each filler task, the child participants were asked to please look at the photos, the cartoon
character/person may or may not be here. If they are here, please point to the cartoon
character/person or point to the blank silhouette if they are absent. Their responses were recorded
by researchers.

ADULTS
- Filler question: “What did the cartoon character/person look like?” after which they were asked,
“Do you remember anything else about the cartoon character/person?”
- The adults recorded their own responses by writing them down.
- Same for children and adults: After each filler task, the adult participants were asked to please
look at the photos, the cartoon character/person may or may not be here. If they are here, please
point to the cartoon character/person or point to the blank silhouette if they are absent. They
indicated their response on the matching sheet.

Results
- Adults were better than children at most tasks and that responses to cartoons were generally more
accurate than responses to human targets
- There was little difference between the responses of children and adults in the target present test
for cartoons.
 - For children, for Dora, the correct identification rate was 1 and the correct rejection rate was 0.8.
For adults, the correct identification rate for dora was 1 and the correct rejection rate was 0.96,
better than children.
- For the human targets, for females, the correct identification rate in children was 0.24 and for
adults it was 0.46. The correct rejection rate for children was 0.47 and for adults the correct
rejection rate was 0.72.

Evaluation
STRENGTH
- Lab experiment
- Standardised environment (experience of the children and the adults was identical, with some
minor changes for children to make the activities more accessible)
- Task was accessible for children.
- Identification and rejection rate was quantitative and was objectively measured.
- Potential demand characteristics were controlled - such as telling the adults that it was a test about
memory, and children were told it was about TV shows and video games, thus increasing the
reliability of the results.
- Children - informed consent/right to withdraw.

WEAKNESSES
- Line up was not real, responses and situation would not have felt as important to the participants
as it would have done in a real criminal case, which reduces reliability of the results.
- Ethical concerns - if the children had been part of an actual crime scene before, it may have
brought up traumatic memories for them, thus risking a failure to protect them from harm.
Deception - adults were told that it was a test about memory.

LEARNING APPROACH
Assumptions of the Learning Approach
- Each life starts with a ‘blank slate’- observable changes in our behaviour can be a result of our
interaction with the environment.
- The processes of social learning, operant, and classical conditioning are ways in which humans
and animals learn. Experiences with our environments (stimuli) shape our behaviour.

Case Study 1: Bandura et. Al (Aggression)

Psychology being investigated
- Researchers wanted to investigate aggression in the context of the social learning theory
- Children are likely to imitate the behaviours they see (In this case, aggression)
- Children must be paying attention to the model to be able to replicate their behaviour

Background
- Previous research shows that children imitate the behaviour of the model when in the presence of
that model. The researchers wanted to show that the social learning theory could be used to
explain aggression, especially when the child was no longer in the presence of that model.
Aim(s)
- Observable aggressive behaviour will be imitated - children observing aggressive models will be
more likely to replicate aggressive behaviour than children observing non-aggressive or no
models.
- Observable non-aggressive behaviour will be imitated - children observing non-aggressive
models will be less likely to replicate aggressive behaviour than children observing no model
- Children are more likely to imitate a same-sex model.
- Boys will be more likely to imitate aggression than girls.

Sample
- Opportunity sampling (from Stanford University Nursery)
- 72 children aged 3-6 from Stanford University Nursery school (36 boys and 36 girls)
- 3 groups - matched on the basis of levels of aggression
- No model (control group) 12 boys 12 girls
- Aggressive group (male model - 6 boys 6 girls female model - 6 boys 6 girls)
- Non-aggressive group (male model - 6 boys 6 girls female model - 6 boys 6 girls)

Research Methodology and Design

- Independent measure design (different groups of children, matched on the basis of aggression,
were used for each level of the IV)
- Controlled structured observations (behavioural checklist)
- Laboratory experiment

Variables
IV1: Model type (Aggressive, non-aggressive, no model present)
IV2: Model sex (Same sex as child or different sex)
IV3: Learner sex (Whether the child is a boy or a girl)
DV: Behaviour displayed by the children

Procedure
Before experiment:
- The experimenter went to the children’s school, and along with a nursery school teacher that
knew the children well, measured their aggression on 4 levels: physical aggression, verbal
aggression, aggression to inanimate objects and aggression inhibition (anxiety), each on a five
point scale.
- They were then assigned to 3 groups on the basis of their aggression levels (As mentioned in the
sample)
During experiment:
- The experimenter and the child entered the observation room where the child was shown to the
play area and in the opposite corner of the room, the model was supposed to sit. This corner
contained the following: Tinkertoy set, Bobo Doll, a table, and a chair.
- The experimenter sat in the room, pretending to be working, so that the child would not leave
early or refuse to be alone.
Aggressive condition:
 - For the aggressive condition: 10 minutes total. Model played with the tinker toys set for 1
minute. In the other 9 minutes, a sequence was repeated thrice. The bobo doll was laid on its side,
sat on, punched, hit with a mallet, tossed up and kicked.
- Aggressive comments: “kick him” 2 non-aggressive comments: “He sure is a tough fella”
- After this, all participants were deliberately mildly annoyed to see evidence of learning, and to
ensure that the other two groups would be likely to express aggression.
Observations (Test for delayed imitation):
- Afterwards, the children were observed alone for 20 minutes, and behaviours were observed in 5
second intervals.
- This room contained: Bobo doll, mallet, peg board, dart guns, tether ball. Non-aggressive toys:
Tea set, crayons and paper, ball, dolls, bear, farm animals, trucks, car.
- Presented in the same order (standardised)
- Measures of aggression: Imitative physical aggression, imitative verbal aggression, imitative
non-aggressive verbal responses, mallet aggression, sitting on Bobo doll, aggressive gun play,
non imitative physical and verbal aggression.
- Male model scored all the children's behaviours, except for the conditions where he was the
model himself. The inter-rater reliability was 0.9.
- The experimenter observed through a one-way mirror (covert observation)

Results
Quantitative
- The average for imitative physical aggression for boys with a male model was 25.8, for girls it
was 7.2
- The average for imitative physical aggression for girls with female model was 5.5, whereas for
boys, it was 12.4
- 1/3rd of the children in the aggressive condition also copied the models non-aggressive verbal
responses
Qualitative
- Children exposed to aggressive models imitated their exact behaviour and were significantly
more aggressive, both physically and verbally.
- Boys imitated more aggression than girls
- Children were more likely to imitate a same-sex model, however this effect was more prominent
for boys than for girls.
- Girls played more with dolls and tea sets and boys explored more in gun play and exploratory
play (non-aggressive play)

Evaluation
Strengths
- Lab experiment - reduced the effect of extraneous variables such as outside noise or other factors,
which improved the reliability of the study.
- The controlled observations with the structured behavioural checklist allowed researchers to
gather quantitative data which did not have to subjectively be analysed, thus improving the
validity of the study.
 - The toys were presented to all participants in the same order, and the model for the aggressive and
non aggressive groups repeated the same sequence for all the participants in their respective
groups, so the procedure was standardised, which improves the reliability/internal validity of the
study.

Weaknesses
- The children were deliberately mildly annoyed and were exposed to aggressive behaviour, which
could have a psychological impact on them in the long-run, and this risks a failure to protect them
from harm.
- The sample had low generalisability. Although it was a fairly large sample, all the children were
from the same school: Stanford nursery school, which implies that the children were likely to be
similar in terms of their IQ, as their parents were attending a top tier school.
- Independent measure design - participant variables could have had an impact on the results.

Ethical issues
- Children were deliberately annoyed and were exposed to aggressive behaviour– this risks a
failure to protect the children from harm.
- Children were deceived about the aims of the study and were not debriefed afterwards either. -
deception.
- There is no indication that the children were asked for informed consent, they were also not given
the right to withdraw - the experimenter sat in the room with the children and the model to make
sure that the children did not try to leave early.

Debates
1. Nature vs Nurture
- This study supports the Nurture debate since aggressive behaviour was imitated exactly
how it was displayed, which tells us that observing other peoples actions were what made
the children imitate and replicate their behaviour, which suggests that these behaviours
are learnt,
- This study supports the Nature side of the debate in the sense that boys were more likely
to replicate aggression as compared to girls, due to genetic and hormonal differences,
which occur naturally.
2. Application to everyday life
3. Individual vs Situational

Case Study 2: Fagen et al. (Elephant Learning)

Psychology being Investigated
- Social learning through operant conditioning, which is the process of associating consequences,
positive or negative, with actions.
- Positive reinforcers
- Can be used to shape human and animal behaviour gradually
- Improving the psychological well-being of elephants through positive reinforcement.
Background
- Diagnosing and treating illnesses in elephants
- To teach elephants to trunk wash on command to protect their health: detect tuberculosis through
trunk washing at an early stage.
Aim
This study aimed to investigate how traditionally trained, free-contact elephants can be trained to
participate in a trunk wash using positive reinforcement.

Research Method and Design + Variables

- Controlled, structured observation
- Field experiment
- Repeated measures design
- IV: Secondary Positive Reinforcement
DV: Elephant Learning / Behaviours displayed / Whether they learn the sequence or not
- Primary reinforcer : Chopped banana
- Secondary reinforcer : Whistle

Sample
- 5 female elephants from the same site in Nepal
- Opportunity Sampling
- 1 adult - in her 50s, 4 juvenile elephants - aged 5-7 years
- The elephants chosen were docile, not pregnant, not breastfeeding or taking care of a calf.
- None of the elephants had previous experience of SPR

Procedure
- SPR method of training
- Primary reinforcer - chopped banana
- Secondary reinforcer - whistle blow
- Training conducted during indoor sessions by a trainer, with a mahout present for safety, but the
mahout did not speak to or signal to the elephants
- No elephant went longer than 2 days without a session and could choose not to engage with a
session by turning or walking away from the trainer
- To teach the elephants to perform a voluntary trunk wash through several behavioural steps,
actively moving their trunks in response to a cue
- Marker-reward relationships established (banana-whistle) , taught using the following 3 methods:
1. CAPTURE (capturing a naturally performed behaviour by marking it with a reward)
2. LURE (lured into certain body positions by placing the reward in a certain place)
3. SHAPING (after starting either capture or lure, rewards are then only given for the ‘best’
behaviours which are closest to the goal)
Behavioural tasks
- Trunk here (placed in trainers hand - lure)
- Trunk up (lift trunk upwards - lure and shaping)
- Bucket (end of trunk in bucket - lure)
 - Blow (exhales through trunk into bucket - capture and shaping)
- Steady (hold position - shaping)
- (3 tasks were discarded - targeting, trunk down, trunk out)

- Each behavioural task paired with a verbal cue (which was a one-syllable word with no meaning
in english or nepali to the mahouts or elephants)
- Once tasks established, behaviours were put together in small sequences - behaviour chaining -
rewarded if elephants were performing entire sequences until eventually the entire trunk wash
procedure was performed

- Introduced the use of syringe to the trunk here position (desensitisation) syringe gradually
brought closer to elephants trunk then touching the trunk, then inserted, with increasing amounts
of fluid, until all 60 ml were tolerated)
- The elephants had drank water beforehand to ensure that they did not ingest the saline solution.

- An assistant recorded the length of each session, they recorded the number of times the elephant
was given a cue for behaviour
- After session 10, elephants were tested approximately every 5 sessions on previously learned
behaviours
- Passing score was 80% (8 out of 10 verbal cues) for every sequence, after which training was
considered complete

Results
- 4 juvenile elephants successfully learned the trunk wash, however the adult elephant did not,
perhaps because of her age and visual impairments and trunk weaknesses + a calf from adjacent
stall interrupted some of her training sessions
- Some behavioural tasks were more difficult than others, eg. the trunk here task required more
cues than the bucket or blow into tasks
- Elephants gradually improved their performance over time. The mean success rate went from
39% after 10 training sessions to 89.3% after 35 training sessions.
- The session times ranged from 10-14 minutes per session, for an average of 25-35 sessions of
training,

Evaluation
STRENGTHS
- The procedure is easily replicable since a controlled observation is easy to carry out to verify the
results of the study.
- The procedure was made valid and reliable since the effect of demand characteristics was reduced
due the mahouts not interacting with the elephants and because the verbal cues had no meaning in
English or nepali, so the elephants would not respond to demand characteristics.
- Through recording the sessions and the number of total training minutes, the researchers were
able to collect quantitative data which did not have to be objectively analysed.
 - The elephants had the right to choose not to interact with the researcher or participate by turning
away or not interacting, hence, we can say that they had the right to withdraw and were not forced
to always participate, thus protecting them from psychological harm.
-
WEAKNESSES
- The sample was extremely fall so there was low generalisability
- The presence of tourists and other elephants during the training sessions may have affected the
elephants concentration or willingness to participate, thus lowering the validity of the results.
(Field experiment, extraneous variables)

Case study 3: Button Phobia

Psychology being investigated
- Classical conditioning
- Evaluative learning : role of cognition and emotion in changing phobic behaviour.
- Positive reinforcement therapy
- Turning an unconditioned stimulus to a conditioned stimulus through a neutral stimulus.

Background
- Talks about how phobias can be unlearned through different theories of learning
- Including operant conditioning to reward desirable behaviour.
- Previous studies also used treating fear and disgust of patients.

Aim(s)
- The study aimed to examine the role of classical conditioning in relation to fear and avoidance of
a particular stimulus.
- Researchers wanted to see if using a type of exposure therapy could reduce the disgust and
distress associated with buttons.

Research method
- Case study
- Longitudinal experiment
- Repeated measure design (1 person)
- Observations + self-reports

Sample
- 9 year old Hispanic American boy with a phobia of buttons (had been experiencing symptoms
for about 4 years prior to the study)

Procedure
Cause of phobia
- The boy and his mother were interviewed to find out the cause of his phobia, which was due to
the boy dropping a bowl of buttons in art class at school and facing humiliation.
 - Informed consent
- Through discussion with the boy, the researchers created a hierarchy of feared stimuli, from most
to least distressing, measured on a 9-point scale and rated using the feelings thermometer. The
stimuli included buttons of all textures, shapes, and sizes.
Treatment of phobia
(1) Positive reinforcement (Contingency management)
- Behaviour focused approach - boy was rewarded for showing less fear and actually
handling the buttons. Positive reinforcement given by the boy's mother after he
completed a gradual exposure to buttons.
- Sessions lasted 20-30 minutes. Researchers measured the boys' subjective ratings of
distress while handling the buttons using the feelings thermometer.
(2) Imagery exposure therapy
- Interviews revealed that the boy found the buttons touching his body disgusting, and
believed that they smelled unpleasant.
- Disgust related imagery exposures were incorporated with cognitive self-control
strategies. The boy was asked to imagine buttons falling on him and was asked to talk
about his feelings in relation to that image.
- Talk about how thinking about that made him feel. Self report sessions using feelings
thermometer.

Results/conclusion
- Post positive reinforcement therapy, the boy was observed approaching the buttons more
positively eg. he started handling a larger number of buttons during the later sessions. However,
his feelings of disgust, fear, and anxiety actually increased as a result of positive reinforcement
therapy.
- Feelings of disgust increased from 6 before the 1st session and reached around 8 during the 3rd
session.
- Imagery exposure therapy - reduced his feelings of distress. (8 in the first session to 3 in the third
session)
- At the 6 month and 12 month follow ups that were conducted, the boy reported feeling minimal
distress about the buttons and his phobia no longer affected his normal functioning.

Evaluation
STRENGTHS
- A quantitative and standardised measure of the boy's feelings of distress and disgust was gathered
using the feelings thermometer. These results are objective and do not have to subjectively be
analysed, thus improving the validity of the study.
- The boy and his mother gave informed consent for the study, and their privacy and confidentiality
was maintained throughout.
- The boy was fully aware that he was supposed to be undergoing therapy to reduce his feelings of
fear surrounding buttons, and this may make the effect of demand characteristics more obvious.

WEAKNESSES
 - The sample was very small, only one person, since it was a case study. This reduces
generalisability and makes the results of the study less representative, and also makes it harder to
replicate the study.
- This study can be considered to be subjective since the boy created his own hierarchy of fear and
disgust and gave his own personal ratings which were highly individual to his own thoughts and
feelings.

SOCIAL APPROACH
Assumptions of the Social Approach:
- Our behaviour, cognitions, and emotions can be influenced by the actual, implied, or imagined
presence of others.
- All of our behaviour, cognition, and emotions can be influenced by social contexts, social
environments, and groups.

Case Study 1: Millgram (Obedience)

Psychology
- Destructive obedience - the extent to which an individual is willing to show obedience, even if it
is causing physical or psychological harm to others.
- Presence of authority figure
- Germans more obedient than americans in context of ww2

Background
- Situational explanation for obedience
- He thought that people would not show obedience if it meant others would be hurt.
Aim
- Milgram aimed to investigate the extent to which people would show obedience in the presence
of authority, even if it meant causing physical harm to others.

Research method
- Independent measures design (only one level of the IV)
- Controlled, covert observation
- Lab experiment at Yale University, to make it seem more legitimate.

Variables
IV : Could not be manipulated - Naturalistic
DV : The voltage to which the participants went up to (15v-450v) (Level of destructive obedience)

Sample
- Volunteer sampling (paid $4.5 to incentivize participation)
- 40 men aged between 20-50 years
- From New Haven, from a variety of educational backgrounds
- 31 year old experimenter - stooge - wore a grey coat and had a stern manner.
 - 47 year old stooge/confederate who pretended to be the ‘learner’ but was hired by the
experimenter.

Procedure
- Each participant was paid $4.5 for willingness to participate
- Conducted in the Yale laboratory where the participants were introduced to the stooge, who they
believed to be another participant.
- Realistic looking shock metre (15V to 450 V with last dial marked XXX)
- Stooge or confederate present to act as the learner where the participant and stooge would do a
draw to figure out the roles but they were arranged as such that the participant was always made
to be the teacher, they assumed that the stooge was also a volunteer for the experiment.
- Milgram watched through a one-way mirror (covert observation)
- Stooge strapped into the chair and had electrodes attached to him. (realistic looking shocks to
prevent the effect of demand characteristics)
- The experimenter told the participant that the shocks would hurt but would not do any permanent
damage.

- Learning task involved reading pairs of words aloud to the learner to test their recognition of
words, for each mistake, the shock was increased by 15v
- The stooge knew when to make mistakes or give the wrong answer, as instructed.
- All participants went up til 300 but were hesitant to go past
- The experimenter, aged 31, wearing a grey technicians coat, gave verbal prods such as : “Please
continue/please go on.” “It is absolutely essential that you continue.” “The experiment requires
you to continue.” “Although the shocks may be painful, there is no permanent tissue damage, so
please go on.”

- The learners' responses were standardised. No signs of protest until after 300V shock, after
which he: Pounds on the rooms wall, stops responding to questions, the pounding is repeated at
315V, no response appears for the questions after that.
- The teacher was instructed to move 15v higher with each mistake and also to announce the
voltage level before administering it. Verbal prods after 300v “I’m gonna chicken out.. I can’t do
that to a man, I’ll hurt his heart.” Behaviour: “Sweating, shaking, nervous laughter, smiling.”
- Debriefed after the procedure as to why they were deceived and were introduced to the stooge to
ensure his well-being. They were asked to rate on a scale of 0-14 how painful they thought the
450V shock was.

Results
Quantitative
- 26 participants went up to 450V.
- 14 participants stopped early : 5 after 300V, 4 after 315V, 2 after 330V, and 1 each after the next
3.
- Mean voltage was 368V
- Mean estimate of the pain of the 450V shock was 13.42
Qualitative
- Some participants protested at the orders saying “I don't think I can go on with this.. I don't think
this is very humane” and “i'm gonna chicken out… I can't do that to a man, I'll hurt his heart.”
- A small minority of participants however did not show elevated levels of stress and appeared
calm during the procedure, others showed signs of stress such as: nervous laughter, smiling,
sweating.

Evaluation
STRENGTHS
- No effect of demand characteristics since the equipment was made to look very real and the
participants were actually convinced that the experiment was about the effect of pain on learning,
this made the results more valid since the aim of the study was not given away. (no effect of
demand characteristics)
- Lab experiment - extraneous variables controlled (improved the validity of the study)
- Standardised procedure improving validity and reliability - the verbal prods used by the
experimenter were the same each time. “You must go on…” “It is absolutely essential that you
continue.”
- Both qualitative (Verbal comments, body language) and quantitative data was gathered (How
painful they thought the shock was, the voltage they went up to), thus improving reliability of
results.

WEAKNESSES
- Deception (they thought that the stooge was the learner and they were acting as the teacher and it
was an experiment to investigate the role of punishment in terms of learning - the aim was hidden
so the participants were not really able to give their informed consent for the study)
- Psychological harm - participants thought that they were actually responsible for injuring the
stooge, they were under a severe amount of stress.
- The sample consisted of men only from New Haven, which makes the results less representative
and thus less generalizable, reducing the validity of the study.

Case Study 2: Perry et al. (Personal space)

Psychology
- Interpersonal distance is a part of every social interaction (levels of discomfort)
- Different zones of personal space : intimate, personal, social, public.
- Factors influencing personal space (eg. situational - culture)
- Other factors influencing preference for personal space such as the hormone oxytocin (OT)
- Empathy helps people process social cues

Background
- How personal space preferences are affected by a few factors: interpersonal distance between
different people, oxytocin
 - Whether people with different empathy abilities were influenced by OT in the same or different
ways when asked about their personal space preferences.
- Interaction effect (interaction between variables)

Aim
- The study aimed to investigate the differential effect of the hormone oxytocin (OT) on personal
space preference in relation to a person's empathy ability
- Controlling for empathetic traits in individual participants would reveal the effect of OT on
interpersonal distance choices.
- Whether highly empathetic people would prefer closer distances and vise versa.

Research method
- Lab experiment
- Match pairs (mixed experimental design)
Experiments 1 and 2
IV : Empathy (high or low) - independent groups design (naturally occurring IV)
IV : Treatment (OT administered or placebo administered) - repeated measures design
Experiment 1 (only)
IV : Condition (Stranger, authority figure, friend, ball) - Repeated measures design

DV: Personal space requirements

Experiment 1 : operationalised as the preferred distance measured between participant and approaching
person/object
Experiment 2 : preferred distance and angle between two chairs in a room

Sample
- 54 male undergraduate students from University of Haifa
- 19-32 years
- Volunteer - for course credit or cash
- Normal vision and no psychiatric or neurological disorders
- 2 groups based on their scores on the Interpersonal Reactivity Index (IRI) , a 28 item self report
measure with 4 7 item subscales. All relating to empathy.
- HIGH INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY : 20 (empathy scores > 40)
- LOW INTERPERSONAL REACTIVITY : 20 (empathy scores < 33)

Procedure
- Experiment 1 in university and experiment 2 in university a week later on the same day/time
OT administration
- Participants were randomly administered a treatment of either a solution of OT or a placebo
(saline water with no hormone)
- The nasal drops were self-administered by the participants under the supervision of the
experimenter
- The procedure using a double-blind technique where neither the participant nor the
experimenter knew whether the participant had received OT or placebo.
Assessment of empathy
- Participants completed the IRI questionnaire after which they waited in a quiet room for 45
minutes, with nature magazines
- The order of the experiments was counterbalanced - half the participants were undertook OT one
week and saline the next and vise versa for the other half
Experiment 1 : the comfortable interpersonal distance paradigm
- An article was presented on a computer screen and participants were asked to imagine themselves
in the centre of the room with another person approaching them along a radius.
- The participant had to indicate by pressing the keyboard space bar at the point along the radius
where they would want the person to stop their approach
- The computer had options for the animated person to be either a stranger, a close friend, an
authority figure, or a rolling ball.
- The animation stopped when the figures collided or when the participant pressed the spacebar.
- 24 trials for each figure (24 x 4 total )
- Researchers recorded the percentage of remaining distance from the total distance
Experiment 2: choosing rooms
- After doing two runs of the experiment (placebo and OT) they would be asked to sit in a room
with another participant to discuss personal topics
- Shown similar rooms for each trial and to choose their preferred room
- Coloured pictures with two identical chairs in the middle, a table, cupboard, plant, a lamp, and a
clock.
- Distance between chairs and angle of the chairs position were the stimuli.
- There was a control condition with a fixed distance and angle.
- 21 different pairs of chair distances and other objects and angles.
- Picture sets shown on computer for 2 secs and the participant had to choose their preferred
design/setting.

Results
Experiment 1
- Participants need for personal space increases as the figure in front of them becomes less known
- Highest for stranger (39.82%) lowest for friend (12.46%)
- In the high empathy group, OT reduced the mean distance preferred (23.3%) and in the low
empathy group, OT increased the mean distance preferred (30.2%)
- The differential effect of OT was seen– OT increases interpersonal distance preferences in low
empathy individuals and decreases interpersonal distance preferences
Experiment 2
- High empathy group - closer chair distances, angled towards each other following OT as
compared to placebo
- Low empathy group - closer chair distances, following placebo as compared to OT)
Conclusions
- OT heightens social cues in opposite ways for individuals with different empathic abilities,
supporting social salience ideas.
- People need less personal space with friends as compared to strangers.
Evaluation
STRENGTHS
- Counterbalancing helped ensure that the effects on the DV were only due to the IV, and no
participant variables or external factors. Also improved internal validity and reduced order
effects.
- Lab experiment with highly standardised procedure. Computer projected images in experiment 2
were for 2 seconds for each participant. This improves consistency and reliability and
replicability.
- Written, informed consent was obtained from all participants - debriefed about the aim afterwards
- no psychological harm.

WEAKNESSES
- The computer generated images were artificial /lacking mundane realism and are not
representative of real life situations - a person in a real situation would be affected by body
language, facial expressions, etc. all of which cannot be generated on a computer, thus reducing
reliability of results.
- Lab experiment - reduced ecological validity
- Sample consisted of 54 men, no women, reducing generalisability and representativeness of the
results.

Case study 3: Piliavin et al. (Subway Samaritans)]

Psychology
- Bystander apathy - this is when people who are present but are not directly involved in a situation
do not show concern for the person in need.
- Wanted to investigate this following the murder of a woman in New York called Kitty Genovese,
where they investigated that many people heard and saw the situation, but chose not to help out,
could be because they thought that other people would help out instead, which is known as
diffusion of responsibility, so the individuals did not feel a sense of personal responsibility
- The researchers assumed that people would help out others that they felt were more similar to
themselves, and would mirror the behaviour of others if they saw them helping out. etc.

Background
- Kitty Genovese murder
- Diffusion of responsibility hypothesis
- The effect of situational factors on bystander behaviours.

Aim
- The researchers aimed to investigate bystander apathy and the diffusion of responsibility in a
natural setting.
- They also wanted to investigate the effect of the following four variables on helping behaviour or
being a “good samaritan”:
The type of victim
The race of the victim
 The behaviour of a ‘model’
The size of the group of bystanders

Research methodology + design

- Field experiment
- New york city subway
- Independent measures design (trials repeated on different days and involved different participants
in each condition)

IV1 - The type of victim (drunk or ill)

IV2 - Race of victim (black or white)
IV3 - Behaviour of model (close to or distant from the victim helped, either early or late in the event)
IV4: The size of the group of bystanders (naturally occurring, dependant on the number of passengers in
the subway)

DV : The level of bystander helping (operationalized as the time taken for the passenger to help as well as
the total number of passengers who helpful)

Sample
- New york subway
- Participants travelling on underground railway service
- Opportunity sampling
- Average number of 43 passengers in each train
- Estimated number of participants 4450 of whom around 45% were black, 55% were white.

Procedure
- Four teams of student researchers (4 in each time - 2 males 2 females, all from Columbia
University) carried out the procedure in a standardised way.
- Female confederates sat in the area adjacent to the immediate ‘critical area’ : they observed the
passengers and recorded data for each trial.
- Male confederates took the roles of ‘victim’ and ‘model’
- Each trial used the same route that included a 7.5 minute gap between the two stations.
- At approximately 70 seconds into the journey, the victim staggered forward and collapsed, where
he remained lying on the floor looking upwards. If he received no help, the model would help him
to his feet at the next stop.

- The victim was played by different males during each trial but they were all made to look similar.
- All aged 26-35 years
- 3 white 1 black - identical, casual clothing
- 38 trials - victim smelled of alcohol and was carrying it
- 65 - appeared sober and carried a black cane.
- Total trials carried out over 2 months - 103 trials

- Model - all white males

 - Aged 24-29 years

Trial conditions:
- critical/early : model stood in critical area and waited 70 seconds to help the victim.
- critical/late : model stood in the critical area and waited 150 seconds to help the victim.
- adjacent/early : model stood in the adjacent area and waited 70 seconds to help the victim.
- adjacent/late : model stood in the adjacent area and waited 150 seconds to help the victim.
- No model condition : the model did not help the victim until after the trial was over and the train
had reached the next stop.

Results
- Frequency of helping recorded in this study was much higher than had previously been reported
in laboratory studies.
- Participants were more likely to help the victim with the cane as compared to the drunk victim.
- Positive correlation between the size of the group and the bystander helping behaviour (thus,
diffusion of responsibility was not proven)
- Men were more likely to help as compared to women, 90% of the helpers were males.
- In 80% of the cases, the bystanders helped the victim before the model did.

- 78% of victims received spontaneous help (without the model intervening/no model condition)
- In 60% of cases, more than one person helped the victim.
- For white victim with a cane (100% in model and no model groups), drunk (77% in model and
100% in no model groups)
- For black victim with a cane (100% in no model group, trial not carried out for model group)

Evaluation
STRENGTHS
- Field experiments increased ecological validity meaning that the results of this experiment would
be applicable to other environments as well, as the participants were not affected by demand
characteristics and so the results were valid and reliable.
- Observers recorded qualitative data (remarks made by participants) as well as quantitative
(percentage of helpers) which helped gather a deeper insight into the thoughts and behaviours of
bystanders, thus improving results.
- 4500 individuals, of various genders and ethnicities, participated in the study which helps
diversify the sample and increase the generalisability of the findings.

WEAKNESSES
- The victim was always played by a male which reduces generalisability as we don’t know how
bystander behaviour would have been affected if the victim was played by a female. This reduces
the validity of the results of the study.
- The same route was used each time so it is possible that participants may have partook in the
experiment more than once, which means they may have been exposed to the condition, creating
demand characteristics and reducing reliability of the results.
 - Unrepresentative sample, all participants were passengers of the New York subway.

PAPER 2

Issues and debates

- NATURE VS NURTURE (the nature side of the debate supports the idea that behaviour,
feelings, and thinking result from innate or genetic factors and the nurture side of the debate
supports the idea that these behaviours are learnt and can be explained in terms of environmental
factors)
- INDIVIDUAL VS SITUATIONAL (the individual side supports the idea that behaviours are
due to personal influences and due to a person’s personality or character whereas the situational
side places focus on these behaviours being affected by circumstances/presence of others/noise,
etc.)

Research methods

Experiments: this is an investigation that allows researchers to look for a causal relationship. An IV
is manipulated and is expected to be responsible for changes in the DV)

(1) IV: An independent variable is the variable that is controlled and is expected to be responsible for
changes in the DV.
(2) DV: The dependent variable is the variable that is being measured or is expected to change under
the influence of the IV.
(3) Uncontrolled variable: acts randomly on one (confounding variable) or all conditions of the IV,
which makes it difficult to measure whether the changes in the DV were a result of the IV (Makes
results invalid)
 (4) Experimental condition: one or more of the situations that represent the different levels of the IV
(5) Control condition: a level of the IV from which the IV itself is absent.

→ Experimental Design: The way in which participants are allocated to different levels of the IV
(1) Independent Measures Design: different groups of participants are allocated to each level of the
IV.
ADVANTAGES:
- No risk of practice effects
- Reduces effect of demand characteristics (only one level of IV seen)
DISADVANTAGES
- Increased effect of participant variables between conditions.
- More participants needed

(2) Repeated Measures Design: the same group of participants performs in all levels of the IV.
ADVANTAGES:
- Less participants needed
- Counterbalancing can reduce order effects
- Reduced effect of participant variables
DISADVANTAGES:
- Greater exposure to demand characteristics
- Order effects

(3) Matched pairs: participants are arranged into pairs based on a similar characteristic/variable -
one person from each pair performs in one level of the IV
ADVANTAGES:
- Reduced effect of demand characteristics
- Reduced effect of participant variables (individual differences are matched)
- No order effects
DISADVANTAGES:
- Right matching criteria required
- Availability of matching pairs may be limited (small sample size)

→ WAYS TO OVERCOME ORDER EFFECTS (Practice or fatigue effects - a participant gets better or
worse at a task due to repetition)
(1) Randomization - a way to overcome order effects where each participant has equal chances of
performing in either level of the IV in any order.
(2) Counterbalancing - a way to overcome order effects. Each level of the IV is performed by a
different sub-group of participants.

(3) Demand characteristics: features of the experimental situation which may give away the aims–
this causes participants to try to change their behaviour (for eg. do what they think the researcher
expects of them) which reduces the validity of the results.

TYPES OF EXPERIMENTS:
 (1) Laboratory experiments - a research method where there is an IV, DV, and strict controls (not
the usual environment of the participants)
ADVANTAGES:
- Highly controlled environment (valid)
- Causal relationships can be determined (Only IV affecting DV)
- Standardised procedure allows for reliable and replicable results
DISADVANTAGES:
- Effect of demand characteristics
- Low ecological validity

(2) Field experiments - a research method where there is an IV, DV, but no controls because it is
conducted in the participants natural environment.
ADVANTAGES:
- Reduced effect of demand characteristics
- High ecological validity
DISADVANTAGES
- Difficult to determine causal relationships
- Ethical concerns
- Lower reliability (effect of extraneous variables)

(3) Natural experiments: The IV is naturally occurring (eg. Autism)

(A PILOT STUDY IS A SMALL-SCALE TEST OF THE PROCEDURE OF THE STUDY BEFORE

THE MAIN STUDY IS ACTUALLY CONDUCTED)

→ METHODOLOGICAL ISSUES

→ WAYS TO ENSURE THAT THE STUDY IS METHODOLOGICALLY STRONG:

(1) Controls - ways to keep the potential confounding variables constant (raising validity)
(2) Standardisation - ensuring that the procedure is the same for each participant in the study / to
ensure that any differences between participants are due to the variables under investigation, not
differences in how they were treated (raising reliability)
(3) Standardised instructions - written or verbal information given to participants, to ensure that the
experience of all participants regardless of the IV, is as similar as possible.
(4) Reliability - the extent to which a procedure, task, or measure is consistent.
- Inter-rater reliability measures the extent to which the scores/observations of the 2 (or
more) observers were the same (1=perfect score)
- Test-retest (the test is used twice and if the participants two sets of scores are
similar/correlate well, it has good reliability)
(5) Validity - the extent to which the researcher is testing what they claim to be testing.
(6) Replicability - keeping the procedure and materials exactly the same between studies so that
results can be verified easily.
(7) Operational definition/operationalization - the clear description of a variable such that it can
be accurately manipulated, measured, or quantified (Raises validity)
 (8) Placebo - a pill/drug/hormone with no active ingredients but the patient believes it to be a real
treatment
(9) Ecological validity - the extent to which the findings of a study conducted in one situation would
be applicable to another situation (High in field experiments)
(10) Generalisability - the extent to which the findings of a study can be applicable to the wider
population (eg. a large sample helps ensure representativeness/generalisability)

→ HYPOTHESIS: A testable statement based on the aims of the investigation

(1) Alternative hypothesis: predicts a difference in the DV between levels of the IV. (Same as
directional, just needs more detail such as how the DV will be measured)
(2) Non directional hypothesis (Two tailed): predicts that only one variable will be related to
another (Predicts the effect, but not the direction (increase or decrease) of the effect)
Eg. There is a difference between the levels of happiness brought by hearing a joke and reading a
book.
(3) Directional (One-tailed): Predicts the direction of the relationship (increase/decrease) between
two variables
Eg. Reading books will bring more happiness than hearing a joke.
(4) Null hypothesis: any difference in the DV between levels of the IV is so small that it is likely to
have arisen by chance.
Eg. There will be no difference in the levels of happiness brought by reading books and hearing a
joke.

ETHICS
(1) Informed consent: Knowing enough about a study to decide whether you want to agree to
participate.
(2) Right to withdraw: being able to withdraw yourself and your data from the study at any point.
(3) Protection from harm: participants should not be exposed to any greater physical or psychological
harm than they would experience in everyday life.
(4) Deception: misinformed or lied to about the procedure/aim of the study (sometimes necessary to
avoid demand characteristics, but debriefing must be carried out)
(5) Privacy: Emotions and physical space should not be invaded.
(6) Confidentiality: participants should not be able to be tracked down/their results and information
should not be accessible to anyone outside the study.

ETHICS FOR ANIMALS

(1) Housing (Large area to socialise, no claustrophobia, not cleaned frequently because the change of
smell could be disturbing, food, water, essential needs are all fulfilled)
(2) Replacement (if animals can be replaced with alternatives)
(3) Number (only the minimum number of animals required to produce valid and reliable results
should be used)
(4) Species (an endangered species/likely to be harmed should not be used)
(5) Pain, suffering, and distress
 (6) Reward, deprivation, aversive stimuli (positive reinforcement should be carried out by rewarding
the animal instead of punishing them eg. in Fagen et Al the elephants were rewarded with a
chopped banana when a sequence was correctly performed)

DATA COLLECTION
→ SELF REPORTS: A research method that obtains data by asking participants to provide
information about themselves (questionnaire/interview)

(1) Questionnaire: self-report research method that uses written questions through a pen and paper or
online technique.
- Open questions (produce qualitative data)
- Closed questions (produce quantitative/numerical data)
- Filler questions (irrelevant questions that are added to hide the aim of the study - reduce
the effect of demand characteristics)
(2) Interviews: uses verbal questions asked directly (face to face or telephone)
- Unstructured (most questions after the first ones are dependant on the respondents
answers)
- Semi-structured (some fixe/standardised questions, some open ones/follow ups)
- Structured (No room to add any more questions - completely standardised)

SIMILARITIES:
- Social desirability bias present in both
- Both can be used to gather qualitative + quantitative data (Both can have open and closed
questions)
INTERVIEW
- More personal connection, more qualitative data can be gathered through follow-ups, the
interviewer can make sure that the interviewee understands the questions BUT lead to subjective
analysis of answers
QUESTIONNAIRES
- Allows participants to respond privately, can be anonymous, make it easier to summarise findings
BUT lacks detailed, in-depth findings.

-→ OBSERVATIONS
(1) Naturalistic : Watching the participants behaviour in their normal environment without
any interference from the researchers (no manipulation of the IV/DV)
(2) Controlled observation : Physical environment has been manipulated by the researcher.
(3) Unstructured : Observer records the whole range of possible behaviours.
(4) Structured : Limited range of behaviours recorded.
(5) Behavioural categories : Specific activities that are recorded - should be operationalised.
(6) Inter observer reliability
(7) Participant observer - watches from the perspective of being part of the social setting.
(8) Non participant observer - Does not become involved in the situation being studied.
(9) Overt observation: Role of the observer is known to the participants.
 (10) Covert observation: Role of the observer is not obvious/not known to the participants.

→ Longitudinal studies: follows a group of participants over time looking at changes in variables
due to experiences.
ADVANTAGES
- Ensures that any changes they detect are due to the passage of time (validity)
- same participants are tested on two or more occasions
→ Cross-sectional studies: compares people at different ages or stages at one point in time.
- Longitudinal studies are more difficult to standardise (reliability)

SAMPLING OF PARTICIPANTS
(1) Population: The group, sharing one or more characteristics, from which a sample is drawn.
(2) Sample: the group of people selected to represent the population in a study.

→ SAMPLING TECHNIQUES:
OPPORTUNITY SAMPLING: Participants are chosen because they are available. For eg. university
students are selected because they are available at that time.
ADVANTAGES:
- Less time taken
- A larger sample can easily be obtained
DISADVANTAGES:
- Likely to be non-representative as the variety of people available is likely to be limited, so they
will tend to be similar and the sample could therefore be biased.

VOLUNTEER SAMPLING:self-selection, participants are invited to participate through

advertisements/ they respond to queries to participate.
ADVANTAGES:
- Participants are likely to be committed, eg. willing to stay throughout the entire duration of the
experiment.
DISADVANTAGE:
- Likely to be non-representative as people who respond to requests may be similar eg. all have free
time.

RANDOM SAMPLING: each person in the population has an equal chance of being selected. Eg. taking
numbers from a hat.
ADVANTAGE:
- Likely to be representative as all types of people from the population are likely to be chosen.
DISADVANTAGE:
- In reality, all people are not likely to be chosen. Eg. if their name is not on the hat, eg. one type of
participant eg girls. This is especially important if the sample is small.

→ TYPES OF DATA:
(1) Quantitative
ADVANTAGES:
- Uses objective measures (improved validity of results)
- Data can be compared easily (using measures of central tendency and spread)
DISADVANTAGES:
- Limits responses (eg. if a participant wants to give a response that is not available, limits validity)

(2) Qualitative
ADVANTAGES:
- Participants can express themselves exactly rather than being limited by fixed choices
- Important but unusual responses are less likely to be ignored because of ‘averaging’
DISADVANTAGES
- Data is subjectively analysed, reducing validity (biased)
- If detailed info can only be gained from a few individuals, it may not generalise

→ MEASURES OF SPREAD
- Range (difference between the largest and smallest values in the data set plus one)
- Standard deviation (calculation of the average difference between each score in the data set and
the mean)

→ MEASURES OF CENTRAL TENDENCY

- Mode (identifies the most frequent response)
- Median (identifies the middle score)
- Mean (Average)

Correlations: looks for a relationship between two variables, does not look for a causal relationship.

(1) Causal relationship: a link between two variables such that the change in one variable is
responsible for the change in the other variable (cause and effect relationship)
- In a positive correlation the change is in the same direction. (as confidence increases, happiness
increases)
- In a negative correlation the change is in the opposite direction. (as confidence increases,
sadness decreases)

Case studies : A research method where a single instance, eg. One person, one family, one institution
is being studied in detail.

ADVANTAGES:
- Very specific, helps gather large amounts of qualitative data.
- Validity can be improved using triangulation where different techniques are used to confirm the
results of the same phenomenon eg. interviews, observations, etc.
DISADVANTAGES:
- Data is very subjective, and cannot be generalised to the wider population.
- The level of detail may be an ethical threat (may go against the guideline of privacy)