Section B4 Issues

Specialist StudyChoose ONE study

from choice of 3

36 Marks6 Questions (a,b,c,d,e,f)

Approx 45 mins

(a) Outline the aims / hypotheses / background [2]

(b) Describe the [Method / Data / Sample or sampling technique] AND give one advantage / disadvantage [6]

(c) Describe… (in relation to your chosen study)

Issues: Ethics, Data, E.V., Longitudinal /snapshot. OR Methods: Experiments, Questionnaires, Correlations, Case studies etc [6]

(d) One advantage AND one disadvantage of [issue or method] [6]

(e) Outline the results OR conclusions [8](f) Suggest 1/2 changes & outline the implications…[ Methodological/ethical/results/Data/’blank’ ] [8]

R o u g h O u t l i n e… S e c t i o n B3 listed studies

From Your Chosen Study:

Sect

ion

B

/ I m p l i c a t i o n sChanges: A detailed suggestion with a developed example.‘Sufficient detail to allow replication’

Implications:Read the question! What type of implication are you 

being asked about? Results, Methodological, Ethical, Data, Realism?Effect needs to be discussed in detail.

B( e / f )

ChangesChange Lab to Field 

Independent groups to repeated measures 

Longitudinal to Snapshot

Observations (Covert to Overt)

Use Questionnaires instead of unethical tasks

Make tasks more realistic

Use of specialised equipment

Different sample / cross cultural

Q (e / f) Changes & Implications

ImplicationsEthicalResults (Better, worse, 

stay the same?)Methodological

Who? What? When? Where? How?

Who: Sample details/participants

What: Behaviour categories on a coding scheme / experiment task

Where: Location – lab vs field; setting for observation.

How: Where the observer will be, timings, sampling technique

When: Time of day carried out

2 (at least) Evaluation pointsin context to the source.

Writing Procedures

HOWSampling technique (Self‐selected, Opportunity, 

Random, Snowball)Recruitment details e.g adverts etc

WHOParticipant details 

e.g Numbers, type of person sought.

WHAT

Surveys = Identify type of scales (Open, Closed, Likert, Semantic Differential) + Give examples in context!Observations = Outline coding scheme, Overt / Covert Experiments = Identify design, the task, allocation 

to conditions, IVs & DVs, blind researchers, counter balancing.Correlations = The task (If used), the co‐variables 

– how will they be measured?

WHERE Locations

WHEN Time of day

Section B (e)

Milgram: Change 2Change location from Yale to a

place with less prestige.Use Milgrams original sampling

method - 40Ms.Ind. Grps with (1) At a well

known University (2) Office block in suburbs.

Employ an Ethics committee sensitive to Ps distress. Stress the right to withdraw.

Milgram: Change 1Use a questionnaire and outline

hypothetical situations.Ps = 25M/25F, range of ages,

ethnicities, & occupations.Self-selected sampling using

advert.Stories of situations involving

different authority figures.

Milgram: Implications 1Anonymity should help avoid D.C,

increasing validity. (Results)reliability increased by ease of

replicability (Results)Cost of advert & hiring researchers to

analyse data (Methodological)Time taken to recruit Ps, formulate

stories, & analyse data (Methodological)

Ethically more sound than original!

Milgram: Implications 2Moving equipment between 2

locations will be costly & time consuming + potentially very costly to rent out an office (Methodological)

Able to pinpoint cause & effect with comparison group (Results)

Mi l

g r

a m

(e) Plan – Suggest how your chosen study could be made more ethical – May 2009

Informed Consento Leaflets / posters.

Right to withdrawo More stopso Move to shopping centre

Debriefo Direct interviews on tubeo Hand out leaflets as they leave

Distresso Female as victims to reduce distresso Older Confederates? Possibly less threatening…

Protection of Colleagueso Move location – out of areao A disguise!

Section B – Piliavin May 09

(e) Suggest how your chosen study could be made more ethicalIt could have been made more ethical by informing the participants that

the experiment was going to take place but not informing them when it would. However, this creates demand characteristics as the participants would be expecting it and may not act in a way that they previously or ordinarily would have acted.

It could also have been more ethical by informing the participants after the experiment took place. Though this would have to occur after the experiment was repeated and by that point the participants would have seen the fall a time before and any stress or distress caused by it would have already occurred. Also, some participants may refuse consent after this and the results would have to be scrapped which would waste time, money and effort.

If the participants were told beforehand that the investigation was going to occur, they may not take any real falls seriously and the person could get hurt. The same applies to participants told afterwards who may also suspect that any falls were part of an investigation so this is not really an option anyway.

Section B – Piliavin ‐ Implications(e) Outline the ethical implications of the changes you have suggested for your chosen studyAll the changes listed above would improve the ethics in the study by Piliavin. A covert observation would remove the element of deception in the study, and give the participants a right to withdraw, and would also inform them that they had been involved.

Debriefing would also protect the welfare of participants as it would show them that their behaviour was normal and remove any distress from observing a victim collapse.

However, there are also other implications on the experiment of these changes. Although they would make the study more ethical, they would also open up the study to demand characteristics and social desirability bias.

Participants would guess the aims of the study and act according to what they believed the researcher wanted or the way which would portray them in the best light. This would reduce the validity of the results, and limit the usefulness of the study to bring any benefits.o Likely Answers: Improved validity/ecological validity; Improved reliability; Improved generalisability; Improved usefulness.

Reicher & Haslam: Change 1Self Report of real Prisoners &

guards Self selected from prisons from

length & breadth of UKQs measuring: Occasions when

one group undermined another, examples of solidarity.

Reicher & Haslam: Change 2Employ a female only sampleSame ethical guidelines as

original sample but hold semi structured interviews.

Examine loyalty to groups.

Reicher & Haslam: Implications 1Increased validity for using real Ps

(Results)Ethical concerns…Possible difficulties in obtaining

permission from prison, especially in using prisoners. (Methodological)

Reicher & Haslam: Implications 1Increased generalisation (Results)Time consuming to screen Ps and

employ similar ethics committee (Methodological)

Costly! Making a mock prison & hiring researchers & medical supervisors. (Methodological)

Loftus & Palmer (1974)

Loftus & Palmer

Generalisation increasedMethodological problems…time & money to arrange this.

Conduct a cross cultural study…e.g Russia, China, Africa

Generalisation increased – Ps become more representative of a wider population

Change sample – mixture of different ages

Higher E.V; Ethical problems! Distress, DeceptionMethodological problems – time & money to arrange this…Reliability – harder to replicate

Conduct a field study arrange a real car crash for Ps to observe…

I m p l i c a t i o n sS u g g e s t e d C h a n g e

Loftus & Palmer: Change 1Investigate the effect of leading

Qs on a shadow / mock jury.Condition A – LQs, Condition B No

LQs. DV: Rate likelihood of guilt using

self report / rating scales.

Loftus & Palmer: Implication 1Validity is increased as you are

more directly measuring the effect of LQs on juries & eye witness testimony. (Results)

Low EV as it’s not a real trial (Results)

Potentially time consuming & costly to arrange a shadow jury to listen to a whole case. (Methodological)

Loftus & Palmer: Change 2Set up a ‘live event’ to witness

which Ps are not prepared for. E.gAsk to fill in a ‘dummy’ questionnaire and have a confederate interrupt proceedings by asking simple question of experimenter.

DV = answer to simple questions about appearance / characteristics of confederate.

Loftus & Palmer: Implication 2Increased validity as Ps are not

being prepared to remember stimulus. (Results)

More like how we experience events in real life (EV - Results)

Less chance of distress than original study (Ethics)

Relatively easy to set-up and standardise; minimal costs involved (Methodological)

Baron-Cohen: Change 1Use real people with masks so

only eyes are showing! An alternative would be to film

these models…DVs could remain essentially the

same, as could foil terms. Still use judges to rate expressions.

Baron-Cohen: Implication 1Higher E.V – better than black &

White static pics (Results)Time & money to arrange hiring of

‘models’ & have them available for trials. Could have students do this…(Methodological)

Problems with consistency unless a video tape was used. (Reliability –Results)

Baron-Cohen: Change 2Change sample – Original only

used 4 Autistics vs 12 Asps. This is a disparate group.

OR Try & recruit more fem Auts as this is an overlooked area of Autism.

Could use Communication publication again.

Baron-Cohen: Implication 2Generalisation increased – Ps

become more representative of a wider population (Results)Time & money’ + difficulty of getting

Fem Ps as they are rarer. (Methodological)

Savage-Rumbaugh: Change 1Compare the 2 species more

directly and add a 3rd group…?Bonobos & Common chimps had

different training methods.Directly compare with human

infants - raise them in same environment.

Savage-Rumbaugh: Implication 1Validity - More accurate as all

groups have same conditions (Results)

Sig. Time & money issues – would be a huge study, especially if longitudinal. (Methodological)

If using Human infants strict consent will need to be sought. Snatching children is frowned upon. (Ethics)

Savage-Rumbaugh: Change 2Study more Bonobos… 20 may be a

realistic number.The findings produced here near to

be replicated on a larger scale.

Savage-Rumbaugh: Implication 2Generalisation – Increased. Kanzi

may have been ‘special’, although sister did display many of his traits as well. (Results)

Difficultly in obtaining these animals. Illegal to export from Zaire + the expense of running a huge study like this. (Methodological)

Animals born into captivity due to research. Can’t release them…(Ethics)

E.V: Increased – children may have been confused by the novel tasks in this study (Results)

Task change: Use sweets or juice to make it a more everyday task for the children involved.

This type of longitudinal study would be potentially expensive and time consuming; children may drop out –subject attrition. (Methodological)May confirm Samuel & Bryant that most children can conserve younger than Piaget predicted. Increased Validity. (Results)

Change form a snap shot to a longitudinal study – examine precisely at what age a child can conserve.

Begin study at start of pre-operation stage & see it through until the concrete operational stage (7-11)

I m p l i c a t i o n sS u g g e s t e d C h a n g e

Samuel & Bryant

B a n d u r a

(f) Plan – Suggest a change to Bandura’s procedure…From Lab to field – Observe at home or in 

playground. Increases the EV. 

Use video clips instead of live models – more standardisation & therefore more reliable.

Do a correlational study of programmes being watched against behaviour in class / playground. Increases ethics as you are not exposing them to content they wouldn’t already have been watching.

But… correlation doesn’t prove causation…

Changes / Implications

Changes could include:o From Lab to field – observe at home or in playground. Increases the EV. o Use video clips instead of live models – more standardisation & therefore more reliable.o Do a correlational study of programmes being watched against behaviour in class / playground. Increase ethics as you are not exposing them to content they wouldn’t already have been watching. But… correlation doesn’t prove causation…

Implications could be focused on: Methodological, Ethical, Results

Suggested plan:Paragraph one:

Outline suggested change - Sufficient detail to allow replication!Must be very closely linked to study …reference parts of the original e.g

Unlike in the original procedure where participants did…In questions like this you must consider the implications of your changes

here. Don’t suggest impractical changes!

Paragraph twoImplications MUST be related to results in this case.How can the results possibly be affected?

(i) They can improve (ii) they can stay the same (iii) They may get ‘worse’. JUSTIFY this.

(f) Outline one change to the procedure of your chosen study (Bandura) & explain how this might affect the results [8]

Paragraph one(P) One potential change to the Bandura study could involve changing the setting of the experiment. The original study placed children in a laboratory setting and moved them one at a time through 3 different rooms; some of which were unfamiliar to the children. I propose to change the location that the children were observed in.(E) For example, after first showing the children an aggressive / non aggressive video in class you could observe them playing in the playground at lunchtime. This would make the study higher in Ecological validity as it would then be a naturalistic observation. You could preserve the inter-rater reliability of the original study by placing covert observers either end of the playground so they could witness the same events. Demand Characteristics may occur but as children are used to being supervised at break times, this shouldn’t significantly influence them. (C) It’s important to ensure that studies place people in realistic situations as often as is possible as its difficult to generalise results that are based on unrealistic tasks or environments.

(f) Outline one change to the procedure of your chosen study (Bandura) & explain how this might affect the results [8]

Paragraph two(P) The proposed change is likely to increase the Ecological validity of the study and this will affect the results in a number of different ways.(E) For example, in this revised procedure children would be interacting with each other rather than playing alone in an unfamiliar room. This could lead to an increase in imitative aggression as children may be influenced not only by the condition they were in but also by how their friends were acting in the playground. Elsewhere, the results may remain roughly the same. For example, it’s likely that the same gender differences will be observed, with females being more verbally aggressive and males being more physically aggressive.(C) Overall, these changes will make the study higher in Ecological validity, children playing in their natural environment and interacting with each other. However, the overall validity may be lowered by the fact that they may be copying the play of an influential friend rather than the video they had seen earlier.

(f) Outline one change to the procedure of your chosen study (Bandura) & explain how this might affect the results [8]

Freud: Change 1Compare Little Hans with other

Boys of a similar age. Recruit boys via GPs ‘Anxiety UK’

(Was National Phobic Society) www.anxietyuk.org.uk

Aim for a range of ages before, during, and after the Oedipus stage.

Historical context may be needed here…

Freud: Implication 1Increase generalisability from the

limitations of a single case study. (Results)

Will take time to recruit boys with Phobias – quite a specific sample (Methodological)

Freud: Change 2Remove the potential bias of Hans’s

father by having Freud conduct one to one semi-structured interviewshimself. (Self Report data)

After all, Freud is the ‘expert’ & would have greater insight. The father may have missed something that Freud would have spotted.

Have another therapist weigh in with observations

Freud: Implication 2Very time consuming for Freud to

have to conduct so many interviews (Methodological).

Having an expert conduct the interview may increase the reliability & validity of the data (Results)…but might reduce E.V as Hans wouldn’t be in his natural environment all the time

Other therapist would add inter-raterreliability. (Results)

Maguire: Change 1Pre-test the Taxi drivers before

they embark on their Knowledge training.

This change would employ a repeated measures design - each P could act as their own control before & after training.

Maguire: Implication 1Opportunity to examine cause and

effect & increase validity (Results)Expanded longitudinal study will be

time consuming, some Ps may not finish training (Attrition rate) -expense of collecting data over time & hiring additional researchers (Methodological)

Maguire: Change 2Use different participants as a

comparison group...Pilots, Army navigators, Guides.Boat Captains - Note: “...because

Pilots just go up & down” Freddie Miller ©

Maguire: Implication 2Recruitment difficulties for Pilots – liase

with UK Forces offices. (Methodological); Increased Generalisation – new group would act as a comparison for taxi drivers. Resultsare likely to confirm those of Maguire

Dement & Kleitman(1957)

(e) Suggest two changes to your chosen study and outline any methodological implications these changes may have. [8]Changes / ImplicationsIdea one

(C) From laboratory to Field – move experiment to Participants own homes.

(i) Higher EV – Ps sleeping in their own beds in more familiar environment; lower control; Less reliable – different types of environment between participants; costly + time consuming to move to Ps houses;Idea Two

(C) Use more Ps then original study - 9 [7M/2F] + only 5 studied intensively. Need to state How many Ps & how you would recruit them.

(i) Increased generalisability but… if self selected it would be limited as the same type of people tend to volunteer for things.

(i) More researchers needs to run experiment; more costly; more time consuming.

In your exercise books write these ideas out in PEC format

S p l i t B r a i n S t u d i e s

L E F T R I G H T

Changes / ImplicationsChange 1

Use fMRI techniques to measure changes in brain activity in split brain patients whilst they perform various tasks.

Implications: Cost & Expertise required (Methodological); Increased accuracy and access to sub‐cortical regions (Validity)

Change 2

Perform a longitudinal study & assess patients before split brain operation. Provides a point of comparison not available in original study

Implications: Difficult to get hold of participants + Possible attrition rate (Methodological); Would increase validity. 

Griffiths: Change 1Griffiths suggested that different

forms of gambling would have their own distinct Psychology.

Look at other ‘skill’ based gambling such as Horse Racing & examine heuristics.

Can adopt the same TA method when ‘punters’ are choosing which horses to bet on.

Griffiths: Implication 1Self-selected sample of regular

gamblers (Not students this time!) from different parts of the country. Cost & time of recruitment. +_ ad in The Sporting Life!(Methodological)

Ethics – could be said to be encouraging gamblers in their habit.

Generalisation – opportunity to compare different forms of gambling to identify common patterns.

Griffiths: Change 2Longitudinal study over a number

of years with habitual gamblers to chart the formation of their thinking patterns over time. Identity common ‘thinking errors’.

Semi –structured interviews. Example Qs:

How soon in the day do you start to think about gambling?, What are the important factors when deciding if/when to bet?

Griffiths: Implication 2Potential issues with recruitment as

people might be wary of an in depth study of their gambling habits…(Methodological + Ethics)

Attrition is likely to be a factor (Methodological)

Increased accuracy & insight into thinking patterns & habits as they develop over time (validity – Results)

Ethics committee needed to offer support to gamblers.

On being sane in insane placesOn being sane in insane places

Rosenhan(1973)

Rosenhan asked the question:

“ If sanity & insanity exist how shall we know them? "

He proceeded to answer this through the medium of two devilishly-clever experiments…

Rosenhan: Change 1Undertake large scale survey of

patients who recently spent time in a Psychiatric wing / hospital…

Include details of types of Qs & rating scales. E.g ‘The quality of care was excellent’, ‘I felt my illness made nurses react to me negatively’.

Self-selected sampling: Ad in Local & National newspapers, “Recently received Psychiatric care? We’d like to hear how you were treated...”

Rosenhan: Implication 1Methodological – co-ordinate with

GPs & hospitals to allow patients to be contacted. Distributing questionnaires and analysing data of any returned. Time&money spent on recruitment & advertising.

Results – problems with D.C & social desirability. Worries that responses might affect future treatment. Generalisation – would need to target different hospitals in different areas.

Rosenhan: Change 2Cross cultural study in places such

as Asia / Africa / Russia examine attitudes & quality of care in mental health hospitals.

Semi-structured interviews with former patients & hospital staff.

Staff: ‘Describe the attitude towards mental health patients in your hospital’

Rosenhan: Implication 2Studies like these can quickly become

very costly & time consuming & so perhaps liaise with a University dept in a major capital. (Methodological)

Increased generalisation and less ethnocentric (Results)

Aspects involving self-report are subjectto social desirability bias & Demand characteristics (Validity, Results)

Thigpen & Cleckley: Change 1Conduct an observation in her

own home using cameras in agreed rooms.

Coding scheme would look for changes to clothes, mannerisms, voice, characteristic ‘signature’behaviours

Multiple ‘live’ researchers to monitor live events, separate team to view tapes. (Inter-rater reliability)

Thigpen & Cleckley: Implication 1Ethics – Filming will need careful

consent from patient and immediate family.

Expense of installing camera and analysing potentially hundreds of hours worth of audio and visual footage. Man power intensive…(Methodological)

Validity – more chance of measuring appearance of alters + easier to spot someone faking it. (Results)

Thigpen & Cleckley: Change 2Cross cultural study of this

phenomenon using semi structured interviews with patients and practitioners.

There are different cultural norms for variations in behaviour.

Liaise with e.g Asian mental health services & practitioners that use ‘The Chinese Classification of Mental Disorders’ (CCMD-3)

Thigpen & Cleckley: Implication 2Generalisation – Increased; makes

the study less ethnocentric (Results)A large scale study like this would be

extremely costly and time consuming to undertake. (Methodological)