Dr. Wells’ Ultimate Cambridge AICE Psych CramGuide

Biological Approach

1. Dement & Kleitman (1957) – Sleep and Dreams

• Aim: Investigate the relationship between REM sleep and dreaming.
• Hypothesis: Dreams are more likely to be recalled during REM sleep than NREM sleep.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: 9 adults (7 men, 2 women).
  • Setting: Laboratory experiment using EEG recordings.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Sleep stage (REM vs. NREM).
  • DV: Dream recall upon awakening.
  • Controlled Variables: Sleep environment, EEG monitoring.
• Findings: REM sleep associated with vivid dreaming; insights into sleep cycles and psychological states.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: High control over extraneous variables; objective measurements.
  • Weaknesses: Small sample size; low ecological validity due to lab setting.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: Limited
  • Reliability: High
  • Applicability: Relevant for sleep research
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Minimal

2. Hassett et al. (2008) – Monkey Toy Preferences

• Aim: Explore sex differences in toy preferences among monkeys.
• Hypothesis: Male monkeys prefer wheeled toys, females prefer plush dolls.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: 34 juvenile rhesus monkeys (11 males, 23 females).
  • Setting: Naturalistic observation.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Type of toy (wheeled vs. plush).
  • DV: Time interacting with each toy.
• Findings: Male monkeys showed preference for wheeled toys; supports biological predispositions in behavior.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: High ecological validity.
  • Weaknesses: Limited to rhesus monkeys.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: Limited
  • Reliability: High
  • Applicability: Contributes to nature vs. nurture debate
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Minimal

3. Hölzel et al. (2011) – Mindfulness and Brain Scans

• Aim: Investigate the impact of mindfulness meditation on brain structure.
• Hypothesis: Mindfulness will increase gray matter density in specific brain regions.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: 16 adults with no prior meditation experience.
  • Setting: Laboratory experiment using MRI scans.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Participation in an 8-week mindfulness program.
  • DV: Changes in gray matter density.
• Findings: Increased gray matter density in areas linked to memory and emotional regulation.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: Objective MRI data.
  • Weaknesses: Small sample size limits generalizability.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: Moderate
  • Reliability: High
  • Applicability: Relevant for mental health treatment
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Minimal

Cognitive Approach

4. Andrade (2010) – Doodling and Concentration

• Aim: Investigate if doodling improves concentration.
• Hypothesis: Doodling will enhance recall of information.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: 40 participants (18 men, 22 women).
  • Setting: Laboratory experiment.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Doodling vs. non-doodling.
  • DV: Amount of information recalled.
• Findings: Doodling participants recalled more details from the message.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: High control over extraneous variables.
  • Weaknesses: Small sample size.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: Limited
  • Reliability: High
  • Applicability: Relevant in education
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Minimal

5. Baron-Cohen et al. (2001) – Theory of Mind (Eyes Test)

• Aim: Investigate theory of mind deficits in individuals with autism.
• Hypothesis: Individuals with autism will score lower on the Eyes Test than neurotypicals.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: 16 adults with autism/Asperger’s, 50 neurotypical adults, 10 adults with Tourette syndrome.
  • Setting: Quasi-experiment using the Eyes Test.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Diagnosis (autism vs. neurotypical).
  • DV: Scores on the Eyes Test.
• Findings: Individuals with autism showed significant deficits in interpreting emotions.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: High control over extraneous variables.
  • Weaknesses: Small sample sizes contribute to limited generalizability.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: Limited
  • Reliability: High
  • Applicability: Key for understanding autism
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Informed consent provided.

Learning Approach

6. Bandura et al. (1961) – Aggression (The Bobo Doll Experiment)

• Aim: Examine if children imitate aggressive behaviors observed in adults.
• Hypothesis: Children exposed to aggressive models will exhibit more aggression.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: 72 children (36 boys, 36 girls).
  • Setting: Laboratory experiment.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Behavior of the model (aggressive vs. non-aggressive).
  • DV: Aggressive behavior exhibited by children.
• Findings: Children exposed to aggressive models behaved more aggressively towards the Bobo doll.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: High control over variables.
  • Weaknesses: Low ecological validity due to artificial setting.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: Limited to young children
  • Reliability: High
  • Applicability: Relevant to media's impact on behavior
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Concerns about exposure to aggression.

7. Saavedra & Silverman (2002) – Button Phobia

• Aim: Explore the effectiveness of exposure therapy on phobia reduction.
• Hypothesis: Exposure therapy combined with cognitive restructuring will reduce phobic symptoms more than exposure alone.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: One 9-year-old boy.
  • Setting: Case study.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Type of therapy.
  • DV: Reduction in phobic symptoms.
• Findings: Significant reduction in phobia over time.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: Detailed monitoring of therapy sessions.
  • Weaknesses: Limited generalizability due to single case.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: Low
  • Reliability: Low
  • Applicability: High for phobia treatment
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Parental consent ensured.

Social Approach

8. Milgram (1963) – Obedience to Authority

• Aim: Investigate obedience to authority figures.
• Hypothesis: Participants will obey authority figures, even if it harms others.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: 40 male participants.
  • Setting: Laboratory experiment.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Presence of authority figure.
  • DV: Level of obedience.
• Findings: 65% of participants administered the maximum voltage.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: High control over variables.
  • Weaknesses: Ethical concerns about distress and deception.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: Limited to males
  • Reliability: High
  • Applicability: Insights into authority and obedience
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Deception and emotional stress.

9. Piliavin et al. (1969) – Subway Samaritans

• Aim: Examine bystander behavior in emergencies.
• Hypothesis: Passengers will help a disabled person more than a drunk person.
• Methodology:
  • Participants: 4,450 subway passengers.
  • Setting: Field experiment on a subway.
  • Variables:
  • IV: Condition of the victim.
  • DV: Number of bystanders helping.
• Findings: Social context significantly influenced helping behavior.
• Analysis:
  • Strengths: Large sample size increases generalizability.
  • Weaknesses: Lack of informed consent raises ethical concerns.
  • G.R.A.V.E.:
  • Generalizability: High
  • Reliability: High
  • Applicability: Relevant for understanding prosocial behavior.
  • Validity: High internal validity
  • Ethical Considerations: Ethical concerns in consenting a covert experiment.