OCR GCE Psychology - An Anthology Of Core Studies For The .
A LEVELTeacher GuideH567PSYCHOLOGYGuide to Core Studies 2Version 2
A LEVELPSYCHOLOGYCONTENTSSocial PsychologyResponses to people in needBiological PsychologyBrain plasticityPiliavin, I. M., Rodin, J., & Piliavin, J. A. (1969)Page 3Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?Levine, R.V., Norenzayan,A. &Philbrick,K. (2001)Page 8Cross-cultural differences in helping strangersBlakemore, C. & Cooper, G. F. (1970)Development of the brain depends on thevisual environment.Maguire, E. A., Gadian, D. G., Johnsrude, I. S.,Good, C. D., Ashburner, J., Frackowiak,R. S. & Frith, C. D. (2000)Navigation-related structural change in thehippocampi of taxi drivers.Cognitive PsychologyAttentionMoray , N. (1959)Page 15Attention in dichotic listening: affective cues and theinfluence of instructionsSimons, D. J. & Chabris, C. F. (1999)Page 21Gorillas in our midst: sustained inattentionalblindness for dynamic eventsPage 42Page 46Psychology of Individual DifferencesMeasuring differencesGould, S. J. (1982)A nation of morons.Hancock, J., Woodworth,M.T. & Porter, S. (2011)Hungry like the wolf: a word-pattern analysisof the language of psychopaths.Developmental PsychologyMoral DevelopmentKohlberg, L. (1968)Page 29The child as a moral philosopher.Lee, K., Cameron, C., Xu, F., Fu,G.Page 35& Board, J. (1997)Chinese and Canadian children’s evaluations oflying and truth telling: Similarities and differencesin the context of pro- and antisocial behaviours.2Page 50Page 57
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needPILIAVIN, I. M., RODIN, J., & PILIAVIN, J. A. (1969)Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 13, No. 4, pages 289-299.1. Theory/ies on which the study is based Although pluralistic ignorance and/or genuine ambiguity make it less likely that an individual will define a situation as an emergency, in manysituations the reason an individual may not help is because they diffuse responsibility.Diffusion of responsibility is where the responsibility for the situation is spread (diffused) among the people present. This implies that the morepeople present, the more the bystander believes the responsibility is spread out so they feel less personally responsibility and are therefore lesslikely to help.Another explanation for not helping a victim in need is that a bystander may believe that someone else will do what’s necessary so there is noneed for them to offer assistance. This is known as ‘bystander apathy’.2. Background to the study Since the murder of Kitty Genovese in 1964 (a woman stabbed to death over a period of 30 minutes in front of a reported 38 unresponsivewitnesses), many social psychologists have studied the concept of good Samaritanism.Research by Darley and Latané (1968) found that bystanders hearing an epileptic fit over earphones, led to those who believed other witnessesto be present being less likely to help the victim than bystanders who believed they were alone.Subsequent research by Latané and Rodin (1969) on the response to the victim of a fall confirmed this finding and suggested that assistancefrom bystanders was less likely if they were strangers than if they were acquaintances.Field experiments conducted by Bryan and Test (1967) showed that individuals are more likely to be good Samaritans if they have just observedanother individual performing a helpful act.Much of the work on victimisation has been conducted in laboratory settings, using non-visual emergency situations.This study was designed to investigate, under real life conditions, the effect of several variables on helping behaviour.3
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needPILIAVIN, I. M., RODIN, J., & PILIAVIN, J. A. (1969)Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 13, No. 4, pages 289-299.3. Research Method The study was a field experiment.The field situation was the A and D trains of the 8th Avenue New York Subway between 59th Street and 125 Street. The journeys lasted about7½ minutes.The experiment had four independent variables (IVs):(i) Type of victim (drunk or carrying a cane).(ii) Race of victim (black or white).(iii) Effect of a model (after 70 or 150 seconds, from the critical or adjacent area), or no model at all.(iv) Size of the witnessing group (a naturally occurring independent variable).The dependent variables (DVs) - recorded by two female observers seated in the adjacent area - were:(i) Frequency of help.(ii) Speed of help.(iii) Race of helper.(iv) Sex of helper.(v) Movement out of critical area.(vi) Verbal comments by bystanders.4. Sample Participants were about 4,450 men and women who used the New York subway on weekdays between 11.00 am and 3.00 pm between April 15and June 26, 1968.About 45% were black, 55% white.4
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needPILIAVIN, I. M., RODIN, J., & PILIAVIN, J. A. (1969)Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 13, No. 4, pages 289-299.5. Outline of the procedure/study There were 4 teams of 4 researchers: 2 female observers, 2 males – one acting as victim, one the model.The victims (3 white, 1 black) were all male, General Studies students, aged 26-35 years, and dressed alike. They either smelled of liquor andcarried a liquor bottle wrapped tightly in a brown bag or appeared sober and carried a black cane. In all aspects they acted identically in bothconditions.The models (all white) were males aged 24-29 years. There were 4 model conditions:(i) Critical area - early.(ii) Critical area – late.(iii) Adjacent area – early.(iv) Adjacent area – late.The observers recorded the dependent variables. On each trial one observer noted the race, sex and location of every rider seated or standing inthe critical area. In addition she counted the total number of individuals who came to the victim’s assistance. She also recorded the race, sex andlocation of every helper. The second observer coded the race, sex and location of all persons in the adjacent area. She also recorded the latencyof the first helper’s arrival after the victim had fallen and on appropriate trials, the latency of the first helper’s arrival after the programmed modelhad arrived. Both observers recorded comments spontaneously made by nearby passengers and attempted to elicit comments from a ridersitting next to them.The victim stood near a pole in the critical area. After about 70 seconds he staggered forward and collapsed. Until receiving help he remainedsupine on the floor looking at the ceiling. If he received no help by the time the train stopped the model helped him to his feet. At the stop theteam disembarked and waited separately until other passengers had left the station. They then changed platforms to repeat the process in theopposite direction.Between 6-8 trials were run on a given day, all using the same ‘victim condition’.There were more cane trials than drunk trials which were distributed unevenly across black and white victims because Team 2 violatedintructions by running cane rather than drunk trials because the victim “didn’t like” playing the drunk! Subsequent student strikes preventedadditional trials to correct this.5
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needPILIAVIN, I. M., RODIN, J., & PILIAVIN, J. A. (1969)Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 13, No. 4, pages 289-299.6. Key findings The cane victim received spontaneous help 95% of the time (62/65 trails) compared to the drunk victim 50% of the time (19/38 trials).Overall there was 100% help for the cane victim compared to 81% help for the drunk victim.Help was offered more quickly to the cane victim (a median of 5 seconds compared to 109 seconds delay for the drunk victim).On 49/81 (60%) trials when help was given this was provided by 2 or more helpers.90% of the first helpers were males.There was a slight tendency for same race helping especially in the drunk condition.No diffusion of responsibility was found, in fact response times were faster with larger groups than smaller.More comments were made by passengers in the drunk than the cane condition and most comments were made when no help was givenwithin the first 70 seconds.6
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needPILIAVIN, I. M., RODIN, J., & PILIAVIN, J. A. (1969)Good Samaritanism: An underground phenomenon?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Volume 13, No. 4, pages 289-299.7. Possible conclusions An individual who appears ill is more likely to receive help than one who appears drunk.With mixed groups of men and women, men are more likely than women to help a male victim.With mixed-race groups, people are more likely to help those of the same race as themselves, particularly if they deem the victim’s situation tobe of his own making e.g. drunk.There is no strong relationship between number of bystanders and speed of helping when an incident is visible.When escape is not possible and bystanders are face-to-face with a victim, help is likely to be forthcoming.Bystanders conduct a cost-reward analysis before deciding whether or not to help a victim.Subsequent spontaneous help from others was irrespective of race or victim type.7
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needLEVINE, R.V., NORENZAYAN,A. & PHILBRICK,K. (2001)Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Volume 32, No. 5, pages 543-560.1. Theory/ies on which the study is based Helping behaviour refers to voluntary actions intended to help others and is a form of prosocial behaviour.Theories about helping behaviour include:-- Kin selection theory: this refers to the tendency to perform behaviours that may favour the chance of survival of people with a similargenetic base (e.g. Hoffman, 1981).-- Reciprocal altruism: this holds that the incentive for an individual to help in the present is based on the expectation of the potential receiptin the future (Trivers, 1971).-- Responsibility-prosocial value orientation: holds that a strong influence on helping behaviour is a feeling of and belief in one’s responsibilityto help, especially when combined with the belief that one is able to help the other person (Staub, 2003).-- Social exchange theory: people help because they want to gain goods from the one being helped. They calculate rewards and costs ofhelping others, aiming to maximise the rewards and minimise the costs (Foa & Foa, 1975).Milgram (1970) proposed that people in urban areas are less helpful than those in rural areas because they cope with stimulus overloaddifferently: urban dwellers restrict their attention mainly to personally relevant events. Strangers, and their situations of need may, therefore, gounnoticed.8
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needLEVINE, R.V., NORENZAYAN,A. & PHILBRICK,K. (2001)Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Volume 32, No. 5, pages 543-560.2. Background to the study Studies conducted in several different countries (including the USA, Saudi Arabia and Sudan) have found that people living in urban areas tend to be lesshelpful than those in rural settings (Hedge & Yousif, 1992; Yousif & Korte, 1995).Virtually all of the studies of community differences in helping have focused on the single variable of population size, most often testing the hypothesisthat the tendency to help strangers declines as the size of the city increases. Steblay (1987) found general support for this hypothesis with the decline inhelping rate beginning at populations of 300,000. She also found that urban environments of 300,000 people or more and rural environments of 5,000people or less were the worst places if one was looking for help.A major cultural difference in helping behaviour is the difference between collectivism and individualism. Collectivists attend more to the needs and goalsof the group they belong to, and individualists focus on their own selves. Therefore, collectivists would be more likely to help in group members, but lessfrequent than individuals to help strangers (Triandis, 1991).Although many studies have demonstrated that helping rates differ between communities in a single country, almost no systematic cross-culturalresearch of helping behaviour had been conducted prior to this study.The aim of this study was therefore to look at helping behaviour, in a wide range of cultures, in large cities around the world in relation to four specificcommunity variables:(i) population size(ii) economic well-being(iii) cultural values (individualism-collectivism, simpatia)(iv) walking speed (pace of life).This study had three main goals:(i) To determine if a city’s tendency to offer non emergency help to strangers is stable across situations over a wide range of cultures i.e. is helping strangersa cross-culturally meaningful characteristic of a place?(ii) To obtain a descriptive body of data on helping behaviour across cultures using identical procedures i.e. does helping strangers vary cross-culturally?(iii) To identify country-level variables that might relate to differences in helping i.e. what are some community characteristics that are related to helping ofstrangers across cultures?Three overlapping theoretical explanations for community-level differences in helping behaviour, none of which had been previously considered in crosscultural research, were tested:(i) economic explanations(ii) cultural values(iii) cognitive explanations: pace of life.9
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needLEVINE, R.V., NORENZAYAN,A. & PHILBRICK,K. (2001)Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Volume 32, No. 5, pages 543-560.3. Research method This was a quasi-experiment carried out in the field that used an independent measures design.The field situation was 23 large cities around the world including Rio de Janeiro (Brazil), Calcutta (India), Madrid (Spain), Shanghai (China),Budapest (Hungary), Rome (Italy), New York (USA) and Kuala Lampur (Malaysia). The study should be considered as a quasi- experimentbecause the independent variable – the people in each city – was naturally occurring.The experiment measured, through the use of a series of correlations of co-variables, helping behaviour in three non emergency situations:(i) whether the victim dropped a pen(ii) whether the victim had a hurt/injured leg(iii) whether the victim was blind and trying to cross the street.The dependent variable (DV) was the helping rate of the 23 individual cities (calculated to give each city an Overall Helping Index).The three measures of helping were correlated with statistics reflecting population size, economic well-being, cultural values (individualismcollectivism, simpatia) and the pace of life for each of the 23 locations.4. Sample Participants in this study were large cities in each of 23 countries – in most cases the largest in each country i.e. individuals in each of these citiesat the time of the experiment.Each of the three helping measures and the walking speed measure were administered in two or more locations, in main downtown areas,during main business hours, on clear days, during the summer months of one or more years between 1992 and 1997.For the dropped pen and hurt leg situations, only individuals walking alone were selected. Children (younger than 17 years old), and peoplewho were physically disabled, very old, carrying packages etc (i.e. those who might not be fully capable or expected to help) were excluded.Participants were selected by approaching the second potential person who crossed a predetermined line.10
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needLEVINE, R.V., NORENZAYAN,A. & PHILBRICK,K. (2001)Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Volume 32, No. 5, pages 543-560.5. Outline of the procedure/study Data was collected by either interested, responsible students who were either travelling to foreign countries or returning to their homecountries for the summer, or by cross-cultural psychologists and their students in other countries who volunteered to assist the authors.All experimenters were college age and dressed neatly and casually. To control for experimenter gender effects and to avoid potentialproblems in some cities, all experimenters were men.To ensure standardisation in scoring and to minimise experimenter effects:(i) all experimenters received both a detailed instruction sheet and on-site field training for acting their roles, learning the procedure forparticipant selection and scoring of participants(ii) the experimenters practised together(ii) no verbal communication was required of the experimenter.The three helping measures were:(i) Dropped pen. Walking at a carefully practised, moderate pace (15 paces/10 seconds), experimenters walked toward a solitary pedestrianpassing in the opposite direction. When 10 to 15 feet from the participant, the experimenter reached into his pocket and accidentally,without appearing to notice, dropped his pen behind him, in full view of the participant, and continued walking past the participant. A totalof 214 men and 210 women were approached. Participants were scored as having helped if they called back to the experimenter that he haddropped the pen and/or picked up the pen and brought it to the experimenter.(ii) Hurt leg. Walking with a heavy limp and wearing a large and clearly visible leg brace, experimenters accidentally dropped andunsuccessfully struggled to reach down for a pile of magazines as they came within 20 feet of a passing pedestrian. A total of 253 men and240 women were approached. Helping was defined as offering to help and/or beginning to help without offering.(iii) Helping a blind person across the street. Experimenters, dressed in dark glasses and carrying white canes, acted the role of a blind personneeding help getting across the street. (The canes and training for the role were provided by the Fresno Friendship Centre for the Blind).Experimenters attempted to locate downtown corners with crosswalks, traffic signals, and moderate, steady pedestrian flow. They steppedup to the corner just before the light turned green, held out their cane, and waited until someone offered help. A trial was terminated after 60seconds or when the light turned red, whichever occurred first, after which the experimenter walked away from the corner. A total of 281 trialswere conducted. Helping was scored if participants, at a minimum, informed the experimenter that the light was green.11
Social PsychologyResponses to people in needLEVINE, R.V., NORENZAYAN,A. & PHILBRICK,K. (2001)Cross-cultural differences in helping strangers.Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology, Volume 32, No. 5, pages 543-560.6. Key findingsNB: For purposes of analyses, each of the 23 cities/countries was treated as a single participant.Intercorrelations of Helping MeasuresHelping MeasureBlind Person Dropped PenDropped Pen28**Hurt Leg.21 .36***Blind Pen Leg.67**** .77****Hurt Leg.73******p .10. ***p .05. ****p .01 using 1-tailed significance test. n 23 in all cases. The above table shows that two of the three correlations were significant.All three intercorrelations were in the positive direction. No significant gender differences in helping behaviour were found in the two conditions in which relatively equal numbers of male and femaleparticipants were targeted by the experimenter (hurt leg, dropped pen): dropped pen, M (men) .67, M (women) .69, t(22) .39, ns; hurt leg,M (men) .63, M (women) .65, t(22) .75, ns.An Overall Helping Index was calculated, combining results for the three helping measures. Results showed that the most helpful cities/countries were (1) Rio de Ja
PSYCHOLOGY A LEVEL Teacher Guide H567 Guide to Core Studies 2 Version 2. 2 CONTENTS A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY Social Psychology . Sample Participants were about 4,450 men and women who used the New York subway on weekdays between 11.00 am and 3.00 pm between April 15 . OCR GCE Psychology - An anthology of core studies for the new specification .
OCR ADVANCED GCE IN MATHEMATICS (MEI) (7895) FURTHER MATHEMATICS (MEI) (7896/7897) PURE MATHEMATICS (MEI) (7898) Specimen Question Papers and Mark Schemes These specimen question papers and mark schemes are intended to accompany the OCR Advanced Subsidiary GCE and Advanced GCE specifications in Mathematics
OCR ADVANCED SUBSIDIARY GCE IN BIOLOGY (3881) OCR ADVANCED GCE IN BIOLOGY (7881) Specimen Question Papers and Mark Schemes These specimen assessment materials are designed to accompany the OCR Advanced Subsidiary GCE and Advanced GCE sp
OCR Biology Course Guide AS A2. Heinemann is working exclusively with OCR to produce an exciting suite of resources tailored to the new OCR GCE Biology specification. Written by experienced examiners, OCR AS and A2 Biology provide you with
University of Cambridge International Examinations London GCE AS/A-Level / IGCSE / GCSE Edexcel International. 6 Examination Date in 2011 Cambridge IGCSE Oct/Nov X 9 Cambridge GCE / May/Jun 9 9 London GCE London GCSE May/Jun 9 X Chinese London IGCSE Jan X 9 Cambridge IGCSE / May/Jun 9 9 London IGCSE London GCE Jan 9 9 Cambridge GCE Oct/Nov X 9 Private Candidates School Candidates Exam Date. 7 .
The AS GCE is both a 'stand-alone' qualification and also the first half of the corresponding Advanced GCE. The AS GCE is assessed at a standard appropriate for candidates who have completed the first year of study (both in terms of teaching time and content) of the corresponding two-year Advanced GCE course, ie between GCSE and Advanced GCE.
Please note some of the suggested resources are from OCR’s A Level Psychology however these can be adapted for CS –1 Psychology. Introduction This scheme of work offers an example of how the new OCR GCSE (9-1) Psychology course could be organised over two years but is in no way prescriptive or definitive. It is designed as a
2 OCR 2021 . GCSE (9–1) in Classical Civilisation. 1. 1 Why choose an OCR GCSE (9–1) in . Classical Civilisation? 1a. Why choose an OCR qualification? Choose OCR and you’ve got the reassurance that you’re working with one of the UK’s leading exam boards. Our new OCR GCSE (9–1) in Classical Civilisation course has been developed in .
501 Concrete 501.1 Description (1) This section describes proportioning, mixing, placing, and protecting concrete mixtures. 501.2 Materials 501.2.1 Portland Cement (1) Use cement conforming to ASTM specifications as follows: - Type I portland cement; ASTM C150. - Type II portland cement; ASTM C150. - Type III portland cement; ASTM C150, for high early strength. - Type IP portland-pozzolan .
