Topic 1: Development - 1.2 Studies — Edexcel GCSE Psychology
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Topic 1: Development - 1.2 Studies explained
Topic 1: Development - 1.2 Studies covers 3 specification points, including Understand the aims, procedures and findings… and Piaget and Inhelder (1956) Three mountains task.
Read the full explanation
Open a point below for its explanation and revision guidance.
Understand the aims, procedures and findings (results and conclusions), strengths and weaknesses of:
This specification point requires students to systematically evaluate the core studies in the Development topic. For each study, learners must understand the specific aims (what the researchers intended to investigate) and the procedures (the exact methods, sample, and tasks used). They must also be able to recall the findings, distinguishing between the raw results (the data collected) and the conclusions (what the data means for psychological theory). Finally, students must evaluate each study by identifying its strengths and weaknesses, such as issues with ecological validity, sample bias, or the reliability of the methods used. Mastering this framework allows students to critically analyse psychological research.
1.2.1 Piaget and Inhelder (1956) Three mountains task
Piaget and Inhelder (1956) investigated the age children stop being egocentric. The procedure involved 100 children aged 4 to 12. They were shown a 3D model of three mountains, each with a distinct feature (snow, a cross, or a house). A doll was placed at various positions, and the child selected a picture representing the doll's perspective. Findings showed children aged 4 to 5 consistently chose their own view, demonstrating egocentrism. By age 7 to 8, children began selecting the doll's view. This supported Piaget's theory that pre-operational children are egocentric. A strength is the detailed qualitative data gathered by asking children to explain their choices, while a weakness is the artificial task lacking ecological validity.
1.2.2 Gunderson et al. (2013) Parent Praise to 1-to 3-Year-Olds Predicts Children's Motivational Frameworks 5 Years Later
Gunderson et al. (2013) investigated whether parents' praise of toddlers (aged 1 to 3) predicts children's motivational frameworks five years later. Researchers observed parent-child interactions at home, categorising praise as process (effort-based) or person (trait-based). Five years later, children's mindsets were assessed. Results showed that a higher proportion of process praise significantly predicted children developing an incremental motivational framework (growth mindset) at ages 7-8. However, person praise did not predict an entity framework. A strength is the high ecological validity of naturalistic home observations, but a weakness is that parents knew they were being observed, potentially leading to social desirability bias.
Your focus
- Describe the aims and procedures of the specified core studies.
- Distinguish between the results and conclusions of psychological research.
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the specified core studies.
Show all 9 objectives
- Describe the aims and procedure of the Three mountains task.
- Explain the findings and conclusions regarding childhood egocentrism.
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Piaget and Inhelder's methodology.
- Describe the aims, procedures, and findings of Gunderson et al. (2013).
- Differentiate between process praise and person praise using examples.
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the methodology used in the study.
Topic 1: Development - 1.2 Studies exam tips
Marking Points
- State the aim of Piaget and Inhelder's study as investigating egocentrism in children.
- Describe the procedure involving the 3D model of three mountains and the doll.
- Identify that children aged 4 to 5 typically chose the picture representing their own perspective.
- Explain the conclusion that the study supports the transition from egocentrism in the pre-operational stage to decentration in the concrete operational stage.
- Evaluate the study by noting a strength (e.g., rich qualitative data from children's explanations) and a weakness (e.g., lack of ecological validity due to the artificial task).
- Identify the aim of Gunderson et al. (2013) as investigating the effect of early parental praise on later motivational frameworks.
- Distinguish between process praise (praising effort or strategy) and person praise (praising inherent traits).
- Recall the methodology, which involved naturalistic observation of parent-child interactions at home when children were 1 to 3 years old, followed by an assessment five years later.
- State the key finding that process praise predicts an incremental motivational framework (growth mindset), whereas person praise does not reliably predict an entity framework.
- Evaluate the study by identifying a strength (e.g., high ecological validity) and a weakness (e.g., potential social desirability bias from parents knowing they were observed).
Examiner Tips
- 💡Create a summary table for each core study detailing the aims, procedures, results, conclusions, strengths, and weaknesses.
- 💡When evaluating a study, always link the strength or weakness back to the specific procedure or sample used.
- 💡Practice distinguishing between what the researchers found (results) and what it means (conclusions) to ensure accurate answers.
- 💡Memorise the specific features of the three mountains (snow, cross, house) to accurately describe the procedure.
- 💡Use the term 'egocentrism' explicitly when explaining the results of the younger children.
- 💡When evaluating the study, contrast the strength of gathering rich qualitative data with the weakness of the task's artificial nature.
- 💡Ensure you can define both process and person praise and provide a concrete example of each.
- 💡Remember the longitudinal nature of the study, noting the five-year gap between the initial observations and the later mindset assessment.
- 💡Be prepared to evaluate the study's methodology, contrasting the high ecological validity of the home setting with the weakness of potential social desirability bias.
Common Mistakes
- Confusing results with conclusions. Correction: Results are the specific data or observations collected, whereas conclusions are the theoretical inferences drawn from that data.
- Providing generic strengths or weaknesses. Correction: Evaluations must be contextualised to the specific study, explaining exactly why a method was a strength or weakness in that particular context.
- Forgetting the specific details of the procedure. Correction: Memorise the sample size, participant demographics, and the exact steps of the methodology for each core study.
- Stating that the study investigated conservation. Correction: The Three mountains task specifically investigated egocentrism, not conservation.
- Claiming that all children failed the task. Correction: Older children (aged 7 and above) were increasingly able to correctly identify the doll's perspective.
- Confusing the features of the mountains. Correction: The three mountains were distinguished by having snow, a red cross, and a house on top, not by size alone.
- Confusing process and person praise; correction: process praise focuses on effort and strategy, whereas person praise focuses on fixed traits like intelligence.
- Believing the study was conducted in a laboratory; correction: the initial data collection involved naturalistic observations in the participants' homes.
- Assuming person praise strongly predicted a fixed mindset; correction: the study found that person praise did not significantly predict an entity motivational framework.