Topic 5: Social influence - 5.2 Studies — Edexcel GCSE Psychology
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Topic 5: Social influence - 5.2 Studies explained
Topic 5: Social influence - 5.2 Studies covers 3 specification points, including Understand the aims, procedures, and findings… and An Underground Phenomenon?.
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:
When studying key psychological research, you must understand five core components. The 'aims' outline what the researchers intended to investigate, such as testing a specific theory. The 'procedures' detail the exact methods used, including the experimental design, sample, setting, and tasks participants completed. 'Findings' encompass both the raw results (data collected) and the conclusions (what the data means for the initial aims). Finally, you must evaluate the study by identifying its 'strengths' (such as high ecological validity or a large, representative sample) and 'weaknesses' (such as ethical breaches, demand characteristics, or lack of control over extraneous variables). Mastering these elements allows you to critically assess the value and limitations of psychological evidence.
5.2.1 Piliavin et al (1969) Good Samaritanism: An Underground Phenomenon?
Piliavin et al. (1969) investigated bystander behaviour in a natural setting, testing how a victim's type and race affected helping. In a field experiment on a New York subway, a confederate collapsed, appearing either ill (with a cane) or drunk (smelling of alcohol). The ill victim received spontaneous help on 95% of trials, compared to 50% for the drunk victim. Piliavin concluded that diffusion of responsibility did not occur; instead, bystanders use a cost-reward model to decide whether to help. Strengths include high ecological validity and a large sample. Weaknesses involve ethical issues, such as deception, lack of informed consent, and the inability to debrief passengers who may have been distressed by the staged emergency.
5.2.2 Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) A Study of Prisoners and Guards in a Simulated Prison
Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) investigated how readily people conform to the roles of guard and prisoner in a simulated prison. They converted a university basement into a mock prison, randomly assigning 24 healthy male students to be prisoners or guards. Guards received uniforms and mirrored sunglasses to deindividuate them, while prisoners were arrested, stripped, and assigned ID numbers. Planned for 14 days, the study ended after six because guards became highly abusive and authoritarian, while prisoners exhibited extreme emotional distress and submissiveness. This study demonstrated that situational factors and assigned social roles powerfully influence human behaviour, often overriding individual personality traits.
Your focus
- Outline the aims and step-by-step procedures of key psychological studies.
- Differentiate between the quantitative or qualitative results and the overall conclusions drawn by researchers.
- Assess the methodological and ethical strengths and weaknesses of psychological research.
Show all 9 objectives
- Describe the aims and procedure of Piliavin et al.'s (1969) subway study.
- State the key findings regarding how the type of victim influenced the rate of helping behaviour.
- Evaluate the study in terms of its ecological validity and ethical limitations.
- Describe the aims, procedure, and findings of the Haney, Banks, and Zimbardo (1973) study.
- Explain how the simulated prison environment influenced the behaviour of the participants.
- Evaluate the study in terms of its ethical issues and methodological strengths or weaknesses.
Topic 5: Social influence - 5.2 Studies exam tips
Marking Points
- Accurate identification of the researcher's primary aim or hypothesis.
- Detailed description of the procedural steps, including sample characteristics and experimental design.
- Clear distinction between the raw data (results) and the theoretical interpretation (conclusions).
- Balanced evaluation providing at least one methodological strength and one ethical or practical weakness.
- Identification of the study as a field experiment conducted on a New York subway train.
- Recall of the independent variables: type of victim (ill or drunk) and race of victim (black or white).
- Recognition of the key finding that the ill victim received help more frequently and quickly than the drunk victim.
- Understanding of the conclusion that the cost-reward arousal model explains helping behaviour better than diffusion of responsibility.
- Identify the aim: to investigate conformity to assigned social roles in a simulated prison environment.
- Describe the sample: 24 male college students assessed as psychologically healthy, randomly assigned to roles.
- Outline the procedure: prisoners were arrested at home and deindividuated with smocks and numbers; guards were given uniforms, clubs, and reflective sunglasses.
- State the findings: guards became abusive and prisoners became submissive, leading to the study ending after six days instead of fourteen.
- Explain the conclusion: behaviour was heavily influenced by situational factors and social roles rather than dispositional factors.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Use the acronym APFCE (Aims, Procedures, Findings, Conclusions, Evaluation) to structure your revision notes for every core study.
- 💡When evaluating a study, always contextualise your point by referring to the specific task or sample used in the research.
- 💡Practice writing summary paragraphs that link the findings directly back to the original aim of the study.
- 💡Memorise the specific percentages for spontaneous help: 95% for the ill victim and 50% for the drunk victim.
- 💡Be prepared to identify the ethical issues in this study, specifically the lack of informed consent and the inability to debrief participants.
- 💡Link the findings of this study to the broader topic of bystander intervention and the cost-reward model.
- 💡When evaluating the study, focus on ethical issues such as the lack of protection from psychological harm.
- 💡Use the term 'deindividuation' to explain how uniforms and numbers altered the participants' sense of personal identity.
- 💡Contrast situational explanations of behaviour (the prison environment) with dispositional ones (the participants' personalities).
Common Mistakes
- Confusing the results (the data collected) with the conclusions (what the data means); ensure you state the data first, then explain its implications.
- Providing generic evaluations such as 'it lacks validity' without explaining why; always link the weakness to a specific aspect of the procedure.
- Mixing up the aims and the conclusions; remember that the aim is stated before the study begins, while the conclusion is drawn after analysing the findings.
- Believing that diffusion of responsibility was supported by the study; correct this by noting that Piliavin found no evidence for it, as larger groups were just as likely to help.
- Confusing the independent variables; remember that the victim was either ill with a cane or drunk, not both simultaneously.
- Assuming the study was a laboratory experiment; it was a field experiment, which gives it high ecological validity but lower control over extraneous variables.
- Error: Stating that the participants were actual prisoners and guards. Correction: Clarify that they were volunteer college students randomly assigned to these roles.
- Error: Claiming the study lasted the full 14 days. Correction: Remember that it was terminated after six days due to the extreme distress of the prisoners.
- Error: Believing the guards were instructed to be cruel. Correction: Note that guards were told to maintain order but were not explicitly instructed to use psychological abuse.