Topic 6: Criminal psychology - 6.2 Studies — Edexcel GCSE Psychology
Verified courseTeaching note checked against the official specification.
Topic 6: Criminal psychology - 6.2 Studies explained
Topic 6: Criminal psychology - 6.2 Studies covers 3 specification points, including Understand the aims, procedures and findings… and Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) Transmission of….
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 statement outlines the core framework for evaluating psychological studies within the criminal psychology topic. You must systematically learn the aims (what the researchers intended to investigate), the procedures (the exact step-by-step methods used, including the sample and tasks), and the findings, which encompass both the specific numerical or qualitative results and the broader conclusions drawn from them. Furthermore, you need to critically assess each study by identifying its strengths and weaknesses. This involves evaluating methodological aspects such as ecological validity, sample generalisability, reliability, and ethical considerations. For example, when studying a specific experiment, you should be able to explain how a controlled procedure increases reliability but might reduce ecological validity.
6.2.1 Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) Transmission of Aggression through Imitation of Aggressive Models
Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) aimed to see if children would imitate aggressive behaviour from an adult model, and if the model's sex mattered. The procedure involved 72 children observing an aggressive model attacking a Bobo doll, a non-aggressive model, or no model. After mild aggression arousal, children were observed playing. Findings showed children exposed to the aggressive model displayed significantly more imitative aggression. Boys were more likely to imitate same-sex models. A strength is the highly controlled laboratory setting, ensuring high reliability. Weaknesses include low ecological validity, as hitting a doll differs from real-world aggression, and ethical issues regarding exposing children to aggressive acts.
6.2.2 Charlton et al (2000) Children’s Playground Behaviour Across Five Years of Broadcast Television: A Naturalistic Study in a Remote Community
Charlton et al. (2000) conducted a naturalistic study on St Helena to investigate whether the introduction of broadcast television would increase children's aggressive playground behaviour. Researchers observed children's free-play behaviour across five years, comparing pre-television and post-television data using video recordings. The findings revealed no significant increase in antisocial behaviour, suggesting that cultural factors and close-knit community supervision mitigated any potential negative effects of media violence. This challenges the social learning theory assumption that exposure to televised aggression inevitably leads to imitation in children.
Your focus
- Distinguish between the aims, procedures, results, and conclusions of psychological studies.
- Evaluate psychological studies by identifying specific methodological strengths and weaknesses.
- Apply knowledge of research methods to assess the validity and reliability of core studies.
Show all 9 objectives
- Describe the aims and procedures of the Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) study.
- Outline the key findings and conclusions regarding the imitation of aggression.
- Evaluate the Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) study by explaining its methodological strengths and weaknesses.
- Describe the aims, procedure, findings, and conclusions of Charlton et al. (2000).
- Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of the naturalistic observation method used in the study.
- Explain how the findings of Charlton et al. challenge theories of media-induced aggression.
Topic 6: Criminal psychology - 6.2 Studies exam tips
Marking Points
- Identify the aim of Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961) as investigating the imitation of aggressive models.
- Recall that the sample consisted of 72 children who were divided into aggressive, non-aggressive, and control conditions.
- Recognise that a key finding was that children exposed to the aggressive model showed more imitative aggressive behaviour.
- Identify a weakness of the study, such as low ecological validity or ethical concerns regarding the protection of participants from psychological harm.
- Identify the aim of the study: to investigate the effects of introducing broadcast television on children's playground behaviour in a remote community.
- Describe the research method: a naturalistic observation using hidden video cameras in school playgrounds over a five-year period.
- State the primary findings: there was no significant difference in the level of antisocial behaviour before and after the introduction of television.
- Explain the conclusion: environmental and cultural factors, such as high community control and close supervision, can prevent the imitation of televised aggression.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Create summary flashcards for each core study, clearly separating aims, procedures, results, conclusions, strengths, and weaknesses.
- 💡When evaluating a study, use the GRAVE acronym (Generalisability, Reliability, Application, Validity, Ethics) to structure your thoughts and ensure comprehensive coverage.
- 💡Practice writing out the procedure of key studies in chronological order to ensure you do not miss any crucial steps when describing the methodology.
- 💡Memorise the specific number of participants (72 children) and the three main conditions (aggressive, non-aggressive, control) for multiple-choice questions.
- 💡Be prepared to identify the specific types of aggression measured, such as physical and verbal imitative aggression.
- 💡When asked for a weakness, focus on the ethical issue of deliberately exposing children to aggressive behaviour without protecting them from potential psychological harm.
- 💡When evaluating the study, use its naturalistic setting as a strength for high ecological validity, as children were observed in their normal environment.
- 💡Mention the specific location (St Helena) to explain why the close-knit community might have influenced the results and limited generalisability.
- 💡Contrast Charlton's findings with laboratory studies of aggression to evaluate the role of media violence in criminal psychology.
Common Mistakes
- Confusing results with conclusions. Correction: Results are the specific data or findings gathered during the study, while conclusions are the broader psychological interpretations drawn from those results.
- Providing generic strengths and weaknesses. Correction: Always link methodological evaluations, such as ecological validity or reliability, specifically to the procedure or sample of the study being discussed.
- Mixing up the aims and the procedures. Correction: The aim is the purpose or the reason why the study was conducted, whereas the procedure is the step-by-step method detailing how the study was carried out.
- Stating that the study proves all aggression is learned. Correction: The study demonstrates that specific aggressive behaviours can be imitated in a controlled setting, but it does not rule out biological factors.
- Confusing the independent and dependent variables. Correction: The independent variables included the model's behaviour and sex, while the dependent variable was the level of aggression displayed by the children.
- Claiming the study had high ecological validity. Correction: The study took place in an artificial laboratory setting with a Bobo doll, which lacks ecological validity compared to real-world aggression.
- Confusing Charlton et al. with Bandura's Bobo doll study. Correction: Charlton et al. was a naturalistic observation in a real-world setting (St Helena), whereas Bandura conducted a controlled laboratory experiment.
- Stating that television increased aggressive behaviour in the study. Correction: The study found no significant increase in antisocial behaviour after television was introduced.
- Believing the study only lasted a few weeks. Correction: The study was longitudinal, observing behaviour across a five-year period to assess long-term effects.