Studies: One contemporary study from the following — Edexcel A-Level Psychology
Test yourself on Studies: One contemporary study from the following with PEARSON EDEXCEL A-Level practice questions.
7 days Premium · Then the free plan continues · No card, no charge
Studies: One contemporary study from the following explained
The question was whether obedience in the United States had changed since the nineteen sixties, answered with a procedure that halts before the point at which the original participants suffered most.
Read the full explanation
Seventy adults, men and women aged between twenty and eighty-one, were screened twice, including by a clinical psychologist, and anyone who had studied more than a couple of psychology courses was excluded so nobody recognised the set up. Participants were told three times that they could stop, and the sample shock was fifteen volts rather than the stronger one used originally. Everything ended the moment a participant moved to the switch beyond the point where the learner first cries out, and about seven in ten of the base condition reached that point.
1.3.3 Reicher and Haslam (2006) Rethinking the psychology of tyranny.
Known as the BBC prison study, this is an experimental case study rather than a true experiment. Fifteen heavily screened British men lived in a purpose built institution for eight days, five randomly made guards and ten prisoners, filmed throughout, with daily psychometric measures of social identification and depression alongside saliva samples for cortisol. Three planned interventions followed in turn. The guards never came to see themselves as a group and shrank from using their power, while the prisoners identified more strongly once promotion was closed off, and on the sixth day they broke the regime. A self governing commune then failed, after which some participants began pressing for a harsh new order and the study was stopped early. Haslam and Reicher read this as evidence that tyranny grows out of failed groups, not out of people sliding automatically into roles.
1.3.4 Cohrs et al. (2012) Individual differences in ideological attitudes and prejudice: evidence from peer report data.
This is the individual differences answer to prejudice, and its point is methodological. Personality, ideology and prejudice are normally all measured by the same person on the same afternoon, so shared method variance and self presentation could be manufacturing the correlation. Cohrs and colleagues therefore had German adults complete measures of the big five traits, right wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation and generalised prejudice, and had people who knew them rate the same qualities. Associations were weaker in the peer data but survived: low openness to experience predicted authoritarianism, low agreeableness predicted social dominance, and both ideological attitudes in turn predicted prejudice, sitting between personality and prejudice rather than beside them. That supports a dual process model of how disposition feeds intergroup hostility.
2.3.2 Schmolck et al. (2002) Semantic knowledge in patient HM and other patients with bilateral medial and lateral temporal lobe lesions.
The question behind this comparison is which tissue a person needs in order to know what words and objects mean, as opposed to recording new events. Henry Molaison was tested against patients whose damage was limited to the hippocampal formation, patients with wider medial temporal damage, and patients left with lateral temporal damage after herpes encephalitis, along with healthy controls matched for age and education. Nine tasks probed stored knowledge, among them naming line drawings, defining words, sorting items and answering questions about the properties of animals and objects. Patients whose damage stopped at the hippocampal formation performed like controls, while Henry Molaison and those with the most lateral damage gave thin, imprecise definitions and scored far below them.
2.3.3 Steyvers and Hemmer (2012) Reconstruction from memory in naturalistic environments.
This is schema research moved out of the artificial laboratory set up and into scenes people actually know. Participants recruited online viewed photographs of everyday settings such as a kitchen, an office, a hotel room and a city street for either a very brief or a longer exposure, then typed out every object they could remember, while a separate group rated how likely each object was to appear in that kind of room. Objects people expected in a scene were the ones most often recalled, longer viewing produced more objects, and wrong reports were rare but almost always things that would have belonged there. The authors model recall as combining prior expectation with noisy memory for detail, so expectation mostly improves accuracy rather than corrupting it.
2.3.4 Sebastián and Hernández-Gil (2012) Developmental pattern of digit span in Spanish population.
Here the phonological loop is measured directly, and across ages, in a language other than English. Around five hundred and seventy schoolchildren and adolescents in Madrid, from about five years old to the late teens, were given a standard forwards digit span task under the same conditions, and the spans of each age band were compared both with one another and with published figures from English speaking samples. Span grew with age, rising steeply through the primary years and flattening out in adolescence, and at every age the Spanish spans sat below the English speaking norms. The explanation offered is the word length effect: Spanish number words take longer to say, so fewer of them fit into the brief rehearsal window the loop allows.
3.3.2 Li et al. (2013) Abnormal function of the posterior cingulate cortex in heroin addicted users during resting-state and drug-cue stimulation task.
A functional imaging study about craving rather than about being high. Male heroin users recruited through treatment and healthy controls matched for age and sex were scanned twice, once lying still with nothing to do and once while heroin-related pictures alternated with neutral ones. The region singled out in advance was the posterior cingulate cortex, a hub of the default mode network that deals with self-referential thought. At rest the users showed abnormal posterior cingulate function relative to controls, and during the drug-cue blocks the same region responded more strongly in users, with the size of the response tracking how much craving they reported. The argument is that drug cues pull on a self-referential system and not only on reward circuitry, which helps explain why a place or a syringe can reinstate use long after withdrawal is over.
3.3.3 Brendgen et al. (2005) Examining genetic and environmental effects on social aggression: A study of 6-year-old twins.
A twin design used to ask whether two kinds of aggression come from the same place. Pairs of six-year-olds from a Canadian birth cohort were rated by their teachers and nominated by their classmates, once for hitting, pushing and fighting and once for gossiping, excluding and spreading rumours, and the identical and non-identical correlations were fitted to models estimating genetic, shared environmental and non-shared environmental contributions. Physical aggression behaved as the genetically influenced trait, with roughly half the variation attributed to genes and the remainder to experiences the twins did not share. Manipulating relationships behaved as the learned one, carried by environment with no reliable genetic contribution, although children who hit were often also the children who excluded, and that overlap was partly genetic.
3.3.4 Van den Oever et al. (2008) Prefrontal cortex AMPA receptor plasticity is crucial for cue-induced relapse for heroin-seeking.
Animal work that asks what a drug cue does to a synapse. Rats learned to press a lever for heroin while a light and tone signalled delivery, had that responding extinguished, and were later given the cue alone to provoke relapse-like drug seeking. Within about an hour of cue exposure, synapses in the medial prefrontal cortex weakened, and the mechanism was the removal of one class of AMPA receptor from the synaptic membrane, a depression-like change rather than a strengthening one. When that removal was blocked by infusing a peptide into the region, the animals did not resume lever pressing, which is what converts an association into a causal claim. The reading for human addiction is that relapse includes a fast local synaptic step, which is in principle a target for medication.
4.3.2 Becker et al. (2002) Eating behaviours and attitudes following prolonged exposure to television among ethnic Fijian adolescent girls.
The arrival of television in Nadroga, Fiji, was used as a natural experiment on whether Western media changes eating attitudes in a culture that had traditionally admired a robust body and treated weight loss as a worry. Two independent samples of ethnic Fijian schoolgirls, one tested soon after broadcasting began and one three years later, completed the Eating Attitudes Test, and a subsample gave narrative interviews. Disordered eating scores roughly doubled, self-induced vomiting to control weight appeared where there had been none, and the interviews had girls describing television characters as models for reshaping their bodies and improving their job prospects. Marks come from tying those numbers to modelling and vicarious reinforcement, then attacking the causal claim.
4.3.3 Bastian et al. (2011) Cyber-dehumanization: Violent video game play diminishes our humanity.
Bastian et al. (2011) investigated whether playing violent video games diminishes players' perceptions of their own humanity and that of others. In a laboratory experiment, undergraduates were randomly allocated to play either a violent game or a non-violent game in pairs. Afterwards, they rated themselves and their co-player on traits representing human nature (e.g., warmth) and human uniqueness (e.g., rationality). The results showed that playing the violent game significantly reduced ratings of human nature for both the self and the co-player, compared to the non-violent game. However, there was no significant effect on ratings of human uniqueness. A second experiment replicated the self-dehumanisation effect for human nature traits. The study highlights the socially sensitive implications of violent media consumption.
4.3.4 Capafóns et al. (1998) Systematic desensitisation in the treatment of the fear of flying.
This is the therapy study of the learning options, testing whether systematic desensitisation reduces fear of flying in Spanish adults who answered a media appeal. Everyone was assessed before and after with interviews, fear questionnaires and physiological recordings taken while flight material was presented; the treated group then had roughly a dozen twice-weekly sessions of progressive muscle relaxation, an individually built hierarchy of feared flying scenes and graded exposure in imagination, while the comparison group waited. Self-reported fear fell sharply in the treated group and not in the controls, yet a minority of treated participants did not improve and the physiological measures moved less consistently than the questionnaires. The examiner rewards judging effectiveness against those two caveats rather than announcing a cure.
6.3.2 Bradbury M D and Williams, M R (2013) Diversity and Citizen Participation: The Effects of Race on Juror Decision Making.
Bradbury and Williams (2013) conducted an archival, correlational study using records of felony trials from United States jurisdictions to investigate whether the racial makeup of a jury predicted the verdict. They found that a higher proportion of white jurors was associated with a greater likelihood of conviction where the defendant was Black, while no comparable relationship appeared for white defendants. The researchers concluded that jury diversity matters for justice, as juries drawn from a narrow pool may reach systematically different verdicts. The use of real trial outcomes provides high ecological validity but lacks the control of laboratory experiments, shaping evaluation points.
6.3.3 Valentine T and Mesout J (2009) Eyewitness identification under stress in the London Dungeon
Visitors to a horror attraction wore heart rate monitors and completed a standard state anxiety questionnaire, met a costumed actor in a dark labyrinth, and afterwards described him and tried to pick him out of a video identification parade. Splitting the sample at the median for anxiety, the calmer half identified him correctly about three quarters of the time and the highly anxious half roughly one in six, and the anxious group also produced fewer correct descriptive details and more incorrect ones. Because the fear was genuine and the measures included physiology as well as self report, this is unusually strong evidence that high arousal harms recognition; because the groups were formed by measurement rather than by allocation, it cannot show that anxiety by itself caused the difference.
6.3.4 Howells et al. (2005) Brief anger management programs with offenders: Outcomes and predictors of change.
An evaluation of short cognitive behavioural anger programmes run in Australian prisons, with several hundred male offenders taking the course and a smaller waiting list group for comparison, measured before, after and at follow up on anger knowledge, self reported anger and staff ratings of behaviour. The gains were modest: knowledge about anger improved, but the treated men were not reliably better than the untreated ones on the anger measures themselves. What did predict change was what the offender brought with him, chiefly readiness for treatment, motivation to change and a high level of anger to start with. The practical message is that brief provision is cheap and easy to timetable but is not sufficient on its own, and that selecting participants by readiness may matter more than adding sessions.
7.3.2 Cassibba et al. (2013) Attachment the Italian way.
The question was whether attachment in one European country follows the international pattern or has a shape of its own, and it was answered by pooling existing evidence rather than by collecting new cases, gathering Italian Strange Situation studies of children and Adult Attachment Interview studies of adults, published and unpublished, and setting their distributions against the worldwide norms. Secure and autonomous classifications were the most common, as they are elsewhere, so the broad picture supports universality, but the Italian samples departed from the norms by carrying a larger share of insecure classifications, with dismissing adults over-represented, and those departures were widest in clinical and at-risk groups rather than in ordinary families.
7.3.3 Gagnon-Oosterwaal et al. (2012) Pre-adoption adversity and self-reported behaviour problems in 7-year-old international adoptees.
Children adopted from abroad usually arrive after institutional care, poor nutrition and no stable caregiver, which makes them the natural test of whether very early privation leaves lasting behavioural damage. The researchers followed a group whose health and physical growth had been recorded on arrival and reassessed them at around seven years old, using a standardised behaviour checklist completed by the mothers and a pictorial self-report answered by the children. Most scored within the normal range on the mothers' checklist, and it was the children's own reports of internalising and externalising difficulties that tracked how adverse their circumstances before placement had been, while the mothers' ratings tracked the mothers' own reported stress.
7.3.4 Li et al. (2013) Timing of High-Quality Child Care and Cognitive, Language and Preacademic Development.
The contemporary option here is a secondary analysis of the American National Institute of Child Health and Human Development cohort, in which around fourteen hundred children were followed from birth and their care was rated by trained observers rather than by parents. The researchers used propensity weighting to compare four groups: children whose care met a high quality threshold only in infancy and toddlerhood, only in the preschool years, in both periods, or in neither. Outcomes at four and a half years were letter and word recognition, applied problems and language. Quality in the preschool period predicted the higher scores, quality confined to the first two years added little on its own, and every effect was modest rather than transformative.
8.3.2 Mundt et al. (2012) Peer selection and influence effects on adolescent alcohol use: a stochastic actor-based model.
Friends drink alike, and the value of this study is that it refuses to read that similarity as proof of influence. Working from friendship nominations and self-reported drinking collected a year apart from American school students in the Add Health project, Mundt and colleagues used stochastic actor-based simulation to model ties and behaviour as they changed together, so that two processes could be estimated separately: adolescents choosing friends who already drink as they do, and adolescents shifting their own drinking towards that of their friends. Both came out significant, so influence operated on top of the sorting rather than instead of it. The applied message the examiner wants is that a campaign aimed at lone individuals misses the mechanism, because the friendship group is the unit that carries the behaviour.
8.3.3 Dixit et al. (2012) Biosocial determinants of alcohol risk behaviour: An epidemiological study in urban and rural communities of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
Epidemiology asks who is drinking and what travels with it, and this survey asked it in one district of northern India rather than in a Western student sample. Interviewers worked through the urban and rural field practice areas attached to a medical college in Aligarh, putting structured questions about alcohol to community members and recording education, occupation, income, family history and the company people drank in. Drinking clustered among men, among the poorer and less educated, and among those whose friends or relatives already drank, with peer company among the reasons most often given for starting, and the rural community returned the higher rate of use. Because the design is cross-sectional, none of this establishes cause, but it maps the social patterning any campaign has to work with.
8.3.4 Pengpid et al. (2012) Screening and brief intervention for hazardous and harmful alcohol use among hospital out-patients in South Africa: results from a randomised controlled trial.
This option study is a true experiment, as outpatients screening positive for risky drinking were randomly allocated to conditions. Screening used the WHO alcohol use disorders identification test in a South African hospital. Those scoring in the hazardous or harmful band were allocated either to a short motivational counselling session with an information leaflet, or to the leaflet alone, then screened again 3 months later. Scores fell in both groups and fell further in the counselled group, supporting screening and brief advice as something a busy general hospital in a low-resource setting can realistically deliver. The control group also received a leaflet, so the difference understates the intervention's effect.
Your focus
- Identify the participant age range and sample size in Burger's (2009) study.
- Describe the 150-volt stopping rule and its ethical purpose.
- Compare the obedience rates of Burger (2009) with Milgram's original findings.
Show all 29 objectives
- 1.3.3 Reicher and Haslam (2006) Rethinking the psychology of tyranny.
- 1.3.4 Cohrs et al. (2012) Individual differences in ideological attitudes and prejudice: evidence from peer report data.
- 2.3.2 Schmolck et al. (2002) Semantic knowledge in patient HM and other patients with bilateral medial and lateral temporal lobe lesions.
- 2.3.3 Steyvers and Hemmer (2012) Reconstruction from memory in naturalistic environments.
- 2.3.4 Sebastián and Hernández-Gil (2012) Developmental pattern of digit span in Spanish population.
- 3.3.2 Li et al. (2013) Abnormal function of the posterior cingulate cortex in heroin addicted users during resting-state and drug-cue stimulation task.
- 3.3.3 Brendgen et al. (2005) Examining genetic and environmental effects on social aggression: A study of 6-year-old twins.
- 3.3.4 Van den Oever et al. (2008) Prefrontal cortex AMPA receptor plasticity is crucial for cue-induced relapse for heroin-seeking.
- 4.3.2 Becker et al. (2002) Eating behaviours and attitudes following prolonged exposure to television among ethnic Fijian adolescent girls.
- Describe the aim, procedure, and findings of Bastian et al. (2011) regarding cyber-dehumanisation.
- Differentiate between the concepts of human nature and human uniqueness as measured in the study.
- Evaluate the methodology and socially sensitive implications of researching violent video games.
- 4.3.4 Capafóns et al. (1998) Systematic desensitisation in the treatment of the fear of flying.
- Describe the aims, procedures, findings, and conclusions of Bradbury and Williams (2013).
- Evaluate the methodology of the study, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of archival correlational research.
- Apply the findings to issues such as jury representativeness and socially sensitive research.
- 6.3.3 Valentine T and Mesout J (2009) Eyewitness identification under stress in the London Dungeon
- 6.3.4 Howells et al. (2005) Brief anger management programs with offenders: Outcomes and predictors of change.
- 7.3.2 Cassibba et al. (2013) Attachment the Italian way.
- 7.3.3 Gagnon-Oosterwaal et al. (2012) Pre-adoption adversity and self-reported behaviour problems in 7-year-old international adoptees.
- 7.3.4 Li et al. (2013) Timing of High-Quality Child Care and Cognitive, Language and Preacademic Development.
- 8.3.2 Mundt et al. (2012) Peer selection and influence effects on adolescent alcohol use: a stochastic actor-based model.
- 8.3.3 Dixit et al. (2012) Biosocial determinants of alcohol risk behaviour: An epidemiological study in urban and rural communities of Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh.
- Describe the aims, procedures, and findings of Pengpid et al. (2012).
- Evaluate the use of a randomised controlled trial in a clinical setting.
- Assess the effectiveness of screening and brief interventions for hazardous alcohol use.
Studies: One contemporary study from the following exam tips
Marking Points
- The central design decision was the stopping rule: obedience was measured by whether a participant was willing to go past the 150-volt switch where the learner first protests.
- In the base condition, 70% of participants continued past 150 volts, compared to 82.5% in the comparable variation Milgram ran, a difference that was not statistically significant.
- The modelled refusal condition, where a confederate teacher stopped first, produced a slightly lower continuation rate (63.3%) that was not a statistically significant fall from the base condition.
- Men and women did not differ significantly in their obedience rates, challenging the common assumption that obedience is predominantly a male behaviour.
- Ethical safeguards included a two-stage screening process, three reminders of the right to withdraw, a clinical psychologist present as the experimenter, and immediate debriefing.
- Getting the design right for credit: randomly allocated guards and prisoners in a simulated institution run as a case study, with quantitative measures of social identification, self reported depression and salivary cortisol triangulated against continuous video.
- Naming the three planned interventions in order, permeability of the group boundary when one prisoner was promoted, legitimacy once the division was fixed, and cognitive alternatives when an experienced trade unionist joined as a prisoner, and saying what each changed.
- Stating findings as results rather than as a story: guards failed to identify as a group and were reluctant to impose authority, prisoner identification and efficacy rose once the boundary closed, the prisoners overthrew the regime, the commune collapsed and an authoritarian solution then attracted support.
- Drawing the conclusion the examiner wants, that people do not conform mindlessly to an assigned role; it is the failure of a group to work that creates the conditions in which tyranny becomes attractive.
- Stating the problem the design solves, that self report on every variable at once inflates correlations through common method variance and social desirability, so peer report is used as an independent source of the same constructs.
- Describing the procedure accurately: target participants rated themselves on personality, ideological attitudes and prejudice, and acquaintances who knew them well rated them on parallel versions of the same scales.
- Reporting findings in the right shape, that peer report associations were smaller than self report ones but still reliable, that low openness predicted right wing authoritarianism while low agreeableness predicted social dominance orientation, and that the ideological attitudes mediated the path from traits to prejudice.
- Concluding that prejudice has a dispositional component visible to other people, which complements group level accounts such as social identity theory rather than replacing them.
- Aim stated as a test of location: whether loss of stored meaning depends on damage reaching beyond the hippocampus into anterolateral temporal cortex, rather than on medial temporal damage as such.
- Design credit for recognising a quasi experiment. The groups already existed because of surgery or illness, so there was no random allocation, and matched controls plus imaging of lesion extent are what stand in for experimental control.
- Findings with direction and size: the hippocampal formation group scored within the normal range on the semantic tasks, Henry Molaison was impaired on most of them and several standard deviations below controls on some, and the worse the lateral temporal damage the worse the semantic performance.
- The qualitative layer, which is where marks are often lost. The content of the definitions was analysed, not just the totals, and impaired patients produced vague descriptions missing the defining features of familiar things.
- Conclusion and link: semantic knowledge is supported by lateral temporal cortex, so episodic and semantic memory can be separated, which extends rather than repeats the original conclusions drawn from Henry Molaison.
- Evaluation marks for the limits: very small numbers with lesions that differ in every patient, no causal manipulation, and testing people who cannot remember agreeing to be tested raises consent and protection from harm as socially sensitive issues.
- Aim framed as a challenge: earlier schema studies used unusual settings that make prior knowledge look like a source of distortion, and this one asks what prior knowledge does when the environment is ordinary.
- Procedure detail that earns credit: naturalistic photographs from several scene categories, two different presentation durations, free report of remembered objects, and separate norming of how probable each object is in that scene type so expectation could be measured independently of memory.
- Findings in the right direction. The probability that an object was recalled rose with the probability that people expected it, total objects reported rose with exposure time, and intrusions were few and schema consistent.
- The conclusion given as a combination rather than a contrast: memory output is a blend of what was stored on this occasion and what the world usually contains, which is why recall in natural settings is more accurate than laboratory schema studies suggest.
- Evaluation credit both ways. The stimuli and the online sample give breadth and a degree of realism that word lists lack, but photographs on a screen are not rooms, the sample was self selecting, and what counts as a typical kitchen is culturally specific, so the expectations tested may not transfer.
- Useful comparison marks for setting it against Brewer and Treyens, who found people falsely recalled books in an academic office, the same schema consistent error seen here at a much lower rate.
- Aim stated twice over, as a developmental question about how phonological loop capacity changes with age and as a cross language question about whether English based norms travel.
- Method credit for the design: a cross sectional comparison of age groups tested at one time, a standardised and highly reliable span measure, and quantitative data that can be averaged and compared with other published samples.
- Findings with the pattern named. Span increases with age but not in a straight line, growth slows in the older groups, and the Spanish means fall short of the Anglo Saxon figures usually quoted in textbooks.
- Explanation tied to Baddeley and Hitch. The phonological loop can hold only what can be rehearsed in roughly a couple of seconds, so span depends on how long the items take to articulate, which is the word length effect applied across languages.
- Evaluation marks for the design: cross sectional testing confounds age with cohort and schooling, digit recall has little resemblance to everyday remembering, and the task measures one component only, saying nothing about the central executive, the visuospatial sketchpad or the episodic buffer. Against that, the large sample and standard procedure make the norms dependable and the cross language comparison is a real corrective to ethnocentric norms.
- Naming the technique and both conditions: functional magnetic resonance imaging of the blood oxygen level dependent signal, taken in a resting-state scan and in a drug-cue task with neutral images as the comparison.
- Explaining why a region of interest was chosen in advance, which is that a hypothesis-driven analysis of the posterior cingulate avoids the false positives of searching the whole brain.
- Results with direction: heroin users differed from controls at rest and showed a larger posterior cingulate response to heroin cues, a pattern read as cue reactivity and therefore as relapse risk.
- Evaluation on both sides: an objective physiological measure that sidesteps the social desirability of self-report, but small groups drawn from one culture, male participants only, and an association between activity and craving rather than evidence that the activity causes relapse.
- The application drawn out, that a neural signature of cue reactivity gives therapy a target through cue exposure work and gives clinicians an objective way to monitor change.
- The sample and the measures: over two hundred pairs of twins assessed at six years old, with teacher ratings and peer nominations, so no conclusion rests on a single informant.
- The inferential logic spelled out, that identical pairs share all of their genes and non-identical pairs about half, so a larger identical correlation is read as evidence of heritability.
- The split result stated in both directions, heritable physical aggression against socially transmitted indirect aggression, because the whole value of the study is that the two dissociate.
- Drawing the conclusion for nature and nurture, that aggression is not one thing with one cause, and that an intervention aimed at social aggression should therefore target peers, modelling and the classroom rather than biology.
- Evaluation that names twin-design problems specifically: the equal environments assumption, subjectivity in ratings even when two sources agree, and results drawn from one cohort in one country at one age.
- The procedure in its four stages: self-administration training with a discrete cue, extinction of lever pressing, cue-induced reinstatement, and measurement of synaptic transmission in the medial prefrontal cortex.
- The finding with direction, that cue exposure caused a rapid loss of AMPA receptors from prefrontal synapses and so a weakening of transmission, not the strengthening students often assume.
- The causal test, which is the heart of the study: blocking receptor removal pharmacologically abolished cue-induced heroin seeking, which is why the plasticity is described as crucial rather than incidental.
- Evaluation on the standard axis for animal research: an experimental manipulation with control that would be impossible in humans, set against species difference, an imposed rather than chosen drug history, and the stripping out of the social and cognitive side of human addiction.
- The application and the ethics together, that the work points towards an anti-relapse drug while raising the justification of invasive procedures on animals under the cost and benefit reasoning of the regulating legislation.
- Give the quantitative findings: roughly one girl in eight scored above the cut-off on the Eating Attitudes Test at the first testing against nearly three in ten at the second, and self-induced vomiting to control weight rose from none of the first sample to about one in nine of the second.
- Report the qualitative strand properly, because interviewed girls said they wanted to look like the characters on television and linked a slimmer body to getting work, which is identification and vicarious reinforcement in the girls' own words.
- Name the design as an independent measures natural experiment, with the introduction of television as a naturally occurring independent variable, combining questionnaire data with narrative interviews.
- Attack the causal claim carefully: television arrived alongside tourism, schooling and economic change, and different girls were tested each time rather than the same girls followed over time, so this is association rather than cause.
- Use the cultural dimension, since a Western-developed eating attitudes questionnaire was applied to a culture where commenting on weight gain was a compliment, which is an imposed etic and a source of cultural bias.
- The study utilised a laboratory experiment design with an independent measures comparison, randomly allocating participants to either a violent or non-violent video game condition.
- The dependent variable was measured using self-report rating scales assessing two distinct dimensions of humanity: human nature (core emotional traits) and human uniqueness (civility and rationality).
- Findings demonstrated that violent gameplay significantly lowered participants' perceptions of human nature traits for both themselves and their co-players.
- The study found no significant impact of violent gameplay on ratings of human uniqueness for either the self or the co-player.
- The research is socially sensitive, providing empirical evidence that can influence public debates and policy regarding video game age ratings and media regulation.
- Explain the logic of the therapy, that relaxation and anxiety cannot be experienced at once, so reciprocal inhibition lets a client climb a hierarchy only as each step is tolerated calmly.
- Describe the procedure accurately, with assessment on both self-report and physiological measures, relaxation training, individually built hierarchies, repeated sessions of imagined exposure and a waiting-list group measured at the same points.
- Report the results with their limits, since most of the treated group reported substantially less fear than controls, some showed no benefit at all, and the physiological data were weaker evidence than the self-reports.
- Evaluate the measures, because a waiting-list control rules out the simple passage of time, but volunteers who answered an advertisement are motivated and know which group they are in, so expectancy and demand characteristics inflate self-report.
- Say what the treatment does not do, since it removes a conditioned fear response rather than whatever produced it, and an imagined flight is not the same as boarding an aircraft.
- Identifying the method precisely as secondary analysis of existing trial records with a correlational design, meaning no causal claim can be made.
- Naming both predictors: the proportion of white jurors and the race of the defendant, with conviction or acquittal as the outcome measured.
- Stating the key finding that a higher proportion of white jurors increased conviction rates specifically for Black defendants, showing an interaction effect.
- Evaluating the study by contrasting the high ecological validity of real verdicts with the lack of control over variables like evidence strength.
- Credit for the design: a field experiment in which state anxiety was measured rather than manipulated, making the comparison quasi experimental with groups that were never equivalent to begin with.
- Naming the measures earns marks, a recognised state anxiety inventory together with heart rate on one side, and correct identification from a video line up plus counts of correct and incorrect descriptors on the other.
- The result earns credit with its size attached: correct identification fell from about three quarters in the low anxiety group to well under a quarter in the high anxiety group.
- Evaluation credit for genuine emotion and high ecological validity, weighed against confounds including dim lighting, brief exposure, trait anxiety and the self selecting nature of people who choose to visit a frightening attraction.
- Linking to theory earns credit, for example to the inverted U relationship between arousal and performance, or to weapon focus accounts in which threat narrows attention onto one feature at the cost of the face.
- Credit for the comparison built into the design, treated offenders against a waiting list control, with more than one kind of measure, self report, a knowledge test and observer ratings.
- The headline result earns credit when stated honestly, that the brief programme produced little improvement in anger itself relative to the control group, with knowledge about anger the clearest gain.
- Naming the predictors of change earns the application mark: treatment readiness, motivation and higher levels of anger before the programme began.
- Evaluation credit for the weaknesses of self report in a prison, where men may present themselves well because parole decisions follow, and for volunteer samples, dropout and the short dosage of treatment.
- Credit for saying what anger management does not address, including planned instrumental violence committed without loss of temper, offending driven by acquisition, and entrenched personality difficulties for which longer and different programmes exist.
- Credit for the design: a meta-analysis of existing Italian data using two different measures, infant behaviour in the Strange Situation and adults' narrative coherence in the Adult Attachment Interview, which lets the same question be asked at two points in the lifespan.
- Findings should be reported as a comparison with the worldwide norms set by the earlier meta-analyses rather than as free-standing Italian figures, because the difference from the norm is what the study is about.
- Conclusion credit for the middle position: the Italian distributions are close enough to the international ones to support a universal attachment system, while the departures invite explanation in Italian family arrangements, including extended family care of young children and the growth of non-parental care.
- Evaluation credit for including unpublished samples, which reduces publication bias, set against the standard meta-analytic weakness that pooled studies differ in sample, setting and coder.
- Comparison credit: like van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg, this study treats a nation as a culture, and the same objection applies, since northern and southern regions and clinical and non-clinical families are not one population.
- Credit for the design: a follow-up of internationally adopted children with adversity indexed at arrival through health and growth measures and outcomes measured years later, which makes the study longitudinal and correlational rather than experimental.
- Two informants is the methodological point worth making, since parents completed a standardised behaviour checklist while the children answered for themselves, and the two sources did not agree, which is why single-informant studies of adopted children are treated cautiously.
- Findings credit for the pattern: pre-adoption adversity predicted the children's own reports of emotional and behavioural difficulties, whereas the mothers' ratings were better predicted by maternal stress, and scores overall were mostly within the normal range.
- Conclusion credit for the link to privation research, that adoption into a stable family supports substantial recovery, matching Rutter's Romanian adoptee finding that earlier placement predicts better outcomes, while residual difficulties persist for those who suffered most beforehand.
- Evaluation credit for causation: because adversity was not manipulated and families were not randomly assigned, the study shows that adversity and later difficulties go together but cannot show that one caused the other.
- Say what was measured and how, since credit comes from naming trained observer ratings of caregiving quality rather than parent report, and standardised tests of letter and word recognition, applied problems and language at four and a half years.
- Report the timing result in the direction the researchers found it, with care quality during the preschool years linked to stronger cognitive, language and preacademic scores while quality restricted to infancy and toddlerhood added little by itself.
- Name the design as a longitudinal secondary analysis of an existing cohort with propensity weighting, because that is what allows you to say family background was controlled statistically while nobody was allocated to a nursery by the researchers.
- Evaluation credit follows from the size and source of the effects, which were small, drawn from one United States sample of volunteer families, and measured on tests of school readiness rather than on emotional or behavioural outcomes.
- Describing the method precisely: secondary analysis of longitudinal survey data in which students named their friends and reported their own drinking at two points, modelled with actor-based simulation that lets ties and behaviour change step by step.
- Stating the aim as separating two confounded processes, selection of similar friends and influence by existing friends, which a simple correlation between friends cannot do.
- Reporting the finding as both effects reaching significance, so friend similarity in alcohol use is part sorting and part contagion, and neither alone explains it.
- Drawing the application the authors draw, that prevention should work on friendship groups and perceived norms rather than on individuals in isolation.
- Evaluating by method: longitudinal and large scale with real friendship data, so high ecological validity, against self-reported drinking, a limited number of friends each student could name, only in-school friends counted, an American sample, and modelling assumptions that the reader has to take on trust.
- Naming the design correctly as a cross-sectional community survey using structured interview and questionnaire, comparing two communities rather than manipulating anything.
- Reporting determinants rather than a bare prevalence figure: lower education and lower socio-economic status, manual occupation, male sex, early age of first use, and family or peer drinking as the strongest social predictors.
- Explaining what biosocial means here, that biological vulnerability suggested by family history is recorded alongside social conditions, which is the biopsychosocial model turned into a data collection sheet.
- Evaluating the sampling: community members rather than volunteers or students gives a picture of a whole population, but one district cannot stand for India, and the near absence of women drinkers limits what can be said about them.
- Raising cultural bias as the discussion point, since most health psychology evidence is Western, and an under-reported behaviour that is socially disapproved will be measured differently in different cultures.
- Naming the design as a randomised controlled trial with independent groups, a standardised screening questionnaire used as both selection tool and outcome measure, and follow-up 3 months after the session.
- Describing the intervention concretely as brief, single session and motivational, delivered by trained staff in the outpatient department, against a comparison group given health education material only.
- Stating the result as a comparison rather than as a single number, so both groups improved and the brief-intervention group improved significantly more on the screening score.
- Evaluating the design fairly: random allocation controls participant variables and licenses a causal claim, while participants knew what they had received, the outcome was self-reported, and people lost to follow-up within the 3-month window are unlikely to be a random subset.
- Saying what the approach does not do, since screening and brief intervention targets hazardous and harmful drinkers, and dependence needs detoxification, sustained psychosocial treatment and sometimes medication such as acamprosate or naltrexone.
Examiner Tips
- 💡Remember the exact age range of participants (20 to 81) and the sample size (70) for multiple-choice recall.
- 💡Be able to identify the specific voltage (150V) at which the procedure was stopped to protect participants from severe distress.
- 💡Recall that the sample shock given to participants was 15V, which is lower than the 45V sample shock used in Milgram's original study.
- 💡Edexcel pairs the contemporary study with the classic study, so be ready to compare it with Sherif et al. on aim, method, sample and conclusions in an extended answer.
- 💡Evaluation marks come easily from the television context, so plan a line on demand characteristics and participants performing for an audience, balanced by the point that eight days of filmed behaviour is hard to fake.
- 💡Make generalisability specific rather than general: fifteen screened British men who volunteered to be televised is a narrow sample in culture, gender and personality.
- 💡If this is your chosen contemporary study, prepare the direct comparison with Sherif et al., since one explains prejudice by disposition and the other by situation, which is the contrast Edexcel likes to set.
- 💡Keep a sentence linking it to the individual differences content on personality and prejudice, because questions on that content expect evidence and this study supplies it.
- 💡An assess question rewards method as well as findings, so practise a paragraph on how peer report raises validity and what it still cannot fix, such as raters who share the social world of the person rated.
- 💡Contemporary study questions ask for aim, procedure, findings and conclusions as separate items, so rehearse one sentence for each and hold one quantitative detail in reserve.
- 💡Comparison questions across the classic and contemporary study are common. Compare the sample, the level of control, the type of data and the strength of the conclusion each can support.
- 💡Generalisability criticism only earns full credit when the lesion detail is given, because the point is that no two patients share the same damage, not simply that the sample was small.
- 💡Studies questions can give you unseen data or a scenario about someone remembering a room, so practise applying the finding that expected objects are recalled best to a described situation.
- 💡If the question asks for two criticisms, take one about the stimuli or sample and one about the conclusion, because two criticisms of the sample read as one point to a marker.
- 💡This study is the obvious evidence for eyewitness reliability in an issues and debates or key question answer, so keep one sentence linking it to testimony.
- 💡Data questions often supply a table of mean spans by age and ask you to describe the trend or comment on it, so practise describing a curve that rises and then levels off.
- 💡This is the study to use when a question asks how far findings from one culture or language can be generalised, so keep the word length explanation to one clear sentence.
- 💡It also supplies the evidence base for a key question on dyslexia or on assessment in schools, which makes it efficient revision for two different answers.
- 💡Contemporary study items usually want aim, procedure, results and conclusion in compressed form, so rehearse each as a single sentence you can write under time pressure.
- 💡The quickest evaluation marks come from sampling and from the correlational nature of imaging data, provided you attach a consequence to each rather than naming the flaw alone.
- 💡You may be asked to compare the contemporary study with the classic study, and the productive axis is what each scanner measures and what each design can legitimately conclude.
- 💡If asked how a twin study supports a nature argument, state the comparison first and the inference second, because the result alone does not show the reasoning the mark scheme rewards.
- 💡Short application items often give a scenario about one child, so say which form of aggression it describes and which source this study implicates.
- 💡Carry one twin-design strength and one twin-design weakness into the issues and debates paper, where nature and nurture is asked directly.
- 💡Animal studies invite the generalisation debate, so make the point precisely by naming what a rat cannot model, such as craving described in words or the social meaning of using.
- 💡A methods item may ask why an animal model was necessary here; the answer is the invasive measurement and the complete control of drug history, not convenience.
- 💡Keep a prepared sentence on the ethics of animal research, since this study is the obvious hook for the ethical implications strand of issues and debates.
- 💡Contemporary study questions regularly ask how the study links to the learning approach, so have one sentence ready on modelling, one on identification and one on vicarious reinforcement.
- 💡If a novel scenario about social media and body image is given, apply these findings to that scenario instead of describing the study again, because application is where the marks move.
- 💡Questions asking you to assess usefulness reward practical consequences such as media regulation and health education alongside the methodological limits.
- 💡When describing the results of Bastian et al. (2011), explicitly state that human nature ratings decreased for both self and co-player, while human uniqueness ratings were unaffected.
- 💡Use this study to evaluate the laboratory experiment method, contrasting the high internal validity of random allocation and controlled playing time with the low mundane realism of the task.
- 💡Prepare to discuss the ethical and social implications of these findings, particularly how demonstrating cyber-dehumanisation contributes to debates on media violence.
- 💡This study is the natural evidence base for the key question about airlines offering treatment, so learn it in a form you can reuse inside that essay.
- 💡Questions asking you to assess effectiveness want evidence, measures and the people it failed, not the stages of the therapy listed again.
- 💡If a scenario describes a phobia of dogs or of needles, apply relaxation and a named hierarchy to that scenario, because application marks are lost to generic description.
- 💡If this is your contemporary study, be ready to compare it with a classic study on method, contrasting archival correlation with controlled experiments.
- 💡Expect a question linking the study to issues and debates; cultural bias and socially sensitive research are the two that fit it best.
- 💡Questions asking you to evaluate usefulness want applications, so name jury summoning, the representativeness of the jury pool and training for legal professionals.
- 💡This is the natural evidence base for a key question on eyewitness reliability, so learn one sentence of procedure and one figure you can quote with confidence.
- 💡If asked about ethics, note the genuine fear induced, the consent given by people who had already chosen a frightening experience, and how easy or hard it is to withdraw halfway through a dark labyrinth.
- 💡Comparison questions reward one methodological similarity and one difference, so pair realism and control against the classic study.
- 💡When the question supplies a scenario about a frightened witness, apply the finding to that person rather than retelling the procedure.
- 💡Anger management questions usually pair a description of the programme, cognitive preparation, skill acquisition and application practice, with an evaluation of effectiveness, so revise both halves together.
- 💡Use this study as the counterweight to more positive evidence, such as the meta analysis by Beck and Fernandez reporting a moderate to large average effect for cognitive behavioural anger treatment in general populations.
- 💡When the command word is assess, finish with a stated verdict about when brief programmes are worth running, rather than listing points and leaving the judgement to the marker.
- 💡If the question gives a scenario about a prisoner sent on a course, apply readiness and motivation to that individual instead of describing the study again.
- 💡You study one contemporary study only, so be certain which one you learned and never blend its findings with the alternative option in the specification.
- 💡Questions often ask you to assess the contemporary study or to compare it with the classic study, so prepare the two meta-analyses side by side on sampling, measures and cultural claims.
- 💡If asked to explain how the study links to a theme such as nature and nurture, state the link in the first sentence rather than leaving the marker to infer it.
- 💡Contemporary study questions often supply a fresh scenario about an adopted or fostered child and ask you to explain it using the study, so practise applying the finding rather than reciting it.
- 💡When asked to evaluate, use generalisability, reliability, application, validity and ethics as headings and give one specific detail of this study under each rather than a general remark.
- 💡Be ready to compare this study with the classic study on method, since one pools data that already existed while this one follows real children over years.
- 💡You need only one contemporary study for this topic, so learn this one in the familiar aim, procedure, findings and conclusion shape instead of half remembering all the alternatives.
- 💡Questions often set the contemporary study against the classic study, so keep two ready points of comparison, one on the samples and one on how care quality was measured.
- 💡When asked to evaluate, give more space to generalisability and to cause and effect than to ethics, because a reanalysis of existing data raises few ethical problems worth writing about.
- 💡A contemporary study is examined both as description of aim, method, results and conclusions and as evaluation, and it is often set against the classic study for the option, Olds and Milner (1954), so rehearse a comparison on control, sample and ecological validity.
- 💡Learn two strengths and two weaknesses that come from this design in particular, such as longitudinal data and self-report, rather than the generic complaint that the sample was small.
- 💡Where a scenario describes a teenager whose friends all drink, the selection and influence distinction is the applied point that earns application marks.
- 💡Comparison questions are common on contemporary studies, so prepare one paragraph comparing this survey with an experimental study on control, validity and what each can conclude.
- 💡Application stems often ask you to advise a health worker, so keep one targeted recommendation ready that follows from the findings, such as screening in primary care and working with peer groups of young rural men.
- 💡Cultural bias, and the argument that health psychology needs non-Western samples, is the evaluation line examiners reward here, so name it rather than implying it.
- 💡Extended evaluation questions reward method comparison, and this trial contrasts neatly with the correlational designs of the other contemporary options, so use it as the controlled end of the scale.
- 💡If asked how psychologists test whether a treatment works, use this as your worked example of randomisation, a standardised procedure and a follow-up measure.
- 💡Keep one strength and one weakness of self-report as an outcome measure for drinking, because that is the weakness the examiner expects you to see through the randomisation.
Common Mistakes
- Treating this as a full replication, when nobody was allowed to continue to the top of the shock scale, so maximum shock rates cannot be compared.
- Concluding that obedience has fallen because one percentage is lower than another, when the difference was not statistically significant and the samples differ.
- Assuming the model who refused reduced obedience, when the drop was small and unreliable.
- Describing the shocks as real, when the learner was a confederate and no shock was delivered.
- Writing the Stanford prison study findings by mistake because the two look alike; here the guards were weak and reluctant and the prisoners won, which is the opposite result.
- Calling it an experiment with an independent variable and a dependent variable, when there was no control condition and the interventions were introduced in sequence to one group, so causal claims cannot be made.
- Condemning it as unethical by association with Zimbardo, when it had ethics committee approval, clinical monitoring, an independent panel with power to stop it and a genuine right to withdraw; the criticism that does stick is that it was broadcast.
- Writing it up as an experiment. It is correlational, so personality causing prejudice cannot be claimed, and saying so throws away an easy evaluation point.
- Confusing the two ideological measures: right wing authoritarianism is submission to authority and conventional norms, social dominance orientation is a preference for hierarchy between groups, and they grow from different traits.
- Ignoring the sample and the target groups, when a German sample rating attitudes towards particular minorities cannot support a claim about prejudice everywhere.
- Writing a general account of amnesia in Henry Molaison instead of the semantic findings this study reports, which answers a different question.
- Calling the study a laboratory experiment. The brain damage was not manipulated by anyone, so it is a quasi or natural experiment and causal claims must be hedged.
- Concluding that the hippocampus plays no part in semantic memory, when the damage in the impaired patients extended well beyond it and the design cannot isolate one structure.
- Quoting the number of tasks as if that were a finding, and never saying which groups were impaired on them.
- Reporting the study as evidence that memory is unreliable, when its point is that expectation usually supports accurate recall outside the laboratory.
- Confusing it with Bartlett and writing about a folk tale being distorted through retellings, which is a different method and a different claim.
- Claiming high ecological validity without qualifying it. Participants looked at images on a screen and typed lists, which is not the same as remembering a room they walked through.
- Describing prior knowledge and schema as the same as guessing, and so missing that the model treats expectation as genuine information.
- Concluding that Spanish speakers have poorer memories, when the effect lies in how long the number words take to say and not in the people.
- Treating a digit span score as a measure of working memory as a whole rather than of the phonological loop.
- Describing the study as though the same children were followed as they grew up, which would be a longitudinal design and carries different criticisms.
- Reporting only that span rises with age and omitting the cross language comparison, which is the part the specification is interested in.
- Claiming the study shows the posterior cingulate cortex causes addiction, when it compares groups that already differ in drug history.
- Describing only the cue task and forgetting the resting-state scan, which is half the title and half the finding.
- Presenting the sample as large; scanning samples are small because of cost, and that is a limitation to state rather than to hide.
- Muddling this with Van den Oever et al., which is invasive animal work on receptors rather than human imaging.
- Reporting the study as showing that aggression is genetic, when only the physical form was, which reverses the point of the paper.
- Confusing shared with non-shared environment; shared influences make twins alike, such as household rules, while non-shared influences make them differ, such as being placed with different teachers.
- Accepting the equal environments assumption without comment, when identical twins are often treated more alike and heritability estimates are inflated as a result.
- Forgetting the age of the sample and generalising the finding to adolescent or adult aggression.
- Writing about the study as though it involved human participants or a brain scan, when it is invasive laboratory work on rats.
- Saying the cue strengthened the synapses, when the change was a weakening produced by receptor removal.
- Reporting only the association between cue and synaptic change and omitting the blocking manipulation, which is the only part that supports a causal conclusion.
- Concluding that heroin addiction is entirely biological, which ignores the learning history that gave the cue its power in the first place.
- Saying the same girls were tested twice; the two samples were different girls, which is exactly why participant variables are a fair criticism.
- Reporting that the girls developed anorexia, when what was measured was attitudes, self-reported behaviour and disordered eating scores, not clinical diagnosis.
- Treating the study as proof that media causes eating disorders, when nothing was controlled and the researchers themselves describe a society in rapid transition.
- Claiming that the study found violent games reduced human uniqueness, when the significant reductions were only found in ratings of human nature.
- Stating that the study measured aggressive behaviour, when the dependent variable was actually the perceived humanity of the self and the co-player measured via rating scales.
- Failing to distinguish between the two dimensions of dehumanisation (human nature and human uniqueness) when describing the dependent variable and results.
- Confusing systematic desensitisation with flooding, when the hierarchy and the relaxation training are precisely what make it gradual.
- Writing that the therapy cured everybody, when the participants who did not improve are the most useful part of the study for evaluation.
- Ignoring the comparison group and then claiming there was nothing to compare against, when the waiting-list design is one of the study's strengths.
- Writing about it as a mock jury experiment with student participants, which is a different research tradition whose criticisms do not apply here.
- Concluding that the study shows white jurors are racist, rather than showing an association at the jury level which could arise from deliberation dynamics or case differences.
- Stating the effect was most clear for Hispanic defendants, when the study actually found the significant association for Black defendants.
- Calling it a laboratory experiment. It ran inside a public attraction with visitors going through as they normally would, which is precisely why it is quoted against film based studies.
- Treating the anxiety groups as randomly allocated and so concluding that the study proves anxiety causes misidentification.
- Reporting the identification figures the wrong way round, or quoting a percentage without saying which group it belongs to.
- Overlooking that the target was a stranger seen once in poor viewing conditions, so even the calm group's accuracy matters to the argument about identification evidence.
- Offering the study as proof that anger management works. Its value in an answer is the opposite, that a brief version largely did not, which makes it excellent evaluation material.
- Confusing anger management with restorative justice or with a token economy, when only one of the three works on the thoughts and arousal that precede losing your temper.
- Writing about reconviction rates when what was measured was anger, knowledge and ratings of behaviour, not reoffending.
- Ignoring the control group and treating a before and after improvement as evidence that the programme caused it.
- Writing that the researchers collected new data from Italian mothers and babies. They analysed studies that already existed.
- Reporting only the infant findings and ignoring the adult interview data, which is half of the study and the half that lets the lifespan claim be made.
- Using the results to argue that Italian parenting is worse. The differences are in classification proportions, are largest in at-risk samples, and say nothing about any individual family.
- Quoting precise percentages you are not sure of. An accurate account of the pattern earns far more than a confidently invented number.
- Calling this an experiment on privation. Nothing was manipulated, and no ethical study could assign a child to deprivation.
- Reporting that the adoptees were damaged. Most fell within the normal range, and the interesting result is the mismatch between what mothers reported and what the children reported about themselves.
- Ignoring the measurement problem, since adversity before adoption was inferred from health and growth on arrival rather than observed in the institutions, so the exposure is estimated rather than known.
- Generalising to all adopted children from one sample recruited in one country and followed by one research team.
- Writing about the study as though it were an experiment that assigned children to good or poor nurseries, when families chose their own care and the analysis only weighted for the differences between them.
- Turning a modest statistical association into the claim that day care before the age of two harms development, which is not what these data showed.
- Describing the outcomes as attachment security or behaviour problems, when the measures reported were cognitive, language and preacademic tests.
- Writing that the study proves peer pressure causes teenage drinking, which is the exact inference the modelling exists to block, since selection accounted for part of the similarity.
- Calling it an experiment with an independent variable, when nothing was manipulated and the data were collected by questionnaire and then re-analysed.
- Describing peer pressure in general terms and never mentioning networks, waves of data or the model, so the procedure marks go unearned.
- Treating the statistical simulation as a computer experiment on simulated teenagers rather than a way of estimating effects in real survey data.
- Reading the associations as causes and writing that poverty or illiteracy causes alcohol misuse, when the survey measured everything at one moment.
- Assuming the findings transfer straight to the United Kingdom, ignoring differences in availability, price, drinking norms and the kinds of alcohol consumed.
- Dismissing the study as invalid because it used self-report, instead of making the precise point that a stigmatised behaviour is systematically under-reported, especially by women.
- Describing it as a study of causes of alcoholism, when it measured patterns of risk behaviour in a community, not a clinical diagnosis.
- Calling the comparison group a no-treatment control when it received the leaflet, which makes the trial a comparison of two interventions.
- Claiming the study cured alcoholism, when the participants were risky drinkers identified by screening rather than diagnosed dependent patients.
- Asserting that a randomised controlled trial removes all bias, forgetting demand characteristics, social desirability in a clinical setting and self-reported outcomes.
- Leaving out the setting, when the point of the trial is that a low-cost intervention worked where specialist addiction services are scarce.