Psychological Studies Comparison Chart

Social Approach: Milgram, Perry, and Piliavin Compare each study in the chart below to the Milgram study. For example, in the Perry column, list three similarities Perry shares with Milgram and three differences between Perry and Milgram. Milgram vs. Perry Similarities Differences 1. Both studies explore human behavior in response to authority. 2. They involve experimental designs that include deception. 3. Both aim to understand the psychological mechanisms behind obedience and conformity. 1. Milgram focused on obedience to authority, while Perry examined the impact of social pressure on decisionmaking. 2. The participant demographics may vary significantly between the two studies. 3. Milgram's study used a laboratory setting, whereas Perry's might utilize real-world scenarios. Perry vs. Piliavin Similarities Milgram vs. Piliavin 1. Both studies investigate social behavior and human responses in group situations. 2. They analyze the influence of situational factors on individual actions. 3. Both involve ethical considerations regarding participant treatment. 1. Milgram's study focuses on obedience, while Piliavin studies bystander intervention. 2. The contexts are different: Milgram's is a lab setting, and Piliavin's is a field study. 3. The outcomes and implications of the findings differ significantly, with Milgram highlighting authority and Piliavin emphasizing social responsibility. Perry vs. Piliavin Differences 1. Both address helping behavior. 2. Both consider situational factors. 3. Both have implications for social psychology. In the next two cells, list three similarities and differences between Perry and Piliavin. 1. Perry might focus on cognitive development stages influencing helping, while Piliavin might emphasize bystander intervention and diffusion of responsibility. 2. Perry's model might be more individualfocused, while Piliavin's might be more groupfocused. 3. Perry's approach might be more qualitative, while Piliavin's might be more quantitative (e.g., using experiments). Biological Approach: Dement and Kleitman, Hassett et al., and Holzel et al. Compare each study in the chart below to the Dement and Kleitman study. For example, in the Hassett et al. column, list three similarities Hassett et al. shares with Dement and Kleitman and three differences between Hassett et al. and Dement and Kleitman. Dement and Kleitman vs. Dement and Kleitman vs. Hassett et al. Holzel et al. Both used experimental methods to investigate behavior. Similarities Both included objective measurements (e.g., EEG in sleep; observed toy preferences). Both involved brain activity and structure. Both used scientific tools to measure mental states (EEG and MRI). Both studies contributed to Both contribute to debates about biological understanding human influences on behavior. consciousness. Dement and Kleitman ment’s studied human participants; study was about REM sleep; Hassett Holzel’s used non-human primates. was about mindfulness. Dement focused on sleep and dreaming; Dement used short-term lab observations; Hassett Holzel Differences focused on sex-based toy preferences. conducted a longer-term Dement relied on self-reports during REM; intervention. Hassett Dement looked at dreaming states; observed behavioral choices directly. Holzel looked at structural brain changes. Hassett vs Holzel Similarities Hassett vs Holzel Differences 1. Hassett used animals; Holzel used human adults. Hassett Both explored biological bases of behavior. focused on innate behavior; Holzel Both studies contributed to understanding gender or emotional regulation. focused on learned practices like meditation. In the next two cells, list three Both used experimental/control methods to similarities and differences between assess outcomes. Hassett’s Hassett and Holzel. results were based on observation; Holzel used MRI brain scans. Cognitive Approach: Andrade, Baron-Cohen et al, and Pozzulo et al. Compare each study in the chart below to the Andrade study. For example, in the Perry column, list three similarities Perry shares with Milgram and three differences between Perry and Milgram. Andrade vs. Baron-Cohen et al. Andrade vs. Pozzulo et al. Similarities Both use Both studies explore controlled lab experiments memory and recall accuracy to assess cognitive processes. . Both investigate aspects of Both are attention and perception experimental in design (Andrade with focus and memory, , with clear independent and Baron-Cohen with emotion recognition). dependent variables. Both involve Both assess how adult participants external conditions and collect quantitative data. (e.g., doodling or being a child eyewitness) affect cognitive outcomes. Andrade studied doodling and memory recall , while Pozzulo Andrade focuses on studied memory and attention eyewitness identification and memory accuracy , while Baron-Cohen focuses on . empathy and theory of mind Andrade used . adults in a listening task Andrade’s participants performed a , while listening task Pozzulo Differences , while Baron-Cohen’s completed a often used visual task (reading emotions from eyes). Andrade's study did not involve any clinical populations, while BaronCohen’s included participants with autism children and adults in visual identification tasks . Andrade focused on passive memory tasks , Pozzulo focused on realistic, high-stakes memory scenarios (e.g., identifying a suspect). Baron-Cohen et al. vs. Pozzulo et al. Similarities Baron-Cohen et al. vs. Pozzulo et al. Differences Baron-Cohen focuses on empathy and autism , while Pozzulo Both assess how individuals focuses on process social information (Baron-Cohen: emotional perception, memory accuracy and justice applications Pozzulo . : eyewitness perception). Baron-Cohen used static Both use photographs of eyes visual stimuli , while In the next two cells, list three in their experiments. similarities and differences between Baron-Cohen et al. and Pozzulo et al. Both analyze individual differences Pozzulo used video or live lineup scenarios in cognitive processing (e.g., autism vs. . typical; adults vs. children). Baron-Cohen's aim was diagnostic/theoretical , Pozzulo’s was applied/legal . Learning Approach: Saavedra and Silverman, Bandura et al., and Fagen et al. Compare each study in the chart below to the Saavedrs and Silverman study. For example, in the Bandurs et al. column, list three similarities Bandura et al. shares with Saavedra and Silverman and three differences between Bandura et al. and Saavedra and Silverman. Saavedra and Silverman vs. Bandura et al. Saavedra and Silverman vs. Fagen et al. Both studied Both studied children's behavior in response to emotional or learned stimuli. Both explored the role of learning theories Similarities emotional responses in children (fear in Saavedra; recognition/conditioning in Fagen ). Both used —Saavedra (classical and operant conditioning), Bandura (observational conditioning principles learning/social learning theory). — Both used case study or experimental Fagen approaches to study psychological change. used classical conditioning with infants, Saavedra used both classical and operant conditioning. Both focused on behavior change over time due to learned associations. Saavedra used a clinical case of a phobia , while Saavedra and Silverman used a Fagen case study conducted on a boy with a phobia; Bandura used controlled lab experiments a with infants. large lab experiment with many children. Saavedra focused on fear reduction (treatment) , while Bandura focused on Differences aggression modeling (cause) . Saavedra used exposure therapy and reinforcement , while Bandura showed the effects of observing aggressive behavior . Saavedra dealt with a specific fear response , Fagen tested infant memory and learning . Saavedra involved verbal feedback and subjective distress , Fagen used measurable physiological responses ( like sucking behavior). Bandura vs. Fagen Similarities Bandura vs Fagen Differences Bandura studied social learning (observational learning) , while Fagen Both studied focused on learning and behavioral responses classical conditioning in children. . Both used Bandura used controlled laboratory experiments older children (around age 4) to manipulate variables. ; Both relied on In the next two cells, list three similarities and differences observable behaviors between Bandura and Fagen. Fagen worked with to measure outcomes (aggression in Bandura, sucking behavior in infants Fagen . ). Bandura observed emotional aggression , while Fagen tracked physiological responses (like changes in sucking rate) . Mark Scheme Responses (from current syllabus): DIFFERENCES: Dement and Kleitman / Holzel et al: brain measurement, research techniques used, type of data collected (quantitative/qualitative), generalisability , sample size. Milgram/Perry et al.: stooges, ethics, data collection techniques, generalisability , (ecological) validity. Dement and Kleitman /2 nd Biological Approach Study: e.g., brain measurement, research techniques used, type of data collected (quantitative/qualitative), experimental design. SIMILARITIES: Baron-Cohen et al/ 2 nd Cognit ive Approach Study: e. g., experimental, lack mundane realism, quantitative data collection SIMILARITIES/DIFFERENCES: Fagen et al/Bandura et al: S imilarity, e.g., observational, lack mundane realism, quantitative data collection D ifference, e.g., qualitative data collection, experimental design used Fagen et al/2 nd Learning Approach Study: S imilarity, e.g., observational, lack mundane realism, quantitative data collection, use of rewards/operant conditioning, standardisation , lacking generalisability . D ifference, e.g., qualitative data collection, sample, level of controls. Andrade/ Pozzulo et al.: S imilarity, e.g., experimental, lack mundane realism, quantitative data collection, experimental design used, ethics, cognitive skills being tested. D ifference, e.g., experimental design used, cognitive skills being tested, ethics. RUBRIC: EXAMPLE SAMPLE RESPONSE: