OCR Psychology For A Level Book 1 sample

Review of developmental core studies 3 and 4 Section A of the Component 02 exam requires knowledge of individual studies, methodological issues and how the studies relate to their key theme and area of psychology. You have now covered that for core studies 3 and 4 (the A level studies). A final requirement is to consider the core studies in pairs – how are they similar and different? How does the contemporary study change our understanding of the key themes? To what extent does the contemporary study change our understanding of individual, social and cultural diversity? Similarities and differences Methodology These two core studies used quite different methodologies. Kohlberg used a quasi- experimental method with semi-structured interviews . It compared ‘existing’ groups (children from different cultures and of different ages) so there was no manipulation of an independent variable (IV) . Lee et al . also used a quasi-experimental method to compare two age groups. But it was primarily a laboratory experiment in which an IV was manipulated (type of story). There was a greater attempt to control variables in this study than in Kohlberg ’s. In contrast there was an element of informality about Kohlberg ’s research which is arguably highly appropriate to the cross-cultural study of moral thinking. This is evident in the use of the Moral Judgement Interview, which followed a flexible rather than rigid procedure. Longitudinal versus snapshot The Kohlberg study was longitudinal . 75 American boys were tested several times over a period of about 12 years. This is the most appropriate methodology to use to trace developmental changes, to see if children’s moral reasoning really does follow the sequence of six stages Kohlberg outlined in his theory. The Lee et al . study was a snapshot design because it compared two different groups of children of different ages at one point in time. This alternative way of studying developmental changes is arguably less satisfactory because it introduces potentially extraneous variables (i.e. differences between groups of children which do not arise if the same group of children is used, as in Kohlberg ’s study). New understandings The role of emotions A striking assumption accepted by both core studies is that we make moral decisions through a process of rational thinking (hence the term ‘moral reasoning’). This is partly due to the methodologies of the studies in using moral dilemmas. Because they are hypothetical, they are thinking exercises in which emotion plays little or no role. In real life, moral thinking is often accompanied by powerful feelings such as anger and guilt. This distinction is supported by evidence from brain scanning studies. Joshua Greene and his colleagues (2001) found that personal moral dilemmas (ones closely linked to the individual) created a greater emotional response than impersonal dilemmas. fMRI scans also showed that some areas of the brain (e.g. the medial frontal gyrus) were strongly activated in response to personal dilemmas but not in response to impersonal dilemmas. So a more current position (e.g. Paxton and Greene 2010) claims that understanding how moral emotions and moral thinking interact and influence each other can predict actual behaviour more reliably than reasoning alone. Moral reasoning versus moral intuition As well as emotion, intuition is another factor psychologists have suggested could interact with moral thinking to influence behaviour. According to Jonathan Haidt’s (2007) social-intuitionist theory, moral intuition is the immediate feeling you have about a situation requiring a moral decision. You experience this before you have any awareness that you’ve weighed up the evidence or even thought about the matter in a rational way. Haidt argues that the intuition comes first, and then the reasoning occurs only to justify the decision we have already made. This is a major challenge to the purely rational approach of Kohlberg which has dominated the study of moral development for so long. Type of data Lee et al . emphasised quantitative data by using rating scales , and Kohlberg used numbers to classify moral reasoning into stages. Both studies compared cultures and age groups, and used graphs to show how moral reasoning changes with age. Kohlberg used very little inferential analysis, but Lee et al . carried out tests to assess the statistical significance of their comparisons. Kohlberg focused more on qualitative data as he was interested in moral ‘reasoning’. His participants used their own words to explain their decisions. Lee et al . ’s Chinese participants also explained why they had chosen their ratings. Exploring the reasons for children’s choices meant both studies gained a deeper insight into moral thinking than quantitative data alone would allow. Does this situation feel unfair to you? Was that your first intuition before you even started thinking about it? Reliability Kohlberg presented some evidence for the reliability of his measurements (see page 203). Both inter-rater reliability (generally good) and test–retest reliability (not quite so good). In short, Kohlberg ’s measurements were reasonably reliable, but not especially so. The data on inter-rater reliability shows that the classification of children’s responses was reasonably objective and consistent. In contrast, the Lee et al . study provides no information about reliability. Despite this, we do know that the researchers standardised their procedures. They used a minimal number of researchers who gave the same careful instructions to children about the meaning of the rating scale. Similarities and differences You can compare the two developmental core studies in terms of the methodological issues. Draw a table with three columns. On the left-hand side list various methodological issues, such as the setting of the study, validity, types of data gathered and so on. At the top of column 2 write ‘Kohlberg’ and at the top of column 3 write ‘Lee et al .’. Fill in the boxes with your comparisons. Chapter 4: Developmental psychology 212 A level only