OCR A-Level Psychology H567
Research Methods and Techniques
Planning and Conducting Research
Data Recording, Analysis and Presentation
Report Writing and Scientific Communication
Practical Activities and the Nature of Science
Mathematical Requirements for Research Methods
Studying and Evaluating the Core Studies: The Common Framework
Core Studies: Social Area
Core Studies: Cognitive Area
Core Studies: Developmental Area
Core Studies: Biological Area
Core Studies: Individual Differences Area
Areas and Perspectives in Psychology
Debates in Psychology
Practical Applications of Psychology
Issues in Mental Health
Child PsychologyApplied option
Criminal PsychologyApplied option
Environmental PsychologyApplied option
Sport and Exercise PsychologyApplied option
Methodological Issues and Debates Running Through Applied Psychology
Core Studies: Cognitive Area
- 13 subtopics
- 38 things to know
- Component 02
What Core Studies: Cognitive Area covers
Core Studies: Cognitive Area is examined on component 02 of OCR Psychology, Psychological themes through core studies. 144 recall questions across 13 subtopics.
Where it is assessed
Component 02
Psychological themes through core studies, the synoptic paper.
Check the OCR specification ↗The 13 subtopics
Each one has its own page.
- Loftus and Palmer (1974) eyewitness testimony: background and the first experimentRecall questions on the aims of Loftus and Palmer's 1974 eyewitness testimony research, reconstructive memory, the method, sample and film clips of the first experiment, the critical question and its five verbs, mean speed estimates and possible explanations.Open →
- Loftus and Palmer (1974) eyewitness testimony: the second experiment, conclusions and evaluationRecall questions on Loftus and Palmer's second experiment, including its sample, groups, the broken glass question and results, the conclusion about how memory of an event is formed, police questioning, and the study's control, sample, ecological validity, ethics and demand characteristics.Open →
- Grant et al. (1998) context-dependent memory: background, method and procedureRecall questions on the aim and background of Grant et al.'s 1998 study of context-dependent memory, its method, design, variables and four conditions, the sample, standardisation across experimenters, noise and silence conditions, and the memory tests.Open →
- Grant et al. (1998) context-dependent memory: results, conclusions and evaluationRecall questions on Grant et al.'s findings on matching study and test contexts, short-answer and multiple-choice results, conclusions, advice for students, and the evaluation of control, mundane realism, sample, noise presentation and ethics.Open →
- Memory: similarities and differences between Loftus and Palmer and Grant et al.Recall questions on how Loftus and Palmer and Grant et al. illustrate the cognitive area, their methodological and sample similarities, what both show about memory, and differences in the aspect of memory, independent variable, materials, ecological validity, age range and ethics.Open →
- Memory: what Grant et al. add to Loftus and PalmerRecall questions on the practical message of each memory study, how far Grant et al. change understanding of memory, whether the findings conflict, usefulness, individual and cultural diversity, testing universality, and controls unique to Grant et al.Open →
- Moray (1959) auditory attention: background, method and sampleRecall questions on the aim of Moray's 1959 auditory attention research, the earlier finding it built on, dichotic listening and shadowing, the three hypotheses, method, apparatus, participants and the first experiment's task.Open →
- Moray (1959) auditory attention: procedure, results and findingsRecall questions on Moray's recognition test and its unpresented words, the results of the first experiment, the second experiment on names in the rejected message and the attentional block, and the procedure, result and conclusion of the third experiment.Open →
- Moray (1959) auditory attention: conclusions and evaluationRecall questions on Moray's overall conclusion and the cocktail party phenomenon, and the evaluation of reliability, the ecological validity of shadowing, the sample, the type of data, ethics and applications such as air traffic control.Open →
- Simons and Chabris (1999) visual inattention: background and procedureRecall questions on the aim of Simons and Chabris's 1999 study, sustained dynamic inattentional blindness, the method, design and sample, discarded data, the videos and unexpected events, transparent and opaque videos, task difficulty, and the post-video questions.Open →
- Simons and Chabris (1999) visual inattention: results, conclusions and evaluationRecall questions on Simons and Chabris's findings on noticing rates, video type, the unexpected events, task difficulty and similarity to the attended team, their conclusions and applications to driving and eyewitnesses, and the evaluation of design, sample, ecological validity and ethics.Open →
- Attention: similarities and differences between Moray and Simons and ChabrisRecall questions on the similarities between Moray and Simons and Chabris in aims, methods, samples and tasks, and their differences in sense studied, unattended material, sample size, design, main findings and variables manipulated.Open →
- Attention: what Simons and Chabris add to MorayRecall questions on how far Simons and Chabris change understanding of attention, whether they support Moray, relevance to everyday life, individual and cultural diversity, how both illustrate the cognitive area, a shared weakness and a joint practical message.Open →
What you need to know
Answer each one before you reveal it.
What did the films of staged crashes reveal about people's ability to judge speed?
What happened when participants returned a week later?
Who took part in the study?
What earlier finding was Moray building on?
What did the recognition test consist of?
What did Moray conclude overall?
Who took part, and how many were included in the analysis?
What was the aim of Grant et al.'s study?
Were there any ethical concerns with this study?
How do the two studies differ in the aspect of memory they investigate?
To what extent do the two studies improve our understanding of individual diversity?
What were the results of the second experiment?
What ethical points arise from this study?
Explain the difference between the transparent and opaque videos.
Give one criticism of the task's ecological validity.
How do the main findings of the two studies differ?
Which study has the greater relevance to everyday life, and why?
What film was used in the second experiment?
Did studying in noise itself damage learning?
How did the independent variable differ between the two studies?
What different practical message does each study deliver?
What was the aim of Moray's research?
What proportion of observers noticed the unexpected event?
What is the most obvious difference between the two studies?
Contrast the variables manipulated in each study.
Why did Loftus and Palmer think the wording of questions mattered outside the laboratory?
How did the three groups in the second experiment differ?
What were the independent and dependent variables?
Give the approximate short-answer results.
Contrast the materials used in the two studies.
Do the findings of the two studies contradict each other?
What were the results of the first experiment?
Give one strength of the study relating to reliability.
What was the aim of Simons and Chabris's study?
Which unexpected event was noticed more often?
How did the unattended material differ between the two studies?
To what extent do Moray's and Simons and Chabris's studies improve our understanding of individual diversity?
Take Core Studies: Cognitive Area further
The same content, four other ways.
Commonly confused
Pairs that lose marks when they are blurred together.
Context-dependent memory vs Inattentional blindness
Context-dependent memory: better recall when the conditions at retrieval match those at learning. Inattentional blindness: failing to notice an unexpected object because attention is engaged elsewhere.
Dichotic listening vs Shadowing
Dichotic listening: a task in which a different message is played to each ear. Shadowing: repeating one message aloud as it is heard, so that attention stays on it.
Loftus and Palmer (1974) vs Grant et al. (1998)
Loftus and Palmer (1974): the study showing that the verb in a question changes speed estimates and later memory. Grant et al. (1998): the study showing that matching noise conditions at study and test improves recall.
Questions from this topic
Each one with the model answer underneath.
- 1
What was the overall aim of Loftus and Palmer's research into eyewitness testimony?
Model answer
To investigate whether the wording of a question asked after an event distorts a witness's memory of it, in particular their estimate of how fast a car was travelling.
- 2
Which account of how memory works does this research support?
Model answer
It supports the reconstructive account, in which recall is rebuilt from stored fragments combined with later information rather than replayed intact.
- 3
Why did Loftus and Palmer think the wording of questions mattered outside the laboratory?
Model answer
Police and courtroom questioning routinely uses questions that contain implied information, so any distortion caused by wording would affect real testimony and possibly verdicts.
- 4
What method and design were used in the first experiment?
Model answer
It was a laboratory experiment using an independent measures design, with each participant placed in only one verb condition.
- 5
Who took part in the first experiment?
Model answer
Forty-five students at an American university, who were tested in groups.
- 6
What materials were shown to participants in the first experiment?
Model answer
Seven short film clips of traffic accidents taken from driver-safety training films, each lasting between 5 and 30 seconds.
What is inside Levo
Six ways to work the same material.
Core Studies: Cognitive Area revision questions
- What does Core Studies: Cognitive Area cover in OCR A-Level Psychology?
- 13 subtopics: loftus and palmer (1974) eyewitness testimony: background and the first experiment, loftus and palmer (1974) eyewitness testimony: the second experiment, conclusions and evaluation, grant et al. (1998) context-dependent memory: background, method and procedure, grant et al. (1998) context-dependent memory: results, conclusions and evaluation, memory: similarities and differences between loftus and palmer and grant et al., memory: what grant et al. add to loftus and palmer, moray (1959) auditory attention: background, method and sample, moray (1959) auditory attention: procedure, results and findings, moray (1959) auditory attention: conclusions and evaluation, simons and chabris (1999) visual inattention: background and procedure, simons and chabris (1999) visual inattention: results, conclusions and evaluation, attention: similarities and differences between moray and simons and chabris and attention: what simons and chabris add to moray. Each one has its own page with questions and model answers.
- How is Core Studies: Cognitive Area organised?
- By the OCR H567 specification, subtopic by subtopic, so it matches the order you are taught it in.
Every question in Core Studies: Cognitive Area, on a schedule.
Attempt a question from memory, write the correct version, then attempt it again. Levo records the jump between your first attempt and your last, and brings each question back on the day you are due to forget it.
Or £46 a year, about £3.83 a month. Cancel anytime.