Case Study Practical Drill | 案例分析实战演练

📚 Case Study Practical Drill | 案例分析实战演练

In OCR GCSE Psychology, case studies and key research studies are the backbone of the course. Being able to analyse a study – describing its aim, method, findings, and conclusions – is a skill that will help you in almost every exam question. This practical drill will give you the tools to break down any psychological study, practise with real OCR examples, and build confidence for assessments.

在 OCR GCSE 心理学课程中，案例研究与关键研究是整个学科的支柱。能够分析一项研究——描述其目的、方法、结果和结论——是一项几乎会出现在每道考试题中的核心技能。本次实战演练将为你提供拆解任何心理学研究的工具，通过真实的 OCR 案例进行练习，助你建立应考信心。

1. What Is a Case Study in Psychology? | 什么是心理学中的案例研究？

A case study is an in-depth investigation of a single individual, group, or event. In psychology, it often involves unique or rare situations that cannot be replicated for ethical or practical reasons. For example, the case of Phineas Gage, who survived an iron rod through his brain, provided crucial insights into the role of the frontal lobes in personality.

案例研究是对单个个体、群体或事件进行的深入调查。在心理学中，它通常涉及因伦理或实际原因无法复制的独特或罕见情境。例如，Phineas Gage 的案例——一根铁棍穿过他的大脑后他仍幸存下来——为揭示额叶在人格中的作用提供了关键见解。

OCR uses both case studies and larger experiments (like Asch and Milgram) as ‘key studies’. You need to know the details of each study and be able to evaluate them.

OCR 将案例研究和大型实验（如 Asch 和 Milgram 的研究）都作为“关键研究”来考核。你需要掌握每项研究的细节，并能够对其进行评价。

2. Key Components of a Study Analysis | 研究分析的关键组成部分

When you analyse any psychological study, aim to cover: Aim, Method/Procedure, Findings/Results, Conclusion, and Evaluation (strengths & weaknesses). This is sometimes called the AMFC or APRC structure (Aim, Procedure, Results, Conclusion).

分析任何心理学研究时，应涵盖：目的、方法／程序、发现／结果、结论以及评价（优势与弱点）。这有时被称为 APRC 结构（Aim, Procedure, Results, Conclusion）。

You can use the PECC framework for extended answers: Purpose, Evidence (method & results), Conclusion, and Criticisms (limitations and ethical issues).

你可以使用 PECC 框架来回答扩展题：目的、证据（方法与结果）、结论以及批评（局限性和伦理问题）。

3. How to Structure Your Analysis | 如何构建分析结构

Start by identifying the psychological approach behind the study (e.g., cognitive, social, developmental). Then write a short paragraph for each component. Always link the conclusion back to the aim – did the study support the hypothesis? For evaluation, think about: sample size, ecological validity, reliability, ethics, and practical applications.

首先确定研究背后的心理学取向（如认知、社会、发展）。然后为每个组成部分写一段简短文字。始终将结论与目的联系起来——研究是否支持假设？在评价时，考虑：样本量、生态效度、信度、伦理问题和实际应用。

4. Worked Example: Asch’s Conformity Study | 实例分析：Asch 的从众研究

Let’s apply the framework to Asch (1951).

让我们把框架应用于 Asch（1951）。

Aim: To investigate the extent to which social pressure from a majority group could affect a person to conform.
目的：调查来自多数群体的社会压力在多大程度上会影响一个人从众。
Method: 123 American male undergraduates participated in a vision test. In each trial, confederates publicly gave wrong answers about line lengths. The real participant answered last or second-to-last.
方法：123 名美国男性大学生参加了一个视觉测试。在每个试次中，同谋者公开给出关于线条长度的错误答案。真正的参与者最后或倒数第二个回答。
Results: About 33% of participants conformed on the critical trials; 75% conformed at least once. In the control condition (no confederates), errors were less than 1%.
结果：大约 33% 的参与者在关键试次上从众；75% 至少从众一次。在控制条件（无同谋者）下，错误率低于 1%。
Conclusion: A significant majority of people will conform to group pressure even when the correct answer is obvious. This demonstrates normative social influence.
结论：即使正确答案是显而易见的，大多数人也会屈从于群体压力。这说明了规范性社会影响。
Evaluation: Strengths – controlled lab experiment, high internal validity. Weaknesses – low ecological validity (artificial task), all male sample, ethical issues (deception).
评价：优势——受控实验室实验，高内部效度。劣势——低生态效度（人工任务），全男性样本，伦理问题（欺骗）。

5. Practice Drill 1: Milgram’s Obedience Study | 实战演练一：Milgram 的服从研究

Now try to analyse Milgram (1963) using the PECC method. Below is a sample answer you can compare with your own.

现在尝试使用 PECC 方法分析 Milgram（1963）。以下是供你对照的示例答案。

Aim: To see how far people would obey an authority figure, even when it meant harming another person.

目的：了解人们会在多大程度上服从权威人物，即使这意味着伤害他人。

Method: 40 male volunteers acted as ‘teachers’ in a sham memory experiment. They were ordered to give increasing electric shocks to a ‘learner’ (confederate) for wrong answers.

方法：40 名男性志愿者在一个假的记忆实验中扮演“老师”。他们被要求对“学生”（同谋者）因错误答案施以递增的电击。

Results: 65% of participants delivered the maximum 450-volt shock, even when the learner seemed to be in distress. All participants went to 300 volts.

结果：65% 的参与者给出了最大 450 伏电击，即使学生表现出痛苦。所有参与者都达到了 300 伏。

Conclusion: Ordinary people are surprisingly obedient to authority, especially in a legitimate-seeming context. The situation, not personality, drives obedience.

结论：普通人对权威的服从程度令人惊讶，尤其是在看似合法的情境中。是情境而非人格推动了服从行为。

Evaluation: Strengths – high control over variables, striking findings that prompted ethical reform. Weaknesses – low ecological validity, highly unethical (deception, no right to withdraw), sample limited to men.

评价：优势——对变量高度控制，引人注目的发现推动了伦理改革。劣势——低生态效度，高度不道德（欺骗、无退出权），样本仅限于男性。

6. Practice Drill 2: Peterson & Peterson’s Short-term Memory Study | 实战演练二：Peterson & Peterson 的短时记忆研究

This cognitive study explored the duration of short-term memory (STM). Try to write a short analysis. Then check against this model answer.

这项认知研究探索了短时记忆的持续时间。尝试写出简短分析，然后与以下示范答案对照。

Aim: To investigate how long information remains in STM when rehearsal is prevented.

目的：研究当不能复述时信息在短时记忆中能保持多久。

Method: 24 psychology students were given a consonant trigram (e.g., BKG) to remember, then counted backwards in threes from a three-digit number to prevent rehearsal. They recalled the trigram after intervals of 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, or 18 seconds.

方法：24 名心理学学生需要记住一个无意义辅音三字母组（如 BKG），然后从一个三位数开始倒减 3 以阻止复述。他们在 3、6、9、12、15 或 18 秒间隔后回忆该三字母组。

Results: Recall dropped dramatically from about 80% after 3 seconds to around 10% after 18 seconds.

结果：回忆率从 3 秒后的约 80% 急剧下降到 18 秒后的约 10%。

Conclusion: Without rehearsal, STM lasts about 18–30 seconds. This supports the multi-store model of memory.

结论：在没有复述的情况下，短时记忆的持续时间约为 18–30 秒。这支持了记忆的多存储模型。

Evaluation: Strengths – highly controlled lab setting, clear causal relationship. Weaknesses – artificial stimuli (low mundane realism), small sample of students, only tested one type of memory (verbal).

评价：优势——高度控制的实验室环境，明确的因果关系。劣势——人工刺激（低日常现实性），学生小样本，仅测试了一种记忆类型（言语记忆）。

7. Practice Drill 3: Ainsworth’s Strange Situation | 实战演练三：Ainsworth 的陌生情境研究

This developmental study assessed attachment types. Analyse it and compare with the model.

这项发展心理学研究评估了依恋类型。对其进行分析并与范例比较。

Aim: To observe and classify the quality of attachment between infants and their caregivers.

目的：观察并分类婴儿与其照料者之间的依恋品质。

Method: 100 middle-class American infants (12–18 months) and their mothers were observed in a controlled lab through eight episodes of separations and reunions, including a stranger entering.

方法：100 名美国中产阶级婴儿（12–18 个月）和他们的母亲在受控实验室中通过八幕分离与重聚场景（包括陌生人进入）进行观察。

Results: Three main attachment types were identified: Secure (70%), Insecure-avoidant (15%), and Insecure-resistant (15%). Behaviour varied in exploration, separation anxiety, and reunion joy.

结果：识别出三种主要依恋类型：安全型（70%）、不安全-回避型（15%）和不安全-反抗型（15%）。在探索行为、分离焦虑和重聚喜悦上表现各异。

Conclusion: The type of attachment forms early and depends on the caregiver’s sensitivity. Secure attachment is linked to healthier emotional development.

结论：依恋类型在早期形成，并取决于照料者的敏感性。安全型依恋与更健康的情感发展相关。

Evaluation: Strengths – highly standardised, reliable coding system, influenced child care policies. Weaknesses – low ecological validity (lab), culture-bound (American sample), ignores the father’s role, ethics of causing distress.

评价：优势——高度标准化，可靠的编码系统，影响了儿童保育政策。劣势——低生态效度（实验室），文化局限性（美国样本），忽略了父亲的角色，造成婴儿痛苦的伦理问题。

8. Evaluating Case Studies: Strengths & Weaknesses | 评价案例研究：优势与弱点

When evaluating, consider these general points:

评价时，考虑这些一般要点：

Strengths: Rich, detailed data; insights into rare phenomena; can challenge established theories; high validity in real-life context.
优势：丰富、详细的数据；对罕见现象的见解；可挑战既有理论；在现实生活情境中高效度。
Weaknesses: Small sample, so not generalisable; researcher bias in interpretation; often retrospective, relying on memory (unreliable); cannot establish cause-effect.
弱点：样本小，因此不可推广；研究者偏差影响解释；常依赖回顾性记忆（不可靠）；无法确定因果关系。

For each specific study, add targeted criticisms. For example, Asch’s study was conducted in 1950s America – conformity may have been a product of that time (temporal validity). Milgram’s findings may not apply to cultures that value individual autonomy over obedience.

对每项具体研究，添加有针对性的批评。例如，Asch 的研究在 20 世纪 50 年代的美国进行——从众可能是那个时代的产物（时间效度）。Milgram 的发现可能不适用于重视个人自主甚于服从的文化。

9. Common Exam Questions and How to Tackle Them | 常见考题与应对策略

OCR exam questions often ask: ‘Describe and evaluate one key study of…’ or ‘Using your knowledge of a key study, explain…’. The drill is to select the correct study, describe it succinctly, and then evaluate with at least two well-explained strengths/weaknesses. Use PECC.

OCR 考试题常常要求：“描述并评价一项关于……的关键研究”或“运用你对一项关键研究的了解，解释……”。应对方法是选择正确的研究，简洁描述，然后至少用两个充分解释的优势／弱点进行评价。使用 PECC 法。

For 6-mark questions, spend 3 marks on description and 3 on evaluation. Use technical terms like ‘ecological validity’, ‘demand characteristics’, ‘standardised procedure’.

对于 6 分题，用 3 分描述，3 分评价。使用专业术语，如“生态效度”、“需求特征”、“标准化程序”。

10. Case Study Revision Checklist | 案例研究复习清单

Use this checklist when revising each key study:

在复习每项关键研究时使用这份清单：

Aim stated clearly | 目的清晰陈述
Method described (design, participants, procedure) | 方法描述（设计、参与者、程序）
Key findings/results with numbers if possible | 关键发现／结果，可能的话列出数字
Conclusion linked to aim | 结论与目的相关联
At least two strengths | 至少两个优势
At least two weaknesses (including ethical) | 至少两个弱点（包括伦理）
Real-world application mentioned | 提及现实应用
You can compare with another study | 可以与其他研究进行比较

Now you are ready to tackle any case study question. Practise by writing timed answers and swapping with a friend for peer feedback.

现在你已经准备好应对任何案例研究类题目。通过限时作答，并与同学交换互评来练习。

Published by TutorHao | Psychology Revision Series | aleveler.com

更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）

Case Study Practical Drill | 案例分析实战演练