📚 Case Study Practice for GCSE WJEC Psychology | GCSE WJEC 心理学：案例分析实战演练
Case studies and scenario-based questions make up a significant part of the WJEC GCSE Psychology exam. They test not only your knowledge of key theories and research, but also your ability to apply that knowledge to real-life situations. In this revision guide, we will practise the essential skills through a series of worked examples so that you can approach any case study with confidence.
案例分析题和情境题在 WJEC GCSE 心理学考试中占有重要分量。它们不仅考查你对关键理论和研究的掌握，也考查你将知识应用到实际生活情境中的能力。在这篇复习指南中，我们将通过一系列的精讲例题来练习这些基本技能，让你能充满信心地应对任何案例题。
1. Why Case Study Analysis Matters | 为什么案例分析很重要
GCSE WJEC Psychology papers frequently present you with short descriptions of a person’s behaviour, thoughts or feelings and ask you to explain them using psychological concepts. These items are not just about recalling a study—they require you to select the most relevant theory, cite supporting research evidence and, in many questions, offer a balanced evaluation. Mastering case study analysis can turn a middling grade into a top mark.
GCSE WJEC 心理学试卷常常给出对一个人的行为、想法或感受的简短描述，要求你用心理学概念加以解释。这些题目不仅仅是回忆某项研究——它们需要你选择最相关的理论，引用支持性的研究证据，并且在很多问题中给出平衡的评价。掌握案例分析能让普通成绩变为高分。
Think of it as ‘thinking like a psychologist’. You are given a piece of human experience and your job is to view it through the lens of established psychological knowledge. The more you practise, the more automatic this process becomes.
把它想成“像心理学家一样思考”。你获取一段人类经验，而你的任务是通过已有的心理学知识的镜头来观察它。你练习得越多，这个过程就越自动化。
2. The 4-Step Method for Tackling a Case Study | 攻克案例分析的4步法
Follow this simple framework each time you see a case study question: Identify, Explain, Apply and Evaluate. First, read the scenario carefully and identify which psychological topic it belongs to—memory, social influence, attachment, developmental psychology, etc. Look for key clues such as forgetting, being influenced by a group, reacting to a caregiver, or reasoning about right and wrong.
每次见到案例分析题时，请遵循这个简单的框架：识别、解释、应用、评价。首先，仔细阅读情境并识别它属于哪个心理学主题——记忆、社会影响、依恋、发展心理学等等。寻找关键线索，如遗忘、受群体影响、对照料者的反应，或关于对错的推理。
Second, explain the relevant theory or model briefly and clearly. Name the researcher and the year of the study, outline the method and the main findings. For example, ‘Peterson and Peterson (1959) investigated the duration of short-term memory by giving participants trigrams to remember and counting backwards to prevent rehearsal.’
第二步，简洁清晰地解释相关理论或模型。给出研究者姓名和研究年份，描述方法和主要发现。例如：“Peterson 和 Peterson (1959) 通过让被试记住三字母组合并倒数来防止复述，从而研究了短时记忆的保持时间。”
Third, apply the theory directly to the details in the case. Use phrases like ‘This explains why…’ or ‘In this scenario, the person shows…’. Be specific—link the named individual’s behaviour to each part of the theory.
第三步，将理论直接应用到案例的细节中。使用诸如“这就解释了为什么……”或“在这个情境中，该人物表现出……”这样的表述。要具体——把案例中人物的行为与理论的每个部分联系起来。
Finally, evaluate the theory or study you have used. Mention at least one strength (e.g. high internal validity due to well-controlled lab conditions) and one weakness (e.g. low ecological validity because the task was artificial). A short evaluation can easily gain extra marks.
最后，评价你所使用的理论或研究。至少提及一个优点（例如，由于控制良好的实验室条件而具有高内部效度）和一个缺点（例如，由于任务的人为性而生态效度低）。简短的评估能轻松获得额外分数。
3. Worked Example 1: Memory – John’s Forgotten List | 精讲例题1：记忆——John 遗忘的清单
John is a 15-year-old student. His mum asks him to buy three items on his way home: milk, bread and apples. John repeats the items to himself but then gets distracted by a notification on his phone. By the time he reaches the shop, he can only remember ‘milk’. In a separate incident, John often forgets to bring his PE kit to school on Thursdays even though it is written on his timetable.
John 是一名15岁的学生。妈妈让他在回家路上买三样东西：牛奶、面包和苹果。John 自己默念了几遍，但接着被手机通知干扰了。等他走到商店时，他只记得“牛奶”。另一件事是，John 经常忘记在星期四带体育用品到学校，尽管课表上有写。
The case clearly points to the topic of memory, specifically the duration and capacity of short-term memory (STM) and the importance of rehearsal. We can apply the multi-store model (Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968) and Peterson & Peterson’s (1959) classic experiment.
这个案例明显指向记忆主题，特别是短时记忆的保持时间和容量，以及复述的重要性。我们可以应用多存储模型（Atkinson & Shiffrin, 1968）和 Peterson 与 Peterson (1959) 的经典实验。
Explanation: The multi-store model proposes that information must pass through STM before it can be transferred to long-term memory (LTM). STM has a limited capacity, often said to be 7±2 items, and a limited duration of around 18–30 seconds when rehearsal is prevented. Peterson and Peterson gave participants trigrams (e.g. XRK) and then had them count backwards in threes to stop rehearsal. Recall dropped to just 10% after 18 seconds, showing that STM fades rapidly without active rehearsal.
解释：多存储模型提出，信息在转入长时记忆之前必须经过短时记忆。短时记忆容量有限，通常认为是7±2个项目，并且在复述被阻止的情况下保持时间仅为18–30秒左右。Peterson 和 Peterson 给被试三字母组合（如 XRK），然后让他们以3为单位倒计数来防止复述。18秒后回忆率降至仅10%，这表明若无主动复述，短时记忆会迅速消退。
Application: John’s grocery list enters his STM. He tries to rehearse it, but the notification acts as an interruption, stopping maintenance rehearsal. Without rehearsal, the information decays rapidly, leaving him only able to recall the first or most strongly encoded item, which might be ‘milk’. The forgotten PE kit can be explained by a lack of elaborative rehearsal; seeing the timetable does not guarantee the information has been transferred to LTM.
应用：John 的购物清单进入了他的短时记忆。他试图进行复述，但手机通知充当了干扰，阻止了保持性复述。没有复述，信息迅速消退，他只能回忆起第一个或编码最强的项目，即“牛奶”。忘记体育用品可用缺乏精细复述来解释；看到课表并不能保证信息已转入长时记忆。
Evaluation: A strength of Peterson & Peterson’s study is its high internal validity—standardised procedures and careful control of variables. However, it lacks ecological validity because remembering nonsense trigrams does not reflect everyday memory tasks. The multi-store model is also too simplistic, as it does not acknowledge different types of LTM (e.g. episodic, semantic, procedural). Nonetheless, the explanation fits John’s case well.
评价：Peterson 和 Peterson 研究的一个优点是高内部效度——标准化的程序和严谨的变量控制。然而，它缺乏生态效度，因为记忆无意义的三字母组合并不能反映日常记忆任务。多存储模型也过于简单，因为它没有承认长时记忆的不同类型（如情景记忆、语义记忆、程序性记忆）。尽管如此，这个解释非常贴合 John 的案例。
4. Worked Example 2: Social Influence – Sarah’s Silent Agreement | 精讲例题2：社会影响——Sarah 的沉默认同
During a discussion in her form group, Sarah privately thinks that the school uniform rules are too strict and unfair. However, when the teacher asks whether everyone supports the current policy, Sarah sees that all her friends put their hands up. She slowly raises her own hand, because she does not want to look different.
在一次班内讨论中，Sarah 私下认为校服规定过于严格且不公平。然而，当老师问大家是否支持现行政策时，Sarah 看到所有朋友都举起了手。她慢慢地也举起了自己的手，因为她不想显得与众不同。
This is a textbook example of conformity, specifically normative social influence. The most relevant research is Asch’s (1951) conformity experiment on majority influence.
这是一个典型的从众案例，特别是规范性社会影响。最相关的研究是 Asch (1951) 关于多数派影响的从众实验。
Explanation: Asch recruited male college students to take part in a ‘vision test’. In each group, all but one participant were confederates. The group was shown a standard line and three comparison lines; on 12 out of 18 critical trials, the confederates unanimously gave a clearly wrong answer. Asch found that 75% of genuine participants conformed at least once, and the overall conformity rate on critical trials was 37%. Post-experiment interviews revealed that most conformed to avoid standing out, even though they knew the answer was wrong, which illustrates normative social influence (compliance).
解释：Asch 招募男大学生参加一项“视觉测试”。每组中除一位真被试外其余都是假被试。大家看到一条标准线和三条比较线；在18次关键试验中有12次，假被试一致给出了明显错误的答案。Asch 发现75%的真被试至少从众过一次，关键试验的整体从众率为37%。实验后访谈揭示，大多数人从众是为了避免显得与众不同，即便他们知道答案是错的，这说明了规范性社会影响（顺从）。
Application: Sarah is in a similar situation. She privately thinks the uniform policy is wrong (the correct ‘line’), but publicly changes her behaviour to match the group. The presence of a unanimous majority—her friends—creates pressure to conform. She does not want to be rejected or appear foolish, so she goes along with the group. This is an example of compliance, not internalisation, because her private belief has not changed.
应用：Sarah 处于类似的情境。她私下认为校服政策是错误的（正确的“线”），但公开地改变自己的行为以与群体一致。一致共识的多数派——她的朋友们——制造了从众压力。她不想被排斥或显得愚蠢，于是跟随了群体。这是顺从的例子，而非内化，因为她的私下信念并未改变。
Evaluation: Asch’s study is well-controlled and reliable, but it lacks ecological validity—judging line lengths is a trivial task and does not reflect real-life conformity, where the stakes are often higher. Moreover, Asch’s sample was all male and from the same culture, so findings may not generalise to females or collectivist cultures. A further limitation is that conformity can be influenced by group size, unanimity and task difficulty—factors not fully explored in the original study. Still, the experiment remains a powerful illustration of normative influence.
评价：Asch 的实验控制良好且可靠，但缺乏生态效度——判断线条长度是一项琐碎任务，不能反映风险往往更高的现实从众行为。此外，Asch 的样本全是男性且来自同一文化，因此研究结果可能无法推广到女性或集体主义文化。另一个局限是，从众可能受群体规模、一致性和任务难度的影响——这些因素在原初实验中并未充分探讨。尽管如此，该实验依然是规范性影响的强有力例证。
5. Worked Example 3: Attachment – Tom’s Reaction at Nursery | 精讲例题3：依恋——Tom 在托儿所的反应
Tom is 18 months old and attends a nursery three mornings a week. When his mother drops him off, Tom clings to her leg and cries loudly. He refuses to interact with the nursery workers and watches the door anxiously after his mother leaves. When she returns, Tom runs towards her but then arches his back, pushes her away and continues crying. The nursery staff report that Tom often behaves in this inconsistent way.
Tom 18个月大，每周三个上午去托儿所。当妈妈送他时，Tom 紧紧抱着她的腿并大声哭泣。他拒绝与托儿所工作人员互动，在妈妈离开后焦虑地盯着门。当妈妈回来时，Tom 跑向她，但随后弓起背，把她推开并继续哭泣。托儿所工作人员报告 Tom 经常表现出这种不一致的行为。
This scenario maps directly onto the Strange Situation classification developed by Mary Ainsworth. Tom’s behaviour is characteristic of an insecure-resistant (Type C) attachment.
这一情境直接对应 Mary Ainsworth 开发的陌生情境分类。Tom 的行为是矛盾型（C型）不安全依恋的典型特征。
Explanation: Ainsworth (1978) conducted the Strange Situation, a controlled observation with 7 episodes designed to assess the quality of attachment between a caregiver and an infant aged 12–18 months. She identified three main attachment types: secure (Type B), insecure-avoidant (Type A) and insecure-resistant (Type C). Insecure-resistant infants typically show intense distress on separation and are not easily comforted by a stranger. On reunion, they seek contact but simultaneously resist it, displaying anger and ambivalence. Ainsworth linked this to inconsistent caregiving—sometimes responsive, sometimes neglectful.
解释：Ainsworth (1978) 进行了陌生情境实验，这是一个包含7个阶段的控制观察，旨在评估照料者与12–18个月大婴儿之间的依恋质量。她识别出三种主要的依恋类型：安全型（B型）、不安全-回避型（A型）和不安全-矛盾型（C型）。不安全-矛盾型婴儿通常在分离时表现出强烈不安，且不易被陌生人安抚。在重聚时，他们会寻求接触却又同时抗拒，表现出愤怒和矛盾。Ainsworth 将此与不一致的照护方式联系起来——有时及时回应，有时疏忽。
Application: Tom’s intense distress at separation, his resistance to being comforted by nursery workers, and his ambivalent reaction on reunion (running to his mother but then pushing her away) are all hallmarks of Type C attachment. It suggests his mother may sometimes be warm and responsive, and at other times less available, so Tom cannot predict her behaviour. As a result, he both craves and resists her closeness.
应用：Tom 在分离时的强烈不安、拒绝被托儿所工作人员安抚，以及重聚时的矛盾反应（跑向妈妈但又推开她），都是C型依恋的典型标志。这表明他妈妈可能时而温暖回应，时而不那么有空，因此 Tom 无法预测她的行为。结果他既渴望亲近又抗拒亲近。
Evaluation: The Strange Situation has high inter-rater reliability because it uses standardised procedures and trained observers, making the classification system objective. However, it is criticised for being culture-bound; the original study was conducted in America and what is considered ‘secure’ may differ across cultures. Moreover, the Strange Situation measures attachment to one specific caregiver, but children can have multiple attachments (e.g. to fathers, grandparents). Also, some psychologists argue that attachment can be explained in terms of temperament rather than caregiving alone, which the Strange Situation does not fully account for.
评价：陌生情境具有高评分者间信度，因为它使用标准化程序和训练有素的观察者，使得分类系统较为客观。然而，它被批评为文化束缚；原始研究在美国进行，而被认为“安全”的标准在不同文化中可能不同。此外，陌生情境测量的是对一位特定照料者的依恋，但儿童可能有多重依恋（如对父亲、祖父母）。而且，一些心理学家认为依恋可以用气质来解释，而不仅仅是照料方式，陌生情境并未充分考虑这一点。
6. Worked Example 4: Moral Development – Anna’s Dilemma | 精讲例题4：道德发展——Anna 的两难处境
Anna is 12 years old. She is told a story about a man whose wife is dying and who cannot afford the medicine that could save her. Anna says the man should not steal the medicine because ‘he might go to prison and that would be worse’. Her 8-year-old brother, however, says the man should steal it ‘because his wife needs it or she will die’.
Anna 12岁。她听到一个故事：一个男人的妻子病危，但他买不起可救命的药。Anna 说这个男人不应该偷药，因为“他可能会坐牢，那更糟糕”。而她8岁的弟弟则说，男人应该偷药，“因为他妻子需要它，否则会死”。
These contrasting answers reflect different stages of Kohlberg’s theory of moral development. Anna’s reasoning is characteristic of the preconventional level, Stage 2, while her brother’s answer also aligns with the preconventional level, perhaps Stage 1 or Stage 2.
这些不同的回答反映了 Kohlberg 道德发展理论的不同阶段。Anna 的推理属于前习俗水平阶段2，而她弟弟的回答也符合前习俗水平，可能是阶段1或阶段2。
Explanation: Kohlberg (1968) developed a stage theory of moral reasoning based on responses to moral dilemmas like the Heinz dilemma. He proposed three levels: preconventional, conventional and postconventional, each with two stages. At the preconventional level, reasoning is based on avoiding punishment (Stage 1) or achieving personal rewards (Stage 2, instrumental hedonism). At the conventional level, morality is about following rules and gaining social approval. Anna’s focus on avoiding prison is a clear example of Stage 2 thinking—she weighs the personal cost. Her brother’s emphasis on the wife’s life may show he sees stealing as a way to meet one’s own needs, or it could reflect Stage 1 if he simply thinks it is right because someone needs it.
解释：Kohlberg (1968) 根据对道德两难问题（如海因茨偷药）的回答，提出了道德推理的阶段理论。他提出了三个水平：前习俗、习俗和后习俗，每个水平包含两个阶段。在前习俗水平，推理基于避免惩罚（阶段1）或获得个人奖赏（阶段2，工具性享乐主义）。在习俗水平，道德是关于遵守规则和获得社会认可。Anna 关注避免坐牢显然是阶段2思维的例证——她权衡个人代价。她弟弟强调妻子的生命可能显示他认为偷盗是为了满足自己的需要，也可能是阶段1，如果他只是觉得因为有人需要所以正确的话。
Application: Anna’s statement ‘he might go to prison and that would be worse’ exemplifies instrumental reasoning. She evaluates the action based on the negative consequences for the man himself, not on broader moral principles. Her brother says the man should steal because his wife needs it; this could be interpreted as ‘doing what you need to get what you want’—a sign of Stage 2 hedonism. The difference in their ages also fits Kohlberg’s claim that moral reasoning develops with cognitive maturity; however, age is not a precise predictor, as some people never reach the higher stages.
应用：Anna 的话“他可能会坐牢，那更糟糕”说明了工具性推理。她根据行动对男人自身的负面后果来评估，而不是基于更广泛的道德原则。她弟弟说男人应该偷药因为妻子需要；这可以解释为“做你需要做的事来得到你想要的”——阶段2享乐主义的迹象。他们的年龄差异也符合 Kohlberg 关于道德推理随认知成熟而发展的主张；不过，年龄并非精确的预测指标，因为有些人从未达到更高阶段。
Evaluation: Kohlberg’s theory has influenced education and justice systems, but it has faced criticism for being androcentric because the original sample consisted solely of male participants. Carol Gilligan argued that the theory undervalues care-based morality, which may be more common in females. Additionally, the dilemmas are hypothetical; people may reason differently in real-life situations. Cultural bias is also an issue, as Kohlberg’s stages may reflect Western ideals of individualism and justice. Despite these weaknesses, the stage model provides a useful framework for understanding how moral reasoning changes with development.
评价：Kohlberg 的理论对教育和司法体系产生了影响，但它因以男性为中心而受到批评，因为原始样本全是男性参与者。Carol Gilligan 认为该理论低估了关爱取向的道德，而这种道德可能在女性中更常见。此外，两难处境是假设性的；人们在真实情境中可能采取不同的推理方式。文化偏见也是一个问题，因为 Kohlberg 的阶段可能反映了西方个人主义和正义的理想。尽管有这些弱点，阶段模型为理解道德推理如何随发展变化提供了一个有用的框架。
7. Common Pitfalls When Answering Case Study Questions | 回答案例分析题时的常见陷阱
Many students lose marks by simply describing the case again instead of explaining it. For example, writing ‘John forgot his shopping because his memory is bad’ adds nothing. You must bring in the theory.
许多学生失分是因为仅仅再次描述了案例，而不是解释它。例如，写“John 忘记买东西是因为他记忆力差”毫无助益。你必须引入理论。
Another frequent mistake is failing to name the researcher and year. In WJEC GCSE Psychology, specific research references are essential. Phrases like ‘One study showed…’ are too vague. Always note: Asch (1951) or Peterson and Peterson (1959).
另一个常见错误是未能给出研究者姓名和研究年份。在 WJEC GCSE 心理学中，具体的研究引用至关重要。像“一项研究表明……”这样的表述过于模糊。务必注明：Asch (1951) 或 Peterson 与 Peterson (1959)。
Also, do not ignore the ‘Evaluate’ part even if the question does not explicitly ask for it. A well-placed evaluative sentence shows a deeper understanding. For instance, quickly noting that the study was a lab experiment therefore high in internal validity but low in ecological validity can lift you into the higher mark bands.
同时，不要忽略“评价”部分，即使题目没有明确提出要求。一句恰当的评价语句能展示更深的理解。例如，快速指出该研究是实验室实验因此内部效度高但生态效度低，可以帮助你进入更高分数段。
Finally, avoid drifting into everyday language. Use terms like ‘conformity’, ‘normative social influence’, ‘capacity’, ‘duration’, ‘ambivalent attachment’ precisely and correctly.
最后，避免使用日常语言。准确而正确地使用诸如“从众”、“规范性社会影响”、“容量”、“保持时间”、“矛盾型依恋”等术语。
8. Exam-Style Model Answer Walkthrough | 考试风格模型答案演练
Sample question: ‘Use your knowledge of psychological research to explain Sarah’s behaviour. (6 marks)’
示例问题：“运用你的心理学研究知识解释 Sarah 的行为。（6分）”
Model answer: Sarah is displaying conformity, specifically normative social influence. Asch (1951) conducted a laboratory experiment where participants judged line lengths among a group of confederates who deliberately gave wrong answers. On critical trials, 37% of responses were conforming because participants wanted to avoid being different, even though they knew the correct answer. This is similar to Sarah, who privately disagrees with the uniform rule but raises her hand because all her friends do; she fears rejection or embarrassment. Therefore, Sarah’s behaviour is a clear case of compliance. One strength of Asch’s study is its high internal validity due to strict controls, but a weakness is that it is not ecologically valid because the task was artificial and the group was not a real friendship group. This means care must be taken when applying it to a classroom context, but it still provides a strong explanation.
模型答案：Sarah 展现出从众行为，特别是规范性社会影响。Asch (1951) 进行了一个实验室实验，被试在团体中判断线条长度，而团体中的假被试故意给出错误答案。在关键试验中，37%的回答是从众的，因为参与者想避免与众不同，即使他们知道正确答案。这与 Sarah 的情况相似：她私下不同意校服规定，但因为所有朋友都举手她也举手；她害怕被排斥或尴尬。因此，Sarah 的行为是顺从的一个清晰例子。Asch 研究的一个优点是因严格控制而具有高内部效度，但缺点是生态效度不高，因为任务是人造的且群体不是真实的朋友圈。
Published by TutorHao | GCSE Psychology Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
屏轩国际教育cambridge primary/secondary checkpoint, cat4, ukiset,ukcat,igcse,alevel,PAT,STEP,MAT, ibdp,ap,ssat,sat,sat2课程辅导，国外大学本科硕士研究生博士课程论文辅导