OCR AS PSYCHOLOGY BOARD
EVALUATION 2026 QUESTIONS WITH
SOLUTIONS GRADED A+
●● Strengths of Social area. Answer: - Real life relevance
- Good range of research methods
●● Weaknesses of Social area. Answer: - Social-psychological research
often raises ethical issues
- Social determinism
●● Milgram Aim. Answer: To investigate the tendency for destructive
obedience.
●● Milgram Method. Answer: 40 male volunteers were told they were
taking part in a learning experiment. They took the role of teacher,
giving what they thought were painful shocks to a confederate whom
they believed to be a fellow participant taking the role of learner.
Shocks increased by 15V for every wrong answer and went up to a
maximum of 450V.
●● Milgram results. Answer: 100% of participants gave at least 300V
and 65% gave the full 450V. Most participants displayed signs of stress
while giving the shocks.
,●● Milgram Conclusions. Answer: People are surprisingly obedient to
orders given by people in authority. However, they become distressed
when obeying orders to hurt another person.
●● Milgram strengths. Answer: - Lab experiment stops extraneous
variables
- Lab experiment makes procedures straightforward to repeat and
reliable
- Useful in atrocities as we have an understanding of the circumstances
in which people will obey destructive orders
●● Milgram weaknesses. Answer: - Lab experiments lack ecological
validity
- Unethical due to harm of participants however did have a thorough de-
hoax and debrief
- Task that the participants did was artificial
- Hard to generalise results because men came from same area
●● Bocchiaro aim. Answer: To see how many people will comply with
an unethical request and how many will respond by 'whistle-blowing' to
a higher authority. A secondary aim was to compare actual rates of
disobedience and whistle-blowing to estimated rates.
,●● Bocchiaro method. Answer: 149 students were given an unethical
request, to write a statement designed to convince other students to
participate in a traumatic sensory deprivation experiment. Participants
were then left alone to see what they would do. In a separate procedure
138 students were told about the scenario and asked both what they
would do, and what they thought the average student would do.
●● Bocchiaro results. Answer: When questioned, most participants said
that they would report the unethical experiment and that the average
student would disobey. However, 76.5% actually obeyed and only 9.4%
'blew the whistle.'
●● Bocchiaro conclusions. Answer: Although most people believe they
will disobey unethical instructions and report unethical conduct, in
practice the majority comply with unethical instructions.
●● Bocchiaro strengths. Answer: - The use of a lab experiment allowed
strict control, eliminating extraneous variables
- Lab experiment makes procedures straightforward to repeat and
reliable
- Low in stress, participants left alone and not prodded
●● Boccaccio weaknesses. Answer: - The participants were deceived,
however participants made aware at the end of the research
- Sample not representative of general population as sample was
undergraduates from a Dutch University
, - Volunteer sample not very representative as it is unrepresentative of the
people who didn't volunteer
●● Piliavin aim. Answer: To study the factors affecting whether people
would help a collapsed man on the New York underground.
●● Pilivain method. Answer: Experimenters faked collapse on New
York underground trains, and the number of people who helped and the
time taken to help were recorded. The race, apparent responsibility of
the victim (ill or drunk), the presence of a model helper, and the number
of passengers present were varied.
●● Pilivian results. Answer: 79% of victims received help. Help was
more likely if the victim appeared to be ill. There was some increased
tendency for people to help those of their own race. The number of
bystanders made little difference, and most people were helped before
the model could initiate helping.
●● Pilivian conclusions. Answer: Provided people are in a closed
environment where they cannot simply leave, they are likely to help
someone in need. Helping is most likely when the victim is seen as not
responsible for the situation and is the same race as helpers. The number
of bystanders is not important in this situation
●● Pilivian strengths. Answer: - High ecological validity due to field
experiment
EVALUATION 2026 QUESTIONS WITH
SOLUTIONS GRADED A+
●● Strengths of Social area. Answer: - Real life relevance
- Good range of research methods
●● Weaknesses of Social area. Answer: - Social-psychological research
often raises ethical issues
- Social determinism
●● Milgram Aim. Answer: To investigate the tendency for destructive
obedience.
●● Milgram Method. Answer: 40 male volunteers were told they were
taking part in a learning experiment. They took the role of teacher,
giving what they thought were painful shocks to a confederate whom
they believed to be a fellow participant taking the role of learner.
Shocks increased by 15V for every wrong answer and went up to a
maximum of 450V.
●● Milgram results. Answer: 100% of participants gave at least 300V
and 65% gave the full 450V. Most participants displayed signs of stress
while giving the shocks.
,●● Milgram Conclusions. Answer: People are surprisingly obedient to
orders given by people in authority. However, they become distressed
when obeying orders to hurt another person.
●● Milgram strengths. Answer: - Lab experiment stops extraneous
variables
- Lab experiment makes procedures straightforward to repeat and
reliable
- Useful in atrocities as we have an understanding of the circumstances
in which people will obey destructive orders
●● Milgram weaknesses. Answer: - Lab experiments lack ecological
validity
- Unethical due to harm of participants however did have a thorough de-
hoax and debrief
- Task that the participants did was artificial
- Hard to generalise results because men came from same area
●● Bocchiaro aim. Answer: To see how many people will comply with
an unethical request and how many will respond by 'whistle-blowing' to
a higher authority. A secondary aim was to compare actual rates of
disobedience and whistle-blowing to estimated rates.
,●● Bocchiaro method. Answer: 149 students were given an unethical
request, to write a statement designed to convince other students to
participate in a traumatic sensory deprivation experiment. Participants
were then left alone to see what they would do. In a separate procedure
138 students were told about the scenario and asked both what they
would do, and what they thought the average student would do.
●● Bocchiaro results. Answer: When questioned, most participants said
that they would report the unethical experiment and that the average
student would disobey. However, 76.5% actually obeyed and only 9.4%
'blew the whistle.'
●● Bocchiaro conclusions. Answer: Although most people believe they
will disobey unethical instructions and report unethical conduct, in
practice the majority comply with unethical instructions.
●● Bocchiaro strengths. Answer: - The use of a lab experiment allowed
strict control, eliminating extraneous variables
- Lab experiment makes procedures straightforward to repeat and
reliable
- Low in stress, participants left alone and not prodded
●● Boccaccio weaknesses. Answer: - The participants were deceived,
however participants made aware at the end of the research
- Sample not representative of general population as sample was
undergraduates from a Dutch University
, - Volunteer sample not very representative as it is unrepresentative of the
people who didn't volunteer
●● Piliavin aim. Answer: To study the factors affecting whether people
would help a collapsed man on the New York underground.
●● Pilivain method. Answer: Experimenters faked collapse on New
York underground trains, and the number of people who helped and the
time taken to help were recorded. The race, apparent responsibility of
the victim (ill or drunk), the presence of a model helper, and the number
of passengers present were varied.
●● Pilivian results. Answer: 79% of victims received help. Help was
more likely if the victim appeared to be ill. There was some increased
tendency for people to help those of their own race. The number of
bystanders made little difference, and most people were helped before
the model could initiate helping.
●● Pilivian conclusions. Answer: Provided people are in a closed
environment where they cannot simply leave, they are likely to help
someone in need. Helping is most likely when the victim is seen as not
responsible for the situation and is the same race as helpers. The number
of bystanders is not important in this situation
●● Pilivian strengths. Answer: - High ecological validity due to field
experiment
