Edexcel gcse psychology may june 2025 paper 2 question paper
Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Aims - -> The extent to which children of different ages were able to take the
view of another person
> Children's overall system of putting together a number of different views of what they see
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Procedure - -> In total 100 children ages 4-12 were involved.
> They made a model of three mountains and took ten photos from different positions around the model.
> Child asked to use the cardboard shapes to show how the mountains looked from different viewpoints.
> Child shown ten photos and asked which the doll could see.
> Child chose a picture and had to position the doll so that it could see it.
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Findings - -> A child in the pre-operational stage chooses pictures, places and
cardboard to show their own view. A child cannot show the view of someone else.
> A child in concrete operations (7-9) starts to understand that someone has a different view. A child (9-
10) can understand that the doll has a different view.
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Conclusion - -> Children up to 7 years old are egocentric although towards the
end of the pre-operational stage they begin to understand viewpoint.
> Older children are non-egocentric. They can construct mental images of what others can see.
> Provides evidence for the stages of development, pre-operational are egocentric whereas concrete
operations can coordinate different viewpoints.
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Strengths - -> Provided great detail about what was done and gave qualitative
analysis about individual children. This meant they could show eg that as a child neared the next stage of
development, they could achieve elements of that next stage.
> Used experimental methods which meant careful controls were put in place. This allowed comparisons
between the results from different children. Repeating the study and using different viewpoints meant that
there was reliability in their findings.
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Weaknesses - -> The results suggest that the 'stages' are not definitive enough
even though Piaget acknowledged a period of transition.
> Other studies with more realistic scenarios did not give the same findings. Borke (1975) used a similar
idea but with a character from Sesame Street and let the children use a turntable. She found that 3 year
olds could identify Grover's point of view more than 79% of the time. She suggested that children under 7
were not egocentric but that the task was too difficult for them.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Aims - -> Children are affected by different types of praise given in a natural
situation
> Parents give girls more person praise than process praise
, > Parents use of process praise affects a child's reasoning and motivation five years down the line.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Procedure - -Study followed a group of 29 boys & 24 girls at 14 months, 28
months and 36 months. No one knew what was being studied when they got filmed acting 'naturally'. At
7-8 years old the same children answered two questionnaires about what they thought led to a persons
intelligence and led to their morals.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Findings - -> 3% of parental comments to children were praise.
> Process praise was 18%, Person praise was 16%.
> 24% of boys praise was process praise whereas was only 10.3% for girls.
> The more process praise there is in early childhood, the more likely children will believe that putting
effort in is worthwhile.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Conclusion - -> A clear relationship was found between parents use of process
praise and a child's later use of an incremental motivational framework (ability being changeable).
> Only partially supported because it did not find the person praise leads to an entity motivational
framework (ability is fixed)
> Gender differences in praise (boys more process)
> Boys tended to have more of an incremental framework than boys meaning that girls attribute failure to
ability more than boys do. This fits with the study findings.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Strengths - -> The researchers did not know what was being studied which
avoids bias in transcribing and recording the qualitative data.
> Shows that Dweck's findings in artificial studies are also found in the natural environment. These two
methods, experiment and observation, support each other which is a strength of both theory and study.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Weaknesses - -> The ethics should be criticised as the participants were
deceived by being told it was about child development not praise. This needed a debrief to be ethical.
> The parents may have changed behaviour because they were being filmed so may lack validity.
> Only 53 parent child pairs in Chicago which might not be representative of the general population. This
limits the generalizability.
-Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts Aims - -> Test nature of reconstructive memory using an unfamiliar
story.
> See whether personal schemas influence what is remembered.
-Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts Procedure - -> Asked to read story twice then asked to recall it.
> Bartlett used serial reproduction and repeated reproduction to test the recall of the story.
Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Aims - -> The extent to which children of different ages were able to take the
view of another person
> Children's overall system of putting together a number of different views of what they see
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Procedure - -> In total 100 children ages 4-12 were involved.
> They made a model of three mountains and took ten photos from different positions around the model.
> Child asked to use the cardboard shapes to show how the mountains looked from different viewpoints.
> Child shown ten photos and asked which the doll could see.
> Child chose a picture and had to position the doll so that it could see it.
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Findings - -> A child in the pre-operational stage chooses pictures, places and
cardboard to show their own view. A child cannot show the view of someone else.
> A child in concrete operations (7-9) starts to understand that someone has a different view. A child (9-
10) can understand that the doll has a different view.
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Conclusion - -> Children up to 7 years old are egocentric although towards the
end of the pre-operational stage they begin to understand viewpoint.
> Older children are non-egocentric. They can construct mental images of what others can see.
> Provides evidence for the stages of development, pre-operational are egocentric whereas concrete
operations can coordinate different viewpoints.
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Strengths - -> Provided great detail about what was done and gave qualitative
analysis about individual children. This meant they could show eg that as a child neared the next stage of
development, they could achieve elements of that next stage.
> Used experimental methods which meant careful controls were put in place. This allowed comparisons
between the results from different children. Repeating the study and using different viewpoints meant that
there was reliability in their findings.
-Piaget & Inhelder (1956) Weaknesses - -> The results suggest that the 'stages' are not definitive enough
even though Piaget acknowledged a period of transition.
> Other studies with more realistic scenarios did not give the same findings. Borke (1975) used a similar
idea but with a character from Sesame Street and let the children use a turntable. She found that 3 year
olds could identify Grover's point of view more than 79% of the time. She suggested that children under 7
were not egocentric but that the task was too difficult for them.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Aims - -> Children are affected by different types of praise given in a natural
situation
> Parents give girls more person praise than process praise
, > Parents use of process praise affects a child's reasoning and motivation five years down the line.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Procedure - -Study followed a group of 29 boys & 24 girls at 14 months, 28
months and 36 months. No one knew what was being studied when they got filmed acting 'naturally'. At
7-8 years old the same children answered two questionnaires about what they thought led to a persons
intelligence and led to their morals.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Findings - -> 3% of parental comments to children were praise.
> Process praise was 18%, Person praise was 16%.
> 24% of boys praise was process praise whereas was only 10.3% for girls.
> The more process praise there is in early childhood, the more likely children will believe that putting
effort in is worthwhile.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Conclusion - -> A clear relationship was found between parents use of process
praise and a child's later use of an incremental motivational framework (ability being changeable).
> Only partially supported because it did not find the person praise leads to an entity motivational
framework (ability is fixed)
> Gender differences in praise (boys more process)
> Boys tended to have more of an incremental framework than boys meaning that girls attribute failure to
ability more than boys do. This fits with the study findings.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Strengths - -> The researchers did not know what was being studied which
avoids bias in transcribing and recording the qualitative data.
> Shows that Dweck's findings in artificial studies are also found in the natural environment. These two
methods, experiment and observation, support each other which is a strength of both theory and study.
-Gunderson et al. (2013) Weaknesses - -> The ethics should be criticised as the participants were
deceived by being told it was about child development not praise. This needed a debrief to be ethical.
> The parents may have changed behaviour because they were being filmed so may lack validity.
> Only 53 parent child pairs in Chicago which might not be representative of the general population. This
limits the generalizability.
-Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts Aims - -> Test nature of reconstructive memory using an unfamiliar
story.
> See whether personal schemas influence what is remembered.
-Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts Procedure - -> Asked to read story twice then asked to recall it.
> Bartlett used serial reproduction and repeated reproduction to test the recall of the story.
