Synoptic Review of Studies (Edexcel A-Level Psychology): Revision Notes

Synoptic Review of Studies

What is a synoptic review?

A synoptic review involves comparing and evaluating classic and contemporary psychological studies using overarching themes, issues, and debates. Rather than studying research in isolation, you need to draw connections between different studies and apply critical analysis across multiple areas of psychology.

Classic studies you need to know

The following table shows which classic studies you must know for your exam:

Classic study	Topic area
Sherif et al. (1954/1961) Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment	Topic 1: Social psychology
Baddeley (1966b) Working memory model: The influence of acoustic and semantic similarity on long-term memory for word sequences	Topic 2: Cognitive psychology
Raine et al. (1997) Brain abnormalities in murderers indicated by positron emission tomography	Topic 3: Biological psychology
Watson and Rayner (1920) Little Albert: Conditioned emotional reactions	Topic 4: Learning theories
Rosenhan (1973) On being sane in insane places	Topic 5: Clinical psychology

Optional topic studies

You will also study one optional topic, which includes an additional classic study:

Optional study	Topic area
Loftus and Palmer (1974) Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory	Topic 6: Criminological psychology
van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg (1988) Cross-cultural patterns of attachment: A meta-analysis of the Strange Situation	Topic 7: Child psychology
Olds and Milner (1954) Positive reinforcement produced by electrical stimulation of septal areas and other regions of rat brain	Topic 8: Health psychology

Approaches to comparing classic studies

Each classic study uses different methodological approaches to investigate behaviour. You can compare studies across three main dimensions: methods, data, and explanations.

Comparing methods

When comparing research methods, consider:

• Research design – Does the study use an experiment, observation, case study, or other approach?
• Aims – What was each researcher trying to investigate?
• Variables – What independent and dependent variables were used (if applicable)?
• Procedures – How was the research conducted? What specific steps were taken?
• Design issues and controls – What measures were taken to ensure validity and reliability?

This comparison tests your understanding of the strengths and limitations of conducting research using different approaches.

Comparing data

Each study produces different types of data. When comparing data, examine:

• Type of data – Is it primary or secondary? Qualitative or quantitative?
• Data collection methods – How was the data gathered and recorded?
• Analysis techniques – What procedures were used to analyse the findings?
• Strengths and weaknesses – What are the advantages and limitations of these data collection and analysis methods?

Comparing explanations

Consider how the classic studies contribute to understanding behaviour:

• Theoretical contributions – What theories do the studies relate to?
• Quality of evidence – How strong is the evidence for each explanation?
• Explaining behaviour – How do the studies explain behaviour in different ways?
• Applications – What practical applications emerge from the research?

Evaluating classic studies

You must evaluate classic studies using five key criteria: validity, reliability, credibility, generalisability, and objectivity/subjectivity. Understanding each study thoroughly ensures you can discuss a broad range of evaluation issues.

Key evaluation criteria

Validity refers to whether the research accurately measures what it claims to measure. Studies conducted in natural environments typically have higher validity than those in artificial laboratory conditions.

Reliability refers to the consistency of research procedures and findings. A reliable study can be replicated with similar results.

Credibility refers to the trustworthiness of the research. Factors affecting credibility include the integrity of the researcher, scientific procedures used, and ethical considerations.

Generalisability refers to the extent to which findings can be applied to other populations, settings, or time periods. Studies with small or unrepresentative samples have limited generalisability.

Objectivity/subjectivity refers to the degree of bias in data collection and interpretation. Objective methods (e.g. recordings, brain scans) are free from researcher interpretation, while subjective methods (e.g. qualitative notes) may reflect researcher views.

Evaluation of classic studies

Classic study	Validity	Reliability	Credibility	Generalisability	Objectivity/subjectivity
Sherif et al. (1954/1961)	Natural environment but boys may have guessed they were being studied	Three replications yielded different findings; inconsistent procedures	Low credibility as the integrity of the study was questioned and there were ethical implications	Limited number from a limited sample of competitive sporting boys	Records taken by camp researchers, often in note form, possibly reflecting their views on how the boys were behaving
Baddeley (1966b)	Tasks not an everyday use of memory	Good control over memory trials	Reputable researcher in memory; scientific procedures used	Limited to experimental conditions	Objective recordings taken of word recall
Raine et al. (1997)	PET scans are an accurate measure of brain activity	Scientific equipment is reliable	Brain-imaging equipment used, but only on a small sample with considerable ethical issues	Small sample size of selected murderers, which are not representative	Objective PET scan recordings taken
Watson and Rayner (1920)	Phobia: too many trials to condition, which questions the validity of the conditioning process as a permanent way of learning	Control over many stimuli (e.g. room and items) to ensure phobia was of rat	Ethical issues limit credibility, but regarded as evidence of classical conditioning in a human	Only one child studied, who may have been more resilient (stolid) than other children	Objective recordings taken of Albert's behaviour, film footage evidences emotional reaction
Rosenhan (1973)	High validity due to naturalistic environment	Replication study with no pseudopatients offers some evidence for reliability of findings	Credible evidence used by the anti-psychiatry movement	A range of hospitals but restricted to the USA	Pseudopatients' notes (qualitative and quantitative)

Applying evaluation criteria

You may be asked to compare classic studies using these evaluation criteria and link them to broader issues and debates. For example:

• Nature-nurture debate – You could compare how cognitive and learning approaches explain behaviour differently in relation to this debate
• Scientific status – You could evaluate which studies use more scientific methods and controls
• Ethical issues – You could compare studies based on ethical considerations