📚 Year 12 WJEC Psychology: Core Knowledge Review | Year 12 WJEC 心理学：核心知识点梳理
Welcome to this comprehensive review of the core knowledge for Year 12 WJEC Psychology. This guide covers essential research methods, key classic and contemporary studies, and ethical considerations that form the foundation of the AS curriculum. Understanding these concepts will help you develop critical analytical skills for your examinations.
欢迎阅读这篇 Year 12 WJEC 心理学的核心知识梳理。本指南涵盖构成 AS 课程基础的重要研究方法、经典与当代关键研究以及伦理考量。理解这些概念将帮助你培养考试所需的批判性分析能力。
1. The Scientific Approach in Psychology | 心理学中的科学方法
Psychology is defined as the scientific study of mind and behaviour, relying on empirical evidence gathered through systematic observation and experimentation.
心理学被定义为对心理和行为的科学研究，它依赖于通过系统观察和实验所获得的经验证据。
The research process typically moves from a theory to a testable hypothesis, which is then investigated using controlled methods to confirm or refute predictions.
研究过程通常从理论推进到可检验的假设，随后使用控制方法进行调查，以证实或反驳预测。
Core principles include objectivity (minimising bias), replicability (others can repeat the study), and falsifiability (the hypothesis can be proven wrong), which together distinguish psychology from pseudoscience.
核心原则包括客观性（最小化偏见）、可重复性（他人可重复研究）以及可证伪性（假设能被证明错误），这些共同将心理学与伪科学区分开来。
2. Experimental Methods and Variables | 实验方法与变量
The experimental method involves the deliberate manipulation of an independent variable (IV) to observe its effect on a dependent variable (DV), while all other variables are held constant or controlled.
实验法涉及有目的地操纵自变量 (IV)，以观察其对因变量 (DV) 产生的效应，同时保持所有其他变量不变或受到控制。
Extraneous variables such as participant differences or aspects of the environment can become confounding variables if they are not properly controlled, potentially distorting the true relationship between IV and DV.
诸如被试差异或环境因素等无关变量，若未能妥善控制，就可能成为混淆变量，从而可能扭曲 IV 和 DV 之间的真实关系。
Operationalisation means clearly specifying how each variable is to be measured or manipulated; for example, defining 'aggression' as the number of times a child hits a doll ensures the study can be replicated accurately.
操作化意味着清楚说明每个变量将如何被测量或操纵；例如，将“攻击性”定义为儿童击打玩偶的次数，就确保了研究能被准确重复。
3. Experimental Designs and Controls | 实验设计与控制
An independent groups design allocates different participants to each condition of the IV, which eliminates order effects but requires a larger sample size and can be affected by participant variables.
独立组设计将不同的被试分配到 IV 的每个条件中，这消除了顺序效应，但需要较大的样本量，并可能受到被试变量的影响。
In a repeated measures design, the same participants take part in all conditions, controlling for individual differences; however, it introduces the risk of order effects such as practice or fatigue, which can be reduced by counterbalancing the condition order.
在重复测量设计中，相同的被试参与所有条件，控制了个人差异；然而，这会引入诸如练习或疲劳等顺序效应的风险，而通过平衡条件顺序可以降低这一风险。
A matched pairs design attempts to combine the strengths of both by first matching participants on key traits (e.g. IQ), then splitting each pair across conditions, thereby reducing participant variables while avoiding order effects.
匹配对设计试图结合前两者的优点，它首先根据关键特征（如智商）将被试配对，然后将每对分开置于不同的条件中，从而在减少被试变量的同时避免了顺序效应。
4. Non-Experimental Methods: Observations and Self-Reports | 非实验方法：观察与自我报告
Observational studies involve watching and recording behaviour as it occurs naturally, without researcher manipulation; they can be covert or overt, structured or unstructured, and participant or non-participant in nature.
观察研究涉及在自然发生的状态下观察和记录行为，没有研究者的操纵；它们可以是隐蔽或公开的、结构化或非结构化的、参与式或非参与式的。
Self-report techniques, such as questionnaires and interviews, gather data directly from participants about their subjective experiences, attitudes and behaviours.
自我报告技术，例如问卷和访谈，直接从被试那里收集关于其主观经验、态度和行为的数据。
Questionnaires often include closed questions with Likert scales to generate quantitative data that is easy to analyse, while open questions yield qualitative data rich in detail.
问卷常常包含带有李克特量表的封闭式问题，以产生易于分析的量化数据，而开放式问题则得出富含细节的质性数据。
Interviews range from highly structured formats, which ensure standardised questions, to unstructured interviews that allow for deeper exploration but are harder to compare across participants.
访谈的范围从高度结构化的形式（确保了标准化提问），到非结构化访谈（允许深度探索，但较难在不同被试间进行比较）。
5. Correlations and Data Analysis | 相关法与数据分析
A correlational study measures two or more co-variables without any deliberate manipulation, producing a correlation coefficient between –1 (perfect negative) and +1 (perfect positive); zero indicates no linear relationship.
相关法研究测量两个或多个协变量，不进行任何刻意操纵，得出相关系数介于 –1（完全负相关）和 +1（完全正相关）之间；零代表没有线性关系。
If an increase in one variable tends to be accompanied by an increase in another, it is a positive correlation; if an increase is linked to a decrease, the correlation is negative.
如果一个变量的增加常伴随另一个变量的增加，这便是正相关；如果增加关联于减少，则为负相关。
It is crucial to remember that correlation does not imply causation: an observed relationship could be caused by a third, unmeasured variable or be entirely coincidental.
务必牢记相关并不代表因果关系：观察到的关系可能由一个未测量的第三变量引起，或完全是巧合所致。
Data analysis at AS level includes descriptive statistics such as measures of central tendency (mean, median, mode) and dispersion (range, standard deviation), as well as the rationale for selecting an appropriate inferential statistical test.
AS 阶段的数据分析包括描述性统计，如集中量数（平均数、中位数、众数）和离散量数（全距、标准差），以及选择合适推断性统计检验的理论依据。
6. Ethical Considerations in Research | 研究中的伦理考量
The British Psychological Society (BPS) Code of Ethics sets out key principles: researchers must gain informed consent, avoid deception where possible, protect participants from physical or psychological harm, ensure the right to withdraw, and maintain confidentiality.
英国心理学会 (BPS) 伦理准则规定了关键原则：研究者必须获得知情同意，尽可能避免欺骗，保护被试免受身心伤害，确保退出权和维护保密性。
When deception is unavoidable for the purpose of the research, a thorough debrief must follow, explaining the true nature of the study and offering support to restore participants to their prior state.
当为了研究目的而不可避免地使用欺骗时，必须在事后进行详尽的事后解释，说明研究的真实性质并提供支持，以使被试恢复到先前状态。
A cost-benefit analysis may be conducted to weigh the scientific gains of a study against the ethical costs incurred; studies such as Milgram's obedience experiment continue to fuel debate because their insightfulness is counterbalanced by participant distress.
可通过成本-收益分析去权衡一项研究的科学收益与由此产生的伦理成本；像 Milgram 的服从实验这类研究之所以至今仍引发争论，正是因为其洞察力与被试痛苦相互抵消。
Modern ethical guidelines also require that research proposals be reviewed by an independent ethics committee before any data collection begins, aimed at safeguarding participant welfare.
现代伦理指南还要求在收集任何数据之前，研究提案必须经过独立伦理委员会的审查，旨在保障被试的福祉。
7. Classic Study: Asch (1955) Conformity | 经典研究：Asch 从众实验
Solomon Asch designed a line-judgement task in which a single naive participant was seated among a group of confederates who all intentionally gave wrong answers on certain trials, to measure conformity to a unanimous majority.
Solomon Asch 设计了一项线段判断任务，一名不知情的被试坐在一群同伴中间，这些同伴在某些试次中全都故意给出错误答案，以测量其对一致多数的从众行为。
Across the critical trials, approximately 75% of participants conformed at least once, and the overall conformity rate was around 37%, showing a strong tendency to yield to group pressure even when the correct answer was obvious.
在所有关键试次中，约 75% 的被试至少从众了一次，总体从众率大约为 37%，这表明即便正确答案显而易见，个体也存在屈服于群体压力的强烈倾向。
Asch identified key variables affecting conformity: it increased with group size up to about four confederates, but dropped sharply when just one confederate gave the correct answer or disagreed with the majority, providing social support.
Asch 识别了影响从众的关键变量：从众性随群体规模增大而上升，直至约四名同伴；但只要有一名同伴给出正确答案或反对多数，从众率就急剧下降，这提供了社会支持。
This study primarily demonstrates normative social influence, where individuals conform to be liked and accepted, rather than because they genuinely believe the group is correct (informational influence).
该研究主要展示了规范性社会影响，即个体为了被喜爱和接纳而从众，而非真的相信群体是正确的（信息性影响）。
8. Classic Study: Milgram (1963) Obedience | 经典研究：Milgram 服从实验
Stanley Milgram recruited 40 male participants for what they believed was a memory and learning study; they were instructed by an authority figure to deliver increasingly severe electric shocks to a confederate whenever he made an error.
Stanley Milgram 招募了 40 名男性被试，他们以为自己参加的是记忆与学习研究；一位权威人物指令他们每当一名同伴犯错时，就对其施予逐渐增强的电击。
In the original baseline condition, 65% of participants continued to the maximum 450 volts despite hearing the learner's agonised screams, protests and eventual silence, demonstrating profound obedience to authority.
在最初的基线条件下，65% 的被试持续施加至最高的 450 伏特，尽管听到了学习者的痛苦尖叫、抗议乃至最终的沉默，这展现了对权威的深刻服从。
Situational factors were found to powerfully influence obedience: proximity of the victim, location of the experiment (prestige), and presence of disobedient peers all altered obedience levels significantly.
研究发现情境因素强烈地影响了服从：受害者的接近性、实验地点（声望）以及不服从同伴的存在，都显著改变了服从水平。
The study raised major ethical concerns regarding deception, the right to withdraw, and psychological harm, triggering a revolution in ethical standards and leading to modern safeguarding procedures for participants.
该研究引出了关于欺骗、退出权和心理伤害的重大伦理关切，触发了伦理标准的变革，并形成了现代的参与者安全保护程序。
9. Classic Study: Loftus & Palmer (1974) Eyewitness Memory | 经典研究：Loftus 与 Palmer 目击者记忆
Elizabeth Loftus and John Palmer conducted two experiments to investigate how the wording of a question can distort an eyewitness's memory of an event, specifically a filmed car accident.
Elizabeth Loftus 和 John Palmer 进行了两个实验，考察问题的措辞是如何扭曲目击者对事件（具体为一段汽车事故影片）的记忆。
In the first experiment, participants were asked to estimate speed using different verbs; those exposed to 'smashed' gave the highest mean speed estimate (40.8 mph), while 'contacted' produced the lowest (31.8 mph).
在第一个实验中，被试被要求使用不同动词估计车速；接触到“smashed（猛烈相撞）”的被试给出了最高的平均速度估计（40.8 mph），而“contacted（接触）”则产生了最低值（31.8 mph）。
A second experiment showed that the verb not only affected speed estimates but also created false recollections: participants who heard 'smashed' were more likely to incorrectly report seeing broken glass a week later, even though none was present.
第二个实验显示，动词不仅影响速度估计，还制造了虚假记忆：一周后，听到“smashed”的被试更可能错误报告看见了碎玻璃，尽管影片中并没有碎玻璃。
These findings support the reconstructive nature of memory, suggesting it can be altered by post-event information, with far‐reaching implications for police interviewing and the reliability of eyewitness testimony.
这些发现支持了记忆的重构性本质，表明记忆可被事后信息所改变，这对警方询问以及目击者证词的可靠性具有深远影响。
10. Contemporary Study: Piliavin et al. (1969) Helping Behaviour | 当代研究：Piliavin 等人的助人行为
Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin carried out a field experiment on the New York underground to study bystander intervention in a natural setting, staging a man collapsing with either a cane (ill condition) or appearing drunk.
Piliavin、Rodin 与 Piliavin 在纽约地铁进行了一项现场实验，以在自然情境下研究旁观者干预，安排一名男性分别呈现出拄拐杖（生病状况）或醉酒后昏倒。
The victim in the cane condition received spontaneous help on 62 of 65 trials, often within seconds, while the drunk victim was helped less frequently, demonstrating that perceived need and cost influence helping.
在拐杖条件下，受害者 65 次试验中有 62 次得到了自发帮助，且常在数秒内发生，而醉酒的受害者被帮助的频率较低，这表明感知到的需求和成本会影响助人行为。
Contrary to the diffusion of responsibility hypothesis, larger group sizes did not reduce helping; instead, the more people present, the slightly higher the likelihood of help, possibly because more potential helpers were available.
与责任分散假说相反，更大的群体规模并未减少助人行为；事实上，在场人数越多，帮忙的可能性还略有升高，可能是因为有更多潜在施助者在场。
This led to the formulation of the
Published by TutorHao | Year 12 Psychology Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图