📚 Psychology Case Study Practical Exercises | 心理学案例分析实战演练
A case study is an in-depth investigation of a single person, group, event or community. In Year 9 CAIE Psychology, you are expected not only to recall famous case studies but also to apply your knowledge to new scenarios. This article provides a series of practical exercises designed to sharpen your analytical skills. Each section guides you through a key aspect of case study analysis, followed by worked examples drawn from common topics such as memory, social influence, aggression and attachment. By practising step by step, you will learn to formulate aims, identify methods, consider ethical issues and evaluate findings just like a real psychologist.
案例研究是对一个人、一个群体、一个事件或一个社区进行的深入调查。在九年级CAIE心理学课程中，你不仅要记住著名的案例研究，还要能将所学知识应用到新的情境中。本文提供了一系列实战练习，旨在提升你的分析技能。每个部分都会引导你掌握案例分析的关键要素，并通过来自记忆、社会影响、攻击性和依恋等常见主题的实例进行演示。通过循序渐进的练习，你将学会像真正的心理学家那样提出研究目的、识别研究方法、考虑伦理问题并评估研究发现。
1. Understanding Case Studies in Psychology | 理解心理学中的案例研究
A case study gathers rich, detailed data about a unique individual or situation. Unlike an experiment, it does not usually manipulate an independent variable. Instead, the researcher explores the participant's real-life experiences using a variety of methods such as interviews, observations and questionnaires. The aim is to understand behaviour in depth rather than to establish cause-and-effect relationships across a large population.
案例研究收集关于独特个体或情境的丰富而详细的数据。与实验不同，它通常不操纵自变量。研究者使用访谈、观察和问卷等多种方法探索参与者的真实生活经历。其目的是深入理解行为，而不是在大量人群中建立因果关系。
Case studies are particularly useful when studying rare phenomena—for example, a child with an exceptional memory or an individual who has suffered a unique brain injury. However, because the sample size is tiny, the findings may not generalise to other people. The high ecological validity and richness of data are the main strengths, while low population validity and possible researcher bias are key weaknesses.
在研究罕见现象时，案例研究特别有用——例如，一个具有超凡记忆力的儿童或一个遭受独特脑损伤的个体。然而，由于样本量很小，研究结果可能无法推广到其他人。高生态效度和数据的丰富性是其优点，而低人口效度和可能存在的研究者偏见是其主要缺点。
Key features: one participant or small group, use of several research methods, holistic approach, longitudinal design often involved | 主要特征：单个参与者或小群体、使用多种研究方法、整体化视角、通常采用纵向设计
Common topics: clinical cases (phobias, amnesia), child development, unusual experiences | 常见主题：临床案例（恐惧症、失忆症）、儿童发展、异常经历
2. The AIM and Hypothesis | 研究目的与假设
Every piece of research starts with a clear aim—a general statement of what the psychologist plans to investigate. In a case study, the aim might be 'to explore the impact of severe neglect on language development in a single child'. The aim is not to test a large-scale theory but to provide detailed insight.
每一项研究都从一个明确的目的开始——研究者计划探究什么的总体陈述。在案例研究中，目的可能是“探究严重忽视对单个儿童语言发展的影响”。该目的不是要检验一个大规模理论，而是提供深入的见解。
Although case studies are often qualitative and exploratory, you can still formulate a hypothesis—a testable prediction. For a case study, the hypothesis might be directional, predicting a specific outcome: 'It is predicted that the child will score below age-typical levels on a standardised language assessment.' When practising, always ask: Does the prediction emerge naturally from the background theory?
虽然案例研究通常是定性和探索性的，但你仍然可以提出一个假设——一种可检验的预测。对于案例研究，假设可以是方向性的，预测一个特定结果：“预计该儿童在标准化语言评估中的得分将低于同龄典型水平。”在练习时，要始终问自己：该预测是否从背景理论中自然产生？
Aim: 'To investigate the effect of a sightseeing trip on the mood of a person with depression.' | 目的：“调查一次观光旅行对一位抑郁症患者情绪的影响。”
Hypothesis (directional): 'The participant will report a lower score on a depression scale after the trip than before the trip.' | 假设（方向性）：“该参与者在旅行后报告的抑郁量表分数将低于旅行前。”
3. Selecting the Sample | 选择样本
In a case study, the sample is typically selected purposively—the researcher deliberately chooses someone who possesses the characteristics relevant to the aim. This is called opportunity sampling or purposive sampling. For example, a psychologist studying savant syndrome might seek out a person known to have extraordinary artistic skills alongside developmental difficulties.
在案例研究中，样本通常是目的性地选择的——研究者有意选择具有与研究目的相关特征的人。这被称为机会取样或目的取样。例如，一位研究学者症候群的心理学家可能会寻找一位同时拥有非凡艺术技能和发展困难的人。
You must always comment on the representativeness of the sample. Because case studies focus on a single individual or a very small group, findings cannot claim to represent the wider population. However, the unique nature of the participant is precisely what makes the research valuable. In your answers, acknowledge that the sample is too small to generalise but is appropriate for an in-depth exploration.
你必须始终对样本的代表性做出评论。由于案例研究聚焦于单个个体或极小的群体，研究结果不能声称代表了更广泛的人群。然而，参与者的独特性正是使研究有价值的原因。在你的回答中，要承认样本太小无法推广，但对于深入探究来说是适当的。
4. Methods: Interviews and Observations | 方法：访谈与观察
Case studies rarely rely on a single method. The most common tools are unstructured interviews and naturalistic observations. An unstructured interview allows the participant to speak freely, revealing thoughts and emotions that a structured questionnaire would miss. The researcher can follow up on interesting leads, producing rich qualitative data. However, this flexibility can lead to interviewer bias—the researcher may unintentionally steer the conversation.
案例研究很少依赖单一的方法。最常见的工具是非结构化访谈和自然观察。非结构化访谈允许参与者自由发言，揭示出结构化问卷会遗漏的想法和情绪。研究者可以跟进有趣的线索，产生丰富的定性数据。然而，这种灵活性可能导致访谈者偏见——研究者可能无意中引导了对话。
Naturalistic observations involve watching the participant in their own environment, such as a classroom or home, without interference. This yields high ecological validity because the behaviour is spontaneous. However, observer bias is a risk: the psychologist might only record what they expect to see. Typical exercises will ask you to identify which methods were used and to suggest one strength and one weakness for each method in the context of the case.
自然观察是指在参与者的自然环境中（如教室或家中）进行观察而不加干涉。这具有很高的生态效度，因为行为是自发的。然而，观察者偏见是一个风险：心理学家可能只记录他们期望看到的东西。典型练习会要求你识别使用了哪些方法，并针对该案例情境提出每种方法的一个优点和一个缺点。
5. Case Study 1: Memory and Eyewitness Testimony | 案例1：记忆与目击证词
A 22-year-old woman, Anna, witnessed a bank robbery. Three days later, she was interviewed by the police. The officer asked, 'What colour was the robber's jacket?' Anna replied 'black', but CCTV footage showed it was navy blue. The officer also asked a leading question: 'The robber was wearing a baseball cap and jeans, right?' Anna later incorporated the baseball cap into her memory even though the robber wore a beanie.
一位22岁的女性安娜目睹了一场银行抢劫案。三天后，她接受了警方的询问。警官问道：“劫匪的夹克是什么颜色的？”安娜回答“黑色”，但监控录像显示是深蓝色。警官还问了一个诱导性问题：“劫匪戴着棒球帽、穿着牛仔裤，对吧？”安娜后来将棒球帽融入了她的记忆，尽管劫匪戴的是一顶毛线帽。
Your task: explain how Anna's memory illustrates the reconstructive nature of memory. Use concepts from Bartlett's 'War of the Ghosts' study and Loftus and Palmer's research on leading questions. Point out that memory is not a video recording; it is actively rebuilt using schemas. The word 'jacket' activated a schema for typical robber attire, and the leading question about the baseball cap altered her subsequent recall. In a practical answer, you would identify the aim (to investigate the effect of leading questions on eyewitness recall), note that this is a case study of one person, and suggest using a cognitive interview technique as an alternative to minimise leading questions.
你的任务：解释安娜的记忆如何说明了记忆的重构性质。运用巴特利特的“幽灵之战”研究和洛夫特斯与帕尔默关于诱导性问题的研究中的概念。指出记忆不像录像，它是通过图式主动重建的。“夹克”这个词激活了关于典型劫匪装束的图式，而关于棒球帽的诱导性问题改变了她随后的回忆。在实践回答中，你要确定研究目的（调查诱导性问题对目击者回忆的影响），指出这是一个关于单一个体的案例研究，并建议使用认知访谈技术作为替代方法来尽量减少诱导性问题。
| Concept | Application to Anna's Case |
|---|---|
| Reconstructive memory | 重构记忆 | Anna filled gaps with schema-consistent details (black jacket) | 安娜用符合图式的细节（黑色夹克）填补空白 |
| Leading questions | 诱导性问题 | The officer's question added a false detail (baseball cap) | 警官的问题添加了虚假细节（棒球帽） |
6. Case Study 2: Conformity in a Classroom | 案例2：课堂中的从众行为
A teacher conducted a small psychology demonstration. She asked her Year 9 class of 25 students to answer a series of simple maths problems on a screen. Five students, who were secretly briefed beforehand, deliberately gave the same wrong answer on the fifth question. The remaining 20 genuine participants had to answer aloud in turn. Over 70% of the naive participants conformed and gave the wrong answer at least once.
一位老师进行了一个小型心理学演示。她让班上25名九年级学生回答屏幕上一系列简单的数学题。五名事先被秘密告知的学生在第五题上故意给出同样的错误答案。剩下的20名真正的参与者要依次大声回答。超过70%的不知情参与者至少有一次从众并给出了错误答案。
Analyse this mini case study by linking it to Asch's classic conformity research. Identify the type of social influence at play (normative social influence—the desire to fit in and avoid rejection). Discuss why the conformity rate was high, even though the task was unambiguous: the pressure of a unanimous majority, group size, and the public nature of the response. As a practical exercise, propose one ethical improvement (e.g., a full debrief afterwards) and explain that this case study used a covert observation method, which raises issues of deception.
分析这个小型案例研究，将其与阿希的经典从众研究联系起来。识别这里起作用的社会影响类型（规范社会影响——想要融入群体、避免被排斥的欲望）。讨论为什么即使在任务明确的情况下从众率也很高：一致性多数的压力、群体规模以及回答的公开性。作为实战练习，提出一项伦理改进措施（例如，事后进行充分的事后解释），并说明该案例研究使用了隐蔽观察法，这引发了欺骗问题。
Key evaluation points: the case study had high ecological validity because it took place in a real classroom, but the sample (one class) limits generalisability. The lack of a control condition makes it difficult to establish a direct cause. As always, you should note that this is not a tightly controlled experiment but a naturalistic observation within a case study framework.
关键评估要点：该案例研究具有很高的生态效度，因为它发生在真实的教室里，但样本（一个班级）限制了可推广性。缺少控制条件使得很难确定直接原因。和通常一样，你应该指出这不是一个严格控制的实验，而是案例研究框架内的自然观察。
7. Case Study 3: Aggression and Media Influence | 案例3：攻击性与媒体影响
A 13-year-old boy, Liam, spent two hours every afternoon playing a violent video game. His parents noticed a sharp increase in aggressive behaviour at home, such as shouting, hitting furniture and arguing more with his younger sister. Over half-term, the parents removed the game for ten days and kept a diary of Liam's behaviour. They reported a clear reduction in aggressive outbursts. When the game was reintroduced, the aggression levels rose again.
一个13岁的男孩利亚姆每天下午花两个小时玩暴力电子游戏。他的父母注意到他在家中攻击行为的急剧增加，比如喊叫、击打家具以及更多与妹妹争吵。在半学期假期期间，父母将游戏移除十天，并记录利亚姆的行为日记。他们报告攻击性爆发明显减少。当游戏重新引入时，攻击性水平再次上升。
This case study design resembles Bandura's Bobo doll experiment but in a natural setting. Your role is to identify the possible role of observational learning and imitation. Suggest an aim: 'To observe whether removing a violent video game reduces aggressive behaviour in an adolescent boy.' Point out that because only one family was involved, the experimenter did not control other variables, such as school stress or diet. The diary method relies on parental observation, which is subjective and vulnerable to confirmation bias. A well-rounded answer would also acknowledge ethical strengths: parents gave consent and monitored Liam's wellbeing; however, the repeated removal and reintroduction of the game might have caused frustration, which is an ethical concern.
该案例研究设计类似于班杜拉的波波玩偶实验，但是是在自然环境中进行的。你的任务是识别观察学习和模仿可能扮演的角色。建议研究目的：“观察移除暴力电子游戏是否减少一名青春期男孩的攻击性行为。”指出因为只涉及一个家庭，实验者没有控制其他变量，如学校压力或饮食。日记法依赖于父母观察，这是主观的并且容易受到确认偏差的影响。一个全面的回答还应承认伦理优势：父母给予了同意并监控了利亚姆的福祉；然而，反复移除和重新引入游戏可能会导致挫折感，这是一个伦理关切。
8. Case Study 4: Attachment in Early Childhood | 案例4：幼儿依恋
A 3-year-old girl, Mia, was adopted from an orphanage at the age of 18 months. Her new parents noticed that when they left her with a babysitter, she did not cry or show distress. Even when the parents returned, Mia barely acknowledged them and continued playing. She was equally comfortable with strangers. Observing a video of the 'Strange Situation' procedure carried out at her nursery, a psychologist classified her attachment as insecure-avoidant.
一个3岁的女孩米娅在18个月大时从孤儿院被收养。她的新父母注意到，当他们把她留给保姆时，她不哭也不表现痛苦。即使父母回来，米娅也几乎不理睬他们，继续玩。她对陌生人也同样安适。一位心理学家观看了在她托儿所进行的“陌生情境”程序的录像，将她的依恋归类为不安全-回避型。
Use this case study to practise applying attachment theory. Explain the characteristics of insecure-avoidant attachment: low separation anxiety, low reunion behaviour, and treating the stranger and caregiver similarly. Link these observations to the early deprivation Mia experienced. Critically, point out that a single case cannot tell us whether all children in institutional care develop insecure attachment. The 'Strange Situation' was developed in Western cultures, so cultural bias might affect the interpretation. When you write a practical response, always connect the behaviour to theory and then balance strengths (rich detail, longitudinal insight) with weaknesses (cannot establish cause, researcher bias possible).
使用这个案例研究来练习应用依恋理论。解释不安全-回避型依恋的特征：分离焦虑低、重聚行为低、对陌生人和照顾者态度相似。将这些观察与米娅经历的早期剥夺联系起来。批判性地指出，单一的案例不能告诉我们所有在机构照顾中的儿童是否都形成不安全的依恋。“陌生情境”是在西方文化中开发的，因此文化偏见可能影响解释。当你撰写实践回答时，要始终将行为与理论联系起来，然后平衡优点（细节丰富、纵向洞察）和缺点（无法确定原因、可能存在研究者偏见）。
9. Ethical Considerations | 伦理考量
All psychological research must follow ethical guidelines, and case studies are no exception. The key principles are: informed consent, right to withdraw, protection from harm, confidentiality, and debriefing. In a case study, obtaining informed consent can be challenging if the participant is a minor or has a cognitive impairment. In such cases, researchers must seek consent from a parent or guardian.
所有心理学研究都必须遵守伦理准则，案例研究也不例外。关键原则是：知情同意、退出权、免受伤害、保密和事后解释。在案例研究中，如果参与者是未成年人或有认知障碍，获得知情同意可能具有挑战性。在此情况下，研究者必须征得父母或监护人的同意。
Confidentiality is especially delicate because the detailed personal information in a case study can make participants easily identifiable. Psychologists often change names, locations and specific dates to disguise the participant's identity. When you evaluate a case study in an exam, always flag whether the study mentions these protections. For example, in the Liam video game case, the parents gave consent and likely shielded his real identity by using a pseudonym. But the repeated withdrawal of the game might have caused psychological distress, which is a harm that needs justification.
保密性尤其棘手，因为案例研究中详细的个人信息可能使参与者容易被识别。心理学家通常更改姓名、地点和具体日期来掩饰参与者的身份。当你在考试中评估一个案例研究时，始终指出该研究是否提到了这些保护措施。例如，在利亚姆的电子游戏案例中，父母给予了同意，并且很可能通过化名保护了他的真实身份。但反复移除游戏可能造成了心理困扰，这是一种需要正当理由的伤害。
| Ethical Guideline | 伦理准则 | How to Apply in a Case Study | 如何在案例研究中应用 |
|---|---|
| Informed consent | 知情同意 | Obtain written permission from the participant or their guardian. | 从参与者或其监护人处获得书面许可。 |
| Right to withdraw | 退出权 | Remind the participant they can leave the study at any time without penalty. | 提醒参与者他们可以随时退出研究而不受惩罚。 |
| Confidentiality | 保密 | Use pseudonyms, blur identifiable details, store data securely. | 使用化名、模糊可识别细节、安全存储数据。 |
| Debriefing | 事后解释 | Explain the true purpose after the study and offer support if needed. | 研究结束后解释真实目的，并在需要时提供支持。 |
10. Evaluating Case Studies | 评估案例研究
Strong evaluation answers do not just list strengths and weaknesses; they relate each point directly to the case at hand. Strengths often include high ecological validity, depth of insight, and the ability to study rare phenomena. Weaknesses typically centre on poor generalisability, subjective data collection, and the risk of researcher bias. In a practical exercise, always try to suggest an improvement—for instance, using triangulation (collecting data from multiple sources) to increase validity.
优秀的评估答案不仅仅是罗列优点和缺点；它们将每一点都直接关联到手头的案例。优点通常包括高生态效度、深刻的洞察力以及研究罕见现象的能力。弱点通常集中在较差的概括性、主观的数据收集以及研究者偏见的风险。在实战练习中，始终尝试提出改进建议——例如，使用三角验证（从多个来源收集数据）以提高有效性。
Another common requirement is to compare the case study with another method. You could argue that a large-scale experiment would have been more reliable for measuring memory errors, but it would lose the personal narrative captured in Anna's eyewitness account. A balanced conclusion might be: 'While the case study cannot prove cause and effect, it generates hypotheses that can be tested later with larger samples.'
另一个常见的要求是将案例研究与其他方法进行比较。你可以论证，大规模的实验在测量记忆错误方面会更可靠，但会失去安娜目击者叙述中捕捉到的个人叙事。一个平衡的结论可能是：“虽然案例研究不能证明因果关系，但它能产生可以在日后用更大样本检验的假设。”
11. Common Mistakes and How to Avoid Them | 常见错误及避免方法
Many Year 9 students make similar errors when writing about case studies. The most frequent mistake is treating a case study as if it were a controlled experiment, wrongly identifying an independent and dependent variable where none exists. Remember, a case study often lacks deliberate manipulation. Another error is over-generalising: claiming that the findings can be applied to everyone, without acknowledging the tiny sample. Always include a clear statement about population validity.
许多九年级学生在描写案例研究时常犯类似的错误。最常见的错误是把案例研究当作一个受控实验，在不存在自变量和因变量的情况下错误地认定它们。请记住，案例研究通常缺乏有意的操纵。另一个错误是过度概括：声称研究结果适用于所有人，却没有承认样本量极小。一定要包含关于人口效度的明确陈述。
Students also tend to write evaluation points that float without evidence from the case. For example, simply writing 'this case study has high ecological validity' earns few marks; you must explain why: 'because the participant was observed in her own home, her behaviour was natural and spontaneous'. Furthermore, many forget to address ethics. Make it a habit to check for consent, deception, right to withdraw, and confidentiality in every case study you analyse.
学生还倾向于写出没有案例证据支撑的评估要点。例如，仅仅写“该案例研究有很高的生态效度”得分很低；你必须解释原因：“因为参与者在自己的家中被观察，她的行为是自然和自发的。”此外，许多人忘记提及伦理。要养成在每一个分析的案例研究中检查同意、欺骗、退出权和保密性的习惯。
12. Conclusion: Applying Your Skills | 结语：应用你的技能
Mastering case studies in Year 9 Psychology is about blending theory with real-world application. The practical exercises in this article are templates; you can use them with any new scenario you encounter. Start by identifying the research aim, then work through the method, sample, ethical issues and evaluation points, always linking back to the psychological concepts you have studied. With regular practice, you will develop the confidence to unpack even the most complex cases.
掌握九年级心理学中的案例研究，关键在于将理论与实际应用相结合。本文中的实战练习是模板，你可以将其应用到你遇到的任何新情境中。从确定研究目的开始，然后逐步思考方法、样本、伦理问题和评估要点，始终回归到你所学的心理学概念。通过定期练习，你将建立起解析哪怕最复杂案例的信心。
The key is to think like a psychologist: be curious, critical, and compassionate. Whether you are analysing a memory distortion, an act of conformity, an aggressive outburst, or a child's attachment pattern, remember that behind every case there is a unique human story. A good case study analysis honours that story while maintaining scientific rigour.
关键在于像心理学家一样思考：保持好奇心、批判性和共情力。无论你是在分析记忆扭曲、从众行为、攻击性爆发还是儿童的依恋模式，都要记住，每个案例背后都有一个独特的人类故事。一个好的案例分析既要尊重这个故事，又要保持科学的严谨性。
Published by TutorHao | 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