AS Psychology- Doubts, Tips, Guesses and Leaks

[SB29597]

Hey guys.
Post AS Level Psychology Doubts tips and guesses over here. Leaks, if anyone has any

Good Luck!

 

[Alex10]

Do you feel comfortable with all 20 studies?

 

[umerkhandurrani]

I don't have a good feeling about tomorrow's paper.
Even though I'm done with all my course, but there's this little feeling which tells me I'm going to screw and I'm expecting an A, considering my hard work. Terminology and the Section B in Paper 1 confuses the hell outta me.

 

[roberto1245]

can someone explain me how to do section B.i really dont get it.

 

[umerkhandurrani]

Agreed with Roberto.
I mean, I don't have any problem with the core studies.
But I need to know the relevant stuff which I could write for the section B depending upon the question they ask.
I mean, for the top band answers scoring 8-10.
For example, the nature nurture debate regarding one study or the use of children in psychology, or the individual vs situational explanation. I do know what all of that means, but what I need to know is how to evaluate certain data from the study, regarding different terms.
Reply asap.

 

[umerkhandurrani]

It'd be a favor if someone attempts the Paper 1 Sec B 2013 over here.

 

[Alex10]

Agreed with Roberto.
I mean, I don't have any problem with the core studies.
But I need to know the relevant stuff which I could write for the section B depending upon the question they ask.
I mean, for the top band answers scoring 8-10.
For example, the nature nurture debate regarding one study or the use of children in psychology, or the individual vs situational explanation. I do know what all of that means, but what I need to know is how to evaluate certain data from the study, regarding different terms.
Reply asap.

If you are familiar with all the core studies, then the Section B 10-mark questions should not be too hard.
For nature-nurture, think about the results of the study - which parts suggest that behaviour resides in our genetics and heritage and what is due to our upbringing and social influence? For example, the Bandura, Rosss & Ross study - children readily imitated behaviour of aggressive models, while those exposed to non-aggressive models had subdued behaviour. Then link it back to the debate - does it suggest nurture or nature?
Use of children in psychology - basically they are reffering to the advantages of disadvantages. Think about the aim of the study and the procedure itself and why it is advantageous that children are used instead of adults.
Individual or situational explanations - again recall the results of the study, and suggest the extent to which they support the individual or situational explanation.

 

[umerkhandurrani]

If you are familiar with all the core studies, then the Section B 10-mark questions should not be too hard.
For nature-nurture, think about the results of the study - which parts suggest that behaviour resides in our genetics and heritage and what is due to our upbringing and social influence? For example, the Bandura, Rosss & Ross study - children readily imitated behaviour of aggressive models, while those exposed to non-aggressive models had subdued behaviour. Then link it back to the debate - does it suggest nurture or nature?
Use of children in psychology - basically they are reffering to the advantages of disadvantages. Think about the aim of the study and the procedure itself and why it is advantageous that children are used instead of adults.
Individual or situational explanations - again recall the results of the study, and suggest the extent to which they support the individual or situational explanation.

Yeah, I get that. But considering the points which supports both sides of the debate, how would we evaluate them? I think I know how to, but it confuses me if I'm right or wrong.
For example, in the Milgram's study, 26/40 went to the max 450 volts, demonstrating that people if ordered by an authority figure, in a prestigious situation or place would be likely to follow orders, even if this causes them distress as all of them, at least once went to the experimenter to question the experiment which supports the situational explanation of the debate. But, 14/40 participant left in between and didn't continue because of their personal characteristics which didn't allow them so do so, despite of the other factors such as the prestigious setting and name of the university or the amount being paid to them, thus supporting the dispositional explanation of the debate.
Now, if I evaluate a point in that certain way, would that gain me good marks? :/
I don't have a good teacher of Psychology and I'm on my own, so yeah. Confuses the f outta me.

 

[Alex10]

Yeah, I get that. But considering the points which supports both sides of the debate, how would we evaluate them? I think I know how to, but it confuses me if I'm right or wrong.
For example, in the Milgram's study, 26/40 went to the max 450 volts, demonstrating that people if ordered by an authority figure, in a prestigious situation or place would be likely to follow orders, even if this causes them distress as all of them, at least once went to the experimenter to question the experiment which supports the situational explanation of the debate. But, 14/40 participant left in between and didn't continue because of their personal characteristics which didn't allow them so do so, despite of the other factors such as the prestigious setting and name of the university or the amount being paid to them, thus supporting the dispositional explanation of the debate.
Now, if I evaluate a point in that certain way, would that gain me good marks? :/
I don't have a good teacher of Psychology and I'm on my own, so yeah. Confuses the f outta me.

Yeah that would automatically catapult you in the 5-6 band because you are mentioning both sides. Mention at least 2 points per side.
You could also mention the fact that many participants showed signs of nervousness and tensions: sweating, lip-biting, trembling etc.) and 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures. This was due to both the situation they were in and their own disposition that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt someone against his/her will.

 

[umerkhandurrani]

Yeah that would automatically catapult you in the 5-6 band because you are mentioning both sides. Mention at least 2 points per side.
You could also mention the fact that many participants showed signs of nervousness and tensions: sweating, lip-biting, trembling etc.) and 3 participants had uncontrollable seizures. This was due to both the situation they were in and their own disposition that it is a fundamental breach of moral conduct to hurt someone against his/her will.

Okay, so the point is that we actually have to evaluate, making the argument balanced and with enough content of 2 points per side? P.S. I wasn't writing the whole of the evaluation in my last post, it was just a demonstration of how I can evaluate a certain point. Considering that, if we evaluate 2-3 appropriate such points on one side of the debate and 2-3 on the other side with appropriate terminology ofcourse, would that catapult us in the 8-10 band, the top one?

 

[Alex10]

Yeah just make sure you have the same amount of detail on both sides

 

[umerkhandurrani]

Yeah just make sure you have the same amount of detail on both sides

Thankyou Alex.
Now, the last three terms I had to clear were, reductionist, ethnocentrism and determinism. Several question in past papers were related to those terms. I know what reductionism, ethnocentrism and determinism means. But again, how would we evaluate considering those terms? Take the Milgram study in case or Rosenhan.

 

[Alex10]

Well for ethnocentrism you're typically looking at the sample - for Milgram only (40) males were involved and they were all from New Haven and surrounding area, so basically from the same culture and background - you could then go off a tangent talking about how its ethnocentrically bias towards males and Caucasion people AND SO makes it difficult to generalise to females and other cultures. You can also mention the fact that he originally wanted to investigate the "German are different hypothesis", and then you would explain how that refers to ethnocentrism. Again, these are most probably EVALUATE questions so you must mention both sides.

As for reductionism, you are mostly looking at the conclusions and explanations of the findings of the study: to what extent these are reductionist or holistic. I can't spontaneously think of any points as to why the studies by Milgram and Rosenhan are reductionist, but you would mention things like the fact that Milgram took numerous factors into consideration in all those explanations he mentioned in the end suggesting why the people were obedient, from the prestigious environment and payment increasing their sense of obligation all the way to this conflict between obeying orders and knowing what is right and what is wrong. Then link this back to the issue of reductionism.

Similarly for Rosenhan, you could say that in the end he wasn't blaming anyone for the deplorable conditions in mental hospitals, but is suggesting that the situation is a very influential factor, and that there is no reliable distinction between the sane and insane.

I guess if you can't think of any more points then just mention why a reductionist explanation would have been a major weakness in the Rosenhan and Milgram study; just make sure you detail the study.

I have honestly never seen a 10-mark question on determinism. Can you send me a link to the past paper?

 

[SamiaSaad]

What are you supposed to write in questions in which you have to discuss the reliability and validity of a study?

 

[umerkhandurrani]

Well for ethnocentrism you're typically looking at the sample - for Milgram only (40) males were involved and they were all from New Haven and surrounding area, so basically from the same culture and background - you could then go off a tangent talking about how its ethnocentrically bias towards males and Caucasion people AND SO makes it difficult to generalise to females and other cultures. You can also mention the fact that he originally wanted to investigate the "German are different hypothesis", and then you would explain how that refers to ethnocentrism. Again, these are most probably EVALUATE questions so you must mention both sides.

As for reductionism, you are mostly looking at the conclusions and explanations of the findings of the study: to what extent these are reductionist or holistic. I can't spontaneously think of any points as to why the studies by Milgram and Rosenhan are reductionist, but you would mention things like the fact that Milgram took numerous factors into consideration in all those explanations he mentioned in the end suggesting why the people were obedient, from the prestigious environment and payment increasing their sense of obligation all the way to this conflict between obeying orders and knowing what is right and what is wrong. Then link this back to the issue of reductionism.

Similarly for Rosenhan, you could say that in the end he wasn't blaming anyone for the deplorable conditions in mental hospitals, but is suggesting that the situation is a very influential factor, and that there is no reliable distinction between the sane and insane.

I guess if you can't think of any more points then just mention why a reductionist explanation would have been a major weakness in the Rosenhan and Milgram study; just make sure you detail the study.

I have honestly never seen a 10-mark question on determinism. Can you send me a link to the past paper?

Thankyou so much.
And sorry about the determinism thing, I thought I saw that question somewhere but my bad.

 

[umerkhandurrani]

What are you supposed to write in questions in which you have to discuss the reliability and validity of a study?

Samia, reliability means when two or more measurements or observations of the same psychological event are consistent with each other. Makes a study replicable.
Though on the other hand, validity of a test is the extent to which the test measures what it says it is going to measure.
There are two types of validity, internal and external.
Internal is when the outcome of the study is because of the manipulated variable.
External is when the findings can be generalized to setting other than the research settings.
Ways to measure validity are concurrent, face and predictive validity.
When you're asked to evaluate either in both of these terms, you'd have to consider the findings, conclusions and the methods of the study to see if they're reliable enough to replicate, or valid enough to generalize or if is true to life or not with evidence supporting your clause.

 

[SamiaSaad]

Thanks

 

[roxylara]

How'd it go?

 

[Alex10]

How'd it go?

Have you had your exam yet?

 

[roxylara]

Have you had your exam yet?

Yes