The Student Room Group

OCR PSYCHOLOGY G542 core studies May 2012

Scroll to see replies

Reply 40
Does anyone have the January 2012 on core studies? Would help with predicting this paper?? :smile:
Reply 42
Hey People :smile: worried about this exam so much & could anyone help with section B & c PLEASE :smile: XX
Reply 43
Predictions:

The only study that has not come up is Maguire.
The studies that have only come up once are: Freud, piliavin, Reicher and Haslam, Sperry, Baron Cohen, Savage Rumbaugh and thigpen and cleckly.

I'm predicting either

Piliavin, Baron-Cohen and Maguire

OR

Thigpen and cleckly
Savage Rumbaugh
Freud

For Section C

It's unlikely to be the physiological approach (been done 3 times)

It's likely to be behaviourist approach (Only been done once)

The other is a complete guess because their all equal
Reply 44
Also, someone give me some questions!

Preferably on Cognitive/social/Developmental (Ones I've gone over :P)
Original post by stoppy123
Also, someone give me some questions!

Preferably on Cognitive/social/Developmental (Ones I've gone over :P)


Okay I was just revising on one of the papers.

section c
a)outline one assumption of the developmental approach
b)with reference to samuel and bryant\s study, describe how the developmental approach could explain why one child can conserve whilst another cannot.
c)describe one similarity and one difference between any core studies that take the developmental approach.
d)discuss strengths and weakness of the developmental approach using examples from any core studies that take this approach.
Reply 46
Original post by smallfish008
Okay I was just revising on one of the papers.

section c
a)outline one assumption of the developmental approach
b)with reference to samuel and bryant\s study, describe how the developmental approach could explain why one child can conserve whilst another cannot.
c)describe one similarity and one difference between any core studies that take the developmental approach.
d)discuss strengths and weakness of the developmental approach using examples from any core studies that take this approach.


Haven't done approaches yet haha, I can remember i think though

A) An assumption of the developmental approach is that there are clear systemical changes in an inidividuals behaviour from conception to death. E.g Freuds Psychosexual stages.

B) The developmental approach would suggest that the ability to conserve would become apparent when the child ages, such as Group A in samuel and bryants study had a mean age of 5 and a quarter, this group had the highest amount of mean errors, compared to the group D which had a mean age of 8 and a quarter which had the lowest amount of mean errors.

C) One Similarity between Samuel Bryant and Bandura is the samples they used, Both samuel and bryant and Bandura's studies both used children samples. Samuel + Bryant's study on conservation was done on children aged 5-8.5 and Bandura's study on imitation of aggression was done on 2.5-5 year olds

One Difference between Freud and Samuel Bryant is research method, Freud used a case study to study Little Hans' development as it was done over a long period of time on a selected individual, while Samuel and Bryant used a labatory experiment to test childrens ability to conserve using specialised equipment.

D) Strengths (Brief):

Useful - The studies are useful, such as Banduras study of aggression can be used to tell us that children do imitate aggression and aggressive behaviour in the media shouldn't be shown to children

Events in early age can effect behaviour later on - The developmental studies suggest that events in early age can effect behaviour later on, Such as Freud's psychosexual stages, and if a child is delayed in being in a stage, abnormal behaviour will occur.

Children are different to adults - The developmental studies tell us that children are different to adults, such as Samuel and Bryant's study on conservation tells us that children are unable to conserve until later ages.

Supports both nature and nurture - The developmental studies support both nature and nurture, such as Bandura supporting nurture by saying behaviour is imitated of off others, and samul and bryant saying conservation comes naturally with age.

Weaknesses

Only focuses on children development - All studies only focus on samples from 2.5 - 8.5, there may be development from adults to elderly people.

Ethics - Ignores that children may not want to be studied, and there is an issue of consent Eg. Bandura opportunistically choosing children to take part in the study of aggression

Often dominated by old research - All the studies are old and the results may not be generalisable to today, such as freud occuring in 1909

The studies over-generalise - The studies over-generalise the results and ignore individual differences, such as in Samuel and Bryant, what about the children in group D who couldn't conserve?

Done :biggrin: All from memory wooo!
Original post by Boqore
Hi guys, was wondering whether anyone has condensed conclusion of the savage rambaugh study? Because the one in the textbook seems long.


FOUR MAIN DIFFERENCES:

Kanzi and Mulika comprehended the lexigrams with far more ease than S&A. Also used them far more spontaneously

K&M were far more able to comprehend spoken English words

K&M used the lexigrams far more specifically (i.e. to differentiate between cake/juice, whereas S&A would use more general terms such as "food")

Kanzi was able to refer to requests involving others. Austin and Sherman never formed requests where another was the beneficiary

Reply 48
Does anyone know of an alternative method and the implications of it for the Sperry and Freud study?
Reply 49
Original post by eselle
Does anyone know of an alternative method and the implications of it for the Sperry and Freud study?


Freud - Have freud go live with Little hans

Means less interpretation of behaviour

More information collected

Higher in ecological validity
Reply 50
From mark scheme --->>

In the subway Samaritan study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin,
some of the researchers acted as models.
Identify one of the model conditions.
Any one from:
Adjacent area early.
Adjacent area late.
Critical area early.
Critical area late.


Can someone please explain to me wat do these conditions mean?, thankx
Original post by Skilled
From mark scheme --->>

In the subway Samaritan study by Piliavin, Rodin and Piliavin,
some of the researchers acted as models.
Identify one of the model conditions.
Any one from:
Adjacent area early.
Adjacent area late.
Critical area early.
Critical area late.


Can someone please explain to me wat do these conditions mean?, thankx


pil.jpg
Here is an image of the train on the subway.

Adjacent area early = the model sat in the adjacent area and intervened after passing the fourth station (approx. 70 seconds after the collapse)

Adjacent area late = the model sat in the adjacent area and intervened after passing the sixth station (approx. 150 seconds after the collapse)

Critical area early = the model sat in the critical area and intervened after passing the fourth station (approx. 70 seconds after the collapse)

Critical area late = the model sat in the critical area and intervened after passing the sixth station (approx. 150 seconds after the collapse)
Reply 52
Original post by stoppy123
Predictions:

The only study that has not come up is Maguire.
The studies that have only come up once are: Freud, piliavin, Reicher and Haslam, Sperry, Baron Cohen, Savage Rumbaugh and thigpen and cleckly.

I'm predicting either

Piliavin, Baron-Cohen and Maguire

OR

Thigpen and cleckly
Savage Rumbaugh
Freud

For Section C

It's unlikely to be the physiological approach (been done 3 times)

It's likely to be behaviourist approach (Only been done once)

The other is a complete guess because their all equal


How did your predictions come about? Have you included what came up in Jan12 paper? Predicted the paper myself and pretty much got the same :biggrin:
Reply 53
Original post by Mari1
How did your predictions come about? Have you included what came up in Jan12 paper? Predicted the paper myself and pretty much got the same :biggrin:


Well they group up the Section B studies on how similar they are, and as maguire hasn't come up before, it seems like it must come up, so 2 others which are similar which have come up once may come up.

Also, yes including jan 2012, our teacher gave us a pack of all the papers including jan 2012 and I'm just going through all the questions for each study :biggrin:
Reply 54
Original post by stoppy123
Well they group up the Section B studies on how similar they are, and as maguire hasn't come up before, it seems like it must come up, so 2 others which are similar which have come up once may come up.

Also, yes including jan 2012, our teacher gave us a pack of all the papers including jan 2012 and I'm just going through all the questions for each study :biggrin:


Oh okay, thank you this helped a lot, I think this paper is almost unpredictable, just one thing though

Thigpen and cleckly
Savage Rumbaugh
Freud

if these three come up with behaviorist approach the paper will be like jun10 so i doubt this is right but could be I mean ocr, are mean lol
Your first prediction is what I thought too so *fingerscrossed* we're right :biggrin:
And if its not too much trouble, is this what came up in Jan12
Section B:
Milgram
Bandura
Griffiths

Section C:
cognitive
physiological

My teacher refused to give me the Jan12 paper:frown:
Reply 55
Can someone test me on cognitive/individual differences/social approaches? :P
Original post by stoppy123
Can someone test me on cognitive/individual differences/social approaches? :P


With reference to Thigpen and Cleckley's study of the three faces of Eve, describe how the Individual Differences approach could explain multiple personality disorder (4).


This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App
Reply 57
can someone please give me an answer to the similarities and differences question on the behaviourist perspective can't find any examples anywhere!
Reply 58
Original post by Mari1
Oh okay, thank you this helped a lot, I think this paper is almost unpredictable, just one thing though

Thigpen and cleckly
Savage Rumbaugh
Freud

if these three come up with behaviorist approach the paper will be like jun10 so i doubt this is right but could be I mean ocr, are mean lol
Your first prediction is what I thought too so *fingerscrossed* we're right :biggrin:
And if its not too much trouble, is this what came up in Jan12
Section B:
Milgram
Bandura
Griffiths

Section C:
cognitive
physiological

My teacher refused to give me the Jan12 paper:frown:


Yep you're right that is what came up on the jan 2012 paper.
Original post by sarahhale
can someone please give me an answer to the similarities and differences question on the behaviourist perspective can't find any examples anywhere!


A similarity by the study conducted by Bandura, Ross and Ross and the study conducted by Samuel and Bryant is that they both focus on the behaviour and development of children. Samuel and Bryant’s study shows that, as children grow older (specifically from the age range of 5 years 3 months 8 years 3 months), their conservational skills develop, and it was found that there are fewer errors made as children “conserve”. Similarly, the study conducted by Bandura, Ross and Ross also focuses on children. 72 children were selected from Stanford University preschool, with the childrens’ ages ranging from 37 months 69 months, with a mean age of 52. The study aimed to investigate the effects of a varying (a) sex of child (b) sex of model and (c) aggressive/non-aggressive model on the behaviour of the children

A difference between the two studies is the initial aims of the investigations. Samuel and Bryant instigated their research to investigate whether or not Piaget’s original research method of asking the same question twice when investigating children’s abilities to conserve was valid. Contrastingly, Bandura, Ross and Ross aimed to investigate the imitation of aggression from models to children, based on the principles of Social Learning Theory.

Quick Reply

Latest