OCR Psychology G544 June 18th 2012

Yochelson & Samenow is good for the reason you've suggested, Haz. Don't forget that in their study it was believed that the criminals' distortions were unique to those types of criminals (murderers), or that the 52 cognitive distortions they found (including 'super-optimism' and 'perceived invulnerability') are what make criminals criminals because they think differently to normal people.

The appropriateness of Rotter is a debatable. But his Locus of Control theory does support the approach because he considers how people as individual attribute things that happen to them and how they cope with it. But for me though, I wouldn't touch the study with a barge-pole because by now you must know OCR are bastards when it comes to detail, and they do ask for "psychological research to support your answer" in parts (b) and (c), but Rotter may not count as "psychological research" if you only use the model, and OCR will decide where they want to draw that line simply to catch candidates out for choosing possibly the simplest option from the syllabus. So, with that in mind...

Gudjonsson's case study in false confession (FC) is the other one I'd use. If you studied Crime Psychology at G543 then it's one of the easiest to factor in because you can talk about how the unique suggestibility of FC led him to be coerced into false confession and his results (psychometric testing via Standard IQ Test and Gudjonsson Suggestibility Test) cannot be generalised (similar to Thigpen & Cleckley) because they are unique to FC's own cognitive differences.

Reply 41

ellasmith

12

Original post by -Haz-

If individual differences came up in section B what A2 studies could I use? I’m finding it hard because individual differences is such a broad approach :/

Would the following studies count...
Gottesman and Shields (because it found not all monozygotic twins both had schizophrenia)
Beck et al (found that patients with depression had cognitive distortions)
Yochelson and Samenow (because it found distinguishable thinking patterns in the criminal personality)
Rotter (internal and external locus of control)
Becker (different levels of adherence)

I know we don’t have to use A2 studies but I’d like to include a couple.

For ID i'd use the following studies:

Thigpen and Cleckley (AS)
McGrath (A2)

They're both really simple and Mcgrath overlaps with behaviourism which is also a topic that is quite likely to come up, and T+P comes under psychodynamism which again, is likely to come up!

Reply 42

SidneyHopcroft

I want Free Will vs. Determinism for Section B. I'm praying for it.

Reply 43

Lollyage

14

Original post by laurag.19

For G543 essays, they're the description ones and evaluative ones?

For the description one, you simply need to keep relating it back to the question and describe the study.

For the description of the study, follow the pattern; AIM, METHOD, PROCEDURE, RESULTS, CONCLUSION.

HOWEVER, YOU DO NOT NEED TO LEARN ALL THIS DETAIL!!!
YOU SHOULD LEARN THE KEY POINTS AND THE STUDIES TO GO WITH IT..
IE, INTERVIEWING SUSPECTS - INTERROGATION; INBAU, FALSE CONFESSION; GUDJOHNSSON, DETECTING LIES; MANN.

Then if you know an outline of the study, the detail should flow.
You can make up the aim of the study if you know roughly what the study is about, and you can guess the aim and procedure. The results are usually obvious to the study..

FOR THE EVALUATIVE ESSAY...

VERY IMPORTANT - make sure you cross compare ALL three studies in the section for every evaluative point you make. If you don't, you WILL loose marks.

So, if you say that one study is low in reliability because it uses a lab experiment, you must evaluate the other studies, and use words like 'however', 'on the other hand', this study conducted by ........ is high in ecological validity, likewise with this study by ...........

You do not need to include any description here, however you may want to include small descriptions to compare things throughout the essay. For example, when comparing the number of participants, make sure you mention the participants from each study.

For this section, I would go over the main issues like;
-Reliability
-Validity
-Ecological validity
-Reductionism
-Usefulness
-Sample
Etc (can't think of others atm)

Really hope this helps!!!
It's the hardest exam in Psychology, but very much worth the stress if you can get really good!!!

Bit in bold: OMFG REALLY?

So if you get a question for example "Assess the reliability of research into interviewing witnesses" in EVERY point I make I need to cross-compare studies? I thought you just do 3 paragraphs, one for each point about reliability, and then use one of the 3 studies as an example in each paragraph?

ARGHHH :s-smilie:

Reply 44

SidneyHopcroft

Original post by Lollyage

Bit in bold: OMFG REALLY?

So if you get a question for example "Assess the reliability of research into interviewing witnesses" in EVERY point I make I need to cross-compare studies? I thought you just do 3 paragraphs, one for each point about reliability, and then use one of the 3 studies as an example in each paragraph?

ARGHHH :s-smilie:

You do for the most-part, but in some questions you can get away with two. In each subsequent paragraph for your 15-markers it is important to compare with another study from same part of the syllabus. For instance, if I were answering a question on the validity of measures of stress I would first talk about Ecological Validity and refer to Geer & Maisel's biological measure of stress.

In the second paragraph I would concern myself with Concurrent Validity and use Johansson's combined measure of stress (biological and self-report), then comparing the advantage of having Concurrent Validity to having only one measure (using Geer & Maisel as the comparison study).

Then I would talk about Temporal Validity and use Johansson again and how his combined measure is temporally invalid as the results from the study cannot be generalised to, for instance, another workplace where the work is quiet, relaxed and slow-paced because the work environment is so different, meaning the potential causes of stress are different to Johansson's (which was conducted in a Swedish sawmill). However, OCR might like you to use all three studies in this area of the syllabus, so, if using Holmes & Rahe here I would talk about how the study was conducted in Western culture and therefore certain things on the SRRS (Social Readjustment Rating Scale) like "Divorce" and "Getting a Mortgage" (which obviously are not part of society in some cultures like Tibetan culture (random, I know)) and therefore the Temporal Validity of this measure of stress (self-report) is low.

Being self-report, you could always talk about - if you're not comfortable with one of the above measures of validity - Face Validity (looking like it measures what it says it measures) and the potential demand characteristics/socially desirable answers/withheld information that can invalidate certain data like self-reports such as the SRRS (if we're using Holmes & Rahe's study here). Remember to then compare how the use of self-report can be considered better or worse in terms of Geer & Maisel's and Johansson's studies. This comparison is very important.

Reply 45

Lollyage

14

Original post by SidneyHopcroft

You do for the most-part, but in some questions you can get away with two. In each subsequent paragraph for your 15-markers it is important to compare with another study from same part of the syllabus. For instance, if I were answering a question on the validity of measures of stress I would first talk about Ecological Validity and refer to Geer & Maisel's biological measure of stress.

In the second paragraph I would concern myself with Concurrent Validity and use Johansson's combined measure of stress (biological and self-report), then comparing the advantage of having Concurrent Validity to having only one measure (using Geer & Maisel as the comparison study).

Then I would talk about Temporal Validity and use Johansson again and how his combined measure is temporally invalid as the results from the study cannot be generalised to, for instance, another workplace where the work is quiet, relaxed and slow-paced because the work environment is so different, meaning the potential causes of stress are different to Johansson's (which was conducted in a Swedish sawmill). However, OCR might like you to use all three studies in this area of the syllabus, so, if using Holmes & Rahe here I would talk about how the study was conducted in Western culture and therefore certain things on the SRRS (Social Readjustment Rating Scale) like "Divorce" and "Getting a Mortgage" (which obviously are not part of society in some cultures like Tibetan culture (random, I know)) and therefore the Temporal Validity of this measure of stress (self-report) is low.

Being self-report, you could always talk about - if you're not comfortable with one of the above measures of validity - Face Validity (looking like it measures what it says it measures) and the potential demand characteristics/socially desirable answers/withheld information that can invalidate certain data like self-reports such as the SRRS (if we're using Holmes & Rahe's study here). Remember to then compare how the use of self-report can be considered better or worse in terms of Geer & Maisel's and Johansson's studies. This comparison is very important.

I honestly can't thank you enough for this. :smile:

Reply 46

al_miller

Which A2 studies can be used for the different approaches/perspectives?

Reply 47

jessplease

Original post by al_miller

Which A2 studies can be used for the different approaches/perspectives?

Individual differences: Thigpen and cleckley and Daly and Wilson
Cognitive: Loftus and Palmer, Yochelson and Samenow
Psychodynamic: Freud and thigpen and cleckley
Behaviourist: Watson and Raynor and Mcgraph
Social: Milgram and Asch
Physiological: Maguire and Raine

i know thats AS and A2 but they say you should use a mixture :smile:

Also, does anyone know if there is ALWAYS going to be atleast one approach/perspective because every year theres always been an issue question and an approach question, but will this always happen!?

Reply 48

-Haz-

11

Original post by al_miller

Which A2 studies can be used for the different approaches/perspectives?

My list of A2 studies for each approach goes something like:

Social:
Waxler-Morrison et al
Farrington et al
Sutherland
Wikstrom

Developmental:
Farrington et al
Kohlberg
Watson and Raynor
McGrath

Physiological:
Lustman et al
Johansson
Geer and Maisel
Gottesman and Shields
Karp and Frank
Raine
Brunner et al
Daly and Wilson
Wheatley

Individual differences:
Yochelson and Samenow
(Arguably for this approach you could use most studies as long as you link them to the approach.)

Cognitive:
Meichenbaum
Beck
Rush, Kovacs, Beck and Hollon
Gudjonsson and Bownes
Cann
Yochelson and Samenow
Kohlberg

Behaviourist:
Watt
Budzynski et al
Watson and Raynor
McGrath
(Also Pavlov and Skinner which technically aren’t A2 studies but I think you can use them.)

Psychodynamic:
Yochelson and Samenow

Reply 49

SidneyHopcroft

Original post by jessplease

Also, does anyone know if there is ALWAYS going to be atleast one approach/perspective because every year theres always been an issue question and an approach question, but will this always happen!?

OCR won't be held to this. They won't reveal that they could, in the future, ask about two approaches/perspectives or two issues/debates in Section B. It's most likely though, as they did it in one of the first G544 paper (I forget which one). That one had two approaches/perspectives though.

Anyone else absolutely darned certain that Free Will vs. Determinism has to come up in Section B this year?

Reply 50

jessplease

Original post by SidneyHopcroft

OCR won't be held to this. They won't reveal that they could, in the future, ask about two approaches/perspectives or two issues/debates in Section B. It's most likely though, as they did it in one of the first G544 paper (I forget which one). That one had two approaches/perspectives though.

Anyone else absolutely darned certain that Free Will vs. Determinism has to come up in Section B this year?

Oh okay

i hoped that i could get away with just revising the approaches/perspectives, i really don't like the other ones, and has free will v determinism not come up yet?

Reply 51

SidneyHopcroft

Original post by jessplease

Oh okay

i hoped that i could get away with just revising the approaches/perspectives, i really don't like the other ones, and has free will v determinism not come up yet?

Free Will Determinism is the only debate never to have come up in any form of Section B question. Other contenders I'd recommend revising extra for are Reductionism vs. Holism, Quantitative vs. Qualitative Data, the Usefulness of Psychological Research, and Individual vs. Situational Attribution.

Jury's out on approaches/perspectives, but I'd hazard a guess and say Behaviourism or Individual Differences will come up.

Reply 52

jessplease

Original post by SidneyHopcroft

Free Will Determinism is the only debate never to have come up in any form of Section B question. Other contenders I'd recommend revising extra for are Reductionism vs. Holism, Quantitative vs. Qualitative Data, the Usefulness of Psychological Research, and Individual vs. Situational Attribution.

Jury's out on approaches/perspectives, but I'd hazard a guess and say Behaviourism or Individual Differences will come up.

I was thinking those 2 approaches/perspectives too, i do think that individual differences may be less likely now though, because it and devolopmental came up in the core studies paper this year, it could be cogntive or psychodynamic too :smile:

Reply 53

agoetcherian

8

Original post by laurag.19

VERY IMPORTANT - make sure you cross compare ALL three studies in the section for every evaluative point you make. If you don't, you WILL loose marks.

I was told specifically that you don't need to do this. It wastes your time. Try to evaluate two studies in each point, but make sure you mention all three throughout the whole piece.

There just isn't time to write about all three in every point.

Reply 54

al_miller

Original post by jessplease

Individual differences: Thigpen and cleckley and Daly and Wilson
Cognitive: Loftus and Palmer, Yochelson and Samenow
Psychodynamic: Freud and thigpen and cleckley
Behaviourist: Watson and Raynor and Mcgraph
Social: Milgram and Asch
Physiological: Maguire and Raine

i know thats AS and A2 but they say you should use a mixture :smile:

Original post by -Haz-

My list of A2 studies for each approach goes something like:

Thank you so much. This is very useful.

Say if you forget the A2 studies, would you lose marks if you use only the AS studies?

Original post by SidneyHopcroft

OCR won't be held to this. They won't reveal that they could, in the future, ask about two approaches/perspectives or two issues/debates in Section B. It's most likely though, as they did it in one of the first G544 paper (I forget which one). That one had two approaches/perspectives though.

omg! Now I'm really scared. I though I'd get away with learning the approaches only. Damn :angry:

Reply 55

SidneyHopcroft

Original post by al_miller

omg! Now I'm really scared. I though I'd get away with learning the approaches only. Damn :angry:

Without wanting to sound too rude, this would never work if you were aiming for a high B or up because the issues and debates can feature not as a focal point, be certainly in smaller parts. They're most likely going to feature in parts (c), (d) and (e) of any Section B question, for example:

(c) Discuss the strengths and limitations of longitudinal studies that can be considered holistic. (12)

(d) Compare the ecological validity of physiological studies with that of individual differences studies. (8)

(e) To what extent does the social approach provide a situational explanation of behaviour? (8)

You could also be really unlucky and get something like these questions, which each have few studies which can be used - our Psychology teachers have ventured beyond the syllabus frequently (Pavlov, Skinner, Rogers, Maslow, Kelley, Raine (second study into brain dysfunction), Ross, Maguire (second study into the hippocampi of failed taxi drivers), Pennington & Hastie) :

(c) Discuss the strengths and limitations of social studies that support the free will argument. (12)

(d) Compare how ethnocentrism affects social studies with how it might affect physiological studies. (8)

(e) How might a behaviourist study that supports the determinism argument be considered scientific? (8)

It's not a given that debates feature is all parts, but you can bet a pound to a penny that an issue or debate will come up in at least two of these questions

(edited 11 years ago)

Reply 56

al_miller

Original post by SidneyHopcroft

Without wanting to sound too rude, this would never work if you were aiming for a high B or up because the issues and debates can feature not as a focal point, be certainly in smaller parts.

Sorry I had misunderstood what would come up in Section B but I have revised the different evaluative issues/debates in relation to the approaches. Thanks though

This was posted from The Student Room's iPhone/iPad App