Wjec Psychology PY3 & PY4 thread

Got my PY3 marks:
Section A: 21
Section B: 15
Section C: 13
Section D: 14

My section B area let me down. But It's still not that bad. So I'm satisfied.

And our ansers would have been identical? I want my extra 2 marks !!

Shouldn't have added ecological validity :b lol

But they don't mark you down do they? Or they're not supposed to.

I'm guessing PY4 didn't got that well then...

Haha true.

I want to know what the Forensic and Anormality questions were for PY4 :/

well if get top band marks in all your essays, memorise them and then the right ones come up you're sorted!




Questions were

controversies: Scientific benefits vs ethical costs or culture bias
relationships: Dissolutions
forensics: Theories of crime
abnormal: Aetiologies of depression.

Those were the essays i did, so i didn't pay any attention to the others.

Went waayyy better than the worst case scenario, so glad scientific benefits/ethical costs came up! I managed to finish it in about 30 mins but my hands were absolutely shaking though the first essay

i remembered everything (even the names of the psychologists :lol) but what will bring my entire paper down is the wishy-washy a02 throughout

I think it was mentioned a few pages back. If you're thinking of not learning those questions think again. If one of the come up you'll be screwed

One would think this, but from the summer 2010 to summer 2012 (5 papers) it went through every question which means for each exam pupils could have predicted what came up.

So it's more than likely those 2 questions won't come up again.

There was a PY2 paper where Loftus and Palmer came in one and so students thought it wouldn't come up again. Turns out in the next exam it came up and the examiners even said in their report that students clearly hadn't revised it and that it was because they believed that because it came up previously it wouldn't come up again. But, you never know. You could be right and predict right, so go for it.

I'm thinking if it worth to do a PY3 Resit? I need 111/120 to get an A in PY4 (Impossible?!) so was thinking of doing PY3 again - got a B but looking to stretch to be a PY3 GOD!

Any ideas on how to structure the PY3 essays, or does anyone have model answers they could send me please? Hoping to do well in my resit (looking to get 70+ UMS) so PY4's not so difficult, as I'll need 103/120 for an A in the summer on my current marks. Shouldn't be too bad as PY3 is the easiest of the four modules, but kinda forgotten half the stuff I learnt in class by now, especially on the essay section. Thanks!

An advantage of the use of the scientific method is the fact that it’s empirical. Empirical data is information that is gathered through direct observation or experiment rather then by unfounded belief or a reasoned argument – the scientific method aims to collect facts. For example, Rahe, Mahan and Arthur (1970) study on the link between stress and illness was conducted through the observation and review of data on 2664 men on the US navy cruisers. This is an advantage because empirical data allows us to know whether a claim is true or not, and if so this can be supported by the evidence gained.

Another advantage of the scientific method is that it’s objective. Use of the scientific method follows the systemic collection of measureable data which is intended to be objective – e.g. unaffected by expectations of the researcher. Gardner and Gardner (1969) illustrated this with their study of Washoe, where a strict criteria was set up by the Gardner’s to prevent the observers from judging Washoe to be using real words just because they wanted her to succeed – insuring objectivity. This is strength because without objectivity, there is no certain way of being sure the data collected is valid.

The scientific method is beneficial due to the fact that it is falsifiable. Since the aim of the scientific method is to test a hypotheses by falsifying it – e.g. rejecting the null hypothesis. For example, Freud (1917) theory of psychoanalysis is said to lack proof because it isn’t falsifiable. This is shown in his belief that all men have repressed homosexual tendencies, however if you find men who have no homosexual tendencies Freud can argue they are so repressed that they’re not apparent. Being able to falsify a theory is an advantage as Popper (1935) argues that you cannot prove a hypothesis true, but only prove it wrong.

Another strength of the use of the scientific method is that it is normally conducted under controlled conditions. The ideal form of the scientific method is a lab experiment which attempts to show casual relationships. It operates by varying the independent variable and observing the effect on a dependent variable – whilst controlling extraneous variables. For example, Selye’s (1936,1950) research on rats under controlled conditions led to him proposing the general adaptation syndrome (GAS) model. This is a strength because it allows psychologists to be able to identify causal relationships between variables.

Lastly, the scientific method allows for replication which is another benefit. Scientists record theirs methods and standardise them carefully so the same procedures can be followed in the future – e.g. replication. Milgram (1963) study is a prime example of this - as it was thought to lack ecological validity at the time. Since his study was successfully replicated by others it suggests that it was in fact high in ecological validity – e.g. Bickman (1974). This is very beneficial since repeating a study is the most important way to demonstrate the validity of an experiment – if the outcome is the same with strengths the original results.

A disadvantage of the use of the scientific method in psychology is that it may lack internal validity. Psychological research is fraught with problems like investigator effect and demand characteristics, which affects the internal validity. For example, Orne and Holland (1968) found that Milgram study lacked internal validity as they found participants didn’t believe the shocks were real (it wouldn’t make sense that someone in a learning experiment would receive fatal shocks) therefore they behaved as expected due to demand characteristics. This is a dis-advantage because the observed effects on the dependent variable (DV) may have been due to extraneous variables (EVs) instead of the independent variable (IV), meaning the finding aren’t valid.

One disadvantage of the use of the scientific method in psychology is it may also lack external validity. Findings from psychological research aren’t always supported by real-life and everyday observations. An example of this is Loftus and Palmer (1974) study on the effects of leading questions – which is frequently criticized as lacking external validity. For instance, Loftus (1979) attempted a replication by showing participants a series of pictures of a man stealing a red wallet from a women’s bag. Later 98% identified the colour correctly despite later being given a vivid description of the wallet as brown. This is a weakness because it suggests that the findings of psychological research can’t be generalised beyond its particular settings in which it was conducted – e.g. it lacks ecological validity.

Another disadvantage of the use of the scientific method in psychology is that it’s reductionist. To conduct psychological research behaviour must be reduced to a set of individual operationalised variables – e.g. in experiment and observational studies behavioural categories are operationalised. A key example is the biological approach which suggests that an illness like schizophrenia is a complex physical-chemical system gone wrong. Psychiatrist R.D. Laing (1965) argued that such an approach ignored the experience of distress that goes along with any mental illness, and is therefore at best an incomplete explanation. This is considered a major disadvantage as we oversimplify something that can’t be simplified and, in doing so, are no longer studying what we meant to study.

A weakness of the use of the scientific method in psychology is that it tends to ignore individual differences. Since science takes the nomothetic approach it looks to make generalisation about people and thus ignores individual differences. This is illustrated by Burger and Cooper (1979) study which showed that Asch’s study (1955) on conformity tended to ignore personal attributes, as they showed that people who have a high desire for personal control (internals) were less likely to conform. This is a dis-advantage because not all factors are taken into consideration; instead the scientific method overlooks factors like gender, culture, age and other individual differences.

Lastly, the scientific method tends to raise ethical issues which are considered an additional weakness. In the majority of psychological research you’ll tend to find ethical issues and costs. This is illustrated in Milgrams study (1963) where people suffered both psychological and physical harm. Even though some feel the knowledge gained excuses the harm, individual participants still may have felt that their rights had been infringed. It’s important to consider whether the benefits of the research outweigh the ethical costs, however, the reason for it being a weakness is the fact that even if the ethical costs are ‘excusable’ the end result is that the participants may have been harmed in some way – which is something that should always be avoided.

One ethical issue in psychology is lack of informed consent and this can be dealt with through debriefing. Once a study is completed, participants should be informed the true aims of the study then allowed to discuss any concerns and be given the chance to withdraw their data from the study – compensation for lack of informed consent. An example of this is Milgram’s (1963) study were participants were debriefed after the experiment, explaining the aims and the purpose of the study. The problem with debriefing is that it can’t turn back time; the participant may still feel embarrassed, faced psychological or physical harm or have lowered self-esteem.

Another ethical issue is deception which can also be dealt with through presumptive consent. Presumptive consent is a method for dealing with both lack of informed consent and deception, by asking a group of people who are similar to the prospective participants whether they would agree to take part in a sudy – if they consent it’s presumed the real participants would as well. Milgram (1963) study sort of gained presumptive consent as he surveryed 14 Yale’s psychology students before his study took place. The fact that none estimated that anyone would go beyond 450 volts suggested there was no potential for harm and participants would be happy to take part.: A problem with presumptive consent arises from the fact that people are different, just because one can identify a group of people who are similar to the participants and would agree to take part in the study, doesn’t mean the actual participants would.

One way of dealing with the ethical issues is through the ethical committee. Every institution where research takes place has an ethical committee which must approve any study before it begins. It looks at any possible ethical issues raised in any research proposal and how the researcher suggests these will be dealt with – weighting up the benefits of the research against the possible costs to the participants. An example of this is Asch (1955) study where he knew that participants may suffer some anxiety and in turn dealt with this by debriefing participants after the study. However, the cost-benefit decisions are flawed because they involved subjective judgements, and the costs are not always apparent until after the study – the cost-benefit approach may raise more problems then solve.

Ethical issues are also dealt with through the use of ethical guidelines. Professional bodies like the British Psychological Society (BPS) and American Psychological Association (APA) produce ethical guidelines and codes of conduct – e.g. giving participants respect and being responsible to them etc. An example of this is Langer and Rodin (1976) study where participants were treated with respect and looked after well, despite not knowing a study was taking place. However, this ‘rules and sanctions’ approach is inevitably rather general because of the virtual impossibility of covering every conceivable situation that a researcher may encounter. Guidelines also absolve the individual researcher of any responsibility because the researcher can simply say ‘I followed the guidelines so my research is acceptable’.

Lastly, ethical issues can also be dealt with through the punishment of the researcher. If a psychologist does behave in an unethical manner, such as conducting unacceptable research, then the BPS reviews the research and may decide to bar the person from practising as a psychologist. An example of this is Milgram who was banned from psychological experiment after his study of obedience. The only problem with this is the fact that it still doesn’t compensate for the harm or distress the participant may have experienced during research.

One ethical issue in the use of human participants is lack of informed consent. Participants should be given the chance to know all aspects of any research before agreeing to take part in it – e.g. giving informed consent, a basic right. This is illustrated in Milgram’s study of obedience (1963) where participants experienced distress and physical and psychological harm and arguably didn’t have the opportunity to decline taking part in it at the beginning. Lack of informed consent is an issue because if a participant shouldn’t be forced to do something they don’t wish to (e.g. administrating electric shocks) also it’s important in cases where participants wouldn’t wanted to have taken part – e.g. Milgrams study. Such an issue arises due to the fact that full information may compromise the integrity of a study – e.g. knowing the full aims causes demand characteristics.

Another ethical issue in the use of human participants is deception. Participants should know what type of study they are taking part in instead of being deceived about the true aims. An example of this is Rosenhan’s (1973) study were the hospital staff was deceived about the nature of the pseudopatients. This might have led them to being distrustful of future patients, and thus not offer the best treatment. Honesty is an important ethical principle and therefore breaches must concern researchers as studies should only be conducted when circumstances excuse it. Deception is an ethical issue because lack of honesty prevents participants from being able to give informed consent.

Another ethical issue with human participants is the right to withdraw. If participants don’t have the right to withdraw they may remain in a study which causes them to be continually harmed – which is clearly problematic. An example of this is Milgrams (1963) study were participants felt obligated to continue on with the study due to payment, despite being given the right to withdraw - in return participant suffered psychological and physical harm. This is clearly an issue due to the fact that not being able to withdraw from a study and being forced to take part will only cause the participants to be harmed.

Furthermore, another ethical issue in the use of human participants is protection from harm. Participant should not experience any physical of psychological harm during research. For example, in Milgram’s study participants experienced both psychological and physical harm - e.g. a participant suffered a seizure. This is an issue because participants taking part in research don’t expect to be harmed. However, it must be noted that it isn’t always possible to anticipate when participant will experience harm.

An ethical issue in the use of human participants is confidentiality and privacy. Confidentiality concerns the trust that personal information is protected, whereas, privacy concerns a person’s right to control the flow of information. An example of this is Rahe, Mahan and Arthur (1970) study were participants among were unaware of being studied on the US navy cruisers and the fact that there medical records were being checked and the results were published shows that privacy and confidentiality was invaded. This is an issue because people will be able to identify individuals who took part in the study which may cause embarrassment. It’s also difficult to establish what exactly counts as ‘private’ – e.g. is walking in a park private, despite the fact others observe you?

PY4 is slowly draining me.

I actually find bits of PY4 boring. Like, I normally take an interest in it to a little extent, but no I'm just there thinking I need to pass this to go to the uni I want - which doesn't really motivate me. Have people started writing essays yet?

Sort of, my class has been doing them throughhtout the year and have done the majority- me on the other hand I've done one up to 25/25, one complete but needs improvement and then like four half finished. I'm so disinterested though .