AQA A2 Psychology PSYA3/PSYA4 Revision Thread 2015

Original post by nailart

Wondering if anyone doing gender in psya3 could help? In the essay discuss biological explanations of gender development would you just write about hormones and genes?

Yes, genes and hormones for that question. So include things like chromosomes, prenatal development and genitalia for the genes aspect and for hormones include testosterone and oestrogen.

Reply 982

nailart

1

Original post by maymuyt

Yes, genes and hormones for that question. So include things like chromosomes, prenatal development and genitalia for the genes aspect and for hormones include testosterone and oestrogen.

Thank you!

Reply 983

molly2947

I've heard that revising from the mini companion only, doing all past papers and writing out possible essays is enough to get As in psya3 and psya4, is this true?

Reply 984

maymuyt

Can someone give me a detailed checklist for research methods? It's the section that gives me grief whenever l look at it... :sigh:

Reply 985

Purple~Dolphin

Anyone who is doing aggression, I've just been using the WAHEY youtube videos which I have found to be really helpful, the only downer is they don't mention who does what research :/ I've found the main ones but regarding twin studies for genetics I can't find: Who found that the concordance rates for aggression is 72% Mz and 42% Dz; that Mz reared apart is 64%; and one study that instead found only a 14% concordance.
If anyone knows who found them I'd be hugely greatful :smile:

thank you

Reply 986

Can we definitely not use reductionism for theories that are not biological? I've seen a few people mention it on here and I was curious as my teacher has told me it's fine and has marked my essays with reductionism AO3 as A* standard for non biological theories.

Some clarification would be nice please :smile:

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 987

Cara_rose

3

Original post by maymuyt

Can someone give me a detailed checklist for research methods? It's the section that gives me grief whenever l look at it... :sigh:

Check out the specification. That will give you a good idea of what you need to know. I might in the next few days be able to give you a checklist, but that only if I get the time, sorry!

Reply 988

Cara_rose

3

Original post by smozsolution

Can we definitely not use reductionism for theories that are not biological? I've seen a few people mention it on here and I was curious as my teacher has told me it's fine and has marked my essays with reductionism AO3 as A* standard.

Some clarification would be nice please :smile:

I always thought you could. Reductionism is simply the concept that complex human behaviour has to be reduced to it's most simple and basic constituent element in order for causes to be researched. This causes for major factors to be missed. Any kind of determinism also tends to lead to a problem with reductionism also, as again major factors are missed as a consequence.

This can surely be applied to most research, not specifically to biological explanations. I think as long as you contextualise, they can't refuse to give you marks. It was originally mentioned in this thread as a preference for old-school examiners. But I've used it throughout AS for essays, and never has a problem. Additionally as you've mentioned when using it in A2 essays, it's a point that gives you A03 and I've never not gained a mark for mentioning it.

Reply 989

Original post by Cara_rose

I always thought you could. Reductionism is simply the concept that complex human behaviour has to be reduced to it's most simple and basic constituent element in order for causes to be researched. This causes for major factors to be missed. Any kind of determinism also tends to lead to a problem with reductionism also, as again major factors are missed as a consequence.

This can surely be applied to most research, not specifically to biological explanations. I think as long as you contextualise, they can't refuse to give you marks. It was originally mentioned in this thread as a preference for old-school examiners. But I've used it throughout AS for essays, and never has a problem. Additionally as you've mentioned when using it in A2 essays, it's a point that gives you A03 and I've never not gained a mark for mentioning it.

Thank you for replying :smile:

This was what was news to me when people were mentioning that examiners don't like it when my teacher is an examiner and has never mentioned it.

You raise a good point about the contextualising which I think is probably a key point.

I guess we should keep using it because we're both obviously using it well enough to gain the marks and if it was to not be given the marks in an exam, surely if we've done everything else well enough then it'll only cost us a mark or two.

Reply 990

Cara_rose

3

Original post by smozsolution

Thank you for replying :smile:

This was what was news to me when people were mentioning that examiners don't like it when my teacher is an examiner and has never mentioned it.

You raise a good point about the contextualising which I think is probably a key point.

I guess we should keep using it because we're both obviously using it well enough to gain the marks and if it was to not be given the marks in an exam, surely if we've done everything else well enough then it'll only cost us a mark or two.

I would be surprised if we didn't get the marks.
Like I said though, contexualisation of any evaluation is always so important, but also maybe if we say that it is reductionist, and what it is that makes it reductionist and then why this limits the approach/explanation etc?

Reply 991

Original post by Cara_rose

I would be surprised if we didn't get the marks.
Like I said though, contexualisation of any evaluation is always so important, but also maybe if we say that it is reductionist, and what it is that makes it reductionist and then why this limits the approach/explanation etc?

I would be surprised too but you always have to prepare for worst case scenario haha.

That is true. I normally explain why it's reductionist (reduced down into a simpler form of one factor), mention how it fails to consider influence from other factors (e.g if it's biological, it may completely ignore the role of behaviour in aggression) and then say it's not holistic. Usually gets me the marks if I contextualise and explain it well enough.

Reply 992

11SMunday

Original post by smozsolution

Can we definitely not use reductionism for theories that are not biological? I've seen a few people mention it on here and I was curious as my teacher has told me it's fine and has marked my essays with reductionism AO3 as A* standard for non biological theories.

Some clarification would be nice please :smile:

The only other possible theory you could use reductionism for is behaviourism (except for the social learning theory). This is because it breaks down complex behaviour down to a simple stimulus-response mechanism and doesn't fully explain why this causes a specific behaviour to occur. But examiners do state that it is best reserved for biological explanations such a genetics and biochemical.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 993

kyoti

11

Original post by smozsolution

Can we definitely not use reductionism for theories that are not biological? I've seen a few people mention it on here and I was curious as my teacher has told me it's fine and has marked my essays with reductionism AO3 as A* standard for non biological theories.

Some clarification would be nice please :smile:

not sure about other theories but can't use reductionism for SLT (examiners have said this multiple times in examiner reports - otherwise they will take away your marks) only allowed to use it for biological theories.

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 994

nailart

1

Original post by loosiemorgan

Anyone who is doing aggression, I've just been using the WAHEY youtube videos which I have found to be really helpful, the only downer is they don't mention who does what research :/ I've found the main ones but regarding twin studies for genetics I can't find: Who found that the concordance rates for aggression is 72% Mz and 42% Dz; that Mz reared apart is 64%; and one study that instead found only a 14% concordance.
If anyone knows who found them I'd be hugely greatful :smile:

thank you

I'm not sure on all of them but in my notes I have that O'Connor found concordance rates of 72% in MZs whilst Canter found a concordance of 14% on the same population of MZs as O'Connor.

Hope this helps

Reply 995

Purple~Dolphin

Original post by nailart

I'm not sure on all of them but in my notes I have that O'Connor found concordance rates of 72% in MZs whilst Canter found a concordance of 14% on the same population of MZs as O'Connor.

Hope this helps

thanks that's great :biggrin:

as long as I can name drop a few, especially the lower one then it would probably be okay just saying and other researches have found a rate of 64% when reared apart :biggrin:

it felt it was lacking a bit without mentioning any names as there isn't much detail :biggrin:

I remember learning it but just can't find it within my notes! thank you :smile:

Reply 996

kyoti

11

Original post by smozsolution

I would be surprised too but you always have to prepare for worst case scenario haha.

That is true. I normally explain why it's reductionist (reduced down into a simpler form of one factor), mention how it fails to consider influence from other factors (e.g if it's biological, it may completely ignore the role of behaviour in aggression) and then say it's not holistic. Usually gets me the marks if I contextualise and explain it well enough.

Original post by Cara_rose

I would be surprised if we didn't get the marks.
Like I said though, contexualisation of any evaluation is always so important, but also maybe if we say that it is reductionist, and what it is that makes it reductionist and then why this limits the approach/explanation etc?

AQA PSYA3 June 2010 report:
Reductionism
The term ‘reductionism’ was regularly misused to refer to approaches that focused on a single model or explanation, e.g. cognitive, psychoanalytic, evolutionary or behavioural. Such approaches may be criticised as narrow or limited, but they are not necessarily reductionist. The term ‘reductionism’ came from biology, and refers to explanations at the lowest and most detailed level; e.g. studying the functions of the liver by studying individual liver cells, or the functions of the brain by examining individual neurons. In psychology, the term is most appropriately applied to biological explanations (e.g. genetics, neurotransmitters, hormones) of complex human behaviours such as schizophrenia, eating disorders and aggression. Such reductionist explanations can be legitimately criticised as ignoring psychological, social and cultural factors. However, the social learning theory of aggression or anorexia nervosa is not reductionist because it ignores genetic factors; it is narrow or limited.

AQA will only credit biological reductionism

(edited 9 years ago)

Reply 997

Original post by kyoti

AQA PSYA3 June 2010 report:
Reductionism
The term ‘reductionism’ was regularly misused to refer to approaches that focused on a single model or explanation, e.g. cognitive, psychoanalytic, evolutionary or behavioural. Such approaches may be criticised as narrow or limited, but they are not necessarily reductionist. The term ‘reductionism’ came from biology, and refers to explanations at the lowest and most detailed level; e.g. studying the functions of the liver by studying individual liver cells, or the functions of the brain by examining individual neurons. In psychology, the term is most appropriately applied to biological explanations (e.g. genetics, neurotransmitters, hormones) of complex human behaviours such as schizophrenia, eating disorders and aggression. Such reductionist explanations can be legitimately criticised as ignoring psychological, social and cultural factors. However, the social learning theory of aggression or anorexia nervosa is not reductionist because it ignores genetic factors; it is narrow or limited.

AQA will only credit biological reductionism

Hm, will have to check it with my teacher (who is also an examiner) and see what she says because if the don't accept it then I've been awarded marks wrongly in practice essays and that can potentially impact on my final grade this summer.

Thanks though.

Reply 998

Original post by 11SMunday

The only other possible theory you could use reductionism for is behaviourism (except for the social learning theory). This is because it breaks down complex behaviour down to a simple stimulus-response mechanism and doesn't fully explain why this causes a specific behaviour to occur. But examiners do state that it is best reserved for biological explanations such a genetics and biochemical.

Yeah, I was under the impression it was not okay for all, okay for some but best for biological. I'll have to double check as this is the first time I've heard of this when I'm well into my revision :rolleyes:

Thank you though.

Reply 999

molly2947