Official OCR A2 Psychology Thread 2015-2016

Original post by Zanscape

(i dont do: reaching a verdict, or healthy living)
basically, its difficult to predict because topics (such as the cognitive interview which came up as a part a in 2014 and 2015) can come up two years in a row. however i went through all the past paper questions and this info might be useful (only in terms of part as):

topics that have never come up: case of false confession in forensic, combined measures of stress, and the behavioural treatment of stress (biofeedback)
topics that have come up three times or more (possibly less likely to come up?): cognitive interview, behavioural treatment of DB, biological explanation of DB
Forensic topics which havent come up for a long time: gender differences, bottom up approach, criminal thinking patterns, detecting lies, Anger management(all 2010) brain dysfunction, case study of profiling, factors influencing identification(all 2011)
clinical topics which havent come up for a long time: outline a psychotic disorder, physiological measure of stress (both 2010) hassles stress (2011)

Thank you!

Reply 262

geek999

Forensic:
think any 3 from the biological approach to turning to crime may appear (that's brain dysfunction, genes and gender). The cognitive is also likely (that's criminal thinking patterns, moral development and social cognition.) I guess false confessions (the case study of FC) and bottom up approach or case study of John Duffy are also likely from Making A Case.

Hope I'm right!

Reply 263

Craig1998

12

Reaching a verdict:
- Minority influence hasn't come up in a long while, that section is likely.

Healthy living:
- Methods of health promotion has come up for the past 2 occasions, they might make it 3 like they did with treatments of disorders a while back, but you never know.
- Locus of control as a theory of health belief is likely.

Reply 264

Professor L

14

Original post by Craig1998

Reaching a verdict:
- Minority influence hasn't come up in a long while, that section is likely.

Healthy living:
- Methods of health promotion has come up for the past 2 occasions, they might make it 3 like they did with treatments of disorders a while back, but you never know.
- Locus of control as a theory of health belief is likely.

Ooh, locus of control won't be that bad actually, quite short and to-the-point :biggrin:

Reply 265

Original post by Craig1998

Reaching a verdict:
- Minority influence hasn't come up in a long while, that section is likely.

Healthy living:
- Methods of health promotion has come up for the past 2 occasions, they might make it 3 like they did with treatments of disorders a while back, but you never know.
- Locus of control as a theory of health belief is likely.

Minority influence came up last year!
The A part of one of last year's questions was focused on minority influence, and the B part was validity of research into Reaching A Verdict.

Reply 266

Craig1998

12

Original post by Hiyabecca

Minority influence came up last year!
The A part of one of last year's questions was focused on minority influence, and the B part was validity of research into Reaching A Verdict.

Oops, it might've been majority influence.
I got a booklet from the college which had everything colourcoded so you could try and guess what questions were likely, one of them hadn't come up since June 2010 or something.

Reply 267

If anyone doesn't know what questions were asked in last year's June 2015 paper, here they are:

*Disrupted Families - how can research into upbringing show support for the nurture argument?

*Minority influence - validity of research into reaching a verdict.

*Order of testimony - evaluate methodology of research into persuading a jury.

*Depression/suicide risk in jail - reliability of research into imprisonment.

Regarding health -

*Fear arousal - evaluate the usefulness of health promotion.

*Lack of control - ethics into researching stress causes

*Biological explanation of dysfunctional behavior - evaluate different explanations

*Behavioral treatments of a disorder - evaluate appropriateness of other treatments for a disorder.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 268

JC 123

1

Does anyone have any reliable predictions for what may come up in forensics and education please? Thank you!

Reply 269

Zanscape

7

Original post by Hiyabecca

If anyone doesn't know what questions were asked in last year's June 2015 paper, here they are:

*Disadvantaged Families - how can research into upbringing show support for the nurture argument?

*Minority influence - validity of research into reaching a verdict.

*Oder of testimony - evaluate methodology of research into persuading a jury.

*Depression/suicide risk in jail - reliability of research into imprisonment.

Regarding health -

*Fear arousal - evaluate the usefulness of health promotion.

*Lack of control - ethics into researching stress causes

*Biological explanation of dysfunctional behavior - evaluate different explanations

*Behavioral treatments of a disorder - evaluate appropriateness of other treatments for a disorder.

do you mean disrupted families? also i thought the cognitive interview came up last year??

Reply 270

Zanscape

7

for G544, does anyone have a list of which A2 studies are under which approach or perspective? if so, please send it to me/ post it here!

Reply 271

what's the difference between social desirability and demand characteristics??

Reply 272

Zanscape

7

Original post by mariaaa786

what's the difference between social desirability and demand characteristics??

social desirability is when a participant lies about their thought or behaviours bc the truth is embarrassing or socially unacceptable - eg: questionnaire asks if they pick their nose and they say no bc they dont want people to know they do
demand characteristics is when the participant guesses the aim of the study and they consciously or subconsciously manipulate their behaviour or answers to help the experimenter achieve the results which they think the experimenter is looking for

Reply 273

Original post by Zanscape

do you mean disrupted families? also i thought the cognitive interview came up last year??

Sorry i meant disrupted families (Farrington), and the cognitive interview came up in the 2014 paper.

Reply 274

28/01/2016

3

If a question comes up on reliability for a 15 marker and you can only think of positives i.e. For interviewing witnesses i can only think of how it was reliable but could think of how its not.. Is that okay... Or do we have to try to balance the arguement?

Reply 275

Original post by Zanscape

social desirability is when a participant lies about their thought or behaviours bc the truth is embarrassing or socially unacceptable - eg: questionnaire asks if they pick their nose and they say no bc they dont want people to know they do
demand characteristics is when the participant guesses the aim of the study and they consciously or subconsciously manipulate their behaviour or answers to help the experimenter achieve the results which they think the experimenter is looking for

ohhh now that makes sense. thank-you :smile:

Reply 276

Original post by 28/01/2016

If a question comes up on reliability for a 15 marker and you can only think of positives i.e. For interviewing witnesses i can only think of how it was reliable but could think of how its not.. Is that okay... Or do we have to try to balance the arguement?

Im pretty sure it has to b a balanced argument or atleast have one negattiv. Im sure there will be something - thing about the research method for example if it if a field or natural experiment tehn there will be extraneous variables, or if its self-report then social desiablity would occur, etc

Reply 277

Original post by 28/01/2016

If a question comes up on reliability for a 15 marker and you can only think of positives i.e. For interviewing witnesses i can only think of how it was reliable but could think of how its not.. Is that okay... Or do we have to try to balance the arguement?

I do agree that's a really hard question as all studies within that section had tight controls. However you could talk about how in the field test of the Cognitive interview, only 16 participants were used, and one dropped out. As the sample size is so small, it may not give consistent results due to individual differences in participants possibly biasing the results. This is an example of poor external reliability.

I can't think of a second point though, to give two weaknesses of reliability.

Reply 278