Psychology A Unit 3 AQA - 17th June 2011

Scroll to see replies

Reply 640

Stephhcharlene

I use Eysenks one...

Reply 641

antipesto93

i use
folens <Easy, lacks detail somethins
nelson thomas < rubbish
eyesenick < too long!

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 642

mr123

Hi guys,
I'm doing the psychology unit 3 paper on Friday.
But i'm really struggling on perception.
I was wondering whether anyone had a decent essay about Gibson and Gregory's theories of perception as it would be so useful for me! I hate Gibson's theory-I do not get it all.
Any help would be appreciated.
Thanks. :smile:

Reply 643

Stephhcharlene

Original post by mr123

I do but they must be on the college system not my home pc, but I do have these notes if helpful.

Perception Notes.pdf87.2KB

Reply 644

Hf1992

Can someone PLEASE give me their sexual selection/human reproductive behaviour essay. There is so much to put in, it's ridiculous.

Reply 645

worthyg

Original post by antipesto93

i use
folens <Easy, lacks detail somethins
nelson thomas < rubbish
eyesenick < too long!

do you really think nelson thomas is rubbish? why?

Original post by Hf1992

Can someone PLEASE give me their sexual selection/human reproductive behaviour essay. There is so much to put in, it's ridiculous.

You don't have to put everything in. I haven't done out my essay, but what I'm planning to put in is:
-physical attraction (few studies on what attracts people to each other, symmetrical face etc.)
-partner selection (Buss cross cultural study on what is is sought in potential partners)
-differences in reproductive behaviour
-sexual selection (intra, inter)

And here is a big question too:
is trivers' parental investment theory and sexual strategies a part of sexual selection?!

(edited 12 years ago)

Reply 646

mr123

Original post by Stephhcharlene

I do but they must be on the college system not my home pc, but I do have these notes if helpful.

That's alright i'll keep looking for an essay. But thank you for the notes, it's much appreciated :smile:

Reply 647

sweet&petitee

Original post by worthyg

And here is a big question too:
is trivers' parental investment theory and sexual strategies a part of sexual selection?!

I haven't included PI in sexual selection & reproductive behaviour, but of course you can since there is a logical link, just don't go off topic too much since you have to relate it all back to the question :smile:

Reply 648

lolly21

Original post by Kerry92

if disruption of sleep came up would we have to evaluate it as well? and would that just be talking about the research as support that shift work etc really does have consequences?!

Yeah. so, in evaluation you would talk about how our society can't function without shift working and jet travel, so we need to understand the consequences in order to find ways to deal with the disruption of biological rhythms
talk about individual differences, other factors that might affect shift work (i.e. social disruption) and jet lag (worry, low oxygen levels on plane)
then about how to reduce the harmful effects - so how alternating shifts are more harmful to the individual (Gold)
how forward-rotating shifts might be helpful (shift in the morning one week, then an afternoon shift the next week and finally a night shift for the third week)
the usefulness of artificial lighting (Boivin et al)
Melatonin drugs - Herxheimer and Petrie
Social customs - how they can help to entrain bio rhythms

lab experiment - strengths (control and isolation of causal variables) and weaknesses (ecological validity/same 'laws' may not apply)
Problem of generalising the research to everyday-life. People who are willing to take part in psychology experiments are likely to be more motivated especially if they know that their behaviour is being monitored

so just expand on all these points basically (:

Reply 649

eleanor12

Original post by princessgirl92

Thanks...Vulnerability factors in addiction is what I'm mainly stuck on

hi, if you pm me your email address then i have a few bits i could send you that ive found on my hard drive :smile:

Reply 650

ironandwine

I have no idea why I'm retaking this, I only need a B to get into uni :colonhash:

I got an A (80) B (76) and C (67 - the one I'm retaking on 17th) in my previous exams, making a total of 213.
213 - 280 (overall grade B boundary) = 57.

57 isn't even a bliddy C grade on the final psychology exam on the 21st...

Unless I've added up something horribly wrong...

:pierre:

Reply 651

Kerry92

Original post by lolly21

ahh thankyou that has helped alot! :smile:

Reply 652

Joseanne16

Does anyone know that if we were asked a question on the breakdown of relationships for the 25 mark question, could we use economic theories and their evaluation? it doesn't seem like there is a lot to write about without it...

Reply 653

Kerry92

Original post by ironandwine

I have no idea why I'm retaking this, I only need a B to get into uni :colonhash:

dont worry i think youve added wrong... last june on unit 4 56/85 was an A*! and jan 11 it was 58/85 for A*, it changes every time but as a rough idea im sure youll be fine if youre just after a B :biggrin:

Reply 654

antipesto93

Original post by Joseanne16

What model(s) have you learnt for breakdown so far?

Reply 655

cookiee

Original post by Hf1992

Can someone PLEASE give me their sexual selection/human reproductive behaviour essay. There is so much to put in, it's ridiculous.

Here's mine, hope it helps :smile:

Outline and evaluate the relationship between sexual selection and human reproductive behaviour (9+16 marks)

Sexual selection is where humans (and animals) compete with each other in order to mate with a partner who poses the most adaptive traits in order to pass on their genes, producing healthy offspring. Darwin (1874) came up with two sexual selection processes. Intrasexual selection is where members of one sex (usually males) compete with each other for access to members of the opposite sex. The victors are able to mate and so pass on their genes, whereas the losers do not. Whatever traits lead to success in these same-sex contests will be passed on to the next generation. Intersexual selection involves the preference of one sex for members of the opposite sex who possess certain qualities. These preferences are linked to traits that could be passed on to offspring (i.e. selection for ‘good genes’), as well as the mate’s ability to give protection and support to offspring (i.e. selection for ‘good parents’). Humans are perceptually ‘pre-programmed’ to attend to displays of these important indicators, which in turn increase their willingness to mate with the individual who possesses them.
There are considerable sex differences in short-term and long-term mating preferences. According to parental investment theory, men have evolved a greater desire for casual sex, and would ideally seek sex earlier in a relationship. Female behaviour would not be subjected to the same evolutionary pressures. In contrast to women, men appear to lower their standards in the context of short-term mating oppurtunities (Buss and Schmitt 1993) and then show a marked decrease in attraction following sex. A study by Clarke and Hatfield (1989) supports sex differences in short-term mating strategies. Men and women experimenters approached total strangers on a college campus and said, ‘Hi, I’ve noticed you around college and I find you very attractive’. They then asked them one of three questions, 1) Would you go on a date with me, 2)Would you go back to my apartment with me? 3) Would you have sex with me? Of the females approaches, 50% agreed to the date, 6% agreed to going back to his apartment and 0% agreed to have sex. Of the males, 50% said yes to the date, 69% to go back to her apartment and 75% agreed to sex. These sex differences provide compelling evidence that men have evolved psychological mechanisms to ensure success in long-term mating.
In long-term mating, both sexes typically invest heavily in offspring. As a consequence, sexual slection should favour high levels of choosiness in both sexes. Poor choice would result in a waste of valuable resources. Because women have an obligatory biological investment in their children, they are predicted to be more particular about their choice of mate. Buss’s research (1989) explored what males and females looked for in a marriage partner. The study involved over 10,000 people from 37 different cultures. They found that women more than men desired mates who were ‘good financial prospects’. This was translated into a desire for men with resources. Men placed more emphasis on physical attractiveness. Research has consistently shown that physical appearance provides clues to a woman’s health and hence her fertility and reproductive value. Men universally wanted mates who were younger than them- an indication that men value increased fertility in potential mates. Both sexes wanted mates who were intelligent (linked to skill at parenting), kind (linked to interest in a long-term relationship and dependable (linked to willingness to help a mate in trouble).
The problem with studies such as Buss’s suffer from a problem of validity; ie. They give us an indication of explored preferences rather than being a reflection of what actually happens in real life. This means that the findings of such studies cannot be used as a template to explain the preferences of all men and women, ie. They cannot be generalised. However, many real-life studies support these mate-choice hypotheses. For example, a study of actual marriages in 29 cultures (Buss, 1989) confirmed that men do choose younger women. In fact, men who divorce and remarry tend to marry women who are increasingly younger than them.
Another issue is gender bias in short-term mating research. Although research consistently reports that men more than women have a desire for a variety of sexual partners and a greater willingess for casual sex, men could never have evolved this desire in the absence of willing females. Despite the fact that short-term mating has a considerable potential loss for the woman, there must be some benefits. Greiling and Buss (2000) suggest that she could profit in a number of ways, including short-term mating as a way of leaving a poor-quality relationship or as a way of producing more genetically diverse offspring. And implication of this sort of gender bias in research is that men are portrayed in a negative light and this could, in effect, change women’s perception of men.
Overall, the evolutionary perspective of sexual selection has done well to explain why humans ‘seek’ the traits they do and why it varies between the sexes. However, it can be accused of sexism as it has ignored homosexual relationships in which it is impossible to pass on genes. Even though those in homosexual relationships are unable to pass on their traits they still show the suggested adaptations, eg. Females are less willing to engage in casual sex (Buss and Schmitt, 1993) and men are looking for young attractive men, ingoring resources. Also, men in homosexual relationships are also more promiscuous. This shows that there must be a biological factor evolved out into humans from our evolutionary past.
Human behaviour is very complex. Sexual selection is highly reductionist as it reduces the complex behaviour to the selection of genes and ignores the range of possible environmental factors such as media and culture values.

Reply 656

Joseanne16

Original post by antipesto93

What model(s) have you learnt for breakdown so far?

we never learnt any :|

My teacher told us to put a line through that page and i got a bit worried after reading the specification and i asked her and she said something about the economic theories explaining breakdown, but i used the books incase it comes out and i've taught myself Duck's model of breakdown.

Reply 657

Kerry92

Original post by Joseanne16

yes you can :smile:

that way you can use the idea of relationships ending when the relationship is not equitable and back that up with research as evaluation (if you have learnt that) and all the other economic theories too.

Reply 658

antipesto93

Original post by Joseanne16

most people have learn Duck, And one other, then with those 2 you can drag alot of evaluation usch as

- some relationships last even with theese factors present
they may only be contributing, not causes
dnt explain why they broke up
duck is only after, and not before the breakup
only focus on romantic rleatroinships
individual differences
cultural differences
implication for mariage guidance
reductionist
gender bias

Reply 659

Joseanne16

Original post by antipesto93