The Student Room Group

Psychology A Unit 3 AQA - 17th June 2011

Scroll to see replies

Reply 1240
Original post by hamijack
Thanks, but what's the nature of sleep? :confused:


Nature of sleep is basically the description of sleep, such as stages 1-4, REM sleep etc. I'm not sure they could ask a 25 marker on it as there's a serious lack of AO2/AO3 you can write for it. I have a feeling it will be 9 marks describing the nature of sleep and then possibly a 16 marker on the consequences of disrupting rhythms. Just my guess, don't take my word for it.
Really hope disruption comes up though, lots to write for that.
Original post by safwaansh
thank god! there's so much to write for deindividuation. yh i'm sure evolution counts as one. thats the only explanation i have for religious displays.


Evolution definitely will count, group displays is under the heading "aggression as an adaptive response" in the spec which is another way of saying evolutionary explanation. :smile:
Reply 1242
Original post by safwaansh
ocr english lit?


Bladdy AQA. :eek:
Any predictions for gender.....?
Reply 1244
Original post by nickm926
Any predictions for gender.....?


Cross-cultural apparently, and perhaps Androgyny/Dysphoria....

Speaking of, does anyone know any evaluation for either of those? [Androgyny, etc] I'm talking about Green for Dysphoria, etc. I've just realised I've barely got any after doing a practice response. :s-smilie:
Original post by Converse
Please.


The Formation of Relationships

Reward/ Need satisfaction theory:
The first part of this theory is based on the behaviourist approach of operant conditioning, this is were we seek rewards (positive stimuli) and avoid punishments (Negative stimuli) so basically in a relationship a positive thing might be sex, financial stability or you just like the company. The persons association with the positive stimuli of rewards makes us see them as more attractive.
A study to support this is were the PPS rated the attractiveness of the examiner if they gave them a higher score on there creative task test, this shows the PPS associates the examiner with the rewarding feeling of achieving a high score.

The 2nd part is based on operant conditioning and suggests we may associate a positve/negative stimuli from a particular situation with a person for example you are more likely to find someone attractive at a party rather than a funeral. (not a great example but you get the idea).
This was found in a similar study to before were a when the PPS scored highly on the task they also rated the spectator of the experiment high as well, this suggests the person associated a positive feeling from the situation with spectator as well as the experimentor.

However this theory applies more to western cultures who are more driven by rewards where as women in some cultures see giving as a reward in itself.
An evolutionary explanation could be a specific area of the brain is very active when the person is experiencing romantic love, this could be an adaptive system in the brain that speeds up the process of love e.g. love at first sight.

Similarity Theory:

Suggests we choose partners that match our own attitudes, morals and beliefs. It suggests we should be happier in relationships were we are similar. People must adjust there attitudes in a relationship to be succesful. It was supported in a study in the USA that couples with a lot of dissimilarities found eachother less attractive. However doesn't take into accountphysicla factorss such as body fat, wealth etc. and is solely based on personality.
The studies also tend to lack mundane relaism in that they are conducted in labs which don't have a true represeantion of what may occur in real life.

You could perhaps do with another synoptic link for similarity (A03 point) but I can't think of any, hope this helps. :smile:
Reply 1246
Hmm, what could you do for Aggression in terms of neural/hormonal? Could that actually be a 25 marker? All I have a sheet load of testosterone!
Anyone know what the nature of sleep is? I thought it was lifespan changes in sleep but now have no idea :frown:
what would we talk about for nature of sleep?? anyone!!?
Original post by Blah12345678
Anyone know what the nature of sleep is? I thought it was lifespan changes in sleep but now have no idea :frown:


this is what i thought :s-smilie:
Reply 1250
Original post by esachica
Hmm, what could you do for Aggression in terms of neural/hormonal? Could that actually be a 25 marker? All I have a sheet load of testosterone!


Theres quite a lot you could write...
I've got two pages of notes on the role of the amygdala and the profrontal cortex, and then two pages on Testosterone --> Dabbs did loads of studies into it :smile:
Original post by sillysal
what would we talk about for nature of sleep?? anyone!!?


talk through the four stages of sleep.
talk about REM/SWS
Original post by GoodOl'CharlieB
Evolution definitely will count, group displays is under the heading "aggression as an adaptive response" in the spec which is another way of saying evolutionary explanation. :smile:


yup :smile: religious displays counts as a group display doesn't it?
Have I gone wrong here or something? If group display's comes up, I've planned it in terms of it being an adaptive response, never even heard of things like "contagion theory" or psychodynamics being used as an explanation?! I thought it was only evolutionary theorists that had that section covered in the spec... Other than using deindividuation as a contrasting theory, I'm only using evolutionary stuff...
Original post by safwaansh
talk through the four stages of sleep.
talk about REM/SWS


so this is ultradian rhythms? therefore, it won't come up as a 25 marker because there isn't much to write?

what about lifespan? i thought this was nature of sleep :s-smilie:
Original post by jammie276
The Formation of Relationships

Reward/ Need satisfaction theory:
The first part of this theory is based on the behaviourist approach of operant conditioning, this is were we seek rewards (positive stimuli) and avoid punishments (Negative stimuli) so basically in a relationship a positive thing might be sex, financial stability or you just like the company. The persons association with the positive stimuli of rewards makes us see them as more attractive.
A study to support this is were the PPS rated the attractiveness of the examiner if they gave them a higher score on there creative task test, this shows the PPS associates the examiner with the rewarding feeling of achieving a high score.

The 2nd part is based on operant conditioning and suggests we may associate a positve/negative stimuli from a particular situation with a person for example you are more likely to find someone attractive at a party rather than a funeral. (not a great example but you get the idea).
This was found in a similar study to before were a when the PPS scored highly on the task they also rated the spectator of the experiment high as well, this suggests the person associated a positive feeling from the situation with spectator as well as the experimentor.

However this theory applies more to western cultures who are more driven by rewards where as women in some cultures see giving as a reward in itself.
An evolutionary explanation could be a specific area of the brain is very active when the person is experiencing romantic love, this could be an adaptive system in the brain that speeds up the process of love e.g. love at first sight.

Similarity Theory:

Suggests we choose partners that match our own attitudes, morals and beliefs. It suggests we should be happier in relationships were we are similar. People must adjust there attitudes in a relationship to be succesful. It was supported in a study in the USA that couples with a lot of dissimilarities found eachother less attractive. However doesn't take into accountphysicla factorss such as body fat, wealth etc. and is solely based on personality.
The studies also tend to lack mundane relaism in that they are conducted in labs which don't have a true represeantion of what may occur in real life.

You could perhaps do with another synoptic link for similarity (A03 point) but I can't think of any, hope this helps. :smile:

Thanks man.
Original post by esachica
Hmm, what could you do for Aggression in terms of neural/hormonal? Could that actually be a 25 marker? All I have a sheet load of testosterone!


Sorry to be quoting you again, I feel like a stalker! I assure you it's not that aha. Anyways, for neural you got Serotonin and Dopamine, for hormonal you got testosterone and cortisol, here's my essay plan if it comes up, for a fellow C student :biggrin:




Intro, explaining what Neurotransmitters and Hormones are

AO1 - Briefly state high serotonin = low aggression, back up with Mann et al (1990) and dexfenfluramine
AO3 - :frown: - Used self report questionairres, very subjective and only had effect on males

AO2 - :smile: - Raliegh (1991) with the vervet monkeys and tryptophan
AO3 - :frown: - animal studies not generalizable

AO2 - :smile: - Bond (2005) with antidepressants
AO3 - :frown: - Clinical studies, have to question generalizability

AO1 - Briefly state how the dopamine link is not as well established, but Lavine (1997) found amphetamines increased dopamine, and also aggression, suggesting a link
AO3 - :frown: - Correlational, does not show causality

AO2 - Alt approach - Couppis & Kennedy (2008) found dopamine activated a reward pathway in mice.
AO3 - :frown: - Animal study

AO2 - :frown: - Meta analysis by Scerbo and Raine (1993) found strong evidence for serotonin, not so much dopamine

AO1 - Dabbs (1987) with the salivary testosterone in prisoners
AO3 - :frown: - Just because they commited a violent crime, doesnt mean they're innatley violent
AO1/2 - Wingfield's Challenge hypothesis
AO2 - :smile: - Strength being that it explains why research is incosistent

AO2 - :frown: - Albert (1993) criticises the research on testosterone for being all over the place
AO2 - :frown: - Mazur (1985) states the problem of distinguishing between dominance and aggression

AO1 - Cortisol having a mediating effect
AO2 - :smile: - Mcburnett (2000) conducted a longitudinal study of school kids, and found those with low cortisol grew up to be more aggressive
AO3 - They had behavioral problems, low generalisability

Synoptic points - Bio approach is reductionist, and determinist, Also most studies on testosterone were condicted on males.
(edited 12 years ago)
Reply 1257
Original post by Blah12345678
Anyone know what the nature of sleep is? I thought it was lifespan changes in sleep but now have no idea :frown:


Original post by sillysal
what would we talk about for nature of sleep?? anyone!!?


My teacher rang AQA in January and they said whatever we feel should go under there!? Which seems stupid. We settled for life-span, theories and even stages.
Aggression notes somebody, please!?
Reply 1259
Original post by liamcol123
Sorry to be quoting you again, I feel like a stalker! I assure you it's not that aha. Anyways, for neural you got Serotonin and Dopamine, for hormonal you got testosterone and cortisol, here's my essay plan if it comes up, for a fellow C student :biggrin:


"Please rate some other members before rating this member again."
Darn! :tongue: Aha stalk me all you want if that help is what stalking involves! :biggrin: But muhh, don't think I'll be able to learn all that! I have quite a bit for testosterone I think...maybe I'll try learn some more just incase!

Gracias!

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending