AS Psychology AQA PSYA1/2 Revision Thread 2015!

Reply 1700

Kloekayne

2

Anyone one have any unit 2 notes they might be willing to share I literally slept through unit 2 :frown:

I know not good :frown:

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 1701

1777481

10

Original post by ssn2125

thanks, will do

no problem he also does model answers

Reply 1702

iodo345

20

Original post by kanyag

For the 6 mark EWT question could you have written about Christianson & Hubinette?

I used this as one of the limitations of anxiety as they found the opposite

Reply 1703

hanewie123

6

Okay few questions and then I will shut up and focus on unit 2...

Would it be okay if for the 12 marker i wrote;
Bowlbys theory (including monotropy, internal working model, critical period etc) then supported him with Lorenz's study with the geese and imprinting saying it supports critical period and then criticised him with Genie who was able to reverse the effects of not forming an attachment when Bowbly said it was 'irreversibly broken?' And then evaluated the case study?
I didn't evaluate bowlby as I couldn't think of anything. Scared now because I don't think this got enough marks. Can anyone make a guess?

For the anxiety question I wrote about Clifford and Scott showing the 2 videos, one violent and one non violent, I feel like no one else has put this:/... and then said about weapon focus. Is this okay?

Thank you!

PLEASE someone respond :confused:

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 1704

saran12

10

Do we need to know research methods of milgrams study and others for ao2 cause I just learnt studies that oppose it like Orne and Holland. Because I don't want to learn new info and not remember it.

And is like 4 evaluation points sufficient for ao2 for a 12 marker I mean the textbook mentioned 4 is enough. Also some research only has limitations is that fine to use only weaknesses for aO2?

Reply 1705

emilyjaaayne

1

Original post by hanewie123

Okay few questions and then I will shut up and focus on unit 2...

Would it be okay if for the 12 marker i wrote;
Bowlbys theory (including monotropy, internal working model, critical period etc) then supported him with Lorenz's study with the geese and imprinting saying it supports critical period and then criticised him with Genie who was able to reverse the effects of not forming an attachment when Bowbly said it was 'irreversibly broken?' And then evaluated the case study?
I didn't evaluate bowlby as I couldn't think of anything. Scared now because I don't think this got enough marks. Can anyone make a guess?

For the anxiety question I wrote about Clifford and Scott showing the 2 videos, one violent and one non violent, I feel like no one else has put this:/... and then said about weapon focus. Is this okay?

Thank you!

PLEASE someone respond :confused:

If you had used the Czech twins as criticism who DID form attachments and had perfectly normal lives then yes, but Genie never made more attachments as she got passed from home to home and never recovered from her privation

You would only get marks for evaluating the case study if you linked it back to the theory otherwise it's completely irrelevant

You can still get full A01 marks though

Reply 1706

emilyjaaayne

1

Original post by ZaneJohnson98

For the question about anxiety and EWT, could you say that one of limitations of it is that a lot of the research is lab based and therefore cannot be applied to real life?

Yes, if you said why, for example it is lab based therefore has little ecological validity as it cannot replicate the same levels of anxiety that a real like eyewitness would experience, therefore may be difficult to apply to real life situations

Reply 1707

geeee11

3

Original post by hanewie123

Okay few questions and then I will shut up and focus on unit 2...

Would it be okay if for the 12 marker i wrote;
Bowlbys theory (including monotropy, internal working model, critical period etc) then supported him with Lorenz's study with the geese and imprinting saying it supports critical period and then criticised him with Genie who was able to reverse the effects of not forming an attachment when Bowbly said it was 'irreversibly broken?' And then evaluated the case study?
I didn't evaluate bowlby as I couldn't think of anything. Scared now because I don't think this got enough marks. Can anyone make a guess?

For the anxiety question I wrote about Clifford and Scott showing the 2 videos, one violent and one non violent, I feel like no one else has put this:/... and then said about weapon focus. Is this okay?

Thank you!

PLEASE someone respond :confused:

Your AO1 theory for Bowlby sounds strong so don't worry about that, also you still have Lorenz as research support and Genie as contradicting evidence which is ok. However I'm not sure if this would be enough for 6/6 AO2 marks but I could be wrong so don't take what I say as completely reliable ha. You should be ok though, as long as you went into a lot of depth with the theory and the studies.

I'm not sure about the study you mentioned as I used Loftus, but that also sounds ok as it was a study based on how anxiety affects EWT as that's what the question answered - I also wrote about weapon focus if that makes you feel better :smile:

Reply 1708

qwerty123A

14

What do you guys think the number of marks needed will be for an A will be?

Reply 1709

emilyjaaayne

1

Highest for the current spec has been 55 for an A, I'm thinking maybe 57 at the very most or just a really specific mark scheme to catch people out

Reply 1710

Micxael

1

Original post by emmacls12

So I'll still get the marks?

Yep

Reply 1711

dottielottie

2

Original post by emilyjaaayne

If you had used the Czech twins as criticism who DID form attachments and had perfectly normal lives then yes, but Genie never made more attachments as she got passed from home to home and never recovered from her privation

You would only get marks for evaluating the case study if you linked it back to the theory otherwise it's completely irrelevant

You can still get full A01 marks though

Genie never formed more attachments? I wrote for ao2 she never made more attachments but have since read elsewhere she did :/

Reply 1712

Midnight1811

3

How about a grade B pal?

Reply 1713

emilyjaaayne

1

Original post by dottielottie

Genie never formed more attachments? I wrote for ao2 she never made more attachments but have since read elsewhere she did :/

Nope, Genie got passed from care home to care home and often got abused/not enough significant care to reverse her effects, then passed back to her mum for a while. The only reason I'm sure is because the Czech twins are evidence against Genie as they did form attachments and lived stable lives however it's argued that it was because they weren't isolated alone - they had each other, were found earlier and had significant, specialised after care

Your a02 point should be solid

Reply 1714

itsmemartyna

1

Any predictions on what might come up in unit 2?

Reply 1715

ktecope

1

Original post by emilyjaaayne

If you had used the Czech twins as criticism who DID form attachments and had perfectly normal lives then yes, but Genie never made more attachments as she got passed from home to home and never recovered from her privation

You would only get marks for evaluating the case study if you linked it back to the theory otherwise it's completely irrelevant

You can still get full A01 marks though

although you can argue Genie as she probably formed attachments during the critical period (she wasn't locked up until 18 months) but didn't form relationships in the future, so early attachments don't necessarily lead to good relationships in the future. it's a bit of a long shot, but i think you could get the marks

Reply 1716

ktecope

1

Original post by hanewie123

Okay few questions and then I will shut up and focus on unit 2...

Would it be okay if for the 12 marker i wrote;
Bowlbys theory (including monotropy, internal working model, critical period etc) then supported him with Lorenz's study with the geese and imprinting saying it supports critical period and then criticised him with Genie who was able to reverse the effects of not forming an attachment when Bowbly said it was 'irreversibly broken?' And then evaluated the case study?
I didn't evaluate bowlby as I couldn't think of anything. Scared now because I don't think this got enough marks. Can anyone make a guess?

For the anxiety question I wrote about Clifford and Scott showing the 2 videos, one violent and one non violent, I feel like no one else has put this:/... and then said about weapon focus. Is this okay?

Thank you!

PLEASE someone respond :confused:

Well Lorenz is a strength of Bowlby as it supports the critical period. Genie could be argued as a criticism, although the Czech twins would have been better. Ideally you would want 3 evaluations to get the 6 marks, but hopefully they will be nice and count the extra studies as evaluation instead of supporting AO1

i don't know Clifford and Scott, but i did Loftus' weapon focus for that one in a lot of detail, with full APFC

Reply 1717

ktecope

1

Original post by 2cool4scool

I put 'uses mother as secure base for exploration, is upset when mother leaves but pleased to see her when she returns' don't know if this is right though

yeah, that's pretty much what i wrote. i said distressed when the mother leaves or when left alone or with a stranger, but is easily comforted by her and uses her as a base to happily explore

Reply 1718

tobeobi

For PSYA2 do we need to evaluate the bodys response to stress (SNS and pituitary adrenal system)? my book has evaluation point but I thought we need to just know them in outline because thats what the spec says?