OCR G542 Psychology Monday 18th May *OFFICIAL THREAD*

My mind has gone totally blank, what study would you use if a Field experiment came up!

Piliavin?

Good Morning, last full day of cramming like mad! Would you guys suggest that the studies that came up in 2014 (dement, thigpen, reicher), to not revise them in full detail because they definitely won't come up in section B? or am I being naive?

My mind has gone totally blank, what study would you use if a Field experiment came up!

Piliavin, Griffiths, Savage Rumbaugh, Rosenhan (although it is mainly an observation)

Lab experiments, Bandura, Dement and Kleitman, Loftus and Palmer, Baron Cohen, Sperry, Samuel and Bryant

Observations: Savage Rumbaugh, Piliavin, Rosehan, Thigpen and Cleckely, Reicher and Haslam, Bandura

Remember Milgram is a controlled observation not an experiment

Case studies: Thigpen and Cleckely, Freud and Reicher and Haslam which is a experimental case study.

Im really confused as to how i would answer a validity question for section B;( Helppp pleaseeeee!!!!

I really need help with the Section C questions that ask how the approach can describe something.
For example 'Describe how the cognitive approach could explain the difficulties experienced by individuals with autism' or
'Describe how the developmental approach would explain aggression', I just don't know how to answer them, we've not done a lot about them and I always get 0 marks on this question in the mocks

My mind has gone totally blank, what study would you use if a Field experiment came up!

Don't learn the cognitive approach as it came up last year, as did the behaviourist perspective, my teacher told us to learn 6/7 with developmental and psychodynamic most likely to be on

Posted from TSR Mobile

We were given a 3 step procedure for this question.

1. Outline a basic assumption of the approach (e.g. cognitive is where the mind is like a computer, and the behaviour is like the output).
2. Describe the behaviour and relate to the approach (e.g. The cognitive approach could explain the difficultiesexperienced by individuals with autism becausethey seem to have a core cognitive deficit – animpaired theory of mind – which leaves them withsocial, communicative and imaginativeabnormalities.) <-- taken from mark scheme, I've not revised the cognitive approach too much, I only know the key assumption.
3. Relate back to the study. (For example, in Baron-Cohen et al’sstudy, adults with autism/AS were significantly lessable to cope with the Eyes Task (an advanced testfor theory of mind) than either ‘normal’ adults oradults with TS. Not being able to read emotionsfrom eyes may explain why those with autism havedifficulties inferring mental states in other people.)

Isn't milgram a lab experiment but just uses observation? That's what the textbook says?
And savage rumbaugh isn't a field experiment, if it was an experiment it would be quasi but some mark schemes say it's not an experimental it is a longitudinal case study

Also baron Cohen isn't lab it's quasi[/QUO

Savage Rumbaugh will be classed as a longitudinal case study but it did still have elements of a field experiment such as the tasks it had to complete. I was doing that in terms of what it could be classed as e.g. Rosenhan is mainly an observation but as part of it, it was a field experiment.

Baron Cohen is a quasi experiment because you cannot manipulate whether they were normal, had Asperger or Tourette's. However the tasks they did would be classed as a lab experiment.

edit: Milgram is not an experiment. Milgram himself said his study was an experiment however there is no manipulation so there is no IV. That is why text books say it is a lab experiment. However it is not it is a controlled obsevation whic OCR specifically stated I think last year.

We were told there were two types of validity, internal and external.

If internal validity was low, there would be things like demand characteristics, social desirability bias and other extraneous variables affecting the results, meaning no cause and effect could be established.

For external validity, you could talk about the sample, task or the environment. For the sample, if a small sample is used then it cannot be generalised, also if it is gender-orientated or only from one location, then it cant be generalised. For the task, if it is an unusual task then the results may not be generalised to real life because the task is not taken on a regular basis. For the environment, if it is unnatural, like a labatory setting, then the results cannot be generalised to real life because it is not taking place in a real environment.

Best thing to talk about for validity is ecological validity, if you cant remember the details of this. In all, validity is just whether the IV causes the DV, or whether there are other factors at play.