OCR G542 Psychology Monday 18th May *OFFICIAL THREAD*

Original post by MCmnbvgyuio

I've just realise I wrote about the Piliavin victims rather than models and I've never felt so stupid. Seriously hoping it doesn't affect my overall grade, I really need an A this year :s-smilie:

. What percentage of the final grade is this exam worth?

60%, which isn't too bad.

I seriously wouldn't beat yourself up over that; I began writing about the same thing, until I realised it said model and not victim. Even then, the wording of the question being "Outline two of..." confused me into thinking there must be more than two conditions, which there is for the victim, but there is only two conditions for the model (early and late).

Expect a lot of people to have tripped up on that one; OCR's fault.

Reply 423

Original post by Mrtommarsden

On the Rosenhan Section A question it asked to outline 2 ways in which the pseudo patients behaved and I put something along the lines of 'they were told to stop showing symptoms and act completely normal' - is that an acceptable answer for one of the two ways?

Only if you put "symptoms of insanity"—otherwise I don't think it's clear enough. :frown:

Reply 424

juliam98

Original post by A-LJLB

To everyone freaking out about the Maguire question... I am 99% sure it was positive correlation. Mainly because it's positive correlation between volume change and time spent as a taxi driver in the actual study, and also the numbers (you're saying -8 and +8? That's still an increase) are totally irrelevent - the line of best fit showed positive correlation, as as the change in volume increased, so did the time spent as a taxi driver in months. There's pretty much been a question in every previous exam paper, but for example stating the findings in Dement and Kleitman - you literally just get given the answers and have to write them down

Wait surely that's the finding? I think a conclusion is what the finding means, I.e. This provides evidence for brain plasticity etc

Reply 425

Original post by themoocher

Same i wrote positive correlation then scribbled it out haha!
I'm like 99% sure we're right because otherwise they've just given us the answer, like it's an a level exam!

Sorry buddy, but it was definitely positive correlation. :frown:

Remember, not all data entries have to fit the pattern, since there can be anomalies. "Positive correlation" basically means an "upwards trend", which there was undoubtedly (shown by the line of best fit also).

Ridiculously straightforward to the point I was doubting both part a and b of that question.

Reply 426

juliam98

Original post by fugeefari

Will i get any marks for just stating strengths and weaknesses of th psychodynamic approach not specifically about ethics?

I did the same thing.. I'm so angry at myself for not reading the question properly

Reply 427

username1884577

19

No you're right, I was referring to the first part of the question. The conclusion was the second part :smile:

Original post by juliam98

Wait surely that's the finding? I think a conclusion is what the finding means, I.e. This provides evidence for brain plasticity etc

(edited 8 years ago)

Reply 428

Zawarkhan786

Original post by natashaellenx

I'm not allowed to use that one hahah, i'm under strict orders by my teacher to not use it! I have no idea why though...

The Developmental Approach isn't reductionist because it considers both biological AND environmental factors (Interactionism); thus proving both sides of the nature-nurture debate.

Reply 429

juliam98

Original post by A-LJLB

No you're right, I was referring to the first part of the question. The conclusion was the second part :smile:

Ooh, right. Sorry :smile:

Reply 430

username1884577

19

Original post by Kiytt

Sorry buddy, but it was definitely positive correlation. :frown:

Remember, not all data entries have to fit the pattern, since there can be anomalies. "Positive correlation" basically means an "upwards trend", which there was undoubtedly (shown by the line of best fit also).

Ridiculously straightforward to the point I was doubting both part a and b of that question.

Phew! So glad you agree, I know it was ridiculously easy to the point I can totally understand why people doubted themselves and over-complicated it, nice to know I'm not thinking crazy!

Reply 431

username1944143

Original post by Kiytt

60%, which isn't too bad.

I seriously wouldn't beat yourself up over that; I began writing about the same thing, until I realised it said model and not victim. Even then, the wording of the question being "Outline two of..." confused me into thinking there must be more than two conditions, which there is for the victim, but there is only two conditions for the model (early and late).

Expect a lot of people to have tripped up on that one; OCR's fault.

Oh no I wrote victims cos I thought they were models too :frown:

Reply 432

Craig1998

12

I went into the exam knowing to underline certain words that were crucial to questions. These were things like 'model' in Piliavin, the ethics changes in Section B and the way data was gathered in Section c part c. I also had a look at the Section B & C themes just to know what to expect and I sort of wish I hadn't. I was panicking a little as to what I was going to write about in Section C in relation to ethics and that I hadn't really thought about strengths and weaknesses of them when revising. Though I had plenty of time to mull over whether I'd be answering q's for Piliavin or Milgram, neither of which I was really expecting to do before the exam (I wanted Griffiths or S&B).

Reply 433

Zawarkhan786

Original post by Kiytt

If I recall correctly, intelligence tests and projective personality tests both fall under psychometric tests. I put their IQ test scores also. Should be fine. :smile:

I'm afraid not. Only intelligence tests fall under psychometric tests. Projective tests are separate as they measure personality and not intelligence.

Reply 434

annieprincess

Original post by Kiytt

If I recall correctly, intelligence tests and projective personality tests both fall under psychometric tests. I put their IQ test scores also. Should be fine. :smile:

Yeah, I remembered those but not the results of them. Fingers crossed!

Reply 435

Lizcookk

Original post by Kiytt

Sorry buddy, but it was definitely positive correlation. :frown:

Remember, not all data entries have to fit the pattern, since there can be anomalies. "Positive correlation" basically means an "upwards trend", which there was undoubtedly (shown by the line of best fit also).

Ridiculously straightforward to the point I was doubting both part a and b of that question.

Yes but with the y- axis saying changes in volume of right posterior, with -8 that is a decrease so how can it be positive correlation if some of the results were showing the volume decreased to me that makes no sense! 😕

Reply 436

annieprincess

Original post by MCmnbvgyuio

I've just realise I wrote about the Piliavin victims rather than models and I've never felt so stupid. Seriously hoping it doesn't affect my overall grade, I really need an A this year :s-smilie:

. What percentage of the final grade is this exam worth?

I did the exact same thing, and was super confident as well. It's a shame, because I actually answered a past paper question before asking about the models, so I don't know why I wrote the wrong thing.

Reply 437