AQA A2 Psychology PSYA3/PSYA4 Revision Thread 2016

Original post by violetvictorious

How do I remember the names of the researchers?

You don't need to know them, but it's just a case of going over them. Try flash cards with the study on one side and researcher on the other :h:

Reply 1004

Original post by violetvictorious

How do I remember the names of the researchers?

For me memorising very specific things like names and statistics of studies is just naturally easy. But, if it's not then I'd suggest the Loopa man's acronym thing, of where you create an acronym with the initial letter of each researcher(s) for the specific theories.

Just so you know, though, you don't have marks taken away if you don't mention researcher names. It helps the examiners see your essay as being detailed and accurate. But, if you're able to give an accurate outline of a study without their name, you still get full marks for that study

Reply 1005

violetvictorious

8

Also, how do I write faster?

Reply 1006

https://psychologya2modelanswers.wordpress.com/2016/05/30/predictions-for-2016-psya4-paper/

move your hands quicker

lol and use a lot of fullstops. don't use too many commas to elongate sentences, and just try to make sure every short sentence is important and not "additional" information. all these things make you more concise.

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 1007

username2377869

5

Original post by Naveed Rahman

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ehuhZzwrv6M

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mcgElE7380U&feature=youtu.be

Videos for the evolutionary theories into aggression- both infidelity and jealousy and Group displays :smile:

please watch

keep doing these please really good to watch after having done a practice essay to consolidate!

Reply 1008

dpka1

6

Original post by xxsv

anyone got predictions for addictive behaviour?

Reply 1009

Hihihi123

Original post by bmarek

You're right. It gets credit as long as you link it to the theory. For example if you criticise a research which supports a theory and say for instant that it lacks ecological validity as the setting was artificial then you MUST explain how this undermines the theory! You're unlikely to get marks for evaluating the studies if you're not explicit as to how it affects the theory :wink:

Please can you help me with that?!!So linking it back to the theory, would that be something like if you said for example, "However, Mann's study had a very small participant pool, thus confounding variables such as individual differences may affect the overall result, limiting the internal validity of the study, and thus undermines the role of serotonin in aggression as a whole, as if it's supporting empirical evidence is flawed, the theory itself lacks credibility."Would that be okay in linking it back to the question and acceptable methodological evaluation?

Reply 1010

qwertyuipdoe

3

If all else fails and I have a mind blank In the exam which I fear I may, do you think the examiner would realise if I made up studies as evidence and then provided statistics and findings of studies as long as it sounds relevant even though the studies don't exist?

Reply 1011

lucywebb123

1

Does anyone have IDAS for intelligence in animals ? Machiavellian etc.

Reply 1012

Original post by qwertyuipdoe

If all else fails and I have a mind blank In the exam which I fear I may, do you think the examiner would realise if I made up studies as evidence and then provided statistics and findings of studies as long as it sounds relevant even though the studies don't exist?

If they've never heard of the study they have to look it up to check for accuracy, so yes they'll notice

Reply 1013

Wait, so how many studies do you lot do?

I was taught to do a minimum of 3, 4 recommended. Each study being concisely detailed, but thoroughly analysed and linked to the original theory.

But, I'm starting to wonder if examiners look for around 7-8 studies, which are just brief references and comments.

So yeah, how many studies, and in what level of depth, do you guys do?

Reply 1014

Original post by Im130

Wait, so how many studies do you lot do?

I was taught to do a minimum of 3, 4 recommended. Each study being concisely detailed, but thoroughly analysed and linked to the original theory.

But, I'm starting to wonder if examiners look for around 7-8 studies, which are just brief references and comments.

So yeah, how many studies, and in what level of depth, do you guys do?

I do around 4 or 5. But I don't analyse the studies, I just link to the theory.

Reply 1015

Marli-Ruth

Original post by A-LJLB

I know it's far easier said than done, but take each day at a time and don't think about the long term goal (the exam). You'll find it's easier to retain information, it's probably the stress stopping you. Just do what you can! Like I said, you're well ahead of me!

Dedicating my whole day to PSYA3 :frown:

Fingers crossed I actually learn something loooool :frown:

how's your revision going?x

Reply 1016

Original post by Marli-Ruth

Dedicating my whole day to PSYA3 :frown:

Fingers crossed I actually learn something loooool :frown:

how's your revision going?x

Haha I'm sure you'll do great! I'm still not panicking if that says anything :P I'm just trying to perfect essays and decide which ones to prioritise as well, I'm so scared they won't follow the pattern and throw in essays that have already come up recently!

Reply 1017

I see. That's actually making me start to wonder if my teachers did ever tell me to analyse the studies. They always said we should do a "This suggests..." sentence after the findings of the study, but I think they said to use that as a way of linking the findings to the theory. I think at some point I might have just taken it upon myself to analyse first and then link back--might change this, thanks!

Reply 1018

Original post by Im130

I see. That's actually making me start to wonder if my teachers did ever tell me to analyse the studies. They always said we should do a "This suggests..." sentence after the findings of the study, but I think they said to use that as a way of linking the findings to the theory. I think at some point I might have just taken it upon myself to analyse first and then link back--might change this, thanks!

That's what I do, I'll say whether it supports or opposes the theory and why, but I don't analyse the study in terms of methodological evaluation etc, just because it's hard to link it effectively to the theory so we were advised to leave it out.

No problem! At the end of the day, do what you're comfortable with :h:

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 1019

evekay