A2 - Edexcel Psychology June 2016

what was the question? what was the evaluation part?

The parents of a child with a developmental disorder have been to see two doctorsand have been given two different explanations for the disorder. The parents areconfused and have been discussing both explanations to try and decide which isthe better explanation.

Describe how each doctormay have explained the disorder to the parents of the child and show how thismight help the parents understand their child’s disorder.

So I guess the evaluation will be helping them understand it? It doesn't really ask outright to evaluate but I guess it says "to decide which is the better explanation"

The parents of a child with a developmental disorder have been to see two doctorsand have been given two different explanations for the disorder. The parents areconfused and have been discussing both explanations to try and decide which isthe better explanation.

Describe how each doctormay have explained the disorder to the parents of the child and show how thismight help the parents understand their child’s disorder.

So I guess the evaluation will be helping them understand it? It doesn't really ask outright to evaluate but I guess it says "to decide which is the better explanation"

o it's an application question. it's not an awful 12 marker though.
it's 6 marks for each description - the most important part saying how the doctor would tell it and how the parent would be able to tell their child may have autism.

for example, those with autism are said to better at spatial tasks like jigsaws, so you could say this is why the child with autism completes it much faster than his sister and without less difficulty.

This seemed like a weird question for 12 marks, so I checked and you missed half of it: Outline the characteristics of one disorder from the list. Describe how each doctor may have explained the disorder to the parents of the child and show how this might help the parents understand their child’s disorder.


So I'd imagine it would work out to 3 marks per requirement: characteristics, first explanation, second explanation, how the way they explain it may help the parents (marks for this could be gained from either explanation)

Not that hard really Hopefully I can think like that in the exam for which I have yet to revise

you have time. i think ive burnt myself out. i started unit 3 about 2 and half weeks ago and can just vaguely remember bits now but feels annoying to go over bc it's there but it's not enough to get any marks. i dont want to i need some serious motivation.
i wish i was retook an exam, just so i could get my brain into exam mode.

have you been doing unit 4?

you have time. i think ive burnt myself out. i started unit 3 about 2 and half weeks ago and can just vaguely remember bits now but feels annoying to go over bc it's there but it's not enough to get any marks. i dont want to i need some serious motivation.
i wish i was retook an exam, just so i could get my brain into exam mode.

have you been doing unit 4?

anyone know any predictions for child psych (if that's a unit you're doing) ? I'm so scared!

Hi, is anyone doing criminological and health psychology for unit 3? Personally I think it's quite an easy exam but need to make sure I get an A* For anyone in the same position as me, you generally just need 24/30 on each section and you should be good for an A*. I don't imagine I'll get any less than 10/12 on both 12 markers so just need to make sure I know all my stuff for the other 4 questions. One bad question on like designing a study and it's all over. Haha

Im also confused about the key issue/ practical thing.. I thought we technically only have to know how to describe and evaluate the practical (which involves kind involves the key issue) or do we also have to learn how JUST describe and evaluate the key issue??


Posted from TSR Mobile

hey guys!
can someone please give me a model answer to "describe the key issue of reliability of eyewitness testimony (5 marks)" ?
i'm not sure really sure how do we describe an issue...do we just outline why it is an issue or do we use theory/studies as well?

let's hope someone will help us here haha!

here's what our specification says:
" a Describe one key issue in criminological psychology, using thecontent they have studied within the application,
Suitable examples:„
the issue of the reliability of eyewitness testimony„
the use of offender profiling„
the debate about whether a criminal is ‘born or made’.
And either
b Conduct a content analysis of magazine or newspaper articles(can include TV or web-based material) concerning the keyissue. Write up the findings. Draw conclusions about thefindings, linked to concepts, theories and/or research (asappropriate) from the topic of relevance.
Or
c Summarise two magazine or newspaper articles (can include TVor web-based material) concerning a topic covered within thisapplication. Write up the summaries. Draw conclusions aboutthe findings, linked to concepts, theories and/or research (asappropriate) from the topic of relevance. "

so i guess we don't need to evaluate our key issue but we do need to describe it..

EWT is the statement given to police after witnessing an event. As forensic evidence can be expensive to collect, this is not always used, relying on witnesses to help in solving the crime. It is important that EWT is reliable because many innocent people have been put in prison on the basis of eyewitness testimony. When witnessing an event it can be highly emotional and due to wanting to help, individuals can be easily mistaken so they may wrongly identifying people, picking the closest match rather than rejecting the line up or giving inaccurate descriptions. In trials jury members may be influenced by the accounts of a witness and this leads us to question whether the accounts of others are reliable and if we can depend upon eyewitness testimony in court.

Reconstructive memory would suggest that EWT is unreliable as when an individual witnesses an event they may not remember all the details or be able to describe the full event. In order to make sense of this information they might rely on schemas to fill in the gaps and these are likely to be based on assumptions and beliefs about an individual or situation e.g. the perpetrator was male. This explanation is supported by Bartlett’s study War of the Ghost which showed how pp’s adapted the story into something more relevant to their culture. There may also be weapon focus which reduces the reliability of EWT.

Weapon focus is when a weapon or perceived weapon is seen this is said to attract attention and mean the focus is on the weapon only rather than the peripheral events. Loftus supports this as recall for a man was better if he was shown in an image holding a cheque book than when he was shown holding a gun.

However, the cognitive interview provides evidence that EWT can be reliable. Changes to modern policing methods mean they now focus on allowing pp’s to freely describe what they saw and do not ask as many questions. They may ask pp’s to give accounts from different perspectives in order to get an accurate description.

Also, real life eyewitness accounts suggest EWT is accurate. Yuille and Cutshall found pp’s were still able to give accurate accounts of a crime 4-5 months after witnessing the original event as well as not being affected by leading questions.

The first part of this is mainly the 'describe' and then the second part is 'explain' so it depends what the question is asking, but this is what I have in my notes!

oh wow, thank you so much!!
your notes are amazing haha!

Ooo ok! Thank you all of you but then i have a problem now.. How do you describe the debate about whether a criminal is 'born or made' ? Is there anyone out there doing this key issue for their crim too?


Posted from TSR Mobile