Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    10
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Fleming1928)
    Oh wow, I applaud you for your bravery
    Thank you, someone finally agrees with me. I'd say that out of the 3 he's the least interesting one, he was just so incompetent ... but if you have a good knowledge of Hitler then it links in quite nicely.
    And if you do decide to increase your knowledge about Mussolini over summer, and if you already have quite a good knowledge about Hitler, you should spare a few hours over the summer the watch Charlie Chaplin's Great Dictator. You've probably seen the ending speech already, but it's a really funny film if you know the historical background

    Whether they're accurate or not, I'm still having problems with remembering the content
    Definitely will do since I did Germany for my AS . I've always wanted to watch that actually!
    Try condensing one topic's AO1 and AO2 all into one flash card, I find that really helps. For AO1 as long as you have the bare bones you can always expand (aka waffle)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artymaniac)
    Im reallly confused for relationships Can someone explain to me how the computer dance study doesnt support the matching hypothesis? Arent they both based on attraction so i wouldve thought it was support?
    The initial finding from the Computer Dance was that, according to the second questionnaire, the participants preferred their partners if they were more attractive (i.e. The more attractive were liked more than the ones that were rated similarly to them in attractiveness). This therefore supports the 'Ideal Choice' hypothesis as apposed to the Matching Hypothesis. However, after 6 months, it was found that those who stayed together were the couples that did have similar attractiveness ratings, therefore supporting The Matching Hypothesis' claim that those who are matched in attractiveness form longer, stronger relationships. Hope that helps!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If someone could give me feedback on this essay would be greatly appreciated.
    Its on perception: Discuss what research has shown about the development of perceptual abilities.
    The paragraphs have been messed up but it is obvious where they should be.

    Research into development of perceptual abilities has focussed on depth perception.One study is Gibson's visual cliff experiment. The aims of this study was to prove that depth perception is innate and therefore prove her bottom up theory on perceptual organisation.The experiment consisted of over 30 infants only a few months old. This is so it shows the innate perceptual abilities therefore no schemas. The infants were placed on a glass sheet which spans over a cliff. It had a certain pattern over the cliff so it could only be differentiated using depth perception. The mother was then placed on the opposite side of the 'visual cliff' and encouraged the infants to crawl over.The results of this study showed that infants have depth perception as none of them crawled over the cliff. This shows depth perception is innate.A similar study to this was conducted using animals. The same results were obtained. This shows that all animals are born with depth perception. Although this was an etiological study, when combined with the human research it has higher validity. One limitation of this study is the extent of experimenter bias. As it is an experiment to prove a theory with emotional and financial benefits linked to this will add to the motivation for Gibson's bias to take over and lower the reliability of results.Another problem is the mothers facial expressions may give and indication/warning to the infants for them not to cross the visual cliff. This means there is low validity as Gibson may not be measuring the depth perception but the mothers facial expressions. Gibson also used infants that were a few months old so reporting the information/data will be an issue and the premise that their abilities are innate may be invalid as infants may of picked up schemas for there depth perception over these few months.There was also a small sample size of roughly 32 infants in one location. This shows there is low generalisability and the research is very Eurocentric, therefore not very representative of the general population. It was also done in a lad and therefore low ecological validity which again, would reduce your ability to generalise the findings to real world situations.Gibson's study does have high face validity as it does make sense that you would be born with depth perception as it would serve as an evolutionary benefit. It also showed insite into a previously un documented field of psychology.This research boils down tho the Nature vs Nurture debate which is normally resolved with a multi-dimensional approach so for Gibson's study to gain more validity, repeats must be conducted to evaluate the reliability.

    Happy for all feedback!!!
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Thank u so much for ur help just to clarify-the two parts of the matching hypothesis is that people go for realistic choices- and that those who are matched on similar attractiveness are more likely to stay in a rship so the first computer dance study showed that.pepple wanted to form rships with those who were attractive- challenging the theory whereas the second study walster did supports it cos those who were of similar attractivrness stayed together?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by brown_eyes)
    I do and I've accepted failing one of them


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Aha Which one have you given up on?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Is everyone predicting EPs and EZs combined for biorhythms? And would this be for circadian rhythms since the spec mentions endo and exo control of circadian?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artymaniac)
    Thank u so much for ur help just to clarify-the two parts of the matching hypothesis is that people go for realistic choices- and that those who are matched on similar attractiveness are more likely to stay in a rship so the first computer dance study showed that.pepple wanted to form rships with those who were attractive- challenging the theory whereas the second study walster did supports it cos those who were of similar attractivrness stayed together?
    Yes that's right! Just I wouldn't call it a second study Walster did, I would just call it a follow up after the study you're welcome
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JunkoR.)
    Can someone kindly read my "sexual jealousy and infidelity" AO1 plzzzzzzzz
    from your essay it seems the first part no offence is alot of waffle, i mean i kinda get lost in the essay which is a problem with people who use alot of bigger words and bulk paragraphs only to realise most of it isnt needed.
    Itexplains that the adaptive and functional benefits of aggressive behavior mustoutweigh the possible costs and its primary motivation being acquisition ofstatus. To me that doesnt make sense i dont really know the point youre making here?

    You talk about aggression as a whole, but its only 3-4 lines from the bottom where you start to mention infedlity and jealousy for your A01 you need to make sure your points are concise and relevant to the question rather than trying to cram everything in

    Evolutionists have argued the reproductive challenges faced by our ancestors can explain the aggressive behaviour seen in people today. A male can never be certain he has fathered his wife’s children unless he prevents her from having relationships with other males. This can explain why male sexual jealousy is often cited as a cause of domestic violence and abuse. I would say thats all you need for that your first part,
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artymaniac)
    Thank u so much for ur help just to clarify-the two parts of the matching hypothesis is that people go for realistic choices- and that those who are matched on similar attractiveness are more likely to stay in a rship so the first computer dance study showed that.pepple wanted to form rships with those who were attractive- challenging the theory whereas the second study walster did supports it cos those who were of similar attractivrness stayed together?
    You could argue it supports since attractiveness is a socially desirable factor determining similarity, but other factors werent considered so its limited plus theres no clear explanation whether relationships were succesful or not as well as study lacks internal valdiity since we dont know what the student would score the similarity when comparing social desirable factors which is the key part of the theory. The students might not have thought they were actually similar when being matched.

    I only learnt one study for walster so cant comment on the second point you made, hope it helps though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    i have an A grade model answer on culural influnces on gender i found in my revision guide if anyone struggling i can send it to them
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mrgan)
    Is everyone predicting EPs and EZs combined for biorhythms? And would this be for circadian rhythms since the spec mentions endo and exo control of circadian?
    Yep, definitely. If not then just endogenous. I think combined is likely as the spec now says 'circadian' rhythms not 'biological' which makes it more restrictive
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TMC113)
    Yep, definitely. If not then just endogenous. I think combined is likely as the spec now says 'circadian' rhythms not 'biological' which makes it more restrictive
    Are you learning infradian and ultraradian? as two separate essays.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Could someone please post their essay on EPs and EZs? Im really struggling with this one
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks again for clearing things up makes more sense now
    (Original post by Lydiadoran)
    Yes that's right! Just I wouldn't call it a second study Walster did, I would just call it a follow up after the study you're welcome
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artymaniac)
    Thanks again for clearing things up makes more sense now
    No probs
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Guys what is the recommended number of evaluation points you should have for your a02/a03 section? Given that the evaluation paragraphs are developed? ty
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    I dont think it supports the theory as the model states that they are more likely 2 form a rship if they are matched similarly in terms of social desirability-(intellegence, attractiveness etc) however in the comp dance study they just went for the most attractive- regardless of their own attraction
    (Original post by CAPTAINSHAZAM)
    You could argue it supports since attractiveness is a socially desirable factor determining similarity, but other factors werent considered so its limited plus theres no clear explanation whether relationships were succesful or not as well as study lacks internal valdiity since we dont know what the student would score the similarity when comparing social desirable factors which is the key part of the theory. The students might not have thought they were actually similar when being matched.

    I only learnt one study for walster so cant comment on the second point you made, hope it helps though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How many stages of Piaget's theory (cog&dev) do you need to know in depth?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by artymaniac)
    I dont think it supports the theory as the model states that they are more likely 2 form a rship if they are matched similarly in terms of social desirability-(intellegence, attractiveness etc) however in the comp dance study they just went for the most attractive- regardless of their own attraction
    Yes youre right i worded it wrong
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Sidneyy12)
    Guys what is the recommended number of evaluation points you should have for your a02/a03 section? Given that the evaluation paragraphs are developed? ty
    2 ida points, and then probably around minimum of 4 a02 points
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Write a reply...
    Reply
    Hide
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.