Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xstarxsparklex)
    I know, but that's literally all I put. I didn't really expand on that at all :p:

    Theories were biological, psychological and social.
    Two supporting evidence- Crowe's adoption study to support bio and Bandura's social learning theory of aggression to support psych.
    Methodology- Bio claim methodological highground due to scientific nature of research etc
    Usefulness- Social theories most useful as if one knows which environmental factors lead to increased chances of criminality, one can change the environment (E.g parenting classes, increase employment, etc.) Link to Doncaster boys.
    Media linked to crime via violent games, tv, etc. (supporting social theories) Explain a bit about correlations not necessetating causal links.
    Then went on to talk about media's influence on public via selective news stories providing distorted views of crime...leads to labelling..which leads to self fulfilling prophecies (Yet more social support)
    All theories deterministic saying crime is caused by bio, psych or social factors. This opposes our legal system which assumes one can choose whether or not to commit crime, so maybe that needs looking at..
    Biased samples in supporting research mean theories only applicable to western societies unless cross cultural research is done.
    Concluded with 'a bit of everything' and one must use this knowledge to create interventions to prevent criminal behaviour before it occurs. And then a little bit about treatments and punishments (I couldn't resist)

    That but a bit more detailed. Probably waffly and repetative now I think about it but yeah.. :woo:
    Which theories did you have?
    What you did put sounds good though! But how did you talk about schizophrenia treatments in a aetiologies essay ?

    And wow you actually sounds like you wrote some amazing stuff !!!

    - three early biological theories of crime. Lorenz's - agressive instincts. Gall's - shape of a person's skull. Lambroso - primitive urges - said all were very influential at the time and served to shape much of the research but have now been criticised for lacking validity and aren't accepted in modern day.

    Genetic theory of crime - absolute genetic explanation and genetic predisposition (briefly mentioned that one says genes cause it and other says it only predisposes) - Jacobs' argument about the extra Y chromosome in male offenders which she called the XYY supermale - percentage of 3.5% isn't absolute so can't account for why the rest of the population commits crime and also it is reductionist, and gender biased as it can't account for female crime.

    Testosterone - Berman found a positive correlation between testosterone and delinquency. Then there was Raine et al but I forgot what they did so it was all wishy washy what i wrote! I think my evaluation was mainly about correlational analysis and lack of cause and effect.

    Psychodynamic explanation - Freud's idea of a fixation (think I said it occurs in the wrong stage though) and low morality cos of underdeveloped ego leads to criminal behaviour cos id wants gratification. - case studies provide in depth qualitative descriptive info about crime and theory is only one accounting for emotional factors. Contradicted claims with Hoffman because freud said women have weaker morality meaning they should commit more crimes but don't so it's flawed.

    Differential Association Theory by Sunderland - I spent about... half a page on this cos I couldn't remember it i think i wrote it's to do with direct contact with peers who communicate criminal values attitudes and thoughts so crime is learnt through association and classical conditioning - based on well established scientific princples, accounts for individual differents why some commit crimes and others don't but doesn't account for all types of crimes like crimes of passion and impulsive killings.

    What i've wrote here is pretty much what i wrote :\ i mean evaluation wise I didn't elaborate much gah. And it was all quite repetitive.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    What you did put sounds good though! But how did you talk about schizophrenia treatments in a aetiologies essay ?

    And wow you actually sounds like you wrote some amazing stuff !!!

    - three early biological theories of crime. Lorenz's - agressive instincts. Gall's - shape of a person's skull. Lambroso - primitive urges - said all were very influential at the time and served to shape much of the research but have now been criticised for lacking validity and aren't accepted in modern day.

    Genetic theory of crime - absolute genetic explanation and genetic predisposition (briefly mentioned that one says genes cause it and other says it only predisposes) - Jacobs' argument about the extra Y chromosome in male offenders which she called the XYY supermale - percentage of 3.5% isn't absolute so can't account for why the rest of the population commits crime and also it is reductionist, and gender biased as it can't account for female crime.

    Testosterone - Berman found a positive correlation between testosterone and delinquency. Then there was Raine et al but I forgot what they did so it was all wishy washy what i wrote! I think my evaluation was mainly about correlational analysis and lack of cause and effect.

    Psychodynamic explanation - Freud's idea of a fixation (think I said it occurs in the wrong stage though) and low morality cos of underdeveloped ego leads to criminal behaviour cos id wants gratification. - case studies provide in depth qualitative descriptive info about crime and theory is only one accounting for emotional factors. Contradicted claims with Hoffman because freud said women have weaker morality meaning they should commit more crimes but don't so it's flawed.

    Differential Association Theory by Sunderland - I spent about... half a page on this cos I couldn't remember it i think i wrote it's to do with direct contact with peers who communicate criminal values attitudes and thoughts so crime is learnt through association and classical conditioning - based on well established scientific princples, accounts for individual differents why some commit crimes and others don't but doesn't account for all types of crimes like crimes of passion and impulsive killings.

    What i've wrote here is pretty much what i wrote :\ i mean evaluation wise I didn't elaborate much gah. And it was all quite repetitive.
    Bugger. I don't know. How did I manage that?! lol!!

    Oh yours sounds really good! It sounds like it's more specific and got a lot more stats and stuff to back it up, which is always good!
    Ohhh results day should be fun.. haha.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xstarxsparklex)
    Bugger. I don't know. How did I manage that?! lol!!

    Oh yours sounds really good! It sounds like it's more specific and got a lot more stats and stuff to back it up, which is always good!
    Ohhh results day should be fun.. haha.
    Haha I'm feeling lesser and lesser confident about this psychology what grade or mark were you aiming for in the exam??

    And haha I dunno, how do the treatments come under the causes as evaluation? i know one way they do is through the dopamine hypothesis and how it's backed up by evidence from treatments and so it's an aetiology fallacy. I was THINKING of it when evaluating but never wrote it dopey me

    And mine was more descriptive and not enough evaluation in my opinion you have loads of evaluation which sounds awesome
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Haha I'm feeling lesser and lesser confident about this psychology what grade or mark were you aiming for in the exam??

    And haha I dunno, how do the treatments come under the causes as evaluation? i know one way they do is through the dopamine hypothesis and how it's backed up by evidence from treatments and so it's an aetiology fallacy. I was THINKING of it when evaluating but never wrote it dopey me

    And mine was more descriptive and not enough evaluation in my opinion you have loads of evaluation which sounds awesome
    Aww don't worry; most people who think they've done badly have always done better than they think I WAS aiming for A*...realistically I'm thinking I'll get a B in this exam *fingers crossed*, which is ok because that's still an A overall. How about you?

    Erm...I guess treatments show that the explanations are useful as each have led to applications which have improved the quality of people's lives? That's the only justification I can think of I'm afraid :p:

    No, you do have evaluation though, in terms of supporting studies and all that jazz! Seriously, you'll have done better than you think!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xstarxsparklex)
    Aww don't worry; most people who think they've done badly have always done better than they think I WAS aiming for A*...realistically I'm thinking I'll get a B in this exam *fingers crossed*, which is ok because that's still an A overall. How about you?

    Erm...I guess treatments show that the explanations are useful as each have led to applications which have improved the quality of people's lives? That's the only justification I can think of I'm afraid :p:

    No, you do have evaluation though, in terms of supporting studies and all that jazz! Seriously, you'll have done better than you think!
    I was aiming for it too but unlikely how many marks do you need in this exam for an A*? It's 90% on aggregate methinks. And I think my paper might have been like a B/C even though I wrote a fair bit :\ evaluation wasn't good enough!! Honestly what you wrote sounds awesomeee evaluation wise toooo

    And I don't think my studies will be classed as evaluation unless you specifically write it that way. I did try to but I dont know if they'll even be able to pick out where I had evaluation. And in the genetics/environment essay I didn't evaluate THAT much tbh :\

    I talked about mate selection and said 'however environmentalists would say mate selection is environmentally determined blah cos buss's own research showed individual differences' but I'm not sure if the WAY I wrote it will have it classed as evaluation
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    did anyone do the ethical and scientific balance question for the controversies? What did you write? Did anyone do the understudied relationships question? I forgot some studies for the schizophrenia question, tried to evaluate as much as possible to make up for it... I also ran out of out of time a little bit although it didn't make much difference... I liked the theories of crime and the understudied r'ships.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    ARGH!!!! I just realised I got a psychologists name wrong! I said the study on rheus monkeys was by Hoffling not Harlow! How many marks will they knock off for this?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bedwasboy2k6)
    did anyone do the ethical and scientific balance question for the controversies? What did you write? Did anyone do the understudied relationships question? I forgot some studies for the schizophrenia question, tried to evaluate as much as possible to make up for it... I also ran out of out of time a little bit although it didn't make much difference... I liked the theories of crime and the understudied r'ships.
    We weren't taught the ethical/scientific balance and also haven't studied relationships.
    What kinda stuff did you write for schizophrenia? Theories of crimes was alright


    I actually regret only learning the descriptions and discussions and neglecting the evaluations, thinking I'd be able to make it up but in the exam condition I was just all over the place!
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bedwasboy2k6)
    ARGH!!!! I just realised I got a psychologists name wrong! I said the study on rheus monkeys was by Hoffling not Harlow! How many marks will they knock off for this?
    They won't KNOCK marks off as such, I'm SURE they're not allowed to mark negatively, rather than looking at what's wrong with what you've wrote they're meant to look at what's right and I suppose it'll depend on what else you wrote on the paper too? Also, if it's only one study maybe they will overlook it, though this may depend on your marker. :\
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    I was aiming for it too but unlikely how many marks do you need in this exam for an A*? It's 90% on aggregate methinks. And I think my paper might have been like a B/C even though I wrote a fair bit :\ evaluation wasn't good enough!! Honestly what you wrote sounds awesomeee evaluation wise toooo

    And I don't think my studies will be classed as evaluation unless you specifically write it that way. I did try to but I dont know if they'll even be able to pick out where I had evaluation. And in the genetics/environment essay I didn't evaluate THAT much tbh :\

    I talked about mate selection and said 'however environmentalists would say mate selection is environmentally determined blah cos buss's own research showed individual differences' but I'm not sure if the WAY I wrote it will have it classed as evaluation
    I need 101 UMS I think...egh! :eek3: Et tu?
    To be honest, even if you just decribe a study, say it supports x and even the briefest of reasons why, I'm sure that would pick up a fair few marks? (Although to be fair, I don't really understand how they mark it at all :rolleyes: )
    Yeah that sounds like the sort of evaluation I did for my controversies essay, nothing much to say really! :p: For example, I concluded a paragraph of mine, "Dr Money's failed attempt to change the gender of Bruce Reimer suggests that nature and hence genetics is more important in shaping behaviour than nurture and environment." Hopefully that link is enough. It sounds similar to your Buss one I think.
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xstarxsparklex)
    I need 101 UMS I think...egh! :eek3: Et tu?
    To be honest, even if you just decribe a study, say it supports x and even the briefest of reasons why, I'm sure that would pick up a fair few marks? (Although to be fair, I don't really understand how they mark it at all :rolleyes: )
    Yeah that sounds like the sort of evaluation I did for my controversies essay, nothing much to say really! :p: For example, I concluded a paragraph of mine, "Dr Money's failed attempt to change the gender of Bruce Reimer suggests that nature and hence genetics is more important in shaping behaviour than nurture and environment." Hopefully that link is enough. It sounds similar to your Buss one I think.
    Around the same. 100 I think :\ Did you get about 77/80 in the last unit??

    And I'm not sure how they mark but I think when you give studies and findings it depends how you word it and that will determine which AO it is :\

    Oh we watched that video but we never focused on it and I didn't include it oh well! I ended by saying the resolution may lie in Gottesman's idea of a reaction range and how genetic make up limits range of possibilities but how far the individual's personality and behaviour develops is due to environmental influences.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    They won't KNOCK marks off as such, I'm SURE they're not allowed to mark negatively, rather than looking at what's wrong with what you've wrote they're meant to look at what's right and I suppose it'll depend on what else you wrote on the paper too? Also, if it's only one study maybe they will overlook it, though this may depend on your marker. :\
    maybe they won't notice lol, they may see it begins with 'h' and make the wrong associate like me, oh well i will just have to wait and see... For the ethical and science question i just merged the two essays i learned in py3 about ethical issues of humans and ethical issues of animals, threw in stuff about bps and talked about whether ethics inhibited scientific progress etc.. although i cant remember what i really wrote for any of the essays! Ugh, the stress isnt over yet though, I have a piano concert to prepare for on saturday now! lol, although atleast playing the piano is a bit more enjoyable than revising

    for theories of crime though i wrote about freud, eysenck, sutherland bandura and bowlby... bizarrely I got AO2 in my first paragraph because I read a model answer which did it. I said that the problem with discussing and researching crime is that 80% of the population are criminals however it is only possible for psychologists to observe the criminal behaviour of people that get caught which means that from the outset resreach relating to crime are biased and lack validity. In order to fully understand crime we need to understand the behaviour of those who do not get caught.
    (or something along those lines, I articulated it a bit better in the exam) I think it was an original introduction although not strictly as i just copied a model answer lol.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Around the same. 100 I think :\ Did you get about 77/80 in the last unit??

    And I'm not sure how they mark but I think when you give studies and findings it depends how you word it and that will determine which AO it is :\

    Oh we watched that video but we never focused on it and I didn't include it oh well! I ended by saying the resolution may lie in Gottesman's idea of a reaction range and how genetic make up limits range of possibilities but how far the individual's personality and behaviour develops is due to environmental influences.
    Yeah I got 79/80 for PY3.
    Oh that video was sad Bruce/Brenda/David was so depressed bless him/her!
    And yes, your conclusion sounds very similar to mine too! I said about the rubber band hypothesis..an individual will be genetically predisposed to certain behaviours, but those behaviours only take effect when combined with the right environmental influences (Like a rubber band stretching). Similar thing, but yours sounds more technical.. I like yours :cool:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bedwasboy2k6)
    maybe they won't notice lol, they may see it begins with 'h' and make the wrong associate like me, oh well i will just have to wait and see... For the ethical and science question i just merged the two essays i learned in py3 about ethical issues of humans and ethical issues of animals, threw in stuff about bps and talked about whether ethics inhibited scientific progress etc.. although i cant remember what i really wrote for any of the essays! Ugh, the stress isnt over yet though, I have a piano concert to prepare for on saturday now! lol, although atleast playing the piano is a bit more enjoyable than revising

    for theories of crime though i wrote about freud, eysenck, sutherland bandura and bowlby... bizarrely I got AO2 in my first paragraph because I read a model answer which did it. I said that the problem with discussing and researching crime is that 80% of the population are criminals however it is only possible for psychologists to observe the criminal behaviour of people that get caught which means that from the outset resreach relating to crime are biased and lack validity. In order to fully understand crime we need to understand the behaviour of those who do not get caught.
    (or something along those lines, I articulated it a bit better in the exam) I think it was an original introduction although not strictly as i just copied a model answer lol.
    Haha a model answer from where? Sounds good!! :o: I don't think I got that much AO2 in, sigh That's my biggest worry, they might not like the fact that my AO2 was all to do with the same stuff :\ and what did you write about Eysenk? I talked about Freud too but forgot whether it's a fixation in the phallic or oral stage :o:
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xstarxsparklex)
    Yeah I got 79/80 for PY3.
    Oh that video was sad Bruce/Brenda/David was so depressed bless him/her!
    And yes, your conclusion sounds very similar to mine too! I said about the rubber band hypothesis..an individual will be genetically predisposed to certain behaviours, but those behaviours only take effect when combined with the right environmental influences (Like a rubber band stretching). Similar thing, but yours sounds more technical.. I like yours :cool:
    Haha if you got 79 then you need about 99 I think. I got 78/80 and need about 101 or something. :p:

    I've not heard of the rubber band hypothesis :ninja: who proposed it? my essay actually had two of those analogy things. I also mentioned Bouchard when talking about intelligence and said he said genetics set the parameters for behaviour but interactions determine how far the ability reaches, or something. Not sure if that will count as AO1 or AO2 or what :\
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Haha if you got 79 then you need about 99 I think. I got 78/80 and need about 101 or something. :p:

    I've not heard of the rubber band hypothesis :ninja: who proposed it? my essay actually had two of those analogy things. I also mentioned Bouchard when talking about intelligence and said he said genetics set the parameters for behaviour but interactions determine how far the ability reaches, or something. Not sure if that will count as AO1 or AO2 or what :\
    I actually have no idea. My teacher just said to include it in the conclusion and I didn't think to ask who's idea it was. Hmm... google time..

    EDIT: It was Stern
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Haha a model answer from where? Sounds good!! :o: I don't think I got that much AO2 in, sigh That's my biggest worry, they might not like the fact that my AO2 was all to do with the same stuff :\ and what did you write about Eysenk? I talked about Freud too but forgot whether it's a fixation in the phallic or oral stage :o:
    oh no i didnt talk about freud in that one lol i talked about it in the schizophrenia essay i think, i only briefly mentioned freud and the superego then went on about bowlby and how children develop ddelinquency when they loose their mother (the link with freud was just a childhood experience thing), then i talked about a case study in this russian town called Volkuchva or something where children were abused by their step mother after thier mother died and matured into fully functional adults ie it disagreed with bowlby. Eysenck was my second paragraph, i just said how his study was a bit primitive in that his results of psychoticism and neuroticism couldnt be replicated (as i write this i realize i forgot about extraversion) i also forgot the study which disagreed with him, so i just said that psychologists in general disagree lol. I also talked about sutherland and operant conditioning, group norms, then backed it up with bandura and his theory of aggression but then said even though banduras study was good it lacked validity in the context because not all criminals are necessarily aggressive. My conclusion was similar to my first paragraph but i summarised everything and talked about the lower rates of female crime etc etc etc... I put a few other points in there too but that's the jist pf what i wrote. I pray that its good enough

    I wish my memory was as good as this BEFORE the exam, eugh!! -.-
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by xstarxsparklex)
    I actually have no idea. My teacher just said to include it in the conclusion and I didn't think to ask who's idea it was. Hmm... google time..

    EDIT: It was Stern
    Ohhh cool Never heard of him hahaa. What topics did you focus on in your controversy? Or did you look at each approach and say whether it follows genetics or environment??

    Do you have a really good psychology department or are you just realllyyyy good at it :p:? haha
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by bedwasboy2k6)
    oh no i didnt talk about freud in that one lol i talked about it in the schizophrenia essay i think, i only briefly mentioned freud and the superego then went on about bowlby and how children develop ddelinquency when they loose their mother (the link with freud was just a childhood experience thing), then i talked about a case study in this russian town called Volkuchva or something where children were abused by their step mother after thier mother died and matured into fully functional adults ie it disagreed with bowlby. Eysenck was my second paragraph, i just said how his study was a bit primitive in that his results of psychoticism and neuroticism couldnt be replicated (as i write this i realize i forgot about extraversion) i also forgot the study which disagreed with him, so i just said that psychologists in general disagree lol. I also talked about sutherland and operant conditioning, group norms, then backed it up with bandura and his theory of aggression but then said even though banduras study was good it lacked validity in the context because not all criminals are necessarily aggressive. My conclusion was similar to my first paragraph but i summarised everything and talked about the lower rates of female crime etc etc etc... I put a few other points in there too but that's the jist pf what i wrote. I pray that its good enough

    I wish my memory was as good as this BEFORE the exam, eugh!! -.-

    Haha why are you worrying?!?! What you wrote sounds really good!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mel0n)
    Haha a model answer from where? Sounds good!! :o: I don't think I got that much AO2 in, sigh That's my biggest worry, they might not like the fact that my AO2 was all to do with the same stuff :\ and what did you write about Eysenk? I talked about Freud too but forgot whether it's a fixation in the phallic or oral stage :o:
    oh by the way, the model answer was off my teacher, but it was a typed transcript from an exam which got an A. It had the examiners comments on it and everything. The examiner gave majority of the marks for AO2 for that first paragraph! So I made sure I learned it lol.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
Updated: September 12, 2015
Poll
Do I go to The Streets tomorrow night?

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.