OCR A2 Psychology G543:Options in Applied Psychology Exam Monday 10th June 2013

Farrington = developmental/social/a tad of behaviourism
Sutherland = Behaviourism
Wikstrom = individual differences/social/behaviourism

Turning to crime

Upbringing =
Farrington
Sutherland/Akers
Wikstrom and Tafel

Cognition =
Yochelson and Samenow
Palmer and Hollin (moral reasoning and social cognition/attribution theory)

Biology =
Raine et al
Bruner
Daly and Wilson

Is this what you mean or something else?

My teacher kept telling us the second way is better and you get more marks for it
Id have thought you would probably want to talk more about the conclusions of the studies as evidence and use comparisons and howevers.

thanks so much, lol this is what i meant. i got a little confused, and thought all were based on upbringing :/

<br /><br />

<br />
<br />

oh making a case is my favourite! Haha! So simplistic. If I can create a table of everything that has come up would it be helpful?

I wouldn't take my chances on the what has already come up, because they can literally test you on anything, I have a feeling stress will come up though (hopefully).

i actually feel sick & ill, because im so stressed. i left revision too late, because i had other exams.
i know nothing about forensics, no matter how much i read my notes again again, nothing sinks in !

what essay structure is people going by for the best marks , section a and b?

What is the difference between nature and individual, and nurture and situational?
They seem exactly the same to me.

what essay structure is people going by for the best marks , section a and b?

what essay structure is people going by for the best marks , section a and b?

Section A

Describe research: Aim, sample, procedure, results and conclusion.
Outline etc: Background/Theories, General discussion, backed up with research.

For example, with the Outline type questions, if asked about False Confession, you would talk about types of confession (i.e. voluntary, coerced compliant and coerced internalised), risk factors e.g. low IQ, suggestibility and back it up with research such as how FC in Gudjohnson's False Confession Case Study, he scored 10 on the suggestibility scale, showed an example of a coerced compliant confession etc).

You should aim to write about 1/2 a page to a page within 10 minutes.


Section B

To what extent is... - You are looking at ways in which the area supports the statement and ways in which it doesn't necessarily support it e.g. Usefulness - how it is useful and how it is less useful, Validity - how it is valid, how validity is reduced.

In those types of questions, make sure you define what you are talking about but in a contextualised way - this is not AS where you go reductionism is reducing something to a single point. This is, cognitive explanations of crime can be considered reductionist as they only take into account thought processes, they do not look at biological factors such as genetics of social factors such as our upbringing.

When you are asked a part B question, what I have found in the mark schemes is, even if it doesn't ask you specifically to evaluate, you must always evaluate. For example, one question was 'to what extent are individual (biological) explanations for crime reductionist' and the marks mainly came from evaluating why a reductionist approach is good and not so good, not just picking out what is reductionist and what isn't. Part B is all about evaluating.

You should aim for at least a page and potentially up to 2 pages in 15 minutes. Often it can be split into three paragraphs: one in support of the statement, one which takes an alternative view point and a conclusion which offers an alternative (such as combining two views) or summing it up.

x