Join TSR now and get all your revision questions answeredSign up now

OCR AS Psychology: G542: Core Studies - Wednesday 5th June 2013 Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by imafairyprincess)
    I like to pretend that I am :P but at the moment i'm sort of finding chemistry the hardest, but i'm finding psychology hard as well, especially in terms of timing and having enough detail in section B
    what about you? which are you struggling with the most?
    Sorry for the late reply, I find chemistry the 'easiest' but for me psychology is a killer! I don't know what to write for Section B
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Does anyone have notes/model answers for Section B? I need them!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tom Istefanous)
    The Physiological approach could explain the difficulties experienced by individuals with a splitbrain because their brains work differently to those of normal people. As a result of having their corpus callosum severed, the two hemispheres of the brain work independently and unlike a normal brain, do not transfer information from one side to the other. This inability to transfer information means splitbrain patients cannot do certain things a normal person can. This was demonstrated in Sperrys study which showed that if an object was presented to the left visual field which was registered by the right hemisphere of split brain patients, they were unable to name what they had seen. A normal person would have no difficulty naming the object but as the language centre of the brain is in the left hemisphere and in split brain patients the information presented to the right hemisphere cannot be transferred to the left via the corpus collosum for identification through language...

    could add a bit more detail and less waffle, but you get the idea?
    Thanks a lot, that's really helped!
    Do you know any similarities and differences of the physiological approach, I can't really think of any good ones :confused:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saber123)
    Thanks a lot, that's really helped!
    Do you know any similarities and differences of the physiological approach, I can't really think of any good ones :confused:
    Maguire and sperry both used an androcentric sample
    The ecological validity in sperrys study is high but in dement and kleitmans it's low :-)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If Baron Cohen comes up does anyone know what kind of questions could be asked?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by saber123)
    Thanks a lot, that's really helped!
    Do you know any similarities and differences of the physiological approach, I can't really think of any good ones :confused:
    Maguire and Sperry were both quasi experiments
    Maguire and Dement both used objective, scientific equipment to measure behaviour

    differences: Dement used a lab exp where as Maguire/Sperry used quasi
    dement collected both qualitative and quantitative data where as maguire only collected quantitative data
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clonedmemories)
    Maguire:
    • Make the study a longitudinal, repeated measures one: scan taxi drivers before The Knowledge, after passing TK and a few years after passing TK - this would show change over time, but there might be a high attrition rate and it could be argued that it would take more resources to do it this way
    • Increase the sample to maybe include people who are left-handed, or women - this would make the sample more generalisable, though, particularly for women, it may be hard to find participants


    Griffiths:

    • Film the participants on the machines rather than stand by them - this may reduce the demand characteristics of the experimenter being directly present and also means the videos can be watched back in order to ensure results are accurate
    • Have the participants gamble with their own money (and be reimbursed at the end of the study) - being given the money at the start may have changed their attitude to how they spent it and how careful they were with it; it might well be the case that people would be more careful with their own money! This might be particularly the case for non-regular gamblers

    Thank you! Could you please/anyone help me on changes implications for pilvian.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Guys why is everyone thinking that baron cohen and physiological is going to come up?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elnor)
    Thank you! Could you please/anyone help me on changes implications for pilvian.
    use CCTV cameras to record data as well as audio recording - increases reliability, however ethical issues are worsened (e.g. no consent)
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leanne1996)
    Guys why is everyone thinking that baron cohen and physiological is going to come up?
    Well Physiological is the only approach that was the last asked and Baron Cohen has only been asked once in 09' so there's a massive chance it'll come up
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Is anyone else being really risky in terms of revising some stuff but not others? :erm: I'm worried.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leanne1996)
    Guys why is everyone thinking that baron cohen and physiological is going to come up?
    paper cant have 2 perspectives and all the other approaches (social, cognitive, ID, developmental) have come up already in the past 2 papers, which only leaves physiological and behaviourist/psychodynamic

    Baron cohen is the only study to be asked about ONCE and last asked in jan 09
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jodie.irwin27)
    i believe that your teachers example is no where near full marks!! it could be explained and developed way better..
    That's what I thought. My teacher said the examples need to be really brief, but them examples are just too brief! Plus the point and comment aren't really detailed either. Thanks for the reply.

    Would you say I need to stick to the mark scheme answers and my own answers?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elnor)
    Is anyone else being really risky in terms of revising some stuff but not others? :erm: I'm worried.
    yeah, i am but its the best thing to do to be honest..at this point anyway
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What came up on the jan 13 paper for section B and C!? Anyone? Cramming like mad and just gonna risk revising a couple I think might come up
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kamye123)
    What came up on the jan 13 paper for section B and C!? Anyone? Cramming like mad and just gonna risk revising a couple I think might come up
    B: freud, rosehnhan, thigpen

    C: cognitive, social
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Elnor)
    Is anyone else being really risky in terms of revising some stuff but not others? :erm: I'm worried.
    I am! but im sure at least ONE of our predictions mentioned in this thread will come up. I feel pretty confident about section A. You should be able to get 40+ marks for just revising the main points of each study
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by >Username<)
    That's what I thought. My teacher said the examples need to be really brief, but them examples are just too brief! Plus the point and comment aren't really detailed either. Thanks for the reply.

    Would you say I need to stick to the mark scheme answers and my own answers?
    to be honest, I'd stick to your own answers, just make sure you develop them and explain then clearly, and give relevant examples obviously if you're not sure how much to develop them by, or how much to state in an example, then look to the mark scheme examples
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What would you write for changes and implications for sperry and Savage and Runbagh? I hate these studies. Help would be appreciated!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Simran Mars Foster)
    What would you write for changes and implications for sperry and Savage and Runbagh? I hate these studies. Help would be appreciated!
    idk much for sperry but use a comparison group of people who don't have split-brains, to make the difference in experience that split-brain patients more evident

    savage-rumbaugh, i'd use more chimps as the sample was small. This would increase generalisability and also ecological validity, as chimps being raised in captivity is not very ecologically valid to their natural situation
 
 
 
Poll
Which web browser do you use?

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

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