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

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemmax6x)
    Section A:

    Loftus I said control was randomising the position of the critical q in the questionnaire given to p's
    This would avoid order effects and allow for cause and effect to be established by avoiding extraneous variables therefore improving validity

    Baron Cohen eyes task
    All pictures of same area of face, all black and white, all same size and all magazine photos displayed to p's with 2 mental states underneath which were semantic opposites and complex and simple mental states were used. The target word was decided by panel of 8 judges who unanimously decided on the target word. P's had to pick the right one.

    Savage
    Pointing board was a laminated version of the lexigram and wasn't used by Sherman and Austin as it wasn't clear what they were pointing at. Data from it gathered by observation
    i said for loftus and palmer that they all watched the same flim clip is that correct
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    THEN THE MONSTER. Oh my lord what were they thinking? I was so prepared for them not doing it again then they went ahead and did it. I put this:
    Confidentiality, e.g. Little Hans was not his real name and was used to protect his identity. Then some babble about how it doesn't damage reputation.
    Informed Consent, e.g. EW gave her consent by showing up to their hypnoses sessions and whatnot. Then same babble.
    P.O.P, e.g. EW suffered horrible blackouts on a more regular basis then babble.
    Right to Withdraw, e.g. Little Hans did not get the option to withdraw from research once it started (then, you guessed it, babble).

    I'd be surprised if I get into double figures on that q but could someone say what they put for that q. And the Rosenhan one on section A.
    I am sorry to say this, but I'm not sure if you answered the 12-marker right... or on the contrary, I got it entirely wrong. Perhaps you did not type it out like you answered it, but I ought to clarify for anyone else worried too.

    The question was: Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the psychodynamic perspective in relation to ethical issues.
    Your answer would be perfect had the question been "psychodynamic studies"—but because it asks for the "perspective", they most likely expected you to state strengths and weaknesses of the perspective related to ethical issues as your points, rather than where ethical issues have occurred/been avoided in the two psychodynamic studies.

    I can imagine you'd still get marks for contextualising, but without the points relating to the perspective itself, I wouldn't get my hopes up!

    For Rosenhan, one behaviour was definitely that the pseudopatients noted observations in a notepad, first secretly and then whilst in the view of others; the second behaviour that I considered putting down (and a lot of my classmates did) was queuing for lunch. However, I decided upon saying the pseudopatients tried to engage in conversation with the staff whenever possible. It could be either, honestly.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemmax6x)
    Section A:

    Loftus I said control was randomising the position of the critical q in the questionnaire given to p's
    This would avoid order effects and allow for cause and effect to be established by avoiding extraneous variables therefore improving validity

    Baron Cohen eyes task
    All pictures of same area of face, all black and white, all same size and all magazine photos displayed to p's with 2 mental states underneath which were semantic opposites and complex and simple mental states were used. The target word was decided by panel of 8 judges who unanimously decided on the target word. P's had to pick the right one.

    Savage
    Pointing board was a laminated version of the lexigram and wasn't used by Sherman and Austin as it wasn't clear what they were pointing at. Data from it gathered by observation
    The easiest control for Loftus and Palmer was that participants all watched the same film clips; so that differences in speed estimate wasn't due to clip, makes it easier for cause and effect

    For the eyes task, it was useful to point out it was 25 black and white photos
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thiss1)
    i said for loftus and palmer that they all watched the same flim clip is that correct
    That was one of the controls, yes.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    I am sorry to say this, but I'm not sure if you answered the 12-marker right... or on the contrary, I got it entirely wrong. Perhaps you did not type it out like you answered it, but I ought to clarify for anyone else worried too.

    The question was: Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the psychodynamic perspective in relation to ethical issues.
    Your answer would be perfect had the question been "psychodynamic studies"—but because it asks for the "perspective", they most likely expected you to state strengths and weaknesses of the perspective related to ethical issues as your points, rather than where ethical issues have occurred/been avoided in the two psychodynamic studies.

    I can imagine you'd still get marks for contextualising, but without the points relating to the perspective itself, I wouldn't get my hopes up!

    For Rosenhan, one behaviour was definitely that the pseudopatients noted observations in a notepad, first secretly and then whilst in the view of others; the second behaviour that I considered putting down (and a lot of my classmates did) was queuing for lunch. However, I decided upon saying the pseudopatients tried to engage in conversation with the staff whenever possible. It could be either, honestly.
    Saying ''in relation to ethical issues'' means that you state the ethical strengths and weaknesses for studies which take the approach.

    For last year's exam, all you had to do was state strenghts and weakness of lab studies and use evidence from the cognitive or behaviorist approach
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by gemmax6x)
    That would be an A, it equals 88 marks, it's 81 to get an A!
    Even better then! They could easily achieve a B then, taking into account all lost marks on section A.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    I am sorry to say this, but I'm not sure if you answered the 12-marker right... or on the contrary, I got it entirely wrong. Perhaps you did not type it out like you answered it, but I ought to clarify for anyone else worried too.

    The question was: Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the psychodynamic perspective in relation to ethical issues.
    Your answer would be perfect had the question been "psychodynamic studies"—but because it asks for the "perspective", they most likely expected you to state strengths and weaknesses of the perspective related to ethical issues as your points, rather than where ethical issues have occurred/been avoided in the two psychodynamic studies.

    I can imagine you'd still get marks for contextualising, but without the points relating to the perspective itself, I wouldn't get my hopes up!

    For Rosenhan, one behaviour was definitely that the pseudopatients noted observations in a notepad, first secretly and then whilst in the view of others; the second behaviour that I considered putting down (and a lot of my classmates did) was queuing for lunch. However, I decided upon saying the pseudopatients tried to engage in conversation with the staff whenever possible. It could be either, honestly.
    i was going to put the queuing for lunch but then i thought that was not what the question asking
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by thiss1)
    i said for loftus and palmer that they all watched the same flim clip is that correct
    Yeah the controls were the same film clip, randomising the order of the film clips and randomising the order of the qs
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    I am sorry to say this, but I'm not sure if you answered the 12-marker right... or on the contrary, I got it entirely wrong. Perhaps you did not type it out like you answered it, but I ought to clarify for anyone else worried too.

    The question was: Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the psychodynamic perspective in relation to ethical issues.
    Your answer would be perfect had the question been "psychodynamic studies"—but because it asks for the "perspective", they most likely expected you to state strengths and weaknesses of the perspective related to ethical issues as your points, rather than where ethical issues have occurred/been avoided in the two psychodynamic studies.

    I can imagine you'd still get marks for contextualising, but without the points relating to the perspective itself, I wouldn't get my hopes up!

    For Rosenhan, one behaviour was definitely that the pseudopatients noted observations in a notepad, first secretly and then whilst in the view of others; the second behaviour that I considered putting down (and a lot of my classmates did) was queuing for lunch. However, I decided upon saying the pseudopatients tried to engage in conversation with the staff whenever possible. It could be either, honestly.
    Well I'd felt I'd related them to the perspective pretty well, and the strengths and weaknesses were only in note form. I did PEC format, and the C part always related to the perspective in general (I had to think a lot about the specific points and how they'd relate to it).

    Plus, I don't understand how you'd relate a generic point, like reductionist or practical applications to ethics. It simply doesn't go. Whereas something like confidentiality fits in because both EW and Hans weren't the actual names of the participants. Thereby allowing their identities to remain hidden from public display and ridicule, which can go onto create a poorer reputation in psychology.

    I'm going to have a look at what my classmates did and what my teacher recommends. But I'm pretty confident on the rest of the exam, 12 marks may not be a bad hiccup.

    I put the fact that pseudo patients behaved in a sane way and went onto babble about that.
    Then that they were talking with some of the other, real, patients about goings on in the hospital.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jadder1224)
    I didnt read the question properly, i just did the general pros and cons of the approach i didnt mention anything about the ethics i dont think im gonna het any marks on it
    I did exactly the same thing so dissapointed. Ive lost a whole 12 marks
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theperformer)
    Saying ''in relation to ethical issues'' means that you state the ethical strengths and weaknesses for studies which take the approach.

    For last year's exam, all you had to do was state strenghts and weakness of lab studies and use evidence from the cognitive or behaviorist approach
    If you've just spoken about the studies then you won't get all the marks. You have to make a general statement and then give a study as an example. So "A strength of the (approach/perspective) is (ethical issue). This is shown in the 'x' study because (explanation).

    Then to get full marks you need to make a comment that links it back to the original general point
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    How much detail was necessary for the eyes task btw. I made several points.
    Photos were all: 10x15cm, black and white, taken from a magazine article and from the top of the nose up to the eyebrow.
    Participants were: Given 2 contrasting emotions and given 3 seconds to identify the correct emotion.

    Surely this was enough info. I missed out the bit about the panel though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    what exactly were the second and third questions for section C psychodynamic perspective? Trying to work out if I got confused and wrote something similar for c) and d) or I'm just getting it mixed up with the Q's on section B.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by theperformer)
    Saying ''in relation to ethical issues'' means that you state the ethical strengths and weaknesses for studies which take the approach.

    For last year's exam, all you had to do was state strenghts and weakness of lab studies and use evidence from the cognitive or behaviorist approach
    Yes, because the question was "Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of laboratory experiments, using examples from the cognitive/behaviourist approach", NOT "Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the cognitive/behaviourist approach in relation to laboratory experiments".

    Do you see what I mean?

    Had the question been "Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of ethical issues, using examples from the psychodynamic perspective", then the answer would have been perfect.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    For T&C, were you allowed to say EB had 13 cycles (per second )
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    I am sorry to say this, but I'm not sure if you answered the 12-marker right... or on the contrary, I got it entirely wrong. Perhaps you did not type it out like you answered it, but I ought to clarify for anyone else worried too.

    The question was: Discuss strengths and weaknesses of the psychodynamic perspective in relation to ethical issues.
    Your answer would be perfect had the question been "psychodynamic studies"—but because it asks for the "perspective", they most likely expected you to state strengths and weaknesses of the perspective related to ethical issues as your points, rather than where ethical issues have occurred/been avoided in the two psychodynamic studies.

    I can imagine you'd still get marks for contextualising, but without the points relating to the perspective itself, I wouldn't get my hopes up!

    For Rosenhan, one behaviour was definitely that the pseudopatients noted observations in a notepad, first secretly and then whilst in the view of others; the second behaviour that I considered putting down (and a lot of my classmates did) was queuing for lunch. However, I decided upon saying the pseudopatients tried to engage in conversation with the staff whenever possible. It could be either, honestly.
    Even if they ask for perspectives they are asking about studies....anyway it said 'in relation to the studies'
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    If in savage question for section a I included details about how Kanzi guided the experimenter around the forest using the pointing board with symbols would I get any marks?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Yes, because the question was "Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of laboratory experiments, using examples from the cognitive/behaviourist approach", NOT "Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the cognitive/behaviourist approach in relation to laboratory experiments".

    Do you see what I mean?

    Had the question been "Discuss the strengths and weaknesses of ethical issues, using examples from the psychodynamic perspective", then the answer would have been perfect.
    But do you get my point that you cant just create a generic strength or weakness then magically link it to ethics. We were only given 4 and I see no way how reductionist would link to ethics.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I made silly mistakes, like with the Piliavin section A question, I wrote about the victims rather than models.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I missed this exam because I overslept -facepalm-
    Retaking next year I guess ;P
 
 
 
Poll
Would you rather

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.