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

OCR G542 Psychology Monday 18th May *OFFICIAL THREAD* Watch

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Lol completely made up the stuff for eve white's EEG scores - I literally didn't know because I neglected that study *sigh* also said 25-50 for milgram AGH SILLY MISTAKE :/ but otherwise I think I did ok - answered everything else it seems well - but look guys I retook and for those of you who have done AS - DO NOT WORRY if you think you did badly.
    Seriously i know it feels like its be all and end all but you can try again! I'm sure you will have done well and if it turns out on results day that you haven't then make sure that from September till next year that you learn a study every single week - it will be so worth it and then it'll just be second knowledge and you'll think 'damn these studies are puny compared to the 70 i have to learn now'
    I just about manage to cram the finer details in and luckily the section A questions were quite nice - so if you do need to retake, ADVICE: begin revision for the studies from the beginning of year 13, and actually they will come into use for A2 because you WILL need knowledge of them for A2 so actually you'll be doing yourself a favor. then you can kick ocr in the butt because you will know all their secrets by May next year if you do need to do this all over again (which hopefully none of you will).
    GOOD LUCK FOR THE REST OF YOUR EXAMS!
    p.s. don't dwell on what you may or may not have said in the exam - you can't change that now so don't jeopardize your other exams - take a breather and move on
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    Did you not set an alarm? Or even get people to wake you or whatever?
    I set 2 phone alarms, I slept through one and the other didn't go off. Nobody was home at the time and normally everyone just lets me to whatever cause I am normally responsible and independent :P
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    BTW props to all of you who did the predicting - got it pretty spot on!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Well I hadn't a clue about the 12 marker in section c because we were told nothing about it... I'm pretty sure that I did it wrong because I stated a strength e.g: it allows psychologists to suggest reasons for mental disorders. And related it to freud and then stated how there was consent in the study as freud's father gave parental consent.


    But reading the comments on this has just confirmed that I did it completely wrong so yup... Just going to go cry now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    I put about T&C using qual AND quant data whereas Freud used qual.
    I was going to write that, but the question asked how data was collected, not what data was collected. That's why I wrote about the other methods of testing. I don't know, though.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I was happy the Section C predicting went unhinged.
    But Section B was a bit less good for me.
    I was pretty sure atleast one of Samuel & Bryant and Griffiths was going to come up, so I revised my arse off for them. I made sure I had some knowledge of Piliavin and Bandura though.
    I selected Milgram mainly because it was my favourite, which you should never do but I hate Piliavin because it didn't even show what it set out to (well, neither did Milgram, but that ended in a fun and exciting way).
    I think I've managed to scrape an A though. I'm thinking high B in this and reasonable A in PI.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annieprincess)
    I was going to write that, but the question asked how data was collected, not what data was collected. That's why I wrote about the other methods of testing. I don't know, though.
    Yeh I'm not that confident anymore. I strictly remember writing about the types of data that were collected as my examples, like about the giraffe dream as an example.

    Fudge.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Well, say, at a minimum you lost 12 (4x3) marks in Section A (48/60), 10 marks in Section B (26/36) and 10 in Section C (14/24), you'd still manage a B. However, it's unlikely that you'll get full marks in Section A besides those 3 questions, so take that as you will.
    Thank you that's reassured me!
    I just can't remember my answers for section C but I remember thinking at the time they were good
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    Yeh I'm not that confident anymore. I strictly remember writing about the types of data that were collected as my examples, like about the giraffe dream as an example.

    Fudge.
    Don't worry, neither am I. I made a few mistakes in section A e.g. describing victims rather than models in Piliavin. Also, I think my section C 12 marker wasn't great either. I do think I killed section B though, Milgram is my best ever study, as it was the first taught and the questions that came up is pretty much the same as the 2009 paper, which I done like two weeks ago.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    For section c similarity and difference I said
    similarity:
    Sperry and maguire were both quasi experiments
    differnce:
    Dement and kleitman used scientific objective measures such as EEG whereas sperry used observation which was more subjective???
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annieprincess)
    Don't worry, neither am I. I made a few mistakes in section A e.g. describing victims rather than models in Piliavin. Also, I think my section C 12 marker wasn't great either. I do think I killed section B though, Milgram is my best ever study, as it was the first taught and the questions that came up is pretty much the same as the 2009 paper, which I done like two weeks ago.
    I was really happy about Milgram too. How many points did you make about ethics. I wasn't really too sure so I made 3 points (p.o.p. debriefing and deception ).
    If I don't get atleast 7 marks on my findings question I'd be really shocked. I only missed minute details out (like that it was a painful rating rather than a scare rating. That it was 14/40 who laughed etc. I did mention laughter and other qual reactions too).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annieprincess)
    I was going to write that, but the question asked how data was collected, not what data was collected. That's why I wrote about the other methods of testing. I don't know, though.
    I wrote about qual and quan for thig and just quan for Freud cos then you can go into detail on how they collected that data...e.g. rorschach ink blot tests etc!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    I was really happy about Milgram too. How many points did you make about ethics. I wasn't really too sure so I made 3 points (p.o.p. debriefing and deception ).
    If I don't get atleast 7 marks on my findings question I'd be really shocked. I only missed minute details out (like that it was a painful rating rather than a scare rating. That it was 14/40 who laughed etc. I did mention laughter and other qual reactions too).
    For ethics, I wrote as much as I could remember. I wrote informed consent, deception, they were made to feel as they'd no right to withdraw (because of the prods). Then at the end, I wrote how despite all ethical problems, they were debriefed at the end.

    For the results, I wrote that 65% obeyed to 450 volts, 35% disobeyed as they only continued to 300 volts or more. Also said that all participants continued to at least 300 volts. For qual I wrote most showed signs of nervousness e.g. laughing fits, digging nails into flesh, etc. I also wrote that 3 participants experienced full blown seizures, one of which was so bad the experiment had to be stopped.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BethCx)
    I wrote about qual and quan for thig and just quan for Freud cos then you can go into detail on how they collected that data...e.g. rorschach ink blot tests etc!
    Maybe. I just didn't think it would get marks, so I wrote about something else.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Same here we were told it would be about the method bit but then it chucked in this 12 mark about ethics 😒
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annieprincess)
    For ethics, I wrote as much as I could remember. I wrote informed consent, deception, they were made to feel as they'd no right to withdraw (because of the prods). Then at the end, I wrote how despite all ethical problems, they were debriefed at the end.

    For the results, I wrote that 65% obeyed to 450 volts, 35% disobeyed as they only continued to 300 volts or more. Also said that all participants continued to at least 300 volts. For qual I wrote most showed signs of nervousness e.g. laughing fits, digging nails into flesh, etc. I also wrote that 3 participants experienced full blown seizures, one of which was so bad the experiment had to be stopped.
    Ok, I've just reaslied a couple of marks are down. I put 60% and referred to 16/40 going to less than 450V (these stupid studies like Maguire and Baron-Cohen that use 16 p's may have confused me).
    However, the qual data was spot on with what I put.

    As for ethics, I didn't want to seem to put too much as it was 8 marks and I was running out of space by the end of point 2. Hopefully, if enough detail is given and if reference to how they were interviewed at a later stage is given, aswell as how they were debriefed (open ended questions and got to meet Mr. Wallace or whatever the guys name was), I should be able to reach the top marks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I'm slightly annoyed with myself aswell, though it didn't go badly. I crossed out one of the 2 markers on psychometric tests and I'd wrote about the IQ test which I didn't think was a psychometric test. BUT, I changed it to the Rorshach inkblot test and how EB was regressive and EW was repressive. So I think I'm all good.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    I'm slightly annoyed with myself aswell, though it didn't go badly. I crossed out one of the 2 markers on psychometric tests and I'd wrote about the IQ test which I didn't think was a psychometric test. BUT, I changed it to the Rorshach inkblot test and how EB was regressive and EW was repressive. So I think I'm all good.
    Yeah, I think you should be fine. I wrote about the IQ test, and how EW scored 110 and EB 104. It was all I could think of.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Can someone give me an example of what they wrote for the 12 marker in section c? Just so I can see how much I messed up in it. -.-
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Yupbrickingit)
    Can someone give me an example of what they wrote for the 12 marker in section c? Just so I can see how much I messed up in it. -.-


    Did anyone else choose physiological for section C?
    I literally had no idea lol...
    For the 12 marker I wrote about how a strength was that: In physiological research deception can be avoided because they measure biological phenomena, which often involves knowing about their participants' biology, which involves asking them about it - meaning they know what the study is about. For example, in Sperry's study, he had to have participants with hemisphere disconnection...
    For a weakness I wrote about how it can cause upset/distress to participants because it tells the participants that they can't do certain things and that they aren't, 'normal'. For example, in Sperry's study, participants found out that they cannot name objects in speech when they see them with their left visual field....
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about GCSE Results Day?

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.