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

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

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by annieprincess)
    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.
    If I recall correctly, intelligence tests and projective personality tests both fall under psychometric tests. I put their IQ test scores also. Should be fine.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    So I guess my predictions for Section B were wrong but was right on Psychodynamic and the fact that the style was in line with last summer. Hope my resources helped Lol particularly the Section C. Felt quite confident walking out of the exam The Section A was certainly easier than last harder. Section B was also quite straightforward I chose Milgram. The Paper seemed to emphasise ethical issues which I thought was odd but hope I helped anyways.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MCmnbvgyuio)
    I've just realise I wrote about the Piliavin victims rather than models and I've never felt so stupid. Seriously hoping it doesn't affect my overall grade, I really need an A this year . What percentage of the final grade is this exam worth?
    60%, which isn't too bad.

    I seriously wouldn't beat yourself up over that; I began writing about the same thing, until I realised it said model and not victim. Even then, the wording of the question being "Outline two of..." confused me into thinking there must be more than two conditions, which there is for the victim, but there is only two conditions for the model (early and late).

    Expect a lot of people to have tripped up on that one; OCR's fault.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mrtommarsden)
    On the Rosenhan Section A question it asked to outline 2 ways in which the pseudo patients behaved and I put something along the lines of 'they were told to stop showing symptoms and act completely normal' - is that an acceptable answer for one of the two ways?
    Only if you put "symptoms of insanity"—otherwise I don't think it's clear enough.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A-LJLB)
    To everyone freaking out about the Maguire question... I am 99% sure it was positive correlation. Mainly because it's positive correlation between volume change and time spent as a taxi driver in the actual study, and also the numbers (you're saying -8 and +8? That's still an increase) are totally irrelevent - the line of best fit showed positive correlation, as as the change in volume increased, so did the time spent as a taxi driver in months. There's pretty much been a question in every previous exam paper, but for example stating the findings in Dement and Kleitman - you literally just get given the answers and have to write them down
    Wait surely that's the finding? I think a conclusion is what the finding means, I.e. This provides evidence for brain plasticity etc
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by themoocher)
    Same i wrote positive correlation then scribbled it out haha!
    I'm like 99% sure we're right because otherwise they've just given us the answer, like it's an a level exam!
    Sorry buddy, but it was definitely positive correlation.

    Remember, not all data entries have to fit the pattern, since there can be anomalies. "Positive correlation" basically means an "upwards trend", which there was undoubtedly (shown by the line of best fit also).

    Ridiculously straightforward to the point I was doubting both part a and b of that question.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fugeefari)
    Will i get any marks for just stating strengths and weaknesses of th psychodynamic approach not specifically about ethics?
    I did the same thing.. I'm so angry at myself for not reading the question properly
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    No you're right, I was referring to the first part of the question. The conclusion was the second part
    (Original post by juliam98)
    Wait surely that's the finding? I think a conclusion is what the finding means, I.e. This provides evidence for brain plasticity etc
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by A-LJLB)
    No you're right, I was referring to the first part of the question. The conclusion was the second part
    Ooh, right. Sorry
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by natashaellenx)
    I'm not allowed to use that one hahah, i'm under strict orders by my teacher to not use it! I have no idea why though...
    The Developmental Approach isn't reductionist because it considers both biological AND environmental factors (Interactionism); thus proving both sides of the nature-nurture debate.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Sorry buddy, but it was definitely positive correlation.

    Remember, not all data entries have to fit the pattern, since there can be anomalies. "Positive correlation" basically means an "upwards trend", which there was undoubtedly (shown by the line of best fit also).

    Ridiculously straightforward to the point I was doubting both part a and b of that question.
    Phew! So glad you agree, I know it was ridiculously easy to the point I can totally understand why people doubted themselves and over-complicated it, nice to know I'm not thinking crazy!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    60%, which isn't too bad.

    I seriously wouldn't beat yourself up over that; I began writing about the same thing, until I realised it said model and not victim. Even then, the wording of the question being "Outline two of..." confused me into thinking there must be more than two conditions, which there is for the victim, but there is only two conditions for the model (early and late).

    Expect a lot of people to have tripped up on that one; OCR's fault.
    Oh no I wrote victims cos I thought they were models too
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    I went into the exam knowing to underline certain words that were crucial to questions. These were things like 'model' in Piliavin, the ethics changes in Section B and the way data was gathered in Section c part c. I also had a look at the Section B & C themes just to know what to expect and I sort of wish I hadn't. I was panicking a little as to what I was going to write about in Section C in relation to ethics and that I hadn't really thought about strengths and weaknesses of them when revising. Though I had plenty of time to mull over whether I'd be answering q's for Piliavin or Milgram, neither of which I was really expecting to do before the exam (I wanted Griffiths or S&B).
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    If I recall correctly, intelligence tests and projective personality tests both fall under psychometric tests. I put their IQ test scores also. Should be fine.
    I'm afraid not. Only intelligence tests fall under psychometric tests. Projective tests are separate as they measure personality and not intelligence.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    If I recall correctly, intelligence tests and projective personality tests both fall under psychometric tests. I put their IQ test scores also. Should be fine.
    Yeah, I remembered those but not the results of them. Fingers crossed!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Sorry buddy, but it was definitely positive correlation.

    Remember, not all data entries have to fit the pattern, since there can be anomalies. "Positive correlation" basically means an "upwards trend", which there was undoubtedly (shown by the line of best fit also).

    Ridiculously straightforward to the point I was doubting both part a and b of that question.
    Yes but with the y- axis saying changes in volume of right posterior, with -8 that is a decrease so how can it be positive correlation if some of the results were showing the volume decreased to me that makes no sense! 😕
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MCmnbvgyuio)
    I've just realise I wrote about the Piliavin victims rather than models and I've never felt so stupid. Seriously hoping it doesn't affect my overall grade, I really need an A this year . What percentage of the final grade is this exam worth?
    I did the exact same thing, and was super confident as well. It's a shame, because I actually answered a past paper question before asking about the models, so I don't know why I wrote the wrong thing.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fugeefari)
    Will i get any marks for just stating strengths and weaknesses of th psychodynamic approach not specifically about ethics?
    I highly doubt it. It did ask specifically in relation to ethical issues, so I can imagine the mark scheme will say something along the lines of "if strength/weakness is not linked to ethical issue, award no more than X marks" (X probably being in the 1-2 range).

    Obviously, if you've stated 2 strengths and 2 weaknesses this should amount to at least 4/12 marks. And in addition to that, they may award marks for some context.

    Just goes to show the importance of reading the question correctly
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    Sorry buddy, but it was definitely positive correlation.

    Remember, not all data entries have to fit the pattern, since there can be anomalies. "Positive correlation" basically means an "upwards trend", which there was undoubtedly (shown by the line of best fit also).

    Ridiculously straightforward to the point I was doubting both part a and b of that question.
    Aw man! It's frustrating when you write the right answer then scribble it out

    i may get a mark for saying this was a positive correlation after 200 months lol!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by juliam98)
    I did the same thing.. I'm so angry at myself for not reading the question properly
    Yh im soo disapointed in myself. Sigggghhhhhh. Do you think any marks will be given?
 
 
 
Poll
How are you feeling about your A-level results?

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.