Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
 You are Here: Home

# OCR G542 Psychology Monday 18th May *OFFICIAL THREAD* watch

1. (Original post by Lizcookk)
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! 😕
Because if the majority of the plots on the graph display positive correlation, i.e. both variables increase, then the graph still has overall positive correlation; that's why a line of best fit is drawn, as the upwards direction is the best fit for the direction of data.

Remember, correlation just means general relationship/trend/pattern. The data entries that weren't in line with the line of best fit are simply anomalies, and should not be taken into account when observing the overall trend.
2. (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.
There's 4 model conditions... Critical early, critical late, adjacent early and adjacent late...
3. (Original post by Lizcookk)
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! 😕
Even if it was -8 (I can't remember so I'll take your word for it!) it would still be a positive correlation, even though it's a negative number, the line of best fit is up and to the right, showing a positive correlation. Bare in mind, there will probably be some data that does not exactly fit the line of best fit! -8 to +8 is an increase of 16
4. (Original post by fugeefari)
Yh im soo disapointed in myself. Sigggghhhhhh. Do you think any marks will be given?
I hope so, but I really doubt it. The mark
schemes are quite harsh. Ughhhhh
5. (Original post by gemmax6x)
There's 4 model conditions... Critical early, critical late, adjacent early and adjacent late...
Looks like I'm dropping a couple marks for that question then...

Damnit Piliavin!
6. (Original post by Zawarkhan786)
I'm afraid not. Only intelligence tests fall under psychometric tests. Projective tests are separate as they measure personality and not intelligence.
Oh, luckily I didn't use the latter then!
7. (Original post by khalidy95)
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.
I felt the same as you as well. I predicted Psychodynamic and/or Developmental as approaches for Section C; obviously Developmental never featured. Section A was indeed MUCH easier than last summer; especially when OCR decided to give 4 of the easiest marks to us for the Maguire question on interpreting the scattergraph lol.

By the way, I couldn't think of 4 results for the 8 marker on Section B for Milgram. I just wrote 3; 65% of Ps administering up to 450v, all Ps administering up to 300v, and the physical/emotional signs of distress that the Ps showed. What would be a fourth result? Would I need a fourth result to get the full 8 marks, or would the 3 that I mentioned enough for the 8 marks?
8. For Milgram section B results I did 26 were obedient and 14 were disobedient. 100% went up to 300vs. 5 stopped after 300vs. 4 stopped after 315vs. 2 stopped after 330vs. 1 stopped at 345vs, 1 stopped at 360vs and 1 stopped at 375vs. 65% went all the way to 450vs. In the post-experimental the mean score for the question about the participants estimate of the pain of the last shock they administered was 13.42/14 (or something like that). Obvious signs of tension (lip biting, sweating, etc). 14 had laughing/smiling fits and 3 had "full blown uncontrollable seizures"
9. (Original post by Rstlss)
Also when it say's why was your experiment conducted? Are you meant to say backround information??!?!? Cause I just said an aim.!!! , if so I julost out on 2 easy marks.... *cries*
I put an aim as well.

It makes sense, given a reason why the study was conducted was to investigate the effect of the IV upon the DV, which is what the aim describes.
10. (Original post by Zawarkhan786)
I felt the same as you as well. I predicted Psychodynamic and/or Developmental as approaches for Section C; obviously Developmental never featured. Section A was indeed MUCH easier than last summer; especially when OCR decided to give 4 of the easiest marks to us for the Maguire question on interpreting the scattergraph lol.

By the way, I couldn't think of 4 results for the 8 marker on Section B for Milgram. I just wrote 3; 65% of Ps administering up to 450v, all Ps administering up to 300v, and the physical/emotional signs of distress that the Ps showed. What would be a fourth result? Would I need a fourth result to get the full 8 marks, or would the 3 that I mentioned enough for the 8 marks?
you could have talked about 3 participants have uncontrollable seizures and one having to be removed as it was so severe/uncontrollable
or
many participants showed signs of tension and a frequent sign of tension was nervous laughing fits
11. (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
Also it's literally one of Maguire's conclusions that there's a positive correlation between volume of grey matter in the right posterior hippocampus and time spent as a taxi driver
12. Anyone do Bandura for scetion B
13. (Original post by juliam98)
I hope so, but I really doubt it. The mark
schemes are quite harsh. Ughhhhh
I so disappointed with myself right now. I guess we have to use this as a lesson to read every question carefully in future exams. Don't be demotivated. Use this as motivation. Lol its soo hard to get over it know
14. (Original post by amy_eliz3)
you could have talked about 3 participants have uncontrollable seizures and one having to be removed as it was so severe/uncontrollable
or
many participants showed signs of tension and a frequent sign of tension was nervous laughing fits
So would I get 6 marks for the 3 results I mentioned, or could I possibly get the full 8 marks?
15. (Original post by Zawarkhan786)
So would I get 6 marks for the 3 results I mentioned, or could I possibly get the full 8 marks?
I would say probably 6 marks, not sure how they mark it but maybe you could get more if you were really detailed in one of them?
16. (Original post by sumaya.ali)
Anyone do Bandura for scetion B
i did
17. (Original post by thiss1)
i did

what did you say for the finding
18. For the Maguire conclusion question i wrote something along the lines of "The longer a person had spent as a taxi driver, the larger the volume of grey matter within the right hemisphere" which is just describing the positive correlation in a more wordy manner. Will this get me the marks?
19. i said the 4 finding that were on holah website
eg,the children in aggressive condition made more aggressive responses than children in non aggressive condition
what about you?
20. (Original post by sumaya.ali)
what did you say for the finding
I did Bandura. I basically put boys were more physically aggressive/girls slightly more verbally aggressive, how boys responded to same-sex model more aggressively, for girls the gender of model didn't have as significant a difference, and how there was no significant difference in aggression between those in the non-aggressive condition and those in the control group/condition

Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

This forum is supported by:
Updated: September 9, 2015
Today on TSR

### Negatives of studying at Oxbridge

What are the downsides?

Poll
Useful resources

## Make your revision easier

Can you help? Study Help unanswered threadsStudy Help rules and posting guidelines

## Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

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

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