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

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

    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kayb14)
    I would like to point out that on the mark schemes eg. go to the 2013 mark scheme - http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/176288-...udies-june.pdf - go to page 38 and look. It specifically says that you must use all 3 studies.
    I did exactly the same and referred to all 3 studies, however it does not say all 3 studies must be used? all it appears to say is "This question requires candidatesto refer to the 3 physiologicalapproach core studies i.e. Sperry,Maguire, Dement & Kleitman". This is simply stating that the studies used must be of those 3?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NK18444)
    For Psychodynamic did you just use Thigpen and Cleckly?
    I used Freud and Thigpen and Cleckley as they both come under the psychodynamic approach.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by NK18444)
    For Psychodynamic did you just use Thigpen and Cleckly?
    Mainly yes it doesn't matter though, you can just use one study if you want to as long as you justify points!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by abbiepennell)
    I did the 12 mark Psychodynamic questions, and wrote:

    Weakness - Consent may not be considered to be fully gathered as although Little Hans' parents consented on his behalf, he was too young to give informed consent himself. Also, Eve in Thigpen and Cleckley's study could be considered, as displayed in Eve Black's EEG results and inkblot tests which showed "hysterical tendencies", to not be of sane enough mind to give consent.

    Strength - The large quantities of quantitative data and the fact that both studies were longitudinal allowed Thigpen and Cleckley and Freud to learn about unique disorders which are rarely investigated, which could help the diagnosis of MPD in the future. People also more aware and able to understand psychosexual development, and the Oedipus Complex so that parents and adults in general can identify potential signs of the complex, and help to understand such phobias in children in the future.

    Weakness - Despite "Eve" being a pseudoname which initially protected the identity of Chris Sizemore, once her true identity was revealed, the study could have caused her lasting harm as the diagnosis of MPD tarnished her with a label which is hard to get rid of and excludes her from the social "norm". Freud's claims that Little Hans' behaviour was a result of him having sexual desires for his same sex parent also made him different to everybody else, and could have been embarrassing for him when growing up.

    ... And suddenly I forgot my other strength that I wrote in the exam. Hahaha.
    Well the second point you put would get no marks as that is not referring to the ethical issues bought up in the approach.

    Also, did you state why the other two/three were weaknesses in the exam? I think you get marked on that (e.g. something is usually a weakness because it damages the reputation of psychology).
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Craig1998)
    Well the second point you put would get no marks as that is not referring to the ethical issues bought up in the approach.

    Also, did you state why the other two/three were weaknesses in the exam? I think you get marked on that (e.g. something is usually a weakness because it damages the reputation of psychology).
    yeah you do get marked on that...for example: deception is a weakness as if participants are decieved during studies and discover this deception then it will damage the reputation of psychology whilst participants may also be reluctant to take part in future studies! Its always good to have a mini conclusion!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BethCx)
    Mainly yes it doesn't matter though, you can just use one study if you want to as long as you justify points!
    Oh okay I used Thigpen and Cleckly and Freud but I did two strengths and weaknesses of both but not as in such high detail as you did 😀
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kayb14)
    I would like to point out that on the mark schemes eg. go to the 2013 mark scheme - http://www.ocr.org.uk/Images/176288-...udies-june.pdf - go to page 38 and look. It specifically says that you must use all 3 studies.
    There's only 2 studies in the psychodynamic approach also, so using 3 would be impossible
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by good-vibes)
    There's only 2 studies in the psychodynamic approach also, so using 3 would be impossible
    We're not talking about psychodynamic...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alawix)
    I did the june 2013 past paper just before the exam and the exact same question was on that and on that mark scheme you just had to describe the drunk and caned condition so I think you should be fine
    A question about the victim conditions has come up before, but the one this year was about the model's condition, i.e. critical early, critical late, early adjacent, etc.

    I discussed early/late but forgot to mention critical/adjacent. Did you write about something else?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BethCx)
    yeah you do get marked on that...for example: deception is a weakness as if participants are decieved during studies and discover this deception then it will damage the reputation of psychology whilst participants may also be reluctant to take part in future studies! Its always good to have a mini conclusion!
    Good. I tried to add stuff like that to the end of every paragraph. E.g. This is a weakness of the psychodynamic perspective as if the participants' real names were revealed, they may end up in a poor social situation due to their condition and everybody knowing it is them who has that condition, and so would end up damaging the reputation of psychology, if that were the case.

    I definitely wrote something worded better in the exam, but I talked about how their social situation could be affected.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What is the control in the first exp in Loftus and Palmer?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Also ethical issues of Griffiths, the two behaviours of Rosenhan's pseudopatients and Samuel and Bryants two questioning conditions, trying to self mark a little for Section A, please help!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tasmins)
    What is the control in the first exp in Loftus and Palmer?
    A control in the first experiment is that participants watched the same 7 car safety videos x
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tiffanispollock)
    A control in the first experiment is that participants watched the same 7 car safety videos x
    Damn it thank you, you don't happen to remember any of the section A questions how many they were out of do you? x
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tasmins)
    Also ethical issues of Griffiths, the two behaviours of Rosenhan's pseudopatients and Samuel and Bryants two questioning conditions, trying to self mark a little for Section A, please help!!
    The Griffiths question was tricky because it said 'How did it upheld the ethical issues' (meaning how was it as to be ethical) so, you could have wrote that the participants had consent and they were able to withdraw at any point of the study. I'm not too sure about Rosenhan's answer, I wrote about the behaviour of writing in the journal and pacing the corridors but I may of been wrong. It may of been the behaviour when they attempted to make an appointment about hearing the words: 'thud', 'hollow' and 'empty'. Samuel and Bryant's conditions were like fixed array questioning and standard questioning (there's another one but I can't remember it off by heart). I hope this helped! X
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by tiffanispollock)
    The Griffiths question was tricky because it said 'How did it upheld the ethical issues' (meaning how was it as to be ethical) so, you could have wrote that the participants had consent and they were able to withdraw at any point of the study. I'm not too sure about Rosenhan's answer, I wrote about the behaviour of writing in the journal and pacing the corridors but I may of been wrong. It may of been the behaviour when they attempted to make an appointment about hearing the words: 'thud', 'hollow' and 'empty'. Samuel and Bryant's conditions were like fixed array questioning and standard questioning (there's another one but I can't remember it off by heart). I hope this helped! X
    Noooooooo, I put ethical issues, not thinking/reading properly about the upheld bit! I put they had to act normal in Rosenhan! Hmm not looking to good now x thank you for your help though
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Kiytt)
    A question about the victim conditions has come up before, but the one this year was about the model's condition, i.e. critical early, critical late, early adjacent, etc.

    I discussed early/late but forgot to mention critical/adjacent. Did you write about something else?
    I done the exact same as you! I wrote about late - 150 seconds and early - 70 seconds but didn't say where. It was 4 marks right? So hopefully we get at least 2!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rstlss)
    That's true, But I have 2 psychology teachers and they told me the same things, also if you look on the mark scheme it uses examples from the same study, I'll believe myself because one of my teachers also marks for OCR & she told us this soo many times because people in our class kept doing it
    It states from ANY physiological/psychodynamic studies
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Wait surely that's the finding... The conclusion I though would be that this is evidence of neuro plasticity etc.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by em1123)
    I done the exact same as you! I wrote about late - 150 seconds and early - 70 seconds but didn't say where. It was 4 marks right? So hopefully we get at least 2!
    Yeah, I can't imagine they'd give less than 2.

    Better than writing about the victim conditions, still.
 
 
 
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.