Competition - post a photo you've taken of nature >>

Official OCR A2 Psychology Thread 2015-2016

Scroll to see replies

I used Rosenhan as a Field experiment but am not sure if it actually is a field experiment. Also missed reading the 10 p's bit. Was there any other specification for section A? Personally thought that was horrible compared to G543. The wording of Section A was awful.

I'm not sure but i dont think rosenhan would count as there weren't really any IVs and DVs but im not sure. I did write out rosenhan but i crossed it out :/

Reply 981

geek999

it just said 10 ps - not AT LEAST or JUST but essentially you're right, using more than 10 ps is ok. if anything the more ps = the more data = stronger pattern established

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 982

geek999

btw, rosenhan is definitely a field experiment. yes it's observation also but who said it couldn't be 2 things simultaneously? if unsure, check online and mark schemes

Posted from TSR Mobile

Reply 983

username1504607

I used Rosenhan has a field experiment as well. Not sure what other studies are field experiments apart from Piliavin (idk A2 ones well enough to have talked about them anyway)

Reply 984

Kayb14

Original post by -Bex-

You will lose marks for using two groups because that isn't correlation - you'd have a correlation for each of the two groups but that's not what was asked. Will still get marks elsewhere though. Good luck

I didn't use two groups, it was the same group doing each task.

Reply 985

nhoj11

Rosenhan,s ivs were the made up symptoms of the pseudopatients and dvs were admittance and diagnosis, that's what i,ve been taught! Real environment has to be a field experiment.

Reply 986

Craig1998

Original post by nhoj11

Rosenhan,s ivs were the made up symptoms of the pseudopatients and dvs were admittance and diagnosis, that's what i,ve been taught! Real environment has to be a field experiment.

They all had the same symptoms though, voices that said those words (I think they were like "thud" and stuff). There was no difference between the symptoms. I guess the one thing that was changed was the use of different psychiatric hospitals, but even then they gave similar results (apart from the one diagnosis being bipolar rather than schizophrenia). Better field experiments would be Piliavin (they manipulated drunk/cane, helper time etc. measured speed of helpers, number in critical/adjacent and comments) and Fisher (manipulated cognitive interview or not, measured data collected and accuracy). Vrij and Mann would also be a good study to use.

It's a little weird they decided to ask field experiments, seeing as they've never asked for them specifically before, so I thought they'd just probably not come up. I'm a bit relieved that I ran over the lab experiment strengths and weaknesses in my head on the bus before the exam, since the lab and fields are reverses for strengths and weaknesses.

Also, the thing said 10 participants and that was it. I think, rather than being a test of being able to use a type of data or a sampling technique or whatever, it was just a test as to whether you read what's being said. Nobody would go for 10 participants when doing a plan, so rather than doing a sampling technique, where those who don't read the bit may happen to guess it right, it ensures people who haven't read it are marked down. Bit unfair I know, but you should read it.

Reply 987

Zanscape

Original post by zinodoll

is samuel and bryant a longitudinal? bc age of participants etc looks at development over time. PLS SAY YES
im really upset an approach didn't come up for section B. my revision now feels useless

im so sorry but samuel and bryant wasnt longitudinal, that was snapshot :frown:

Reply 988

-Bex-

Original post by Kayb14

I didn't use two groups, it was the same group doing each task.

Sorry I meant the two groups that you assessed (comedian/non comedian) because that's then correlating two different things (groups) if that makes sense

Reply 989

Amaaleeyyy

I re-took G542 in May, G543 however was a complete trainwreck.... Do any of you guys think that i could possibly come out with a decent grade if i do alright in this exam and G542 retake??
p.s. i got a D for G542 last year and a B for G541

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 990

Kayb14

Original post by -Bex-

Sorry I meant the two groups that you assessed (comedian/non comedian) because that's then correlating two different things (groups) if that makes sense

oh crap. technically I said that it was 10 celebrities and then added that there would be comedian and non comedian but they're still just celebrities and they had to rate how funny they found them but that's still not really right at all. How many marks do you think I would lose for that?

Reply 991

good-vibes

Original post by apoppyx

Was the wording of the options for section A 'physical attraction' or 'physical attractiveness'?

99.9% sure it was physical ATTRACTION because it was about the relationship between physical attraction and things people may be attracted to (appearance, humour, intelligence, etc)

Reply 992

apoppyx

Thank you. I did physical attraction and appearance and wasn't sure whether that option was a trick or not.

Original post by good-vibes

99.9% sure it was physical ATTRACTION because it was about the relationship between physical attraction and things people may be attracted to (appearance, humour, intelligence, etc)

Reply 993

-Bex-

Original post by Kayb14

Well you'd only lose marks for that co-variable so I don't think it will be so bad :smile:

Reply 994

nhoj11

In ocrs own words in mark scheme it states rosenhan is a field experiment and participant observation and any field experiment is as good as another...........

Reply 995

Kayb14

Original post by -Bex-

Well you'd only lose marks for that co-variable so I don't think it will be so bad :smile:

Thanks, the rest of my practical seemed OK. I predicted correlation as well and still messed it up haha. Hopefully I did well on the rest of the paper. What did you put for the question asking how you'd measure a variable differently? That confused me :/

Reply 996

good-vibes

Original post by apoppyx

Thank you. I did physical attraction and appearance and wasn't sure whether that option was a trick or not.

I did too, and I don't know if it was a good idea but pretty sure there can be a relationship between physical attraction to someone and appearance (i.e how attractive you think someone is), because obviously it's not just looks that cause physical attraction as the question and the options suggested ☺️

Oh well, it's done now!

(edited 7 years ago)

Reply 997

-Bex-

Original post by Kayb14

My original measurement involved a rating scale from 1-10, and my different measurement was ranking pictures, but i think it might have had to be a completely different method of measurement but idk lol

Reply 998

apoppyx

That's reassuring, I thought I was the only one who picked that option! Thanks so much, did you use likert scales?

Original post by good-vibes

Reply 999

SarcasticCat

I'm confused about Section A, I did how attracted participants were to a celebrity, (rated on a scale 1-10) and then asked them to rate on a scale of 1-10 how intelligent THEY thought the celebrity was, because I thought it was about perception of intelligence. Is this wrong, and if so, do you think I'll still get some marks?