Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

AQA A2 Psychology PSYA3/PSYA4 Revision Thread 2016 Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hihihi123)
    Is real world application an ida???
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    cheers, I can't quite work our your AO1/Ao2 split ? What structure have you gone for, only because its different to how i normally write mine
    (Original post by кяя)
    Whoops sorry, here ya go
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Name:  image.png
Views: 69
Size:  88.5 KBI know Loopa has an acronym grenade... But this one says you can talk about scientific methods so reliability and validity, I think you can even talk about stuff such as case studies, ecological validity just basic research methods. But real world application I'm positive you can talk about that as an IDA, it's in most of the Loopa essays anyway :-)
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by student420)
    cheers, I can't quite work our your AO1/Ao2 split ? What structure have you gone for, only because its different to how i normally write mine
    Well the first few paragraphs are mostly theory so AO1 but the next few are like a mix of AO1 and AO2 with some explanation and some evaluation.

    Then it's mostly AO2.

    Yeah this essay had a bit of a different structure but it's all good as long as it's understandable and there is both AO1 and AO2 in there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Was wondering if anyone could skim read this and let me know if this enough for full marks or close for a 24 marker The formation of romantic relationships.AO1:Two theories that attempt to explain the formation of relationships are the reward/need satisfaction model by Byrne et al and the matching hypothesis by Walster et al.
    • Byrne et als model proposes that we find relationships rewarding or that we may find life unpleasant or unrewarding when alone. The theory is based on the principles of operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Through operant conditioning people may reward us directly by meeting psychological needs such as love and sex. Individual that are helpful, kind and supportive may also provide this direct reinforcement and therefore liked more. Alternatively we may be rewarded indirectly through classical conditioning as relationships with some individuals may provide pleasant circumstances or pleasant events may occur around them. This could be compliments or other positive things they bring with them resulting in pleasant feelings being associated with them. Byrne et al believed that the balance of positive and negative feelings was crucial in a relationship and relationships where the positive feelings outweighed the negatives were most successful.

    • Walster et als matching hypothesis proposes that people who are similar in level of intelligence, attraction and social standing are more inclined to for a relationship with each other. This theory suggests that people pair themselves with others based on their own sense of value and that relationships who match themselves on values the theory proposes are more happier than those who are not. Those looking for a partner are influenced by what they want and what they can get. Walster et al referred to this notion as “Realistic choices” because individuals are influenced by the chances of having the feelings reciprocated back.

    AO2/3:
    • Hays et al’s research found that students in friendships gave as much value to rewarding the other person as being rewarded themselves, suggesting the reward/need satisfaction theory is flawed. This research found that student friendships and relationships revolved more around equity and fairness rather than just being satisfied by receiving. This suggests a more complicated process in the formation of relationships and the theory of reward/need satisfaction theory is a reductionist for oversimplifying complex elements into simple elements such as operant and classical conditioning. The theory does not factor in the role of free will either, portraying people as simple stimuli response machines rather that the complex individuals everyone really is. In addition the sample consisted of only student and findings may lack ecological validity to wider generalisation

    • Gender differences and cultural bias appears evident in the reward/need satisfaction theory. Lott et al found that in many cultures women are socialised to be more attentive to the needs of others such as husband and children rather than being focused on their own rewards. Some others however may argue that this meeting of other peoples needs is rewarding in itself for the women and it is difficult to prove or disprove the theory for certain. Also in many cultures relationships developed through arranged marriages where the reward/needs model or the matching hypothesis does not apply at all as the choice is taken away from the individual involved. The implication for the theory is it therefore suffers from cultural bias to western society and may have limited application to other cultures.

    • Walster et al conducted the dance study to test the matching hypothesis. Students were led to believe that they were meeting their dates based on being match accordingly on similar social desirability factors but were in fact matched randomly. Results found when students were matched to dates that were physically attractive, regardless of their own level of attraction; they were more likely to pursue the date after meeting them. Factors such as intelligence or personality did not affect this. This suggest that physical attraction is likely to be the most important component in the matching hypothesis showing some support. However a criticism is that people may not pursue individuals they deem to be of similar level but possible those they deem more socially desirable or even less. The study lacks vital information on wether students would rank their dates similarly in social desirability as themselves or not and whether subsequent relationships actually formed despite any differences or similarities. Therefore this study lacks internal validity as it may not actually be measuring students matching themselves according to their own social desirability wearing the theories credibility.

    • A major flaw of the matching hypothesis is that it proposes people pair up with others of similar social desirability. Hatfield et al proposes complex matching occurs where those who lack in one are make up for it in others. For example the wealth, personality or physical attraction of someone. An example of this is when a wealthy older man pairs up with a younger attractive women. This suggest that the matching hypothesis is reductionist and in complete to account for such instances weakening the theory. The matching hypothesis is also deterministic as it does not account for the role of free will that people have in determining their own choices. Many people pair up together despite very different on perceived social desirability and this due to free will, which is not accounted for in the theory.

    • Evolutionary explanations may also explain the formation of relationships better. People may ultimately look to form relationships with people that offers the most in terms of passing on their genes successfully. Support for this and criticism of both the matching hypothesis and reward/need models comes from research by Takeuchi who has shown a gender difference exists with men placing greater importance on physical beauty while women place less emphasis on this and being more open to other social desirability traits such as kindness and generosity.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=zzxxDash53xxzz;65489357]Was wondering if anyone could skim read this and let me know if this enough for full marks or close for a 24 marker The formation of romantic relationships.AO1:Two theories that attempt to explain the formation of relationships are the reward/need satisfaction model by Byrne et al and the matching hypothesis by Walster et al.
    • Byrne et als model proposes that we find relationships rewarding or that we may find life unpleasant or unrewarding when alone. The theory is based on the principles of operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Through operant conditioning people may reward us directly by meeting psychological needs such as love and sex. Individual that are helpful, kind and supportive may also provide this direct reinforcement and therefore liked more. Alternatively we may be rewarded indirectly through classical conditioning as relationships with some individuals may provide pleasant circumstances or pleasant events may occur around them. This could be compliments or other positive things they bring with them resulting in pleasant feelings being associated with them. Byrne et al believed that the balance of positive and negative feelings was crucial in a relationship and relationships where the positive feelings outweighed the negatives were most successful.
    • Walster et als matching hypothesis proposes that people who are similar in level of intelligence, attraction and social standing are more inclined to for a relationship with each other. This theory suggests that people pair themselves with others based on their own sense of value and that relationships who match themselves on values the theory proposes are more happier than those who are not. Those looking for a partner are influenced by what they want and what they can get. Walster et al referred to this notion as “Realistic choices” because individuals are influenced by the chances of having the feelings reciprocated back.
    AO2/3:
    • Hays et al’s research found that students in friendships gave as much value to rewarding the other person as being rewarded themselves, suggesting the reward/need satisfaction theory is flawed. This research found that student friendships and relationships revolved more around equity and fairness rather than just being satisfied by receiving. This suggests a more complicated process in the formation of relationships and the theory of reward/need satisfaction theory is a reductionist for oversimplifying complex elements into simple elements such as operant and classical conditioning. The theory does not factor in the role of free will either, portraying people as simple stimuli response machines rather that the complex individuals everyone really is. In addition the sample consisted of only student and findings may lack ecological validity to wider generalisation
    • Gender differences and cultural bias appears evident in the reward/need satisfaction theory. Lott et al found that in many cultures women are socialised to be more attentive to the needs of others such as husband and children rather than being focused on their own rewards. Some others however may argue that this meeting of other peoples needs is rewarding in itself for the women and it is difficult to prove or disprove the theory for certain. Also in many cultures relationships developed through arranged marriages where the reward/needs model or the matching hypothesis does not apply at all as the choice is taken away from the individual involved. The implication for the theory is it therefore suffers from cultural bias to western society and may have limited application to other cultures.
    • Walster et al conducted the dance study to test the matching hypothesis. Students were led to believe that they were meeting their dates based on being match accordingly on similar social desirability factors but were in fact matched randomly. Results found when students were matched to dates that were physically attractive, regardless of their own level of attraction; they were more likely to pursue the date after meeting them. Factors such as intelligence or personality did not affect this. This suggest that physical attraction is likely to be the most important component in the matching hypothesis showing some support. However a criticism is that people may not pursue individuals they deem to be of similar level but possible those they deem more socially desirable or even less. The study lacks vital information on wether students would rank their dates similarly in social desirability as themselves or not and whether subsequent relationships actually formed despite any differences or similarities. Therefore this study lacks internal validity as it may not actually be measuring students matching themselves according to their own social desirability wearing the theories credibility.
    • A major flaw of the matching hypothesis is that it proposes people pair up with others of similar social desirability. Hatfield et al proposes complex matching occurs where those who lack in one are make up for it in others. For example the wealth, personality or physical attraction of someone. An example of this is when a wealthy older man pairs up with a younger attractive women. This suggest that the matching hypothesis is reductionist and in complete to account for such instances weakening the theory. The matching hypothesis is also deterministic as it does not account for the role of free will that people have in determining their own choices. Many people pair up together despite very different on perceived social desirability and this due to free will, which is not accounted for in the theory.
    • Evolutionary explanations may also explain the formation of relationships better. People may ultimately look to form relationships with people that offers the most in terms of passing on their genes successfully. Support for this and criticism of both the matching hypothesis and reward/need models comes from research by Takeuchi who has shown a gender difference exists with men placing greater importance on physical beauty while women place less emphasis on this and being more open to other social desirability traits such as kindness and generosity.
    [/QUOTE

    Matching hypothesis theory is a bit brief...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    lol I'm so ****ed for psya3 i left all my revision late do you guys think that if i only revise the stuff loopa predicted I could get a B/C?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    asides that, is the essay size roughly what i should be aiming for?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplebricks)
    lol I'm so ****ed for psya3 i left all my revision late do you guys think that if i only revise the stuff loopa predicted I could get a B/C?
    Im doing the same but hoping for an A be more optimistic ;D
    Offline

    6
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by carli97)
    No I don't think so...

    I think IDA is just determinism vs free will, reductionist, nature-nurture debate, gender bias...
    It is IDA, it wasn't initially listed as IDA or something, but it is now
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zzxxDash53xxzz)
    Im doing the same but hoping for an A be more optimistic ;D
    nahhhh it's A LOT to memorise plus i have other exams the day before and day after im ****ed lmaooo good luck tho
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Is anyone else doing anomalistic? I haven't even learnt it yet, teachers kept leaving. ._.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zzxxDash53xxzz)
    Was wondering if anyone could skim read this and let me know if this enough for full marks or close for a 24 marker The formation of romantic relationships.AO1:Two theories that attempt to explain the formation of relationships are the reward/need satisfaction model by Byrne et al and the matching hypothesis by Walster et al.
    • Byrne et als model proposes that we find relationships rewarding or that we may find life unpleasant or unrewarding when alone. The theory is based on the principles of operant conditioning and classical conditioning. Through operant conditioning people may reward us directly by meeting psychological needs such as love and sex. Individual that are helpful, kind and supportive may also provide this direct reinforcement and therefore liked more. Alternatively we may be rewarded indirectly through classical conditioning as relationships with some individuals may provide pleasant circumstances or pleasant events may occur around them. This could be compliments or other positive things they bring with them resulting in pleasant feelings being associated with them. Byrne et al believed that the balance of positive and negative feelings was crucial in a relationship and relationships where the positive feelings outweighed the negatives were most successful.
    • Walster et als matching hypothesis proposes that people who are similar in level of intelligence, attraction and social standing are more inclined to for a relationship with each other. This theory suggests that people pair themselves with others based on their own sense of value and that relationships who match themselves on values the theory proposes are more happier than those who are not. Those looking for a partner are influenced by what they want and what they can get. Walster et al referred to this notion as “Realistic choices” because individuals are influenced by the chances of having the feelings reciprocated back.
    AO2/3:
    • Hays et al’s research found that students in friendships gave as much value to rewarding the other person as being rewarded themselves, suggesting the reward/need satisfaction theory is flawed. This research found that student friendships and relationships revolved more around equity and fairness rather than just being satisfied by receiving. This suggests a more complicated process in the formation of relationships and the theory of reward/need satisfaction theory is a reductionist for oversimplifying complex elements into simple elements such as operant and classical conditioning. The theory does not factor in the role of free will either, portraying people as simple stimuli response machines rather that the complex individuals everyone really is. In addition the sample consisted of only student and findings may lack ecological validity to wider generalisation
    • Gender differences and cultural bias appears evident in the reward/need satisfaction theory. Lott et al found that in many cultures women are socialised to be more attentive to the needs of others such as husband and children rather than being focused on their own rewards. Some others however may argue that this meeting of other peoples needs is rewarding in itself for the women and it is difficult to prove or disprove the theory for certain. Also in many cultures relationships developed through arranged marriages where the reward/needs model or the matching hypothesis does not apply at all as the choice is taken away from the individual involved. The implication for the theory is it therefore suffers from cultural bias to western society and may have limited application to other cultures.
    • Walster et al conducted the dance study to test the matching hypothesis. Students were led to believe that they were meeting their dates based on being match accordingly on similar social desirability factors but were in fact matched randomly. Results found when students were matched to dates that were physically attractive, regardless of their own level of attraction; they were more likely to pursue the date after meeting them. Factors such as intelligence or personality did not affect this. This suggest that physical attraction is likely to be the most important component in the matching hypothesis showing some support. However a criticism is that people may not pursue individuals they deem to be of similar level but possible those they deem more socially desirable or even less. The study lacks vital information on wether students would rank their dates similarly in social desirability as themselves or not and whether subsequent relationships actually formed despite any differences or similarities. Therefore this study lacks internal validity as it may not actually be measuring students matching themselves according to their own social desirability wearing the theories credibility.
    • A major flaw of the matching hypothesis is that it proposes people pair up with others of similar social desirability. Hatfield et al proposes complex matching occurs where those who lack in one are make up for it in others. For example the wealth, personality or physical attraction of someone. An example of this is when a wealthy older man pairs up with a younger attractive women. This suggest that the matching hypothesis is reductionist and in complete to account for such instances weakening the theory. The matching hypothesis is also deterministic as it does not account for the role of free will that people have in determining their own choices. Many people pair up together despite very different on perceived social desirability and this due to free will, which is not accounted for in the theory.
    • Evolutionary explanations may also explain the formation of relationships better. People may ultimately look to form relationships with people that offers the most in terms of passing on their genes successfully. Support for this and criticism of both the matching hypothesis and reward/need models comes from research by Takeuchi who has shown a gender difference exists with men placing greater importance on physical beauty while women place less emphasis on this and being more open to other social desirability traits such as kindness and generosity.
    I wouldnt do gender diff i would use griffit instead and try and 2 studies for reward and 2 for matching so include murstein, Also youve only done one A03? reductionist is used incorrectly its limited, reductionist only applies to biological theories.

    But because youve pretty much used loopa work its fine and should be ok.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplebricks)
    lol I'm so ****ed for psya3 i left all my revision late do you guys think that if i only revise the stuff loopa predicted I could get a B/C?
    Are you only just starting revision now? Gawd damn good luck. I'm only revising Loopa predictions too. Imagine if AQA decided to change their questions to be different from what Loopa says on purpose. Aahhh

    Aim for a low A at least.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    If Loopas predictions are right you should be good

    If not, well... lol
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by кяя)
    Are you only just starting revision now? Gawd damn good luck. I'm only revising Loopa predictions too. Imagine if AQA decided to change their questions to be different from what Loopa says on purpose. Aahhh

    Aim for a low A at least.
    The good thing is AQA will have written the questions way before Loopas predictions were released, so that all the exams could get to the schools

    So long as no papers are stolen again this year we should be good
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by purplebricks)
    lol I'm so ****ed for psya3 i left all my revision late do you guys think that if i only revise the stuff loopa predicted I could get a B/C?
    Thats a big risk but it depends how lucky you are if you revise predictions and they come up then you should get an A. If nothing comes up you could get a U, just depends on how much you can get done.

    If you dont mind me asking how many essays have you learnt so far?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CAPTAINSHAZAM)
    I wouldnt do gender diff i would use griffit instead and try and 2 studies for reward and 2 for matching so include murstein, Also youve only done one A03? reductionist is used incorrectly its limited, reductionist only applies to biological theories.

    But because youve pretty much used loopa work its fine and should be ok.
    yh it is but i tried to take out as much as possible as his essays are designed to have more than you need so i was wondering what would be suitable and thanks for the comment
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zzxxDash53xxzz)
    yh it is but i tried to take out as much as possible as his essays are designed to have more than you need so i was wondering what would be suitable and thanks for the comment
    I would always aim for 4 studies per essay just because it can be used as A02 as well to ensure you get the top marks.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CAPTAINSHAZAM)
    I would always aim for 4 studies per essay just because it can be used as A02 as well to ensure you get the top marks.
    appreciate that and one last question.Is having 2 ida points enough if used appropiately ?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Break up or unrequited love?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.