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

AS Official Edexcel 1 Psychology Unit 1: Social and Cognitive Psychology Watch

    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What do we need to know about individual differences( for cognitive )?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anxiousaf)
    (this is for the old specification of Psychology, just to be clear for the edexcel examination of psychology that has currently past papers ranging from January 2009 to June 2015)

    My predictions for unit's 1 big (12 marks) question are:

    a) Milgram's agency theory, i think it's a possibility yet not one of the most likely as in 2014 there was a study of obedience so they might avoid choosing obedience again.

    b) Theory of memory, a key subject of the material, it has been 4 years from the last paper it was chosen, it's another possible choice.

    c) Social Identity Theory, it was only entered once as this big Q in 2011 with a case study given, but i think case study or not it's going to be this year's big question.

    d) Comparing of methodology, Qualitative VS Quantitative, Lab experiments VS Natural experiments etc. GOD I HOPE NOT but it's unfortunately another very possible choice.

    I would rank these according to possibility with: Social Identity Theory 45%, Comparing Methodology 25%, Milgram's Agency theory 20%, Theory of memory 10%. DO NOT TAKE THESE FOR GRANTED THESE ARE PREDICTIONS.
    What do you think about a question of Sherif (Robbers Cave Study)?
    There's never been a big question on that? OR maybe a 12 marker on SLT with emphasis on research...
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Who's ready for exam on moday?
    i am not :no:
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    guys
    how does making a study replicable mean that it can be tested for validity?

    I always thought replicability allowed for retesting to check for reliability but in terms of operationalisation my textbook states "the study is replicable and it would be easy for different researcher to asses whether the definition of healthy and unhealthy breakfasts and reading ability where measuring what was intended"

    and we know, validity = measuring what was intended.

    but i dont get how making a study replicable means that you can assess whether it was measuring what was intended? surely it just checks reliabilty not validity, please explain someone the exam is tomorrow LOL.

    nickg15b anxiousaf - maybe you can help?

    (Original post by Roha)
    What do you think about a question of Sherif (Robbers Cave Study)?There's never been a big question on that? OR maybe a 12 marker on SLT with emphasis on research...
    social learning theory is unit 2.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Hey guys, can anyone help with how to answer 12-mark questions? Please!!!!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by alkaline.)
    guys
    how does making a study replicable mean that it can be tested for validity?

    I always thought replicability allowed for retesting to check for reliability but in terms of operationalisation my textbook states "the study is replicable and it would be easy for different researcher to asses whether the definition of healthy and unhealthy breakfasts and reading ability where measuring what was intended"

    and we know, validity = measuring what was intended.

    but i dont get how making a study replicable means that you can assess whether it was measuring what was intended? surely it just checks reliabilty not validity, please explain someone the exam is tomorrow LOL.

    nickg15b anxiousaf - maybe you can help?



    social learning theory is unit 2.
    oops i meant SIT.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Roha)
    What do you think about a question of Sherif (Robbers Cave Study)?
    There's never been a big question on that? OR maybe a 12 marker on SLT with emphasis on research...
    Okay, in the OLD specification Sherif's Robbers Cave experiment is just too small to enter as 12 mark question and as i have seen they rarely use it as a question at all in the exam. It most usually goes in the evaluative points of Social Identity Theory as a positive point due to showing that prejudice occurred in his experiment even before official competition was introduced therefore if you are undertaking the old specification i would advise you not to expect a 12 mark on the specific experiment but you should include it as support in any question asking for an evaluation of Social Identity Theory by Tajfel or further support to Tajfel's experiment (minimal study). Social Learning Theory is a part of unit 2, I have not yet solved enough past papers for unit 2 to give you advice on that but I will make sure I do once i am through with Unit 1 tomorrow but it is very possible for it to big a 12 mark question as it's a key subject in the content.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ata2ud)
    Hey guys, can anyone help with how to answer 12-mark questions? Please!!!!
    Okay, again this is for the OLD specification but I am guessing even if you are taking the new one there really isn't much difference on how to answer big questions. The standard structure for them is A01 (Description) that gets 6 marks and A02 (Evaluation) that gets 6 marks too, so the points are evenly allocated between A01 and A02. This is the case when the 12 mark question requires you to describe and evaluate a THEORY, which means in the description (A01) you will you have to enter every little part of the theory and what it includes to gather 6 points and in the evaluative (A02) part you will have to evaluate the theory according to a)what real life application does it have? b) what are the experiments supporting it? c) are the experiments supporting it lab experiments? if so they lack ec.validity due to artificial environment d) individual differences underestimated?, e.g. in Social Identity Theory, some people's personality drives them more to favor their in-group over their out-group. These general guidelines should get you 6 for evaluation but remember one thing if it's a theory try to evaluate the theory more, don't focus on big evaluation of experiments supporting it, they do get points but more points are given for focus on the evaluation of the theory. Now when it asks you describe and evaluate a specific study like Milgram's 1963 study of obedience you should answer A01 with: Aim, Description, Results, Conclusion and Real Life application. A02 should evaluate the answer in terms of methodology, ethics (extremely important especially with Milgram), reliability, generalisability, ecological validity and validity of task (does it lack mundane realism? yes at Milgrams, noone has an everyday activity of administering electric shocks). Last but not least, if the 12 mark question requires you to describe and evaluate methodology like Qualitative VS Quantitative data you should in A01 provide what each method is, where can it be used, how does it collect results, examples of studies that used them. In A02 you should be saying which method is better (compare the two) and why, provide arguments for both methods. I hope I helped you
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=alkaline.;64807985]guys
    how does making a study replicable mean that it can be tested for validity?

    I always thought replicability allowed for retesting to check for reliability but in terms of operationalisation my textbook states "the study is replicable and it would be easy for different researcher to asses whether the definition of healthy and unhealthy breakfasts and reading ability where measuring what was intended"

    and we know, validity = measuring what was intended.

    but i dont get how making a study replicable means that you can assess whether it was measuring what was intended? surely it just checks reliabilty not validity, please explain someone the exam is tomorrow LOL.

    nickg15b anxiousaf - maybe you can help?

    From what I see the textbook is connecting if the study is replicable with the validity of the study. The only point up until now where i have seen something similar is the Inter-rater reliability (unit 4 old spec!!!), reliability between two researchers at which point they agree about the intended outcome of the results of a study or if the study is valid etc. Now in my opinion you should keep distinguishing between reliability and validity as you said i.e. reliable if replicable and therefore testable and valid if it measures what i claims to measure, basically you see that with the aim of the study and what it actually tried to find (usually validity is lowered when other variables have not been controlled and may affect the results).
    Also because there is a DIFFERENT RESEARCHER involved maybe it refers to a double blind technique? I am not sure. The only connection i can see with operationalisation,reliability and validity is this: good operationalisation of DV and IV, in this case some children ate breakfast and some didn't (experimental and control group depending on what the aim and hypothesis was) allows for a more valid study i.e. the study operationalised well the variables and has allowed for the intended DV (reading ability through a test) to correctly be measured therefore validity is high allowing also a standardised procedure to be formed with the study that furthermore allows replicability of the study and thus reliability. An example of bad operationalisation would be, if to test the specific case the researchers allowed one group to eat an English breakfast and the other group to eat an Australian breakfast but the ACTUAL AIM was to see whether NOT eating breakfast AT ALL would affect reading ability then operationalisation would not actually be good as both groups had breakfast, it's just it was a different one culturally.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zoeemmacfc)
    What do we need to know about individual differences( for cognitive )?
    I haven't seen not even one mention of individual differences in the cognitive approach. Many are mentioned in the social approach i.e. Social Identity Theory, some people's personality makes them favor more their in group over their out group. Agency theory, i.e. some people have a personality that makes them more prompted to follow an authoritative figure's orders e.g. if they grew up with strict parents and have therefore learned to follow orders. For the agency theory they also like seeing that we all are prompted to be in an agentic state and follow orders from authoritative figures from a young age due to society i.e. we grow up learning rules from our parents and teachers that allows us to avoid conflict and have a more smoothly running society.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    can someone explain me the burger 2009 please... make it short as possible
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anxiousaf)
    I haven't seen not even one mention of individual differences in the cognitive approach. Many are mentioned in the social approach i.e. Social Identity Theory, some people's personality makes them favor more their in group over their out group. Agency theory, i.e. some people have a personality that makes them more prompted to follow an authoritative figure's orders e.g. if they grew up with strict parents and have therefore learned to follow orders. For the agency theory they also like seeing that we all are prompted to be in an agentic state and follow orders from authoritative figures from a young age due to society i.e. we grow up learning rules from our parents and teachers that allows us to avoid conflict and have a more smoothly running society.
    Amazing! Thank you!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Would they ever use field as a comparison in a methodology question? Or would it only Likely be Lab vs Natural
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Also good luck to everyone for tomorrow. (A lot of you seem to know your stuff anyway lol)
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zoeemmacfc)
    Would they ever use field as a comparison in a methodology question? Or would it only Likely be Lab vs Natural
    I highly doubt they would ever use field experiments vs natural experiments as they have very few differences, maybe only is small mark questions. It's usually the "extremes" of experiments in big 12 mark questions, the lab experiments where there are many controls but an artificial environment and an IV introduced by the researcher and the natural experiments where there is natural enviroment, IV is naturally occuring but no controls.
    Good luck to all you guys i hope that we all get a good grade out of this torment :P
    Any more questions you have i will be happy to attempt to answer them for the old specification, it's a kind of revision for me.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fatima1998)
    can someone explain me the burger 2009 please... make it short as possible
    Hey, I can try.

    Aim
    To see if people's obedience levels have change since Milgram's 1963 study and also to conduct a more ethical study.

    Method
    Two phase screening process (mental health, making sure they have been in less than 2 psychology classes, etc.). $50 lament. The participants were 29 men and 41 women between 20-81 years. Follows Milgram's original script.

    Base Condition: introduced to confederate and received lament. .
    Modal Refusal Condition: Same gender confederate paired with participant, to see whether they would effect their behaviour. (e.g. when the confederate stopped after 90v, seeing whether the participant would continue).

    Participants were randomly assigned to each condition.

    Results
    Base: 70% obedience
    Refusal: 63.3% obedience

    Conclusion
    People still obey.
    Personality has an influence on obedience.
    Empathy had no significant impact.

    I'm pretty sure there was something about a heart condition too? I can't find it in my notes. Although I may be wrong.

    Hope this helps a little.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by anxiousaf)
    I highly doubt they would ever use field experiments vs natural experiments as they have very few differences, maybe only is small mark questions. It's usually the "extremes" of experiments in big 12 mark questions, the lab experiments where there are many controls but an artificial environment and an IV introduced by the researcher and the natural experiments where there is natural enviroment, IV is naturally occuring but no controls.
    Good luck to all you guys i hope that we all get a good grade out of this torment :P
    Any more questions you have i will be happy to attempt to answer them for the old specification, it's a kind of revision for me.
    Ohhhh, ok, yeah that makes a lot of sense! Thanks! And ahh in that case I have another question aha. What would be good evaluation points for Evaluating working memory model? And also Multi store model?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by clucky_chick)
    Hey, I can try.

    Aim
    To see if people's obedience levels have change since Milgram's 1963 study and also to conduct a more ethical study.

    Method
    Two phase screening process (mental health, making sure they have been in less than 2 psychology classes, etc.). $50 lament. The participants were 29 men and 41 women between 20-81 years. Follows Milgram's original script.

    Base Condition: introduced to confederate and received lament. .
    Modal Refusal Condition: Same gender confederate paired with participant, to see whether they would effect their behaviour. (e.g. when the confederate stopped after 90v, seeing whether the participant would continue).

    Participants were randomly assigned to each condition.

    Results
    Base: 70% obedience
    Refusal: 63.3% obedience

    Conclusion
    People still obey.
    Personality has an influence on obedience.
    Empathy had no significant impact.

    I'm pretty sure there was something about a heart condition too? I can't find it in my notes. Although I may be wrong.

    Hope this helps a little.
    whats lament :confused:
    it helps - thanks
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fatima1998)
    whats lament :confused:
    it helps - thanks
    Sorry, I meant 'payment'. I've written the wrong word in my notes. It is just the amount of money that they get for participating. e.g. Milgram's particpants were given $4.50, and Burger's participants were given $50. Glad it helps.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    For the working memory model I have no idea because I either do Levels of Processing or the Multi-store model of memory. For the Multi store of memory good evaluation points are:
    a) [negative] Studies that support the theory use words and digits in stimulus lists that may not be a realistic use of memory thus the task lacks mundane realism
    b) [negative] Lab research may give an unnatural view of memory since lab experiments are conducted in artificial environments
    c) [positive] Brown (1958) & Peterson and Peterson (1959) found that blocking rehearsal resulted in poor recall
    d) [negative] Rehearsal of information does not necessarily lead to better recall. Craik and Watkins found that recall was unrelated neither duration in Short-Term Memory nor the number of times words were rehearsed.
    e) [positive] Brain damaged patients provide strong evidence for Short-term Memory and Long-Term Memory distinction, as brain damage may focus on one part of memory leaving the other intact i.e. short term memory destroyed yet long term memory left intact.
    f) [positive] Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) research into the primary recency effect showed that there is distinction between short term and long term memory.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Would you like to hibernate through the winter months?
  • 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.