NOV11 Psychology HL P1

[katiep]

Those lovely perspectives! How did you go/ what did you think?

Part A:

Biological- Sperry (1968) and his methodology (although I struggled a little- should have outlined the study a bit more I think)

Cognitive- Theories leading to an explanation of dysfunctional behavior (depression)

Learning- Reaction to the psychodynamic perspective to become more scientific

Humanistic- Human potential for growth and Maslow's hierarchy

Part B:

Learning- free will vs determinism (but forgot to define the terms in the essay! whoops)

Overall I thought it was a great paper, they could have made it easier (wasn't a massive fan of the bio question) but it could have been much, much more difficult.

So I'm happy. You?

[laryxle]

I thought it was pretty okay...

Part A;

Bio=Rosenzweig (1972) and the strength was high degree of control of variables

Cognitive (what a nasty question for section A!)=Cognitive Social Learning Theory and Aggression

Learning=same as you

Humanistic=innate drive to achieve max potential and self-actualisation

Part B;

Cognitive=strengths and limitations of two research methods (case studies (Piaget and Festinger) and lab experiments (Loftus and Palmer, Yuille and Cutshall, Tolman etc.))

Section A was weird...the humanism question was exactly the same as the M10 one I did, so easy marks there, although the innate drive for potential basically is self-actualisation so I felt a bit stupid explaining it I hated the bio question too, even though I knew studies explaining the strength was awkward. The cognitive one was so nasty! I've never seen a question like that in any past paper! They always ask for something like that in Part B, in fact I had a massive thing planned for an essay question of that style for part B, and so it wasn't hard to answer for aggression but the fact that it just asked for description made me feel a bit weird. Also, as most people would associate SLT with behaviourism I really put emphasis on it being cognitive Learning question was fine.

I didn't really like most of the Section B questions. The biological one was so limited IMO, how could anyone write an essay on that? I didn;t know enough for the humanism, and didn't think I could write enough for learning, so I settle with the cognitive, which was easy to answer because it was very structured. I used two examples of case studies and had two key lab experiments, and I think I covered all the strengths/limitations so I was very happy with that essay

Overall fairly good with no massive surprises apart from the odd cognitive Part A question(gahh I wish I could talk about paper 2!). How much did people write for Section A? Because each of mine were like 1 full side and half of another, which felt quite short, but I really couldn't write anything more.

[ecieee]

I thought it was quite hard

like for section b, historical or cultural conditions.....freewill vs. determinism........quite hard

I kinda screwed up my section b because i focused on 1 strength 1 limitation for 2 methods

and was about to conclude, when then i saw that the question was asking strengths and limitations.

I had like 20minutes so i crammed in, but yeah............

so my structure flonked.

otherwise, quite alright. i don't think the paper was easily though.

[Matthew Sinclair]

I really REALLY hated question 2. Everyone in my class agreed that was so horrible of the IBO to ask that in part A!! It would have been perfect for bio or learning though I didn't like question one either...

In general, the paper was okay.

Q1) I did Raine's 1997 "Brain Abnormalities in Murderers as Indicated by Positron Emission Tomography" and the strength was high ecological validity because of it being a quasi-experiment so the IV was naturally occurring etc.

Q2) I did Beck's theory of the Cognitive Triad for Depression. I linked it to the understanding of the causes of depression and then linked it to the treatment (I did dysfunctional behaviour as my option and it's included in that so that helped). I also linked it to cognitive dissonance which I said was part of the therapy process (as a part of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy). It sounds all over the place but it was more structured/relevant in the exam I'm pretty sure haha.

Q3) I also did the reaction to the subjectivity of psychdynamic/previous perspectives. I talked about how it lead some psych's to want to bring psych 'more in line with the natural sciences' so it became more objective, scientific, and studied observable and measurable behaviour. I then used Pavlov's study to illustrate this and linked it back to the development of the learning perspective.

Q4) I also did "the innate drive to reach one's full potential" and "self-actualization" (for some reason during Q4 I spelt everything like an American....I don't know why haha). I first discussed it, then drew Maslow's hierachy of needs and annotated it, discussed how there are deficiency and growth needs, lower needs met before higher ones, self actualization at the top (and I mentioned transcendence to show I wasn't being ignorant). I then explained self-actualization using a quote from Maslow "What a man can be, he must be" or something like that and I used Ravizza's 1977 study on self-actualization and peak experiences in athletes to tie it all together. It was probably my favourite question from part A which is weird for humanistic hahaha.

I did Q6 (cognitive). I was confused because of how the question was asking for strengths and limitations and I was like, ok, then what else are we to evaluate of our studies (for support), like you can't cross compare. I did Lab experiments and case studies. First defined the method, then strengths, then limitations, then example, then evaluation of example in regard to the methodology for support. I used Loftus and Palmer's (1974) "Reconstruction of Automobile Deconstruction" and Curtiss's "Privation of Genie". Overall it felt pretty good

I think the thing that let me down the most was my structuring, I think I didn't spend enough time planning. I was just today discussing with my teacher (well after 24hours!) and she thinks maybe I planned too much and therefore was trying to put in too much information? hahaha

I really wanna discuss p2 and p3 as well!

Edited November 18, 2010 by Matthew Sinclair

[laryxle]

I thought for Q6 the evaluation of the studies was the part that showed the strengths and limitations of the methods...

e.g. for lab experiments, I said something like Loftus and Palmer (1974) shows the high degree of variable control=causal relationship=validity, replicability etc., but as Yuille and Cutshall (1986) demonstrates this also means a lack of ecological validity=extent to which can be generalised limited, or for case studies Samuel and bryant (1984) shows the issues of reliability that arise from Piaget's case study method.

[Matthew Sinclair]

I thought for Q6 the evaluation of the studies was the part that showed the strengths and limitations of the methods...

e.g. for lab experiments, I said something like Loftus and Palmer (1974) shows the high degree of variable control=causal relationship=validity, replicability etc., but as Yuille and Cutshall (1986) demonstrates this also means a lack of ecological validity=extent to which can be generalised limited, or for case studies Samuel and bryant (1984) shows the issues of reliability that arise from Piaget's case study method.

Yeah that's what I ended up doing, I was just confused cause 'strengths and limitations' (ie, the basis of evaluation pretty much) was in the question hahaha. I only did loftus for experiments, cause it shows all of the points you just said pretty much, like how it lacks mundane realism as it was a video, so the participants emotional response would differ from a real crash etc to show low eco validity... But I think it's great to have heaps of studies as you'll probs do really well cause you've shown super knowledge! =)