May15 Psychology Paper 1

[justatalker]

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

No not a lot because I wasn't sure about them. So I basically mentioned how MRIs work magnetically through radioactive probes pertaining to the hydrogen atoms in our body. I mentioned two advantages and disadvantages each and then gave the study and evaluated it. I did the same for fMRI (except the function obviously) and then in the end gave general advantages and disadvantages of BITs. You?

[jolthan]

 

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

No not a lot because I wasn't sure about them. So I basically mentioned how MRIs work magnetically through radioactive probes pertaining to the hydrogen atoms in our body. I mentioned two advantages and disadvantages each and then gave the study and evaluated it. I did the same for fMRI (except the function obviously) and then in the end gave general advantages and disadvantages of BITs. You?

 

 

Wasn't the command term for that question discuss? :/ 

Is giving the strengths and limitations required

[Klauu]

 

 

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

No not a lot because I wasn't sure about them. So I basically mentioned how MRIs work magnetically through radioactive probes pertaining to the hydrogen atoms in our body. I mentioned two advantages and disadvantages each and then gave the study and evaluated it. I did the same for fMRI (except the function obviously) and then in the end gave general advantages and disadvantages of BITs. You?

 

 

Wasn't the command term for that question discuss? :/ 

Is giving the strengths and limitations required

 

Yeah it was But in year one my teacher scared the sh*t of me, she said we should never never answer that question on section B, because you have to know every single detail how the fMRI or MRI (or whatever you choice) work. Like why it can record blood flow etc. 

[justatalker]

 

 

 

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

No not a lot because I wasn't sure about them. So I basically mentioned how MRIs work magnetically through radioactive probes pertaining to the hydrogen atoms in our body. I mentioned two advantages and disadvantages each and then gave the study and evaluated it. I did the same for fMRI (except the function obviously) and then in the end gave general advantages and disadvantages of BITs. You?

 

 

Wasn't the command term for that question discuss? :/ 

Is giving the strengths and limitations required

 

Yeah it was But in year one my teacher scared the sh*t of me, she said we should never never answer that question on section B, because you have to know every single detail how the fMRI or MRI (or whatever you choice) work. Like why it can record blood flow etc. 

 

I think so yup because regardless of the command term, our teacher told us that in regard to 22 markers, always evaluate EVERYTHING you can to gain marks in criteria B. So if the question is on BITs, evaluate the technology and studies. If the question's on a specific theory, evaluate the theory and the studies. You'll probably lose 1 or 2 marks in criteria B, nothing to worry about too much, as long as you evaluated your studies well  

[Klauu]

 

 

 

 

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

No not a lot because I wasn't sure about them. So I basically mentioned how MRIs work magnetically through radioactive probes pertaining to the hydrogen atoms in our body. I mentioned two advantages and disadvantages each and then gave the study and evaluated it. I did the same for fMRI (except the function obviously) and then in the end gave general advantages and disadvantages of BITs. You?

 

 

Wasn't the command term for that question discuss? :/ 

Is giving the strengths and limitations required

 

Yeah it was But in year one my teacher scared the sh*t of me, she said we should never never answer that question on section B, because you have to know every single detail how the fMRI or MRI (or whatever you choice) work. Like why it can record blood flow etc. 

 

I think so yup because regardless of the command term, our teacher told us that in regard to 22 markers, always evaluate EVERYTHING you can to gain marks in criteria B. So if the question is on BITs, evaluate the technology and studies. If the question's on a specific theory, evaluate the theory and the studies. You'll probably lose 1 or 2 marks in criteria B, nothing to worry about too much, as long as you evaluated your studies well

 

I did the same thing as you basically *feel a big relief* , THANK YOU   

[mhelof]

I did all the questions in section A and question 5 in section B (ethical consideration at CoA). Section A was OK, although I would have preferred something else... still I was quite happy with Wedekind because this was a part of my EE. 

 

Section B... Well, I wasn't thrilled, but we were prepared only for CoA, so we had to take this question. I talked about deception (used Loftus' Lost in the Mall and Schachter and Singer) and then confidentiality&privacy with HM (Milner, Corkin et el.).

[Domnasy97]

 

 

 

Hey guys! I chose the BLA essay question on research methods and I went on with case studies (Phineas Cage, HM) and lab experiments (Martinez&Kesner, Iacoboni) Who else did get away with this question?

I  wanted to ask about paper 2, did you guys have abnormal psychology as an option? and if yes, what did you do? 

Damn, that was my fav question , and we did not have that one we had brain imaging tech. TZ2 here. 

 

We had also brain imaging but in the CLA (TZ1)! I think the questions were not difficult, but unexpected! Was your paper alright though? 

 

How many Time zones are there? :OOO I don´t really know actually. I tend to underestimate my abilities and performance. But I don´t think it was that good.

 

I think there are actually 2, maybe 3 because sometimes there is also TZ0, but im not sure

[Domnasy97]

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

Hey, did you choose the contrast biomedical and individual treatment for abnormal, and if yes, how did you evaluate on that?

[justatalker]

 

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

Hey, did you choose the contrast biomedical and individual treatment for abnormal, and if yes, how did you evaluate on that?

 

Yup I was a bit thrown off by "contrast" at first, but then I realized it just means explain the two and state a few differences. I did the serotonin hypothesis for biological and CBT for individual, linking them to their etiologies. I explained adv. and disadv. and validity of both separately and evaluated their studies. I talked about how they're different because one targets the physiological processes while other targets symptoms though taking an eclectic approach may be best. You?

[Richard Bankole]

 

 

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

Hey, did you choose the contrast biomedical and individual treatment for abnormal, and if yes, how did you evaluate on that?

 

Yup I was a bit thrown off by "contrast" at first, but then I realized it just means explain the two and state a few differences. I did the serotonin hypothesis for biological and CBT for individual, linking them to their etiologies. I explained adv. and disadv. and validity of both separately and evaluated their studies. I talked about how they're different because one targets the physiological processes while other targets symptoms though taking an eclectic approach may be best. You?

 

I did the exact same thing, although i still evaluated and said essentially that individual approaches are better than biomedical based on the contrasts I presented in the essay.

[Richard Bankole]

I'm TZ0 and paper 1 was really good for me, I'm kind of surprised to see other people didn't like it so much. I thought the questions were much easier than what could have came up (aside from maybe brain imaging technologies question) For question 1 I used Fessler (2006)'s study on disgust in pregnant women. For question 2 I chose experiments as my research method and used Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) to show an experiment allowed them to establish the serial position effect, primacy effect and recency effect. For question 3 I used Tajfel's minimal group paradigm study. I chose question 5, the ethical considerations one, but I think I messed up since I only used the Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer case study to discuss my two considerations..

[Domnasy97]

 

 

 

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

Hey, did you choose the contrast biomedical and individual treatment for abnormal, and if yes, how did you evaluate on that?

 

Yup I was a bit thrown off by "contrast" at first, but then I realized it just means explain the two and state a few differences. I did the serotonin hypothesis for biological and CBT for individual, linking them to their etiologies. I explained adv. and disadv. and validity of both separately and evaluated their studies. I talked about how they're different 

 

 

 

 

Hi guys! I'm just so glad it's finally over! For paper 1, some of the questions we did in the mock exams ended up coming so I was really happy! I wasn't expecting evolutionary to come though because it came last year but oh well. The 8 markers were fairly easy. I did BITs and gave HM for MRI and Harris and Fiske for fMRI. I'm pretty happy with that paper. Paper 2, I had abnormal and human relationships. For abnormal, I did treatment, though I wish I could've evaluated better and gave Neale and Paykel's studies. For human relationships, I answered the one on prosocial behavior, giving Whiting and Whiting, and Miller. The evaluation for this one was much better How about you guys?

How did you answer the brain imaging tech question? Did you write a lot about how it functions?

 

Hey, did you choose the contrast biomedical and individual treatment for abnormal, and if yes, how did you evaluate on that?

 

Yup I was a bit thrown off by "contrast" at first, but then I realized it just means explain the two and state a few differences. I did the serotonin hypothesis for biological and CBT for individual, linking them to their etiologies. I explained adv. and disadv. and validity of both separately and evaluated their studies. I talked about how they're different because one targets the physiological processes while other targets symptoms though taking an eclectic approach may be best. You?

 

I did the same thing, but I wrote a very brief explanation of serotonin hypothesis and then focused on studies demonstrating the effectiveness of SSRIs and then the same for CBT with  again a short reference on Beck's theory and then I wrote about a page discussing their differences and pros and cons and their effectiveness and also the option of including them both with the use of eclectic approach just like you did ! I think it went pretty well but I was also a little bit confused with the term "contrast" as I wasn't sure if they needed anything more

 

I did the exact same thing, although i still evaluated and said essentially that individual approaches are better than biomedical based on the contrasts I presented in the essay.

 

[Domnasy97]

Hey guys ! Does anyone have health psychology as an option ? I chose the factors affecting the development of substance abuse, I included factors from SCLA, BLA and CLA, evaluated on the studies and then did a little bit discussion about how they interact and the fact that researchers  should focus on examining more than one factor in the same research study! Can you guys tell me about your choices?

[Klauu]

Hey guys ! Does anyone have health psychology as an option ? I chose the factors affecting the development of substance abuse, I included factors from SCLA, BLA and CLA, evaluated on the studies and then did a little bit discussion about how they interact and the fact that researchers  should focus on examining more than one factor in the same research study! Can you guys tell me about your choices?

I took that one, but the thing is that I did not prepare substance abuse or addictive behaviour at all But I had alcoholism and I had Kendler et al and Kendler and presccott´s studies from BIO level (Factor: genetic predisposition) and I evaluated too and liked it to the principles of the BOA. I also had a pretty strange approach, but I had dopamine in addiction of overeating, (neurobiological approach) because I had one study (Volkow et al, although I wrote the wrong name of the researcher ). I also said that it is very hard to tell and it is a very reductionistic approach to only take into consideration one factor. 

[ee44]

I'm TZ0 and paper 1 was really good for me, I'm kind of surprised to see other people didn't like it so much. I thought the questions were much easier than what could have came up (aside from maybe brain imaging technologies question) For question 1 I used Fessler (2006)'s study on disgust in pregnant women. For question 2 I chose experiments as my research method and used Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) to show an experiment allowed them to establish the serial position effect, primacy effect and recency effect. For question 3 I used Tajfel's minimal group paradigm study. I chose question 5, the ethical considerations one, but I think I messed up since I only used the Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer case study to discuss my two considerations..

 

 

I also used Fessler et al for the first one, but wrote the study name as Rosentwig and Bennet, by mistake. Urgh!! Do you think I will be downgraded for this?

[Klauu]

 

I'm TZ0 and paper 1 was really good for me, I'm kind of surprised to see other people didn't like it so much. I thought the questions were much easier than what could have came up (aside from maybe brain imaging technologies question) For question 1 I used Fessler (2006)'s study on disgust in pregnant women. For question 2 I chose experiments as my research method and used Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) to show an experiment allowed them to establish the serial position effect, primacy effect and recency effect. For question 3 I used Tajfel's minimal group paradigm study. I chose question 5, the ethical considerations one, but I think I messed up since I only used the Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer case study to discuss my two considerations..

 

 

I also used Fessler et al for the first one, but wrote the study name as Rosentwig and Bennet, by mistake. Urgh!! Do you think I will be downgraded for this?

 

Don´t worry, I did the same thing with Volkow and Wedekind (   ) Maybe we lose a mark or two :/ 

[feuilllly]

Hey guys! I chose the BLA essay question on research methods and I went on with case studies (Phineas Cage, HM) and lab experiments (Martinez&Kesner, Iacoboni) Who else did get away with this question?

I  wanted to ask about paper 2, did you guys have abnormal psychology as an option? and if yes, what did you do? 

I did that question, and I found it really much easier than I was expecting! I talked about animal experiments (Rosenweig & Bennet) and brain imaging technologies (Davidson and Vestergaard-Poulson). 

 

I did have Abnormal for an option in Paper 2 and I talked about cultural considerations in diagnosis. What question did you answer?

[ee44]

 

 

I'm TZ0 and paper 1 was really good for me, I'm kind of surprised to see other people didn't like it so much. I thought the questions were much easier than what could have came up (aside from maybe brain imaging technologies question) For question 1 I used Fessler (2006)'s study on disgust in pregnant women. For question 2 I chose experiments as my research method and used Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) to show an experiment allowed them to establish the serial position effect, primacy effect and recency effect. For question 3 I used Tajfel's minimal group paradigm study. I chose question 5, the ethical considerations one, but I think I messed up since I only used the Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer case study to discuss my two considerations..

 

 

I also used Fessler et al for the first one, but wrote the study name as Rosentwig and Bennet, by mistake. Urgh!! Do you think I will be downgraded for this?

 

Don´t worry, I did the same thing with Volkow and Wedekind (   ) Maybe we lose a mark or two :/ 

 

 

It just seems really strange to actually lose TWO whole marks because of the name of the study?! It would be the same as losing it over an incorrect year. :/

[Klauu]

 

 

 

I'm TZ0 and paper 1 was really good for me, I'm kind of surprised to see other people didn't like it so much. I thought the questions were much easier than what could have came up (aside from maybe brain imaging technologies question) For question 1 I used Fessler (2006)'s study on disgust in pregnant women. For question 2 I chose experiments as my research method and used Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) to show an experiment allowed them to establish the serial position effect, primacy effect and recency effect. For question 3 I used Tajfel's minimal group paradigm study. I chose question 5, the ethical considerations one, but I think I messed up since I only used the Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer case study to discuss my two considerations..

 

 

I also used Fessler et al for the first one, but wrote the study name as Rosentwig and Bennet, by mistake. Urgh!! Do you think I will be downgraded for this?

 

Don´t worry, I did the same thing with Volkow and Wedekind (   ) Maybe we lose a mark or two :/ 

 

 

It just seems really strange to actually lose TWO whole marks because of the name of the study?! It would be the same as losing it over an incorrect year. :/

 

Yeah that´s sooo true. Let´s hope the most chill examinor reads our essays 

[ee44]

 

 

 

 

I'm TZ0 and paper 1 was really good for me, I'm kind of surprised to see other people didn't like it so much. I thought the questions were much easier than what could have came up (aside from maybe brain imaging technologies question) For question 1 I used Fessler (2006)'s study on disgust in pregnant women. For question 2 I chose experiments as my research method and used Glanzer and Cunitz (1966) to show an experiment allowed them to establish the serial position effect, primacy effect and recency effect. For question 3 I used Tajfel's minimal group paradigm study. I chose question 5, the ethical considerations one, but I think I messed up since I only used the Bruce/Brenda/David Reimer case study to discuss my two considerations..

 

 

I also used Fessler et al for the first one, but wrote the study name as Rosentwig and Bennet, by mistake. Urgh!! Do you think I will be downgraded for this?

 

Don´t worry, I did the same thing with Volkow and Wedekind (   ) Maybe we lose a mark or two :/ 

 

 

It just seems really strange to actually lose TWO whole marks because of the name of the study?! It would be the same as losing it over an incorrect year. :/

 

Yeah that´s sooo true. Let´s hope the most chill examinor reads our essays 

 

Haha, let's hope. I'll suddenly pray!