GCE PSYCHOLOGY B. PSYB2 Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology and Individual Differences Report on the Examination. June Version: 1.

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "GCE PSYCHOLOGY B. PSYB2 Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology and Individual Differences Report on the Examination. June Version: 1."

Samuel Cunningham
5 years ago
Views:

1 GCE PSYCHOLOGY B PSYB2 Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology and Individual Differences Report on the Examination June 2013 Version: 1.0

2 Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2013 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.

3 Unit 2 PSYB2 Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology and Individual Differences General Comments Student performance on PSYB2 was poorer than in recent series. Although there were high scoring responses, there were many examples of very poorly written scripts that achieved less than a quarter of the marks overall. The two most popular topics included extended response questions on aspects of the topics that students were not expecting. Whilst not inherently difficult the focus in the Remembering and Forgetting section on studies wrong footed students who expected to be asked about explanations and the emphasis on defiance rather than obedience in the Social Influence essay proved just as troublesome as students had to select and shape their knowledge to the requirements of the question. It was noticeable though, how well this paper discriminated between students at the top end. Those who demonstrated a thorough understanding of the material: producing thoughtful, reasoned answers, rather than rote-learned accounts, were still able to score a raw mark in the mid to high fifties on this paper. The majority who sat this unit seemed able to pace themselves through most of the questions. Question popularity remains in the following order: Remembering and Forgetting, Social Influence, Anxiety Disorders, Autism, Social Cognition and Perceptual Processes. Notwithstanding the comments above, there were some impressive answers to the various extended response questions, especially in the topic area of Perceptual Processes. Similarly, in the Anxiety Disorders essays informed students demonstrated their thorough understanding of Freudian theory and therapy, despite the unfamiliar format of the question. There were some excellent essays in the Autism section too. It is worthy of note, however, even within these responses, that students are still relying too heavily on fairly generic methodological evaluation of studies, rather than evaluating the explanations or therapies they have been asked about. Often, evaluative points are cursory and under-developed, particularly when applied to treatments or therapies. Speculative comments related to time and cost are often a common feature of these essays, and are typically offered without any reasoned argument, or comparison with alternatives. On the whole, the short answer questions were more successfully answered than the ten-mark responses. Students still struggled to elaborate individual strengths or limitations, especially when asked to do so in a three mark question. There were some very good answers to the various application questions here; students now seem to be aware of the requirement to use their knowledge, by first setting it out, then linking it to the stem. Definition questions were typically well answered, though many lacked appropriate precision. The AO3 component was relatively poorly answered. Many students could not explain what a quasi experiment is and the advantage of a matched pairs design was often very vaguely expressed. Students are reminded that quality of written communication is assessed on the ten-mark answers and vague, inaccurate or ambiguous expression can limit the marks awarded in these questions. The standard of language and expression on many of the low scoring scripts was so poor that it obscured the meaning. Often students will offer an unconnected list of psychological terms and concepts, often misspelt and without any evidence that they know what these things mean. By contrast, other students are able to maintain an impressive standard of grammar and expression across the whole paper, even in the face of time pressure. 3 of 9

4 The opportunity for schools and colleges to access the enhanced results analysis (ERA) for their entries for this component will provide a detailed breakdown of student performance for each part of the questions and should inform teaching. Section A Social Psychology Topic: Social Influence Question 1 Answers to this question often lacked accurate detail of the method and conditions. Many social influence performance studies could gain credit but in some studies, for example, the pool players and cockroaches studies, it was necessary to explain how a distraction had occurred for full marks. Many students failed to do this. Question 2 Many students used generic limitations, such as a lack of ecological validity, and did not link these specifically to the problem of studying distraction. Alternatively, the notion that distraction might be different for different people was often offered but without appropriate explanation. Question 3 This question was mostly answered correctly, although some responses did not refer to private disagreement, or were confused with obedience. Question 4 There were many answers that successfully accessed all four marks. However, the common misunderstanding of mixing up explanations and factors was evident in a number of answers which focused on discussion of normative and informational social influence rather than factors such as social support or group size. Some failed to obtain the second mark for one or both factors, as they merely stated that the factor would affect conformity, but did not explain how. Question 5 This was probably the most poorly answered essay on the paper. Often the focus was entirely on obedience rather than defiance, so marks could only be gained for the description of studies, hence the lowest mark band was applied. Aspects of explanations of obedience could have been shaped to provide explanations for defiance but this was often overlooked by students. Some students were able to list two or three explanations and link these to variations of Milgram s research. However, within these answers, explanations of defiance were usually only touched upon rather than unpacked. Any reference to Milgram variations and studies of defiance, tended to be descriptive in nature. It was rare that students were able to provide convincing commentary related to why defiance would occur in these situations, or how evidence presented supported the explanations chosen. Many answers advanced four or five suggestions when it may have been better to deal with two or three in appropriate detail alongside supporting evidence and discussion. 4 of 9

5 Topic: Social Cognition Question 6 Answers scoring full marks here were more often seen than in question 1, with most students gaining credit through use of the Asch study. However, some students mistakenly described Asch`s warm/cold central traits study. Question 7 Similarly, answers to this question gained more credit than answers to question 2, usually by discussing the difference between forming an impression based on descriptive words rather than meeting the person concerned. Again, as with question 2, generic unexpanded limitations were common. Question 8 Successful answers made clear reference to an attitude object or something similar. Question 9 There were many good answers here that clearly identified and outlined the actor-observer effect and then applied it to the situation described in the question. Other answers focused on the fundamental attribution error, but were still able to access three marks as a result. Poorer answers exhibited some confusion over the difference between dispositional and situational attributions. Question 10 In spite of the more familiar structure of this question compared with the corresponding question 5, there were still relatively few top-band answers. Description of the two explanations tended to be sketchy and incomplete, particularly competition for resources, where most merely said this is where people compete for scarce resources, and did not address the issue of how prejudice would emerge. Evaluation of both theories was often weak (but particularly so for Social Identity Theory (SIT)). Material that gained AO2 credit focused on how relevant evidence supported the theory, and also on giving examples. Descriptions of Tajfel`s minimal groups study were generally vague and muddled, whilst descriptions of the Robber`s Cave study were often much stronger. As is typical in these essays, there was an over-reliance on unfocused, generic evaluation of studies (such as the ethical issues raised in Sherif`s study) that did little to add to the overall analysis of the explanations. Section B Cognitive Psychology Topic: Remembering and Forgetting Question 11 This was generally well answered with the majority scoring at least two of the three marks available. Some students gave examples rather than definitions of their chosen types of long term memory which did not gain credit, unless they were supported by some description. The differences given were often a repetition of the attempted definitions. Most students earned their 5 of 9

6 third mark through some explanation of the declarative/non-declarative distinction, provided they had chosen two appropriate types in the first place. Question 12 The usual generic comments related to ecological validity were often seen here, and in the absence of any attempted link to the theory, scored a single mark. Many students failed to gain credit for their claim that the model is too simplistic unless there was also an explanation of why this is so. Others drew attention to concepts that the model does not explain, with many answers based on the erroneous assumption that LOP cannot account for the existence of flashbulb memories. More successful answers were those that pointed to the difficulty of measuring depth in memory. The idea that the model is based upon a circular argument in this regard was misunderstood, or not adequately articulated, by many; but students who could explain this notion tended to be those that most often accessed all three marks. Question 13 This was generally a high scoring question. Most could identify at least two components of the model and applied these successfully to at least one pair of tasks. There was some confusion about the components of the working memory model used in Claire s tasks and about the location of the limited capacity involved in the second of them. Question 14 This was a poorly answered question. Many students were unprepared for the question s focus on studies and gave unnecessary and long-winded descriptions of the two theories. Often, students seemed not to have sufficient information at their disposal with which to answer the question. There were some very confused and speculative accounts of research, and many were not recognisable as studies of either decay or interference. Students and teachers would be welladvised to choose supportive studies which are significantly different from each other and which can be more readily understood. For example, studies involving trigrams to illustrate both decay and interference are likely to be confused. On the other hand the recall of rugby games by players or street names from early years, have distinctive features. Many students discussed irrelevant studies, such as the American footballers or the deep sea divers study, that investigated lack of consolidation and retrieval failure respectively. Having said all that, there were some excellent answers, and many students were able to highlight the problems involved in interpreting results of decay or interference studies, as supporting either theory, as well as alternatives, including displacement. Topic: Perceptual Processes Question 15 Most students were able to identify a relevant depth cue, though a minority referred to things such as brightness or size. Lots of answers referred to height in (occasionally on, though this was still credited) the plane. 6 of 9

7 Question 16 Some students failed to clearly express the changed image on the retina element of the answer, or clearly state that perception of the shape is unaltered. There was occasional confusion with size constancy. Many supported their definition with a description, or diagram, of a closed and halfopen door; though some chose examples that failed to illustrate the concept, such as the idea of seeing a ball from various angles. Question 17 Better answers focused on the (lack of) application of Gestalt 2D images to the 3D world, whilst weaker answers did little more than identify a particular limitation without developing it. Question 18 Most answers used the stem effectively, and could match Geoff s experiences to the two factors they were asked about. Outlining the effects of expectation and motivation, however, proved much more challenging. Many answers did little more than repeat the factor within their outline, describing the effects of expectation as, we see what we expect to see. This is an area that students appeared to find difficult, though those who were better informed made reference to phenomena such as perceptual accentuation and sensitisation. Question 19 This essay adopted a format not previously seen by students. The descriptions of a distortion illusion and an ambiguous figure were usually competently handled and there was typically some effective application and analysis. This was often done through reference to theories of visual perception such as Gregory, use of past experience, hypothesis formation, misapplied constancies and cultural differences in response to distortion illusions. There was occasionally some confusion where both chosen illusions were distortion illusions. Some students who used Rubin s Vase made reference to figure/ground but appeared not to understand the concept adequately. Overall though, this question was well attempted. Section C Individual Differences Topic: Anxiety Disorders Question 20 The majority of students could correctly identify the IV, though some gave the DV. Question 21 Few students gained both marks for this question. A large number of students were under the impression that all quasi-experiments are conducted in a natural setting, such that extraneous variables cannot be controlled. Many students recognised that quasi-experiments do not involve manipulation of the IV, but failed to apply this understanding to the context of the question, that OCD would be pre-existing or naturally occurring. 7 of 9

8 Question 22 Many of the variables that students suggested were appropriate, with most opting for age as a criterion for matching participants. A few students, incorrectly, wrote about whether they had OCD or not despite having mentioned this in question 20. Question 23 Many students believed that matched pairs designs remove or eliminate participant variables rather than merely controlling them, and yet students were unable to link this advantage to the stem of the question: that the researcher could be more confident that the results found were due to the existence of OCD, than other differences between participants. Question 24 Lots of answers included explanation of why OCD sufferers have a problem but fewer gave specific suggestions about treatments, such as, habituation training, use of counterstatements, etc. Some incorporated techniques used in cognitive-behaviour therapy in their answer and were credited accordingly. Evaluation of the therapy often focused on vague, unreasoned points about time and cost. Better arguments might have involved comparison with another type of therapy or reference to outcomes research. Question 25 There were many very good answers to this question. A common misconception was that a conflict during the Oedipus Complex or Phallic Stage of development leads to phobias this was used as an explanation as opposed to an example of how a phobia might occur. For this question (as well as the one above) there was a lot of reference to how the therapy is expensive and timeconsuming without reasoned comparison with other types of therapy. That said many students were able to select the salient points from both explanation and treatment and adapt these to the ten mark format. There was effective use of evidence, usually the Little Hans study, and convincing commentary on the merits, or otherwise, of both theory and therapy within these answers. Topic: Autism Question 26 Fewer answers incorrectly gave the DV here than in the corresponding question, and most scored the one mark available. Those that did not, over-elaborated to the detriment of the answer. A typical example was the number of children with autism and the number of children without. Question 27 The issues here were very similar to those documented in question 21, with relatively few students able to acknowledge the fact that autism as a variable would be pre-existing. Question 28 Again, there were few wrong answers, but whether they had autism or not was an obvious one. 8 of 9

9 Question 29 Many students believed that matched pairs designs remove or eliminate participant variables rather than merely controlling them and yet students were unable to link this advantage to the stem of the question: that the researcher could be more confident that the results found were due to the autism rather than other differences between participants. Question 30 Most answers gained the mark for application to the study. Many answers described lack of joint attention in terms of a general lack of interaction and communication rather than the relevant specific details of not focusing on the same object, or, gave a definition which was too much like a specific example, perhaps from the stem. Question 31 There were many good answers. Weaker responses did not quite describe the idea of a set of common symptoms shown by all, or mention the triad of impairments as a binding principle within the disorder. Question 32 There were some very sophisticated and well-structured answers here. Many wrote about several explanations based on genetic transfer and thus satisfied the requirements of the question to discuss explanations. These were often supported by evidence but there were sometimes errors in the description of it and its support for the explanation was not adequately explained. In discussing the neurological correlates explanation, there were many effective links to scanning techniques, post-mortems and specific brain areas/functions that may be different in those with autism. One common flaw was to state that neurological factors account for the full extent of the spectrum, but this would be followed by a comment on how only people with mild autism would be suitable for MRI and PET scans. Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator 9 of 9

Psychology (Specification B)

General Certificate of Education Advanced Subsidiary Examination June 2013 Psychology (Specification B) PSYB2 Unit 2 Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology and Individual Differences Wednesday 5 June