Options in Applied Psychology G543 Generic exam advice

The key to getting your target grade is being able to answer the question set excellent subject knowledge you need good evaluation skills and technique.

In the exam only answer questions on 2 options There will be 4 questions for each option You have to answer 2 questions from each option.

In each option there are 4 major topics e.g. Healthy Living Each of which has 3 sub sections e.g. Adherence Each containing 3 bullet points, e.g. Measures of Adherence. It is essential that you know all these sub sections and bullet points and can name a piece of evidence from each.

Questions Each question is worth 25 marks; part A worth 10 marks part B worth 15 marks. The structure is the same for every question.

Section a – descriptive Describe/outline – theory/method/technique/study/research/a strategy/a way – relates to 1 bullet point [10 marks] Describe how can it be used, factors that affect, ways to manage You should answer this in 12 minutes

Mark scheme for top band Correct and comprehensive use of psychological terminology. Description of evidence is accurate, relevant, coherent and detailed. Elaboration/use of example/quality of description is very good and the ability to interpret/explain the evidence selected in the context of the question is very good. The answer is competently structured and organised. Answer is mostly grammatically correct with occasional spelling errors.

Read the question! Pay close attention to the command in the question You may be describing one piece of evidence in lots of detail if asked for a study or a number of studies/factors in less detail but highlighting different aspects of the bullet point if asked to describe research. You must describe a method eg: how fear appeal can be used, rather than just describing a relevant study as this will gain max 4 marks

Describe social loafing with reference to research related to sport. [10] a) Social loafing is the theory that the more people in a group, the less effort there will be per person. Latane’s research aimed to replicate Ringleman’s work conceptually. On 8 occasions he got 6 male psychology undergraduates from Ohio State University. He got them to (1) clap or cheer as loudly as possible for 10 seconds and (2) judge noises. After much practice he gained 36 trials of clapping and 36 of cheering, in pairs, 4s and 6s. He found that as group size increased, the average sound per person fell. However, Steiner suggested that this was down to faulty social processes and that as group size increased the number of co-ordination links and thus the number of faulty one’s increased. Latane did a second piece of research to prove him wrong. He got 6 more groups of 6 undergraduates and aimed to remove the ‘non-reduced effort’ factors. He did this by telling them they were in a sound proofed room, they were given headsets and blindfolds. Despite this, similar results prevailed, indicating the robust nature of it.

Section b – evaluative Evaluate/discuss/analyse – linked to the sub section from part a, The answer could relate to methods, debates, issues, approaches, problems – Your answer may relate to whole subtopic = 3 bullet points [15 marks]

Mark scheme for top band Many evaluative points covering a range of issues. The argument is competently organised, balanced and well developed. The answer is explicitly related to the context of the question. Effective use of examples. Valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and arguments are highly skilled and show thorough understanding.

Your discussion may include Use of an issue, e.g. reductionism, usefulness – relate to psychological evidence Research methodology, strengths and weaknesses - relate to psychological evidence Problems of carrying out research in that area, e.g. ethics Methodological problems e.g. validity, ecological validity and reliability Effectiveness or otherwise of techniques Problems of creating behavioural change Evaluation of approach (social, cognitive etc)

Top band answers To get high marks you must “go further” & “do something more” 3 ways of doing this Compare/contrast, “So what?” – “the consequences of this are….” Counter-argument - take the unexpected view as weaknesses often have strengths You should aim to spend about 18 minutes on this in the exam

Assess the validity of research into group cohesion. [15] b) Validity is whether you are measuring what you want to measure. It could be argued that Tuckman’s stage theory of group development with it’s 4 stages: forming, storming, norming and performing; is reductionist as it suggests that group development is only in 4 stages. It is likely that group development does not always take this path and thus the validity of this research is called into question. Latane’s work into group cohesion lacks external validity (whether the findings of a study really can be generalised beyond the present study) as he uses male psychology undergraduates from Ohio State University. It is difficult to generalise these results to other countries, older people, females or children. The internal validity (what actually happens in a study) is called into question as well as the participants may react with demand characteristics as they are working with possibly some of their lecturers. Also as they are volunteers, this leads to biased sampling. However, there is high control, particularly in his second experiment with the ‘non reduced effort’ factors removed. This means cause and effect can be inferred, leading to higher validity. Carron’s research for the future has higher validity because he believes that most research into sport focuses on social cohesion and is therefore reductionist, as it doesn’t take into account task cohesion. He puts a model forward which looks at many factors such as personal, leadership, team and situational factors. He believes that as groups don’t always fall apart due to les of attraction, then task cohesion must have an important part to play. The other two pieces of research lack validity then as they focus more on social cohesion than task. It should also be noted that none of these pieces of research are sports specific so ecological validity (the extent to which the findings can be generalised beyond the present situation)is low.

examples