You will not receive credit for your points unless you have made a comparison. In a lot of answers not enough detail was given, or a comparison was given that related to another point e.g. “pseudoscience used imprecise jargon, whereas science attempts to back up its theories with evidence”.
When explaining the law of contagion, make it clear that the essence of the murdered person is believed to be in the house, rather than the event itself. The law of contagion does not state that the person thinks that they will also be murdered. Although the mark scheme states that credit can be given for the cognitive deficit hypothesis if it is shaped well to the scenario, it doesn’t really lend itself well to the scenario. Some suggested that deep sea divers may have low cognitive ability which is a bit of an insulting and unfounded judgement.
Make sure you give a clear link between your examples and psychological theories. Don’t use the class example of the charity shop coat. This is not psychological evidence and is for discussion purposes only. It is a good idea to add proper research evidence to back up your point. When talking about psychodynamic functions hypothesis to explain dep sea divers rituals, don’t forget to mention that their job is dangerous, otherwise it doesn’t make a lot of sense There is no need to give a definition of magical thinking
Make sure that your evaluation links to the theory you have given. Some students gave details of research studies that didn’t link to anything they had previously discussed and therefore picked up no credit for these. When explaining cold reading, don’t use examples from the video, just describe techniques. Concentrate on Barnum Statements and the shotgun technique (throwing out lots of info so that at least a bit of it will fit). On the whole the answers were too anecdotal and lacked psychological terminologies. The studies are not explanations. The question asks you to discuss explanations.
If using research to support the existence of cold reading, you need to include the study that shows general statements are more likely to be assessed as accurate. Be careful with Schwartz’s study – if you use it, it must be linked back to cold reading. Don’t forget that if using AO3, you must link back to the explanation or you will receive no credit for it. It was clear in a lot of cases that students had not properly learned the biological explanation of psychic mediumship. The point that the medium may believe they have powers is not an explanation of mediumship.
The fact there is altered brain activity when mediums attempt to contact the dead is not evidence that they are actually contacting the dead. The possibility that the person can actually contact the dead does not count as a psychological explanation. Ethical issues are not relevant when discussing explanations.