Unit 2 exam question

Looking at past papers and the SQP, they tend to focus on a research example featuring a single method. Most methods have now come up in the last five years (2005: questionnaires with correlation; 2006: observation; 2007: case study; 2008: experiment; 2009: interviews).

It would be easy to assume that one of the methods from a few years ago will appear again this year, and that may well be the case. Correlation has been neglected a bit, so you should ensure that you are good on that (remember that corr is actually a data anlysis technique, not a method as such). Observation is a likely option too - 2006's research example was a naturalistic observation, so if I was an exam setter I might put in a participant observation this time.

One other possibility to bear in mind is that there could be a combination that hasn't been tried before. So for example, instead of having survey and correlation, maybe questions on correlation and experiments this year, or correlation and observation. For example, there could be a correlation research example, followed by questions on how a similar study could be done as an experiment instead.

With so many methods to choose from, it seems very unlikely is that interviews will come up again so soon. I also think case study is an unlikely choice, and shouldn't be top priority for your revision.

Here are the key points on the CAS for Section B:

• A research scenario (100–200 words) is provided in this section.


• A structured question, worth 20 marks, will be based on the research scenario. This
  question will consist of a set of 5–8 related parts, each part with a possible mark range of
  1–8 marks.


• Candidates are required to answer all parts of this question.


• The research scenario may be of an experimental or a non-experimental study.


• Candidates may be asked to suggest/evaluate a non-experimental or experimental
  alternative.


• Although no numerical calculations will be required in the exam, interpretation of given
  numerical or graphical data may be required.

Ref for the documentary we watched

The documentary we saw in class this morning featured a researcher called Wells... Below is a reference to one of his studies on using lineups to identify criminals. If you mention it in the exam of course you can just say 'Wells, 1998'.

For anyone who missed the class, the film is on two parts on youtube, here is the first bit:

Documentary part 1

It's an interesting story but also relevant - a lot of it supports a key conclusion of Loftus & Palmer (1974) i.e. that information after an event (in this case, the face of the innocent suspect) can be integrated into our memory of the event, resulting in false memories.

Reference

Wells, G.l., Small, M., Penrod, S., Malpass, R.S., Fulero, S.M., and Brimacombe, C.A.E. (1998). Eyewitness Identification Procedures: Recommendations for Lineups and Photospreads. Journal of Law and Human Behavior, 22, 603-647.

Some recent studies

A couple of interesting recent studies from the RD blog:

1) A topical one - phoning people up and reminding them of their responsibility to democracy doesn't make them more likely to vote, according to Nickerson & Rogers (2010), but asking them what time they will vote and what they will be doing beforehand was found to boost turnout by 9%.

2) It's easy to procrastinate, doing the most enjoyable tasks first and leaving the difficult ones. What's the best response to it? According to Wohl et al (2010), the best strategy is simply to forgive yourself for the time-wasting, and move on!

3) Kavetsos and Syzmanski (2010) found that the boost to mood of your country hosting a major sporting event (e.g. Olympics, World Cup) was "three times the size of the happiness boost associated with gaining a higher education; one and half times the happiness boost associated with getting married; and nearly large enough to offset the misery triggered by divorce". However unfortunately, this benefit only lasted a year before levels were back to normal.

4) Most usefully of all, Zhao et al (2010) studied how best to take a nap... Studying the effects of a 20 minute after-lunch nap, they found that the best option was to take a nap lying down. However, even a less-than-perfect position such as napping slumped forward on a desk had cognitive benefits.

References

Kavetsos, G., & Szymanski, S. (2010). National well-being and international sports events. Journal of Economic Psychology, 31 (2), 158-171

Nickerson DW, & Rogers T (2010). Do you have a voting plan?: implementation intentions, voter turnout, and organic plan making. Psychological science : a journal of the American Psychological Society / APS, 21 (2), 194-9

Wohl, M., Pychyl, T., & Bennett, S. (2010). I forgive myself, now I can study: How self-forgiveness for procrastinating can reduce future procrastination. Personality and Individual Differences, 48 (7), 803-808

Zhao, D., Zhang, Q., Fu, M., Tang, Y., & Zhao, Y. (2010). Effects of physical positions on sleep architectures and post-nap functions among habitual nappers. Biological Psychology, 83 (3), 207-213

Summary of changes to 2010 exam paper

Comparing past papers with what we have studied (and with the Specimen Question Paper), you will notice some changes. This is because 2009-10 is the first year of a slightly revised version of the Higher. Here are the main differences which affect you:

- Memory now features EWT, and memory improvement is no longer in the spec
- Atypical Behaviour used to be two topics but has now been combined into one
- Both Section C parts now have 20-mark essay questions

Section B is exactly the same. There are a few other minor changes to wording (added/or removed from topics) - if in doubt refer to what is in your booklets and you will be fine.

Chocolate? Coffee?

So as we were speaking about in class: chocolate and depression (or depression and chocolate!)

Chocolate news story

Plus I think I also mentioned the 'coffee makes you hallucinate' one:

Coffee news story

More on the origins and methodology of the F-Scale studies

Levinson & Sanford, two American researchers at the University of California, Berkeley, conducted research which aimed to understand the roots of anti-Semitism- prejudice against Jewish people, which had became particularly prominent due to the policies of Nazi Germany in the 1930s. They pioneered an anti-Semitism scale (the ‘A-S scale’), based on the psychoanalytic theory that prejudice was based on repression of one’s own undesirable characteristics, and projection of these onto an external target.

They found a strong relationship between attitudes towards minorities including Jews and Blacks, as well as ‘superpatriotism’). It was concluded that all of these findings stem from a common syndrome of ethnocentrism. However, a limitation is that the research assumed that participants were white and non-Jewish, as attitudes towards whites were not assessed.
After five revisions, the researchers produced the ethnocentrism scale (the ‘E scale’), containing statements about Jews, blacks, other minorities, and superpatriotism.

With funding from the American Jewish Committee, the study was broadened in the late 1940s. Two Austrian researchers, psychologist Frenkel-Brunswick & sociologist Adorno, joined Levinson and Sanford to study authoritarianism among American workers, and together they wrote the 1950 book, ‘The Authoritarian Personality’.

The theory suggested that the strict, repressive parenting of the Austrian middle-classes should result in high levels of authoritarianism. However, Frenkel-Brunswick conducted extensive interview-based research and found that high F-scores were common among lower social classes too, weakening this aspect of the theory.

Cronbach (1946) pointed out the problem of response set with the F-Scale, where it is hard to distinguish between respondents who agree with the content of the statements, and those who would agree to almost any item. He argued that this is most likely to occur when items are ambiguous, and some items in the F-scale are deliberately written to allow for projection (e.g. “The wild sex life of Romans…”).

To tackle this problem, Bass (1955) attempted a reversal of some items (so for example ‘familiarity breeds contempt’ was changed to ‘familiarity does not breed contempt’) and concluded that three fourths of the reliable variance on the F-scale is due to acquiescence.

Bass, B.M. (1955). Authoritarianism or acquiescence? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 51, 616-623.

Cronbach,L.J. (1946). Response sets and test validity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 6, 475-494.

Jane Elliot etc

We recently viewed the Jane Elliot 'A Class Divided' documentary, and discussed the ethics of simulating prejudice and discrimination with young children.

Interestingly a similar idea was recently done in a Scottish primary school, prompting a highly negative reaction:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8562798.stm