OCR AS Psychology 2024 Analysis
The H167 exam series maintains a rigorous standard, testing candidates across both theoretical core studies and highly specific practical research applications. H167/01 (Research Methods) was characterized by a balance between descriptive statistical design and practical execution, demanding both accurate graphical representation and a deep understanding of inferential statistics. H167/02 (Core Studies) pushed candidates to make explicit, evidence-based links between classic studies and wider psychological perspectives.
Where the Marks are Won or Lost
In Paper 1, the 12-mark design question (Q17*) on gratitude self-reports was a major differentiator. The marking scheme imposes a strict cap of 9 marks if there is no explicit link to the candidate's own practical work across the three required features. Furthermore, writing a two-tailed hypothesis when a one-tailed was explicitly requested resulted in an immediate loss of 3 marks. In Section C, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test proved challenging; many candidates lost marks by ranking the raw scores instead of the absolute differences between the conditions.
In Paper 2, Section B (Areas, perspectives and debates) required highly structured essay responses. The 10-mark debate question on socially sensitive research (Q6f*) required balanced arguments addressing at least three strengths/weaknesses and citing more than one core study. Answers failing to do so were strictly capped.
Strategic Study Advice
- Always contextualise: Generic answers in research design questions frequently score 0 or 1 mark. Ensure your answers explicitly refer to the scenario (e.g., 'gratitude', 'puppy dog cuteness').
- Master the statistical mechanics: Be prepared to show your step-by-step working for inferential calculations like Wilcoxon. If your final T-value is wrong but your differences are correct, you can still salvage method marks.
- Align studies with debates: Create a matrix linking each core study to its primary area, its stance on key debates (like reductionism vs. holism), and its social sensitivity.