📚 Year 12 AQA Psychology: High-Frequency Topics & Common Mistakes Analysis | Year 12 AQA 心理学：高频考点与易错题分析
Mastering Year 12 AQA Psychology requires not only knowing the key studies and theories but also avoiding the subtle mistakes that cost marks on both short-answer and essay questions. This article tackles the topics that appear most frequently across past papers and highlights the common misunderstandings that trip up students year after year. We will break down social influence, memory, attachment, psychopathology, approaches, and research methods, pinpointing exactly where marks are lost and how to secure them.
掌握 Year 12 AQA 心理学不仅需要熟知关键研究和理论，还要避开那些在简答题和论述题中悄悄失分的细微错误。本文针对历年真题中出现频率最高的考点，并指出年复一年让学生栽跟头的典型误解。我们将剖析社会影响、记忆、依恋、心理病理学、心理学流派和研究方法这些板块，准确点明失分点以及如何牢牢抓住分数。
1. Types of Conformity: Internalisation vs. Compliance | 从众类型：内化与顺从的区分
One of the most common errors in social influence questions is confusing internalisation with compliance. Internalisation occurs when a person genuinely accepts the group's views both publicly and privately, often because they believe the group is correct. Compliance, on the other hand, involves outwardly agreeing with the group while privately disagreeing, typically to avoid rejection or gain approval. In exam answers, students frequently label Asch's line-judgement study as an example of internalisation, but Asch demonstrated compliance – participants conformed publicly to avoid ridicule, yet maintained their private belief that the group was wrong.
在社会影响题目中最常见的错误之一就是混淆内化与顺从。内化是指个体公开和私下都真心接受群体的观点，通常因为相信群体是正确的。而顺从则是表面认同群体、私下并不赞同，往往是为了避免被排斥或获得认可。在考试答案中，学生常常把 Asch 的线段判断实验标为内化的例子，但 Asch 展示的其实是顺从——被试为了避免被嘲笑而当众从众，却仍保持私下认为群体是错误的信念。
Another frequent mistake involves mislabelling informational social influence (ISI) and normative social influence (NSI). ISI leads to internalisation when a person is uncertain and looks to the group for correct information. NSI leads to compliance when the motivation is to fit in socially. When asked to explain why Jenness's bean-jar experiment generated convergence, many students wrongly cite NSI; in reality, the ambiguous nature of the task triggered ISI and internalisation.
另一个常见错误是错贴信息性社会影响（ISI）和规范性社会影响（NSI）的标签。当一个人不确定时，为寻找正确信息而参照群体，这会引发 ISI 导致内化；而当动机是融入群体时，NSI 则导致顺从。当被要求解释为什么 Jenness 的豆瓶实验产生了估计趋同时，很多学生错误地引用 NSI，但实际上任务的不明确性质触发的是 ISI 和内化。
A quick summary table to avoid confusion:
| Process | Public behaviour | Private belief | Linked influence |
|---|---|---|---|
| Compliance | Conforms | Disagrees | Normative (NSI) |
| Internalisation | Conforms | Agrees | Informational (ISI) |
Keep this distinction firmly in mind. Many mark schemes award AO2 marks solely for correctly identifying whether a scenario reflects ISI or NSI, and whether the outcome is compliance or internalisation. Getting the pairing wrong is an entirely avoidable error.
务必牢记这一区分。许多评分方案仅凭能否正确识别场景反映的是 ISI 还是 NSI，以及结果是顺从还是内化，来授予 AO2 分数。把配对搞错是一个完全可以避免的错误。
2. Explanations of Obedience: Agentic State vs. Legitimacy of Authority | 服从的解释：代理状态与权威正当性
When explaining Milgram's findings, students often struggle to separate the agentic state from the legitimacy of authority. The agentic state is the mental condition in which an individual sees themselves as an agent carrying out another person's orders and thus feels no personal responsibility. Legitimacy of authority, by contrast, refers to the perceived right of a figure to issue commands, which depends on social context and institutional power. A classic mistake is to describe the agentic shift as a loss of morality; instead it is a shift in self-perception from autonomous agent to instrument of authority.
在解释 Milgram 的实验结果时，学生常常难以将代理状态与权威正当性分开。代理状态是一种心理状况，个体将自己视为执行他人命令的工具，因此感觉不到个人责任。相反，权威正当性指的是命令者被感知到的发号施令的权力，这取决于社会情境和机构权力。一个典型错误是把代理转移描述为道德沦丧，而实际上它只是自我认知从自主个体向权威工具的转变。
Another pitfall is using the agentic state to explain disobedience. Many students write that a participant who refused to continue shocks remained in an autonomous state. While partly true, it is insufficient; the better answer links the refusal to a breakdown in legitimacy of authority – for example, when the experimenter appeared hesitant or the learner's protests became salient. In high-mark questions, you must address both concepts to fully explain why obedience rates varied across Milgram's variations, such as the rundown office block condition.
另一个陷阱是用代理状态来解释不服从。许多学生写道，拒绝继续实施电击的被试保持在自主状态。这虽然部分正确，但不够充分；更好的答案是把拒绝与权威正当性的崩溃联系起来——例如，当实验者显得犹豫不决或学习者的抗议变得突出时。在高分题目中，你必须同时讨论这两个概念，才能充分解释为什么在 Milgram 的变式（如破旧办公楼条件）中服从率会发生变化。
3. Minority Influence: Commitment, Consistency and Flexibility | 少数派影响：承诺、一致性与灵活性
The three key behavioural styles that make a minority persuasive – consistency, commitment, and flexibility – are frequently examined. Consistency helps the minority draw attention to an alternative viewpoint and suggests certainty. Commitment, often demonstrated through risky acts or personal sacrifice (the augmentation principle), signals that the minority genuinely believes in its cause. However, rigid consistency can backfire, making the minority appear dogmatic. That is where flexibility enters: a willingness to compromise or show a moderate stance makes the minority more attractive and facilitates conversion. A common exam error is to omit flexibility altogether when evaluating Moscovici's blue-green slide study, even though the original experiment showed that a consistent but inflexible minority gained only limited influence.
少数派具备说服力的三种关键行为风格——一致性、承诺和灵活性——经常被考查。一致性帮助少数派引起对替代观点的注意并表明确定性。承诺通常通过冒险行为或个人牺牲（增益原则）来展示，表明少数派真心相信自己的事业。然而，僵硬的一致会适得其反，使少数派显得教条。这时灵活性就发挥作用了：愿意妥协或表现出温和姿态使少数派更具吸引力，并促进转化。一个常见的考试错误是在评价 Moscovici 的蓝绿幻灯片研究时完全遗漏了灵活性，尽管原实验恰恰表明，一致但不灵活的少数派所获得的影响是有限的。
Also, students occasionally confuse minority influence with conformity or obedience. Minority influence results in conversion – a deep-seated, private change that may be delayed (the snowball effect). This contrasts with immediate public compliance seen in majority influence. In essays, explicitly stating that minority influence operates through informational social influence and leads to internalisation, not compliance, can secure higher AO1 marks.
此外，学生偶尔会混淆少数派影响与从众或服从。少数派影响导致转化——一种深层的、私下的改变，可能延迟显现（雪球效应）。这与多数派影响中看到的即时公开顺从形成对比。在论文中，明确说明少数派影响通过信息性社会影响运作并导致内化，而不是顺从，可以锁定更高的 AO1 分数。
4. Memory Models: Working Memory vs. Multi-Store Model | 记忆模型：工作记忆与多存储模型
The Multi-Store Model (MSM) and the Working Memory Model (WMM) are staples of Year 12, yet confusion between their components is rampant. MSM describes memory as a linear flow from sensory register to short-term memory (STM) and then long-term memory (LTM) via rehearsal. The WMM, however, views STM as an active multi-component system: the central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer. A persistent error is to claim that the central executive stores information – it does not; it allocates attention and coordinates slave systems. The phonological loop processes auditory information, while the visuospatial sketchpad handles visual and spatial data.
多存储模型（MSM）和工作记忆模型（WMM）是 Year 12 的必考内容，但它们各部分之间的混淆现象比比皆是。MSM 将记忆描述为从感觉登记到短时记忆（STM），再通过复述进入长时记忆（LTM）的线性流程。而 WMM 则认为 STM 是一个活跃的多成分系统：中央执行器、语音回路、视空画板和情景缓冲器。一个顽固的错误是声称中央执行器储存信息——它并不储存；它负责分配注意力和协调从属系统。语音回路处理听觉信息，而视空画板处理视觉和空间数据。
When asked for supporting evidence, students frequently misapply the case of KF or dual-task studies. KF had impaired verbal STM but intact visual STM, which supports the WMM's separation of the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad, not the MSM. Yet many still cite KF as evidence for separate STM and LTM stores. Get the model-evidence link right: dual-task performance decrements (e.g., doing verbal and spatial tasks simultaneously) fit WMM; the serial position curve supports the MSM's rehearsal loop.
当被问到支持性证据时，学生经常错误地引用 KF 案例或双任务研究。KF 的言语短时记忆受损而视觉短时记忆完好，这支持 WMM 中语音回路与视空画板的分立，而非 MSM。可许多学生仍将 KF 引作独立 STM 和 LTM 存储的证据。务必理清模型-证据的对应关系：双任务表现下降（如同时进行言语和空间任务）符合 WMM；系列位置曲线支持 MSM 的复述回路。
5. Explanations of Forgetting: Interference vs. Retrieval Failure | 遗忘的解释：干扰与提取失败
Interference theory states that forgetting occurs because one memory disrupts the recall of another. It comes in two forms: proactive interference (old learning hinders new) and retroactive interference (new learning disrupts old). Retrieval failure, on the other hand, asserts that memories are available but not accessible due to missing cues. The error here is to treat state-dependent forgetting as an example of interference. In truth, changes in internal state (e.g., mood, intoxication) represent a lack of appropriate contextual cues, aligning with retrieval failure. Similarly, context-dependent forgetting about learning underwater but recalling on land is classic retrieval failure, not proactive interference.
干扰理论主张遗忘是因为一段记忆干扰了对另一段记忆的提取。它有两种形式：前摄干扰（旧学习阻碍新学习）和倒摄干扰（新学习破坏旧学习）。而提取失败理论认为记忆是可用的，但因缺少线索而无法提取。这里的错误是把状态依赖性遗忘当作干扰的例子。实际上，内部状态（如情绪、醉酒）的变化代表着缺乏适当的背景线索，这符合提取失败。同样，在水下学习、在陆上回忆困难的背景依赖性遗忘也是典型的提取失败，而非前摄干扰。
Exam answers sometimes also inaccurately describe the findings of McGeoch and McDonald's similarity study. The research showed that retroactive interference was strongest when the intervening material was highly similar to the original, not when it was completely different. Misremembering this nuance can cost marks on an AO1 outline question. Be precise: the more similar the materials, the greater the competition, hence greater interference.
考试答案有时候也会不准确地描述 McGeoch 和 McDonald 的相似性研究发现。该研究显示，当插入材料与原学习材料高度相似时倒摄干扰最强，而不是完全不同时。记错这个细微差别可能会在 AO1 概述题目上丢分。要精确：材料越相似，竞争就越大，因此干扰也越大。
6. Attachment: Strange Situation Classifications and Cultural Variations | 依恋：陌生情境分类与文化差异
Ainsworth's Strange Situation is a high-yield topic, but students commonly confuse the attachment types. Type B (secure) infants explore, show distress upon separation, and are easily comforted on reunion. Type A (insecure-avoidant) infants explore with little distress at separation and avoid the caregiver upon return. Type C (insecure-resistant) infants show intense distress, clinginess, and resist comfort. A frequent marking point is to describe the reunion behaviour accurately; simply stating 'the infant cried' does not differentiate between B and C. You must specify whether the infant was soothed or remained ambivalent.
Ainsworth 的陌生情境是高频考点，但学生常常混淆依恋类型。B 型（安全型）婴儿会探索，分离时表现出痛苦，重聚时容易得到安抚。A 型（不安全-回避型）婴儿探索时对分离几乎不感到痛苦，并在照看者返回时回避。C 型（不安全-反抗型）婴儿表现出强烈痛苦、粘人，并抗拒安抚。常见的给分点是准确描述重聚行为；仅仅写“婴儿哭了”并不能区分 B 型和 C 型。你必须具体说明婴儿是被安抚了还是依然愤愤不平。
Cultural variation questions demand more than listing cross-cultural distributions. Van Ijzendoorn and Kroonenberg's meta-analysis found that secure attachment was the most common pattern across all studied cultures, but intra-cultural variation was often greater than inter-cultural variation. Many answers incorrectly assert that insecure-avoidant attachment is the norm in Germany or that resistant attachment is the norm in Japan as fixed cultural stereotypes. In reality, the distributions shift, but the overall pattern remains predominantly secure. Examiners expect you to challenge the imposed etic – applying Western measures to non-Western cultures – and to discuss whether the Strange Situation is a valid measure outside the US/UK context.
文化差异类问题需要的不只是罗列跨文化分布。Van Ijzendoorn 和 Kroonenberg 的元分析发现，在所有被研究文化中安全依恋都是最常见的模式，但文化内部的差异往往大于文化之间的差异。许多答案错误地断言回避型依恋是德国的常态，或者反抗型依恋是日本的常态，将它们当作固定的文化刻板印象。实际上分布情况会变化，但总体模式仍以安全型为主导。考官期望你挑战“强加的一致性”——把西方测量工具套用到非西方文化上——并讨论陌生情境在英美之外是否是一个有效的测量工具。
7. Bowlby's Maternal Deprivation Hypothesis: 44 Thieves and Critical Period | 鲍尔比的母性剥夺假说：44 个少年犯与关键期
Bowlby's maternal deprivation hypothesis proposes that prolonged separation from the primary caregiver during the critical period (the first 2.5 years) causes irreversible emotional damage, leading to affectionless psychopathy. The 44 thieves study is often misreported: students claim that 44% of thieves experienced separation, but the correct figure is that 14 of the 44 thieves (32%) were classified as affectionless psychopaths, and 86% of those affectionless psychopaths had experienced early prolonged separation. Confusing these percentages is a common blunder.
鲍尔比的母性剥夺假说提出，在关键期（最初两年半）与主要照看者长期分离会导致不可逆的情感伤害，进而造成无情型精神病态。44 个少年犯研究常常被误报：学生们声称 44% 的少年犯经历过分离，但正确数据是 44 名少年犯中有 14 名（32%）被归类为无情型精神病态，而这些无情态者中有 86% 经历过早期长期分离。混淆这些百分比是常见错误。
Furthermore, the hypothesis is frequently conflated with the internal working model (IWM), which belongs to Bowlby's later attachment theory, not the deprivation hypothesis. When evaluating, a top band essay will contrast Bowlby's idea with Rutter's distinction between deprivation and privation, and cite evidence from Romanian orphan studies showing that recovery is possible with adequate subsequent care, challenging the irreversibility claim. Simply listing the 44 thieves without critical AO3 strands rarely exceeds a mark band 2.
此外，该假说常与内部工作模型（IWM）相混淆，而 IWM 属于鲍尔比后来的依恋理论，不是剥夺假说。在评价中，一篇高分段文章会对比鲍尔比的观点与 Rutter 对剥夺和缺失的区分，并引用罗马尼亚孤儿院研究的证据表明，若后续照料充分，恢复是可能的，从而挑战不可逆性的说法。仅仅罗列 44 个少年犯而缺乏批判性 AO3 线索，通常无法突破第二档分数。
8. Definitions of Abnormality: Strengths and Limitations in Application | 心理异常的定义：应用中的优势与局限
The four definitions – statistical infrequency, deviation from social norms, failure to function adequately, and deviation from ideal mental health – appear every year. The key exam trap is to assume one definition is universally superior. Statistical infrequency is objective yet cannot distinguish between desirable and undesirable rarity (e.g., high IQ is statistically infrequent but not a disorder). Deviation from social norms highlights context but is era- and culture-bound, risking labelling social nonconformists as mentally ill. Many students erroneously think failure to function adequately is defined solely by subjective distress, forgetting Rosenhan and Seligman's seven features such as unpredictability and observer discomfort.
四个定义——统计罕见、偏离社会规范、功能不适应以及偏离理想心理健康——每年都会出现。关键的考试陷阱是认为某个定义普遍更优。统计罕见虽然客观，却无法区分可取与不可取的罕见（例如，高智商在统计上罕见，但并非障碍）。偏离社会规范突显了情境，却受时代和文化约束，容易把不合群者贴上精神疾病标签。许多学生错误地认为功能不适应仅由主观痛苦来定义，忘记了 Rosenhan 和 Seligman 提出的七项特征，如不可预测性和观察者不适感。
For deviation from ideal mental health, Jahoda's six criteria are often incompletely recalled. Getting all six – self-attitudes, personal growth, integration, autonomy, accurate perception of reality, and environmental mastery – impresses examiners. Another frequent slip is to use 'deviation from social norms' to classify disorders like OCD without acknowledging that breaking norms could be positive activism. Compare definitions explicitly in an evaluation paragraph to hit AO3 marks.
对于偏离理想心理健康，Jahoda 的六项标准经常被记不全。完整答出六项——自我态度、个人成长、整合、自主、准确感知现实和掌控环境——会给考官留下深刻印象。另一个常见疏漏是，用“偏离社会规范”划分强迫症等障碍时，未意识到打破规范有时可能是积极的社会行动。在评价段中明确比较各个定义才能命中 AO3 分数。
9. Treating Phobias: Systematic Desensitisation vs. Flooding | 恐惧症治疗：系统脱敏与冲击疗法
The behavioural explanations and treatments for phobias are highly examinable, but candidates frequently mix up the crucial procedural details of systematic desensitisation (SD) and flooding. SD involves constructing a fear hierarchy, teaching relaxation techniques, and gradually exposing the client to feared stimuli while they practise relaxation (reciprocal inhibition). Flooding, in contrast, involves immediate, intense exposure to the top of the hierarchy without a gradual build-up, aiming to extinguish the fear response when the client realises no harm occurs. The error students make is to claim that SD uses counterconditioning like flooding; rather, SD relies on reciprocal inhibition, while flooding works through extinction and habituation.
恐惧症的行为主义解释和治疗方法是高频考点，但考生经常搞混系统脱敏（SD）和冲击疗法的关键程序细节。SD 包括构建恐惧层级、教授放松技术，并逐步让来访者暴露于恐惧刺激同时进行放松（交互抑制）。而冲击疗法则是在没有逐步升级的情况下，立即进行顶层项目的强烈暴露，旨在让来访者意识到并无伤害发生，从而消退恐惧反应。学生常犯的错误是声称 SD 像冲击疗法一样使用反条件作用；实际上，SD 依赖交互抑制，而冲击疗法通过消退和习惯化起作用。
Evaluation points are often muddled. SD is suitable for a wide range of patients and shows low dropout rates, but it is slower and less effective for complex phobias. Flooding is cost-effective and quick, yet it can be highly traumatic, leading to ethical concerns and higher refusal rates. A high-scoring answer will address the ethical implication of informed consent in flooding and contrast it with the more patient-friendly SD. Also, remember that both treatments target symptoms, not root causes, a limitation when phobias are linked to evolutionary preparedness (Seligman's biological preparedness).
评价要点经常被混淆。SD 适合广泛的患者群体且脱落率低，但见效慢，对复杂恐惧症效果欠佳。冲击疗法经济、快捷，但可能造成严重创伤，引发伦理担忧和更高的拒绝率。高分答案会讨论冲击疗法中知情同意的伦理含义，并将其与对患者更友好的 SD 进行对比。另外，记住两种治疗都针对症状而非根源，当恐惧症与进化准备（Seligman 的生物准备）相关时，这是一个局限。
10. Approaches: Biological vs. Behaviourist Perspectives | 流派对比：生物学与行为主义视角
A common essay task is to compare two approaches, and the biological versus behaviourist contrast is a favourite. Students often superficially state that one focuses on nature, the other on nurture, without unpacking the implications. The biological approach explains behaviour through genetics, brain structures, neurotransmitters, and evolution, using family studies and brain scans. The behaviourist approach explains all behaviour as learned through classical conditioning (Pavlov) and operant conditioning (Skinner), exclusively focusing on observable behaviour and environmental stimuli. A classic mistake is to say that the biological approach involves operant conditioning, or that behaviourists accept innate drives as primary causes.
一种常见的论述题是比较两种流派，而生物学流派与行为主义流派的对比是热门。学生往往浅层地说一个重先天，一个重后天，却没有展开其内涵。生物学流派通过遗传、脑结构、神经递质和进化来解释行为，采用家族研究和脑部扫描。行为主义流派认为一切行为都是通过经典条件反射（巴甫洛夫）和操作性条件反射（斯金纳）习得的，只关注可观察的行为和环境刺激。一个典型错误是说生物学流派涉及操作性条件反射，或者认为行为主义者承认先天驱力是主要原因。
To gain AO3 marks, you must include clear points of conflict and complementarity. The biological approach is reductionist in a different way – it reduces behaviour to physiological processes, while behaviourism reduces it to stimulus-response links. Both are deterministic, but the locus of control differs: biology emphasises internal determinism, behaviourism external. Also, the biological approach has led to drug therapies that treat symptoms directly, whereas behaviourism has produced effective therapies like SD. Avoid simply listing facts; weave a comparison of implications for treatment and free will.
要获得 AO3 分数，必须包含清晰的冲突点与互补点。生物学流派以一种不同的方式进行还原——它将行为归结为生理过程，而行为主义则归结为刺激-反应联结。二者都是决定论的，但控制点不同：生物学强调内部决定，行为主义强调外部决定。此外，生物学流派催生了直接治疗症状的药物疗法，而行为主义则产生了 SD 等有效疗法。避免简单罗列事实；要编织起对治疗和自由意志影响的对比。
11. Research Methods: Experimental Designs and Confounding Variables | 研究方法：实验设计与混淆变量
Confusing independent groups, repeated measures, and matched pairs designs is a costly yet avoidable error. Independent groups use different participants in each condition, risking participant variables but no order effects. Repeated measures use the same participants, which controls participant variables but creates order effects (practice, fatigue). Matched pairs use different but similar participants, reducing participant variables without order effects, though matching is never perfect. In exam scenarios, when asked to propose a design, justify your choice by explicitly acknowledging the trade-off. Too many students advocate repeated measures because 'it needs fewer participants' without mentioning counterbalancing to combat order effects.
混淆独立组设计、重复测量设计和配对组设计是一个代价高昂却完全可以避免的错误。独立组设计在各条件下使用不同被试，存在被试变量的风险但没有顺序效应。重复测量设计使用同一批被试，可以控制被试变量却会产生顺序效应（练习、疲劳）。配对组设计使用不同但相似被试，既降低被试变量又没有顺序效应，但匹配永远不够完美。在考试情境中，当被要求提出一种设计时，要通过明确说明取舍来证明你的选择。太多学生主张重复测量设计是因为“它需要更少被试”，却没有提到用平衡法来对抗顺序效应。
Identification of confounding vs. extraneous variables is another sticking point. An extraneous variable becomes a confounding variable only when it systematically varies with the independent variable. A student might correctly identify time of day as an extraneous variable in a memory experiment but fail to explain how it becomes confounding if all morning sessions are one condition and all afternoon sessions another. Operationalisation of variables is equally critical; vague operational definitions (e.g., 'aggression will be measured by how angry they look') lose marks. Use observable, quantifiable units.
对混淆变量与额外变量的识别是另一个难点。只有当额外变量与自变量系统性共变时，它才成为混淆变量。学生可能正确识别出一天中的时间段是记忆实验里的额外变量，却未能解释如果所有上午组都是一个条件、下午组是另一个条件，它如何变成混淆变量。变量的操作化同样关键；模糊的操作化定义（如“攻击性通过他们看起来多愤怒来测量”）会失分。要使用可观察、可量化的单位。
12. Inferential Statistics: Type I and Type II Errors in Context | 推断统计：情境中的一类错误和二类错误
Type I and Type II errors are frequently examined in the context of choosing a significance level. A Type I error is rejecting the null hypothesis when it is actually true (a false positive), often associated with a lenient p-value like p < 0.1. A Type II error is failing to reject the null when it is false (a false negative), more common with a stringent p-value like p < 0.01. The common mistake is to assume that a 5% significance level eliminates both errors; it does not – it balances them. Students also fail to relate errors to real-world consequences. For example, in drug trials, a Type I error might approve a harmful drug, while a Type II error could discard a beneficial one.
一类错误和二类错误经常在选择显著性水平的情境中被考查。一类错误是当零假设实际为真时拒绝了它（假阳性），通常与宽松的 p 值（如 p < 0.1）相关。二类错误是当零假设为假时未能拒绝它（假阴性），在严苛的 p 值（如 p < 0.01）下更常见。常见错误是认为 5% 的显著性水平能消除两类错误；实际上它只是平衡二者。学生还常常未能把错误与现实后果联系起来。例如，在药物试验中，一类错误可能让有害药品获批，而二类错误可能丢弃一种有益药品。
Additionally, when interpreting statistical findings, do not claim results 'prove' the experimental hypothesis. Psychology uses falsification: results either reject the null or fail to reject it. Using probabilistic language ('the findings suggest,' 'there is evidence for') rather than definitive statements is a quick way to lift AO2 quality. Also, when choosing a statistical test, check the level of measurement (nominal, ordinal, interval) and the design; Spearman's rho is often confused with Pearson's r, and the chi-squared test for association is misapplied to ordinal data. Rehearse the decision pathway until it becomes automatic.
此外，在解读统计发现时，不要声称结果“证明”了实验假设。心理学采用证伪逻辑：结果要么拒绝零假设，要么未能拒绝零假设。使用概率性语言（“研究结果表明”、“有证据支持”）而非决定性陈述，是迅速提升 AO2 质量的方法。另外，在选择统计检验时，要确认测量层次（命名、顺序、等距）和设计；Spearman's ρ 经常与 Pearson's r 混淆，而用于关联的
Published by TutorHao | Year 12 Psychology Revision Series | aleveler.com
更多咨询请联系16621398022（同微信）
或截图后用「扫一扫 → 相册」选择本图