📚 GCSE Cambridge Psychology High-Frequency Topics & Common Mistakes | GCSE 剑桥心理学高频考点与易错题分析
Success in GCSE Cambridge Psychology requires more than simply memorising theories—you must apply concepts to novel scenarios, evaluate evidence critically, and avoid the subtle mistakes that frequently appear on examiner reports. This article highlights the most commonly tested topics and the typical pitfalls students encounter, offering practical strategies to boost your performance. Whether you are revising research methods, attachment, or biopsychology, you will find targeted advice here to sharpen your understanding and refine your exam technique.
在 GCSE 剑桥心理学考试中取得好成绩，需要的不仅仅是背诵理论——你必须将概念应用到新情境中，批判性地评价证据，并避开考官报告中经常出现的一些不易察觉的错误。本文聚焦于最高频的考点以及学生最常遇到的典型陷阱，为你提供实用的提升策略。无论你正在复习研究方法、依恋理论还是生物心理学，都能在这里找到有针对性的指导，帮助你加深理解、优化应试技巧。
1. Research Methods and IV/DV | 研究方法与自变量/因变量
One of the most heavily examined topics involves identifying the independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV) in an experiment. The IV is the factor the researcher manipulates or changes, while the DV is the factor measured to see if the IV had an effect. A common mistake is confusing the two—students often label the outcome as the IV. For example, in a study testing whether noise affects memory recall, the IV is noise level (quiet vs. loud), and the DV is the number of words correctly recalled.
实验研究中，区分自变量和因变量是考查最密集的考点之一。自变量是研究者操控或改变的因素，因变量则是衡量自变量是否产生效果的因素。一个常见的错误是将结果标记为自变量。例如，在一项探究噪音是否影响记忆回忆的研究中，自变量是噪音水平（安静 vs. 嘈杂），因变量则是正确回忆出的单词数量。
Another recurrent examination issue concerns operationalising variables. Candidates often state a DV such as 'memory' or 'anxiety' without specifying how it is measured. To gain marks, you must describe precisely how the DV is quantified—for instance, 'the number of digits correctly repeated in order' or 'the score on a standardised anxiety scale'. Without clear operationalisation, the experiment cannot be replicated, which weakens the study’s reliability.
另一个重复出现的考试问题是变量的操作化。考生常常写出“记忆”或“焦虑”这类因变量，却没有说明具体的测量方式。要拿到分数，你必须精确描述因变量如何量化——例如，“按顺序正确复述数字的个数”或“标准化焦虑量表上的得分”。缺乏明确的操作化定义，实验就难以被重复验证，从而削弱了研究的信度。
When evaluating methodological choices, many students write generic statements such as 'the sample size was too small'. Examiners expect you to explain why a small sample matters in that specific context—it may limit generalisability to the target population or mask individual differences. Similarly, when identifying extraneous variables, you should not merely list them; you need to suggest how they could be controlled, such as by using counterbalancing or random allocation.
在评价研究方法时，许多学生只会写出笼统的陈述，如“样本量太小”。考官期望你能针对具体情境解释小样本为什么重要——它可能会限制结果对目标人群的推广性，或者掩盖个体差异。同样，在识别额外变量时，你不应只是罗列，还需要提出如何控制它们，例如通过平衡设计或随机分配。
2. Ethical Considerations in Psychological Research | 心理学研究中的伦理考量
Ethical issues appear in almost every paper, and students frequently lose marks by giving vague responses. When asked how a researcher could deal with a lack of informed consent, many candidates simply state 'ask for permission'. A full-mark answer will include a specific procedure: for example, 'obtain written consent from parents for participants under 16, after providing a clear information sheet explaining the study’s aims and procedures'.
伦理问题几乎出现在每一份试卷中，而学生常因回答过于空泛而丢分。当被问到研究者如何处理缺乏知情同意的问题时，许多考生只会写“征求许可”。满分答案应当包含具体的操作流程：例如，“在向 16 岁以下参与者提供清晰的信息表、解释研究目的与程序后，从其父母处获得书面同意”。
A typical error involves confusing anonymity with confidentiality. Anonymity means the participant’s identity is unknown even to the researcher—often achieved by collecting no personal data. Confidentiality means the researcher knows the participant’s identity but agrees not to disclose it. Misapplying these terms in a design question can cost marks, because each is protected by different practical measures.
一个典型错误是混淆匿名的和保密的。匿名性的意味着参与者的身份连研究者本人也无从知晓——通常通过不收集任何个人数据来实现。保密性则意味着研究者知晓参与者的身份，但承诺不对外透露。在设计题中误用这些术语会导致失分，因为每种措施都有不同的实践保障方式。
Another common issue is failing to recognise when deception has been used. In studies involving stooges or false feedback, deception occurs. The ethical response is to conduct a thorough debrief, explain the true purpose, and offer the right to withdraw data. Examiners expect you to go beyond simply saying 'debrief the participants' and demonstrate understanding of what an effective debrief includes: revealing any deception, restoring wellbeing, and providing contact details for further support.
另一个常见问题是未能识别出何时使用了欺骗。在涉及同谋者或虚假反馈的研究中，欺骗已经发生。合乎伦理的回应是进行充分的解释性面谈，阐明真实目的，并允许参与者撤回数据。考官期望你能超越“对参与者进行事后说明”这样简单的话，展示出对有效面谈内容的理解：揭示欺骗、恢复心理健康，并提供进一步支持的联络方式。
3. Memory Models: Multi-store and Working Memory | 记忆模型：多存储模型与工作记忆
The multi-store model (Atkinson and Shiffrin) and Baddeley’s working memory model are core topics, and examiners frequently ask you to compare them. A frequent error is to describe the multi-store model as overly simplistic without offering precise critique. You might note that the model presumes information flows in a linear fashion and underestimates the active processing that the working memory model captures, such as the phonological loop maintaining verbal information through subvocal rehearsal.
多存储模型（阿特金森和希夫林）与巴德利的工作记忆模型是核心主题，考官经常要求进行比较。一个常见的错误是说多存储模型过于简单化，却没有提供精确的批评。你可以指出该模型假设信息以线性方式流动，低估了工作记忆模型所捕捉到的主动加工过程，比如语音回路通过默声复述维持言语信息。
Students often lose marks when asked to apply working memory to everyday situations. The central executive is not a store; it directs attention and coordinates the slave systems. In an exam, incorrectly calling the central executive a memory store shows a fundamental misunderstanding. A correct application would be: 'While solving a mental arithmetic problem, the central executive directs the phonological loop to hold intermediate results and the visuospatial sketchpad to visualise the number line.'
当要求将工作记忆模型应用到日常情境时，学生常会失分。中央执行系统不是一个存储系统；它负责引导注意并协调从属系统。在考试中，若错误地将中央执行系统称为记忆储存处，则暴露出根本性的理解偏差。正确的应用可以是：“在解决心算问题时，中央执行系统指挥语音回路暂存中间结果，并利用视觉空间画板将数字线可视化。”
Another high-frequency topic is the primacy and recency effect used to support the multi-store model. Candidates often confuse the two. Primacy effect refers to better recall of items at the start of a list (rehearsed into long-term memory), while recency effect refers to better recall of items at the end (still in short-term memory). If a question asks how you would test the duration of short-term memory without rehearsal, a suitable answer involves preventing rehearsal and measuring the drop in recency effect—but many students fail to make that link.
另一个高频考点是用来支持多存储模型的首因效应与近因效应。考生常常混淆二者。首因效应指对列表开头项目回忆更好（已复述进入长时记忆），近因效应则指对末尾项目回忆更好（仍留在短时记忆中）。如果题目问如何在没有复述的条件下测试短时记忆的持续时间，恰当的做法是阻断复述并测量近因效应的下降——但许多学生做不出这一关联。
4. Attachment: Bowlby, Ainsworth, and Cultural Variations | 依恋：鲍尔比、安斯沃斯与文化差异
Bowlby’s monotropic theory and Ainsworth’s Strange Situation are perennial favourites. Students frequently misstate Bowlby’s concept of the internal working model. It is not simply a ‘template for future relationships’—it is a mental representation of the self, the caregiver, and the relationship that influences expectations and interactions. A clear definition helps you answer application questions about the effects of early attachment on adult friendships or parenting.
鲍尔比的单趋性理论和安斯沃斯的陌生情境测验是经久不衰的考点。学生经常错误表述鲍尔比的内部工作模型概念。它不只是一个“未来关系的模板”——它是一种关于自我、照看者以及关系的心理表征，影响着期望和互动。清晰的定义有助于你回答有关早期依恋对成年友谊或教养方式影响的应用题。
A major source of error is evaluating the Strange Situation as culturally biased without elaboration. Instead of simply stating that the procedure was developed in the USA, you should explain how the categories (secure, insecure-avoidant, insecure-resistant) are based on Western norms of independence and exploration. Cross-cultural research, such as Van IJzendoorn and Kroonenberg’s meta-analysis, shows that attachment types vary across cultures—for example, higher rates of insecure-avoidant attachment found in Germany, where early independence is encouraged. Such detail demonstrates a deeper understanding.
一个主要丢分点是评价陌生情境测验的文化偏见时缺乏深入阐述。你不应只说该程序是在美国开发的，而应解释依恋类别（安全型、不安全－回避型、不安全－反抗型）是基于西方的独立性与探索行为规范建立的。跨文化研究，如范·伊詹多恩和克鲁南伯格的元分析表明，依恋类型在不同文化间存在差异——例如，德国鼓励早期独立，因而发现较高的不安全－回避型依恋比例。这些细节能体现更深层的理解。
When describing the Strange Situation, students often omit the eight specific episodes or misorder them. Remembering the sequence—introduction, separation, reunion with caregiver, stranger entrer, etc.—is not essential, but you must correctly identify that the key observations are based on the infant’s response to separations and reunions. Another common mistake is to treat the procedure as a test of temperament rather than attachment; you should clarify that it measures the quality of the attachment bond, not the infant’s personality.
在描述陌生情境时，学生常常遗漏或误排八个具体环节。记住导入、分离、与照看者重聚、陌生人进入等顺序并非必需，但你必须正确识别出关键观察是基于婴儿对分离和重聚的反应。另一个常见错误是把该程序当作气质测验而非依恋测验；你应当澄清它测量的是依恋关系的质量，而不是婴儿的人格。
5. Social Influence: Conformity, Compliance, and Obedience | 社会影响：从众、顺从与服从
These three forms of social influence are easy to muddle. Conformity is a change in behaviour or belief to match the group, driven by real or imagined pressure. Compliance is a superficial change in public behaviour without a corresponding change in private belief, often in response to a direct request. Obedience involves following orders from an authority figure. A classic mistake is to label Asch’s line judgment study as an example of obedience, when in fact it demonstrates conformity—there is no direct command.
这三种社会影响形式很容易混淆。从众是在真实或想象的压力下改变行为或信念以与群体保持一致。顺从是公开行为上的表面改变，私下信念未变，通常是对直接请求的回应。服从则涉及听从权威人物的命令。一个典型错误是将阿希的线段判断研究归为服从的例子，而事实上它展示的是从众——因为没有直接的命令。
Application questions often ask why people conform, and students tend to merely name normative and informational social influence without explaining how to distinguish them. Normative influence occurs when we conform to be liked or accepted (emotional process), and is typically associated with unambiguous stimuli—like in Asch’s task where the correct answer was obvious. Informational influence happens when we look to others in ambiguous situations to gain accurate information (cognitive process). Picking the wrong explanation for a novel scenario costs marks, so practise by asking: 'Is the situation ambiguous? Is the group’s judgement clearly wrong?'
应用题目经常问人们为何从众，学生往往只写出规范型社会影响和信息型社会影响这两个术语，却不解释如何区分它们。当我们为了被喜欢或被接纳而从众时，发生的是规范型影响（情绪过程），通常与明确刺激相关——比如阿希任务中正确答案是显而易见的。当我们在模糊情境中参照他人以获取准确信息时，则是信息型影响（认知过程）。为新情境选错解释会导致失分，所以要通过提问来练习：“情境是模糊的吗？群体的判断明显错误吗？”
When discussing Milgram’s obedience study, many candidates simply condemn it as unethical without linking specific breaches to the British Psychological Society (BPS) guidelines. You need to state, for example, that participants were deceived about the true purpose (violating informed consent) and that the extreme distress observed breached protection from harm. Offering appropriate modifications—such as obtaining fully informed consent or using a lower maximum voltage—shows evaluation skill rather than mere description.
在讨论米尔格拉姆的服从研究时，许多考生只是一味谴责其不道德，却没有将具体违规行为与英国心理学会指南关联起来。你需要明确指出，例如，参与者在真正目的上被欺骗（违反了知情同意），观察到的极度痛苦损害了免受伤害原则。提出恰当的修改方案——如获取完全知情同意或使用较低的最高电压——展示出评价能力，而非仅仅是描述。
6. Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Discrimination | 刻板印象、偏见与歧视
These three concepts are often used interchangeably in student answers, but they represent distinct components. A stereotype is an oversimplified, fixed belief about a group (cognitive component). Prejudice is a negative attitude based on that belief (affective component). Discrimination is the unfair treatment or behaviour directed towards the group (behavioural component). Marks are regularly lost when a question asks about reducing prejudice but the answer focuses on changing stereotypes without addressing emotional biases.
这三个概念在学生答案中常被互换使用，但它们各自代表不同的成分。刻板印象是对一个群体过度简化、固定的信念（认知成分）。偏见是基于该信念的负面态度（情感成分）。歧视则是针对该群体的不公平对待或行为（行为成分）。当题目要求回答如何减少偏见，而你的答案却只关注改变刻板印象而忽略了情绪偏差时，往往会丢分。
A common exam question involves suggesting ways to reduce prejudice, such as using cooperative contact as described by Allport’s contact hypothesis. Students often forget to mention the necessary conditions: equal status between groups, common goals, intergroup cooperation, and institutional support. Saying 'just put groups together' will score poorly because mere contact can increase hostility if conditions are unfavourable. The Robbers Cave experiment (Sherif) illustrates that superordinate goals are especially effective in reducing intergroup conflict.
一个常见的考题涉及建议减少偏见的方法，如利用阿尔波特接触假说中描述的合作性接触。学生经常会忘记提及必要条件：群体间地位平等、共同目标、跨群体合作以及制度性支持。只说“把不同群体放在一起”得分很低，因为如果条件不利，仅仅接触反而会加剧敌意。罗伯斯山洞实验（谢里夫）表明，高阶目标在减少群体间冲突方面尤其有效。
Examiners also test your ability to distinguish between in-group bias and out-group homogeneity. In-group bias is the tendency to favour one’s own group, while out-group homogeneity is the belief that members of the out-group are all similar to one another ('they are all alike; we are all different'). Mixing these up in an explanation of prejudice formation shows conceptual confusion. Practise linking each to a relevant study—Tajfel’s minimal group paradigm for in-group bias, for example.
考官还会测试你区分内群体偏爱和外群体同质性的能力。内群体偏爱是偏袒自己所属群体的倾向，而外群体同质性则是认为外群体成员彼此都很相似（“他们都一样；我们各不相同”）。在解释偏见形成时混淆二者，会显示出概念上的混乱。可以通过挂钩相关研究来练习——比如，塔杰费尔的最小群体范式用于解释内群体偏爱。
7. Biopsychology: Localisation, Neurotransmission, and Plasticity | 生物心理学：大脑功能定位、神经传递与可塑性
The GCSE syllabus expects you to understand that certain functions are associated with specific brain areas, not that the whole brain works as one undifferentiated mass. High-frequency localisation topics include the role of the motor cortex (voluntary movement), somatosensory cortex (touch), visual cortex (sight), and Broca’s area (speech production). A typical error is to place Broca’s area in the temporal lobe; it is in the left frontal lobe. Use a diagram in your mind to recall that Phineas Gage’s case, with damage to the frontal lobe, led to changes in personality and impulse control, illustrating localisation of functions.
GCSE 教学大纲要求学生理解特定功能与特定脑区相关，而不是整个大脑作为一个无差别的整体工作。高频的功能定位考点包括运动皮层（随意运动）、躯体感觉皮层（触觉）、视觉皮层（视觉）和布洛卡区（言语产生）。一个典型错误是将布洛卡区放在了颞叶位置；它其实位于左额叶。在脑中想象一幅简图，回忆菲尼亚斯·盖奇的案例——其额叶受损导致人格和冲动控制的改变——以此说明功能定位。
Synaptic transmission is another heavily examined area. When describing how impulses cross the synapse, students often write 'the neurotransmitter jumps the gap' without mentioning vesicles, the presynaptic terminal, receptors on the postsynaptic membrane, and reuptake or enzymatic breakdown. A strong answer would state: 'Action potentials arrive at the presynaptic terminal, causing vesicles to release neurotransmitters into the synaptic cleft. These bind to receptor sites on the postsynaptic neuron, triggering a response. Excess neurotransmitters are removed via reuptake pumps.'
突触传递是另一个高频考查的领域。在描述神经冲动如何穿越突触时，学生常会写“神经递质跳过间隙”，却只字不提囊泡、突触前末梢、突触后膜上的受体以及再摄取或酶解。一份扎实的答案会这样写：“动作电位到达突触前末梢，使囊泡释放神经递质进入突触间隙。这些神经递质与突触后神经元上的受体位点结合，引发反应。多余的神经递质通过再摄取泵被清除。”
Functional plasticity of the brain following injury is a common topic where students offer weak evaluation. Merely saying 'the brain can adapt' is insufficient. A better answer references research on how, after damage to a language area, other cortical regions can sometimes take over language functions—this demonstrates plasticity. Mentioning constraints, such as age (younger brains show greater plasticity) or extent of damage, shows critical thinking.
脑损伤后的功能性可塑性是一个常见话题，学生常常给出薄弱的评价。仅仅说“大脑可以适应”是不够的。更好的答案会引用研究证明，在语言区受损后，其他皮层区域有时能够接管语言功能——这恰恰展示了可塑性。提及限制条件，如年龄（年轻大脑可塑性更强）或损伤程度，则能显示批判性思维。
8. Cognitive Development: Piaget’s Conservation Tasks | 认知发展：皮亚杰的守恒任务
Piaget’s conservation tasks regularly appear in exam papers, and candidates often struggle to explain why pre-operational children fail. The failure is not due to ignorance of the material; it is because of centration (focusing on one dimension, such as height, while ignoring width) and irreversibility (the inability to mentally reverse the transformation). When a child says the taller thin glass contains more liquid, a correct psychological explanation identifies centration, not just that the child ‘isn’t stupid’.
皮亚杰的守恒任务经常出现在考卷中，考生往往难以解释为什么前运算阶段的儿童会失败。失败并非因为对材料无知，而是由于集中化（只关注一个维度，如高度，而忽略宽度）和不可逆性（无法在心理上逆转变化过程）。当孩子说高而细的杯子盛有更多液体时，正确的心理学解释应指出集中化，而不只是说孩子“不聪明”。
A common pitfall is confusing class inclusion with conservation. Class inclusion refers to understanding that a subordinate category (dogs) is also part of a superordinate category (animals). A pre-operational child shown 5 dogs and 3 cats and asked 'Are there more dogs or more animals?' will incorrectly answer 'more dogs'. This demonstrates the inability to simultaneously consider subclasses and the larger class. Mistaking this as a conservation error loses marks in question identification.
一个常见的陷阱是把类包含与守恒相混淆。类包含指的是理解一个下属类别（狗）同时也是上级类别（动物）的一部分。给前运算阶段儿童看 5 只狗和 3 只猫，然后问“狗多还是动物多？”，他们会错误地回答“狗多”。这显示出他们无法同时考虑子类和更大的类。在题目识别中把这个错误当成守恒错误就会丢分。
Evaluating Piaget often involves noting that he underestimated children’s abilities. Hughes’ ‘policeman doll’ study showed that even young children could take another’s perspective when the task was made meaningful, challenging Piaget’s egocentrism claim. When writing an evaluation, specifically name an alternative study and explain what it shows—generic statements like 'other research disagreed' are insufficient.
评价皮亚杰理论时常会提到他低估了儿童的能力。休斯的“警察玩偶”研究表明，即使是年幼的孩子，当任务变得有意义时也能够采取他人的视角，从而挑战了皮亚杰的自我中心论断。在写评价时，要具体指出替代性的研究并解释其揭示了什么——像“其他研究不同意”这样的笼统陈述是不够的。
9. Mental Health and Stigma | 心理健康与污名化
The topic of mental health requires understanding the biological, psychological, and social explanations for disorders like depression or anxiety. A frequent error is to provide a one-sided explanation—for example, attributing depression solely to low serotonin levels without considering cognitive factors such as negative schemas or social factors like isolation. The GCSE mark scheme rewards explanations that integrate at least two perspectives, especially in higher-tier questions.
心理健康这一主题要求理解对抑郁或焦虑等障碍的生物学、心理学和社会解释。一个常见的错误是给出片面的解释——例如，将抑郁完全归因于血清素水平过低，而不考虑消极图式等认知因素或社会孤立等社会因素。GCSE 评分标准对综合至少两种视角的解释给予认可，尤其是在高阶题目中。
Stigma is a socio-cultural concept that students sometimes treat as a synonym for prejudice, missing the element of labelling and power. Stigma involves a process of labelling a person as different, linking the label to negative stereotypes, and then separating them into an 'out-group', leading to status loss and discrimination. Link and Phelan’s conceptualisation is useful here. When a question asks how stigma affects help-seeking, don’t simply say 'people feel embarrassed'—explain the anticipation of rejection and the internalisation of negative beliefs that reduce self-esteem.
污名化是一个社会文化概念，学生有时会将其当作偏见的同义词，从而遗漏了标签和权力的要素。污名化包含这样的过程：将某人标签为异类，将该标签与负面刻板印象相联系，然后将其隔离为“外群体”，导致地位丧失和歧视。林克和费伦的概念化在此处很有用。当题目问到污名如何影响求助行为时，不要只说“人们感到尴尬”——要解释对拒绝的预期以及使自尊降低的负面信念的内化。
A typical exam trap involves asking about the ethical implications of labelling a patient with a mental disorder. While a diagnosis can bring relief and access to treatment, it may also lead to self-fulfilling prophecy (the individual begins to act according to the label) and reduced social opportunities. A strong answer weighs benefits against risks, perhaps citing Rosenhan’s 'Being Sane in Insane Places' study to illustrate the power of diagnostic labels.
一个典型的考试陷阱是询问给患者贴上精神障碍标签的伦理影响。虽然诊断可以带来解脱和获得治疗的机会，但也可能导致自我实现预言（个体开始按照标签行事）和社交机会的减少。一个有力的答案会权衡益处与风险，或许会引用罗森汉的“精神病院里的正常人”研究，以说明诊断标签的力量。
10. Data Analysis and Common Pitfalls | 数据分析与常见陷阱
Interpretation of graphs, tables, and correlation coefficients trips up many candidates. When describing the result of a correlation, never imply causation—GCSE examiners are extremely sensitive to this. Instead of 'anxiety causes low exam performance,' you must write: 'There is a negative correlation between anxiety score and exam mark, suggesting that higher anxiety is associated with lower performance.' Adding that a third variable, such as ineffective study habits, could explain the relationship shows evaluation.
图表、表格和相关系数的解读绊倒了许多考生。在描述相关结果时，永远不要暗示因果关系——GCSE 考官对此极为敏感。你应该写：“焦虑分数与考试成绩之间存在负相关，表明较高的焦虑与较低的成绩相关联”，而不是“焦虑导致考试成绩差”。补充说明第三个变量（如低效的学习习惯）可能解释这种关系，则展示出评价能力。
Calculating percentages, means, and ranges is straightforward arithmetic, yet errors occur because students rush. A common mistake with the range is forgetting to add 1 after subtracting the minimum from the maximum when the data are discrete whole numbers. Check your specification carefully: in GCSE Psychology, the range is usually calculated as (highest value – lowest value). However, if you are constructing a bar chart, the scale must be linear and labelled—graphs without axis labels and units lose marking points.
计算百分比、平均值和全距属于简单的算术，但学生常因匆忙而犯错。全距的一个常见错误是当数据为离散整数时，在用最大值减去最小值后忘记加 1。仔细核对你的考试大纲：在 GCSE 心理学中，全距通常按（最大值 – 最小值）计算。然而，如果你要绘制条形图，刻度必须是线性的并加注标签——缺少轴标签和单位的图表会失去分数。
When answering 'design a study' questions, a critical error is using an inappropriate measure of central tendency. If there are extreme scores (outliers), the median is more appropriate than the mean. If the data are categorical (e.g., attachment type), the mode is the only suitable measure. Always justify your choice in relation to the nature of the data expected. Similarly, in a repeated measures design, students sometimes forget to mention counterbalancing to control order effects—simply recognising the need boosts marks.
在回答“设计一项研究”的题目时，一个关键错误是使用了不恰当的集中趋势量数。如果数据中存在极端值（离群值），中位数比平均数更恰当。如果数据是类别的（如依恋类型），众数是唯一适合的量数。始终要结合预期的数据性质来为你的选择提供理由。同样，在重复测量设计中，学生有时会忘记提及平衡设计以控制顺序效应——只要意识到这一需求就能提升分数。
Published by TutorHao | 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