📚 High-Frequency Exam Topics and Common Mistakes in CCEA Year 10 Psychology | CCEA Year 10 心理学高频考点与易错题分析
Understanding the high-frequency topics and common pitfalls in CCEA Year 10 Psychology is essential for exam success. This article analyses the key areas where students often gain or lose marks, providing targeted revision guidance.
要取得CCEA Year 10心理学的优异成绩，掌握高频考点并避免常见错误至关重要。本文将分析学生容易得分与失分的关键领域，并提供有针对性的复习指导。
1. The Multi-Store Model of Memory (MSM) | 记忆的多重存储模型
The Multi-Store Model describes memory as three separate stores: sensory register, short-term memory (STM), and long-term memory (LTM). A common mistake is confusing the coding and duration of STM and LTM. STM codes acoustically and lasts about 18-30 seconds without rehearsal, while LTM codes semantically and has potentially unlimited duration. Many students incorrectly state that STM uses semantic coding. Remember: acoustic for STM, semantic for LTM.
多重存储模型将记忆分为三个独立仓库：感觉登记、短时记忆和长时记忆。常见错误是混淆了短时记忆与长时记忆的编码和持续时间。短时记忆采用声学编码，无复述时约持续18-30秒；长时记忆则是语义编码，持续时间可能无限。不少学生错误地认为短时记忆是语义编码。请牢记：短时声学，长时语义。
2. Reconstructive Memory and Bartlett's War of the Ghosts | 重建记忆与巴特利特的“幽灵之战”
Bartlett argued that memory is not like a video recorder; we reconstruct memories using schemas. A typical exam error is failing to link schemas to reconstructive memory. When explaining 'The War of the Ghosts', students often forget to mention that culturally unfamiliar details were distorted to fit participants' existing schemas. The concepts of rationalisation and confabulation are also often confused: rationalisation makes a story more logical; confabulation is filling gaps with false details that feel true.
巴特利特认为记忆并非录像机，我们利用图式对记忆进行重建。典型的考试错误是没有将图式与重建记忆联系起来。在解释“幽灵之战”实验时，学生常忘记提及文化不熟悉的细节被扭曲以适应被试已有的图式。合理化与虚构这两个概念也常被混淆：合理化是让故事更符合逻辑；虚构则是用感觉真实的错误细节填补空白。
3. Bowlby's Theory of Attachment | 鲍尔比的依恋理论
Bowlby's theory emphasises that infants have an innate drive to form one primary attachment for survival. Common pitfalls: confusing the critical period (first 2 years) with a sensitive period, or stating that attachment is directed at multiple caregivers equally. The internal working model (IWM) is a mental template for future relationships. Examiners frequently deduct marks when students claim the IWM only affects romantic relationships, ignoring its influence on parenting and friendships.
鲍尔比理论强调婴儿具有形成单一主要依恋以求生存的先天驱力。常见易错点：将关键期（前2年）与敏感期混为一谈，或认为依恋可以平均指向多个照护者。内部工作模式是未来人际关系的心理模板。考官常扣分的情况是学生声称内部工作模式只影响恋爱关系，而忽略它对亲子关系和友谊的影响。
4. Ainsworth's Strange Situation | 安斯沃思的陌生情境
The Strange Situation assesses the quality of attachment in infants aged 12-18 months by observing reunion behaviours. Students often mislabel the attachment types: Secure (Type B) infants seek comfort and are easily soothed; Insecure-Avoidant (Type A) are indifferent; Insecure-Resistant (Type C) show clinginess and anger. A typical error is describing Type C infants as avoidant. Also, the role of the caregiver's sensitivity is crucial: high sensitivity is linked to Type B, but not all insensitive care leads to avoidance—it could lead to resistance.
陌生情境通过观察重聚行为评估12-18个月婴儿的依恋质量。学生常错误标注依恋类型：安全型（B型）婴儿寻求安慰且易被安抚；不安全-回避型（A型）表现冷漠；不安全-抗拒型（C型）既黏人又愤怒。典型错误是把C型说成回避型。此外，照护者敏感性的作用至关重要：高敏感度与安全型相关，但并非所有不敏感的照料都会导致回避型，也可能导致抗拒型。
5. Asch's Conformity Study | 阿希从众研究
Asch (1951) showed that participants conformed to an obviously wrong line judgment about 37% of the time due to group pressure. Students frequently confuse normative social influence (NSI) and informational social influence (ISI). In Asch's unambiguous task, the conformity was primarily NSI - wanting to fit in. When a dissenter was present, conformity dropped. A pitfall is attributing all conformity to ISI, missing that ISI occurs in ambiguous situations where we look to others for information.
阿希（1951）的研究表明，由于群体压力，被试在明显的线条判断任务中约有37%的次数从众。学生常混淆规范性社会影响和信息性社会影响。在阿希任务情境明确的情况下，从众主要是规范性社会影响——想要融入群体。当出现异议者时，从众率下降。易错点是将所有从众都归因于信息性社会影响，殊不知信息性社会影响发生在情境模糊、我们需从他人处获取信息之时。
6. Milgram's Obedience Experiment | 米尔格拉姆服从实验
Milgram (1963) found that 65% of participants administered the maximum 450V shock. Key situational factors include proximity of victim, authority legitimacy, and presence of disobedient peers. A common error is overestimating the influence of personality (e.g., "Germans are more obedient") or forgetting that ethical deception was used. When discussing ethical issues, students must mention that participants were debriefed and no real shocks were given, but deception about the study's purpose could cause psychological harm.
米尔格拉姆（1963）发现65%的被试施加了最高450伏特电击。关键情境因素包括受害者距离、权威身份的合法性以及反抗同伴的存在。常见错误是高估人格影响（如“德国人更服从”）或忘记实验使用了欺骗手段。在讨论伦理问题时，学生必须提到被试事后得到解释，且电击是假的，但关于研究目的的欺骗可能造成心理伤害。
7. Experimental Designs | 实验设计
Three main designs are independent groups (IG), repeated measures (RM), and matched pairs (MP). A classic mistake is confusing the advantages: RM controls for participant variables but suffers from order effects, which can be handled by counterbalancing. IG avoids order effects but requires more participants and may have participant variables. MP aims to reduce participant variables without order effects but is difficult to achieve. When answering design questions, always link to the specific study.
三种主要实验设计为独立组设计、重复测量设计和配对组设计。经典错误是混淆优势：重复测量设计能控制参与者变量，但存在顺序效应，可通过平衡法处理。独立组设计避免顺序效应，但需要更多被试且可能存在参与者变量。配对组设计旨在减少参与者变量而无顺序效应，但较难实现。回答设计问题时，务必结合具体研究进行说明。
8. Ethical Guidelines (BPS) | 伦理准则（英国心理学会）
The BPS ethical principles include respect, competence, responsibility, and integrity. Key specific guidelines are informed consent, right to withdraw, deception, debriefing, and confidentiality. Students often lose marks by stating that deception is never allowed—it can be used if necessary and followed by thorough debriefing. Another error is forgetting that children require parental consent. Also, the right to withdraw means participants can leave at any time, even after the study and request data withdrawal.
英国心理学会的伦理原则包括尊重、胜任、责任和诚信。具体重要准则有知情同意、退出权、欺骗、事后解释与保密。学生常因声称“绝不能使用欺骗”而失分——在必要且进行充分事后解释的前提下，欺骗是允许的。另一个错误是忘记儿童需要家长同意。此外，退出权意味着参与者可在任何时候离开，甚至研究结束后仍可要求撤回数据。
9. Data Handling: Mean, Median, Mode and Range | 数据处理：平均数、中位数、众数和极差
Students must decide which measure of central tendency is most appropriate. Use the mean for normally distributed data without outliers, median for skewed data or with outliers, and mode for categorical data. A frequent mistake is calculating the mean from a bar chart that shows frequencies, not actual values. Also, the range is the difference between highest and lowest values; it is easily affected by outliers. When asked to evaluate, mention that the median is not distorted by extreme scores.
学生必须会选择最适当的集中趋势量数。正态分布且无异常值时用平均数，偏态或有异常值时用中位数，分类数据用众数。常见错误是根据显示频率而非实际数值的条形图计算平均数。极差是最大值与最小值之差，易受异常值影响。在评估时，要说明中位数不受极端分数扭曲。
10. Definitions of Abnormality | 异常行为的定义
Four definitions are: statistical infrequency, deviation from social norms, failure to function adequately, and deviation from ideal mental health. Typical exam pitfalls: using statistical infrequency alone to label rare behaviours like high IQ as abnormal—this can be a negative evaluation. Also, cultural relativism is often ignored; what is a norm in one culture may be abnormal in another. For 'failure to function', don't just list behaviours like 'cannot hold a job'; explain that it causes distress and dysfunction.
四种定义为：统计少见性、偏离社会规范、功能不足以及偏离理想心理健康标准。典型考试陷阱：仅用统计少见性将高智商等罕见行为也标为异常——这可以是一种负面评价。另外，文化相对性常被忽略；一个文化中的规范在另一文化中可能被视为异常。对于“功能不足”，不要只罗列“无法坚持工作”等行为，而要解释其引起痛苦与功能障碍。
11. The Nervous System and Fight or Flight | 神经系统与“战或逃”反应
The autonomic nervous system (ANS) consists of sympathetic and parasympathetic branches. Common confusion: the sympathetic system activates fight-or-flight (increasing heart rate, dilating pupils), whereas the parasympathetic restores calm. Students often mix up which branch does what. Also, the hypothalamus triggers the pituitary-adrenal axis. Errors include stating that adrenaline causes fight-or-flight rather than being part of the response, or forgetting the role of the adrenal medulla.
自主神经系统由交感神经和副交感神经组成。常见混淆：交感神经激活“战或逃”反应（心跳加速、瞳孔放大），而副交感神经则使身体恢复平静。学生常混淆两个分支的功能。此外，下丘脑触发垂体-肾上腺轴。错误包括说肾上腺素导致战或逃（其实它是反应的一部分），或忘记了肾上腺髓质的作用。
12. Explanations for Obedience: Authoritarian Personality | 服从的解释：权威人格
Adorno's F-scale measured authoritarian personality—a disposition to respect authority and despise the weak. A mistake is to argue that Milgram's findings can be wholly explained by disposition, ignoring the situational factors that produced 65% obedience in ordinary people. Examiners expect an interactionist approach: some individuals may be more disposed, but the situation is crucial. Another error: confusing the authoritarian personality with authoritarian traits like strict parenting, which are not the same construct.
阿多诺的F量表测量权威人格——一种尊重权威、蔑视弱者的倾向。一种错误是认为米尔格拉姆的结果可完全由特质解释，忽略了情境因素使得普通人中65%服从。考官期望交互论观点：一些个体可能更具服从倾向，但情境至关重要。另一错误：混淆权威人格与严格养育等权威主义特征，两者并非同一概念。
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