Yuki: aim, procedure, results, conclusions
AIM: whether people raised in Japan and the US rely on a different facial cue — eyes or mouth. PROCEDURE: students in both countries rated computer emoticons, and later edited real-face photos, with eyes and mouth varied independently so the cues could disagree. RESULTS: Japanese ratings driven by the eyes, American by the mouth; the same held for real faces. CONCLUSIONS: culture shapes which cue is weighted, so recognising emotion is not one universal process.
Why the split was predicted
Few say WHY the split was expected, and that reasoning earns AO1. The mouth is easy to move on purpose (a polite smile can be faked); the eyes are much harder to control, so they leak the real feeling. Where a culture discourages open display of emotion, an observer learns the mouth cannot be trusted and reads the eyes instead. So Japanese weight the eyes, Americans the mouth. Everyday echo: Japanese emoticons vary the eyes, Western ones the mouth.
Balanced strengths and weaknesses
STRENGTHS: materials standardised, eyes and mouth varied one at a time, so a rating difference traces to the cue; it replicates; the pattern held for emoticons AND real photos. WEAKNESSES: artificial faces limit ecological validity; students in two countries cannot stand for East and West; culture cannot be allocated, so emoticon familiarity could cause the difference instead. Verdict: it shows the cue difference far more securely than its cause.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Getting the two cultures the wrong way round
The finding is one sentence and reversing it wrecks everything. RIGHT: Japanese participants weighted the EYES, American participants the MOUTH. Hook: Japanese emoticons write a smile with the eyes, Western ones with the mouth. And both groups used BOTH cues; what differed was which was weighted more when they disagreed, so 'Japanese cannot read mouths' overstates it.
The direction of the finding is examined in June 2024 P2 Q40 and again in June 2019 P2 Q40, recording the mouth as the American cue and the eyes as the Japanese cue.
Describing the study, never linking back
Examiners flag this on Topic 10: answers full of study description that never touch the question, so the top band is rarely reached. Retelling the emoticons, the countries and the ratings is all AO1, leaving AO2 and AO3 untouched. Fix: after each description block add a link sentence. If the question names THIS study, use it, not Darwin, relativism or Boroditsky.
June 2024 P2 Q41 records that Level 3 responses were rare, partly because of a lot of description of studies without linking back to the question.
Giving a result when a conclusion is asked
A result is what was observed; a conclusion is what the researchers infer beyond it. RESULT: 'Japanese rated a face happier with happy eyes, Americans with a happy mouth.' CONCLUSION: 'which cue a person weights is shaped by culture, so recognising emotion is not one universal process.' Test: could a non-psychologist write it from the ratings alone? If yes, it is a result.
A result offered where a conclusion was asked for scores zero (June 2023 P2 Q1f; June 2024 P1 Q5a and Q11a).
Using the theory when the study is named
If the stem names THIS study, answer with it — the emoticons, the two groups, the ratings, the conclusion — not with Darwin, relativism/determinism or Boroditsky, and do not evaluate another study as if it were this one. The reverse also loses marks: if the stem names a THEORY, do not just retell this study. Underline which one is named first.
Answering with the theory when a named study was asked for (June 2022 P2 Q32); evaluating the wrong study offered as evaluation (June 2022 P2 Q40).
Weakness given where improvement is asked
An improvement asks what to do DIFFERENTLY next time; candidates give a weakness instead. Here 'the faces were unrealistic' is a weakness; the improvement is the fix — film real people reacting spontaneously so movement, voice and context are available. State the change and the problem it solves: a weakness names the fault, an improvement the remedy.
An improvement item answered with a weakness (June 2019 P2 Q3c).
Name or stem is not scenario application
On a scenario, AO3 needs AO2, so evaluation with no scenario detail scores nothing. NOT application: the character's name, or repeating the stem. Application uses the scenario's OWN detail tied to the study — 'he read the message as unfriendly though it ended in a smiley, weighting the eyes while the sender used the mouth.' Match a concrete detail to the study.
AO3 cannot be awarded without AO2 present (June 2023 P2 Q31); the character's name is not application (June 2022 P1 Q4b; June 2023 P2 Q25); repeating the stem is not application (June 2024 P2 Q10 and Summary).
It does not show emotions differ by culture
Two opposite errors. 'Eastern and Western people FEEL different emotions': nothing measured what anyone felt; it measured which facial part they judged by, and both groups used both cues. 'Only emoticons, so it proves nothing': wrong — the same pattern appeared with real-face photos; the fair criticism is that mismatched faces strip away movement, voice and situation.
The finding in June 2024 P2 Q40 and June 2019 P2 Q40 is a difference in which cue is used, not in the emotions themselves; evaluation must do more than describe (June 2023 and June 2024 P2 Summaries).
Do AO2 first; AO3 depends on it
AO3 cannot be awarded without AO2, so evaluation attached to no scenario scores nothing. Order: AO1 (what they did and found), AO2 (a concrete scenario detail matched to the study), AO3 (a named lens, then a conclusion). Starting with AO3 leaves AO2 too thin and forfeits both.
Reaching 7-9 on the 9-mark Assess
The 9-mark Assess splits AO1 3 / AO2 3 / AO3 3; the 7-9 band needs AO3 and balance. AO1: the eyes/mouth finding. AO2: the scenario's own detail. AO3: weigh a strength (controlled cues) against a weakness (artificial faces), then conclude the difference is surer than its cause.
Describe, strength and difference rules
A describe needs two DIFFERENT findings; the same one reworded scores one. On a strength/weakness use point (a feature of THIS study), why (what it does), consequence (what it buys). On a difference, side-by-side definitions score one; a connective ('whereas') earns the second.
Cue — a feature of a person that an observer uses as evidence about what that person is feeling.
Emoticon — a face made out of keyboard characters to show emotion in written messages.
Ecological validity — whether a study's findings hold outside the setting it was run in, in ordinary everyday life.
Generalisability — whether findings from the participants studied can safely be applied to the wider population they came from.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
