<p>after hours of going over the stuff, i took the practice tests and graded it also (free response i graded as hard as possible). I found that the multiple choice tests seemed to be more tricky than the real released exam. It seemed to put a lot more similar answers with slight different wording. Am I the only one that feel that way? I'm a little worried becuase i score a 93 on the first multiple test in barrons, and a 86 on the second one. and a lot of the ones i missed are slight wording difference ( this answer is correct, but the other one is "better" etc etc...).I heard barron's test are usually harder than the real thing, is that true for psychology? </p>
<p>by the way, can someone explain to me the difference between Cannon-Bard theory and the two-factor theory? i can't quite tell the difference...</p>
<p>Princeton Review has the most accurate tests; Barron's are either too hard or too easy, the latter very sparingly. </p>
<p>The Cannon-Bard theory states that humans feel emotions first and then experience their physiological effects. The two-factor theory splits emotion into two parts: arousal and cognition. After you experience arousal, you label the emotion.</p>
<p>The upper 80s and lower 90s is an excellent score on the barrons practice tests. All you need for a 5 on the actually exam is an 80 if you write decent essays.</p>
<p>Yeah that's the problem... "decent essays." I self study the course, so i have little idea how hard the readers actually grade the essay. I tried to define the words to the best of my ability, but sometimes i think even with a rubric, it really depends on how the readers grade it. Like with the intro or conclusions, barron's say it's useless, while PR said it's important. also, are you only require to give examples when they ask for one? or are you suppose to use example to define psychological terms regardless? the latter is a lot harder.</p>
<p>I noticed this too. They seem to ask about obscure people/psychologists that aren't necessary for the AP exam. For example, I'm 100% sure that you're never ever ever going to see a question about Phineas Gage.</p>
<p>Anyways, the different emotional theories aren't very well explained in the Barron's book. My textbook, which I trust a lot more, describes the theories well. The Cannon-Bard theory implies that the emotional response and the biological response occur simultaneously. They combine to form an emotion. The two-factor theory states that the biological response and a cognitive label you make combine to create an emotional response. What's confusing you is the cognitive label part. A cognitive label is basically how you think you should feel about a particular thing. If you're walking down an alley and you see a hooded stranger coming towards you, the cognitive label you might place on the situation would be something like, "I'm getting scared." The label, along with your biological response, will combine to create the emotion.
The two-factor theory has a cognitive component that isn't present in the Cannon-Bard Theory.</p>
<p>Wait what exactly did you notice?</p>
<p>And also could you elaborate on "emotional response" for the Cannon-Bard part? does it mean that you'll have an emotion regardless of physciological response, and the physciological reponse just influence the emtion (thus i suppose the emotion first, physical later part) ? Thanks for all answers dude.</p>
<p>I took AP Psych last year and scored a 5. Barron's is very realistic and its lessons are perfect and covers enough of the material. The Barron's questions are very similar to those of the real test.</p>
<p>I beg to differ. Barron's is notoriously known for being a little more difficult than the actual thing. This applies to practically all of their review books. Don't worry too much, psych really isn't too hard of an AP.</p>
<p>I'm not saying that every Barron's book is perfect for prepping, however, the Barron's for AP Psych is pretty much spot on. It's thorough even though it's concise. </p>
<p>And AP Psych is probably the easiest AP I will have taken, so don't stress out too much.</p>