A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY SPECIFICATION B PSYB2 Social Psychology, Cognitive Psychology and Individual Differences Report on the Examination 2185 June 2015 Version: 1.0
Further copies of this Report are available from aqa.org.uk Copyright 2015 AQA and its licensors. All rights reserved. AQA retains the copyright on all its publications. However, registered schools/colleges for AQA are permitted to copy material from this booklet for their own internal use, with the following important exception: AQA cannot give permission to schools/colleges to photocopy any material that is acknowledged to a third party even for internal use within the centre.
PSYB2 General comments Performance on PSYB2 was broadly comparable with that of previous series, if not a little better, as students and teachers are now fully familiar with the various question formats and skill requirements. Examiners were pleased to see some excellent answers to the extended response questions, most notably those in the Social Influence, Perceptual Processes and Autism sections. These seemed to allow students to express the full range of their understanding and incorporate an impressive depth of material. The ten-mark questions within Social Cognition and Anxiety Disorders proved challenging for many. In relation to the latter question, many students failed to include any relevant evidence within their answer and therefore partial performance was applied. Students need access to evidence related to the efficacy of treatments as well as the various models, theories and explanations that they seem to have in other areas of the specification. As is always the case, there was substantial variation in the quality of responses to short-answer questions. The AO3 How Science Works questions, which have seen an upsurge in quality in recent series, were slightly less well-answered this time around. Students were well-versed in the strengths and limitations of laboratory experiments but most were unable to place their answer in the context of the information described in the stem. Many students still have real difficulty developing a coherent line of argument, for instance, within a three mark question that requires a single point to be elaborated. If the question is more open-ended, and three marks can be achieved by a list of three brief statements, most students are much more comfortable following this route. The majority of students seemed able to pace themselves through the examination and there was very little evidence that they had run out of time towards the end. In all three sections, there was at least some attempt to answer all of the questions and, for many, their final essay was invariably the most detailed. This series was notable for the huge range in quality of written communication. Many students were able to produce articulate and coherent responses that met all the requirements of the mark scheme in terms of quality of written communication. Some students found it difficult to write in any kind of clear and meaningful way, such that the point of what was being said was often very difficult to discern. It is also increasingly the case that students (mis)spelling of some of the more common psychological terms such as ecological validity, evaluation apprehension and demand characteristics is detracting from the quality of their answers. 3 of 10
Section A Social Psychology Topic: Social Influence Question 01 The focus of this question was on the procedural aspects of Milgram's variations. On the whole, students coped very well and there were many full mark answers. In answers that included extraneous material related to findings and conclusions there was invariably sufficient creditworthy material to achieve full marks. Often factors were not clearly stated but credit could also be gained for giving procedural detail of the original study alongside details of the variation - and many students followed this route successfully. Question 02 Many students were able to score full marks, usually with reference to parenting style and blind obedience to higher status authority figures. In some answers 'authoritarian personality' was interpreted, wrongly, as 'authority', so the answer consisted of an explanation of why a person like this would be or should be obeyed. Question 03 'Lack of ecological validity' was the most common issue outlined, but many failed to link this to the line matching task in Asch's experiments. It was a similar situation with regards to 'demand characteristics'. The issue of 'sample bias' proved to be more successful however with many students making a sensible link. Question 04 Generally this was one of the essays where students performed well. Many students were able to identify and outline several causes and/or effects of arousal as well as related effects on performance. Most students were able to meet the 'application' requirement of the question by making links to the scenario. Often these were repetitive however with long accounts of Jonny and Barry which added little to the overall quality of the answer. There was confusion about the meaning of 'dominant response' - the mistaken assumption that there is such a thing as a 'non-dominant response' was often in evidence. There were a number of incomplete or partly inaccurate accounts of studies, especially that involving cockroaches. Stronger answers included appropriate use of studies and general evaluation points, such as the failure of much of the evidence to account for poor performance in experts ('championship choke'). 4 of 10
Topic: Social Cognition Question 05 Of the several possible functions that could be talked about here, the adaptive function proved fruitful for most though many students also provided a redundant example along with an accurate outline. There were some vague explanations of the knowledge function, and ego expressive function was often confused with ego defensive. Question 06 There was a failure to properly explain the nature of the primacy effect and central traits and their effect on impression formation although most students were able to match their chosen factor to relevant information contained within the stem. Question 07 There were many one mark answers. Most students provided procedural detail of a relevant study. This was typically one of Asch s investigations applied to either the primacy effect or central traits. Having made clear what the difference between the two conditions of the experiment was, very few students went on to explain how impression formation was measured, for example, the fact that additional traits were selected from a list. Instead, the majority described the findings which were not a requirement of the question. Question 08 This question proved challenging for many students. There were very few top-band answers and much confusion between the three types of attributional bias named on the specification. Of the three, the self-serving bias was tackled most effectively and this was often paired with description of relevant evidence. There were some very muddled accounts of studies, most notably for the actor-observer effect. Most students offered very little descriptive detail of the biases beyond a one-sentence definition. Evaluative comment too was rarely seen, though most students were able to use evidence effectively by stating clearly how a particular study supported the existence of a particular bias. 5 of 10
Section B Cognitive Psychology Topic: Remembering and Forgetting Questions 09 and 10 Both of these questions required students to identify the type of memory which was being used for each task described in the stem, and the vast majority of students were able to do this successfully though some got them the wrong way round. Some students offered answers that were based on the levels of processing model, for example, 'structural' and phonetic were commonly cited. Question 11 Many answers dealt with the different role of 'time and place'; others gave contrasting definitions of each term which was accepted as a way of illustrating 'difference'. These latter were sometimes incomplete: 'semantic' described in terms of 'knowledge' or 'things we have learned'; 'episodic' in terms of 'events' without reference to their personal or autobiographical nature. Question 12 Most students were able to identify and elaborate a strength of laboratory experiments many answers centred on issues such as 'control' or 'cause and effect' though few provided an appropriate link to the investigation described. Question 13 A very similar scenario to that described in question 12. Many students attempted links to the stem did not quite go far enough, so the notion that 'we would not normally be asked to remember family holidays' required additional detail, such as 'whilst our brain activity is being monitored'. Question 14 Generally the description of the model and its three levels was clear and accurate with most students able to offer appropriate examples to illustrate each level. The crucial point however - that the deeper the level of processing, the more enduring the memory - was missed by many. Lots of responses offered weak and generic evaluation of the model. There was an over reliance on the issue of 'ecological validity', which was rarely applied to the model successfully, and there were some rather weak attempts to explain the difficulty of measuring depth of processing. Often this issue was merely stated but not elaborated. Overall, top-band answers were rare, though there were some excellent responses which were notable for their sophisticated use of evidence to support and challenge the model. 6 of 10
Topic: Perceptual Processes Question 15 Most students were able to link the experience of the Bantu children to some feature of Gregory s theory usually in the context of lack of experience of appropriate depth cues. Some students made some passing reference to the notion of experience but failed to make the link to the stem and were awarded one mark as a result. Question 16 Some students repeated the depth cue that was already given in the stem, but most were able to name two others with little difficulty. Attempted identifications were misspelt to such a degree that it detracted from the quality of students answers. Question 17 Many students understood that a feature of a quasi-experiment is a pre-existing independent variable but hardly any referred to how this prevents random allocation of participants to conditions. The link to the investigation described was usually well-made. Question 18 Most students were able to identify independent groups or matched pairs as possible designs but few were able to explain strength clearly and coherently. This was surprising as there was no requirement here for engagement with the stem. Question 19 There were many excellent answers here; students appeared well-prepared for this question and many were able to offer sophisticated accounts of Gibson s theory that included a range of material and depth of analysis. Descriptions of the key concepts were typically sound though there was occasional confusion with Gregory s theory. Many students presented relevant evidence (usually Bower, Gibson and Walk or Lee and Lishman) alongside convincing links to the theory. Evaluation normally came in the form of comparison with Gregory s theory and was often well-informed and impressive. 7 of 10
Section C Individual Differences Topic: Anxiety Disorders Question 20 Most answers were correct but a few confused 'obsession' and 'compulsion'. Others failed to outline compulsion adequately, describing it as 'an act that reduces anxiety' without conveying its repetitive or ritualistic nature. Question 21 There were lots of weak answers that just referred to 'cognitive bias', 'cognitive vulnerability', 'distorted thinking', etc. without further expansion - though any of these alternatives was deemed adequate for the first mark. The link to Rob's behaviour for the second mark proved problematic for many students. Question 22 Most students chose a biological/genetic explanation and those that did found it relatively straightforward to link this to the experience of Rob's mother. Those who chose a different explanation tended to find the application part of the answer much more difficult. Question 23 Again, variation in the quality of this answer tended to be based largely on the explanation selected for question 22. Those students who evaluated a genetic explanation fared much better, offering studies as support and some valid counter argument. Behavioural or psychodynamic explanations were generally poorly evaluated. Question 24 'Flooding', 'systematic desensitisation' and 'psychodynamic therapies' were the most popular. Outlines of the therapies were usually detailed and accurate. A few answers dealt with 'drug therapy' but there appeared to be less scope for detailed description. There was evidence of detailed and sustained evaluation and comparison of therapies in many answers. Some evaluative comments were more superficial. As is typical in questions of this type, there were many attempted discussion points related to 'time' and 'cost' which were not used to compare treatments and failed to gain much credit. Many students appeared not to have any evidence at their disposal apart from some rather vague and speculative assertions (usually in the form of percentages) related to success rates. As a result, many responses failed to address one of the central requirements of the question - the need for evidence - and were capped at 6 marks as a result. 8 of 10
Topic: Autism Question 25 Many students were able to identify the three points of the triad though some offered examples as outlines that were not implied by the stem, such as lack of joint attention. The examples for deficit in communication and deficit in social interaction were often the wrong way round, and this was the most common reason why students failed to secure the fourth mark. Question 26 There were some good answers to this question. Many students chose to explain how Jack could be encouraged to interact better with staff and his peers by describing a series of steps towards this that would be rewarded usually in the form of sweets. As such, these answers were fully applied to the question stem and gained all three marks. Some students failed to state the target behaviour clearly enough or sometimes it was difficult to see how the increments described would logically contribute to the achievement of the specified behaviour. Question 27 Most students achieved at least two of the three marks available. The majority of students preferred to structure their answer in terms of three briefly stated points rather than develop a single coherent line of argument. In these responses some points were simply too brief to gain credit. As with the therapies (question 24), there were lots of unsubstantiated remarks related to time and cost, but successful evaluations were often constructed around the need for parental involvement and the impact on other members of the family. Question 28 Theory of mind was by far the most popular explanation and typically the one that was best executed. There were some very long descriptions of the Sally-Anne study but these usually included clear explanation of the concept of mind-blindness or false belief. Sometimes the latter was presented as something that children with autism experience themselves rather than as a failure to see it in others. Central coherence and executive functioning were often mixed up, though marks were still awarded as long as the explanations were correct. There was some cursory and underdeveloped evaluation such as lists of symptoms that a particular explanation failed to account for, without further elaboration. Generally though as with the perceptual processes essay students seemed well-prepared for this question. 9 of 10
Mark Ranges and Award of Grades Grade boundaries and cumulative percentage grades are available on the Results Statistics page of the AQA Website. Converting Marks into UMS marks Convert raw marks into Uniform Mark Scale (UMS) marks by using the link below. UMS conversion calculator 10 of 10