WRITING ESSAYS
HOW TO WRITE AN ESSAY FOR PSYCHOLOGY
Psychology essays at A-level are distinct from essays in other subjects, such as English or humanities. The emphasis is on writing scientifically, demonstrating knowledge (AO1) and critically evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of theories or research (AO3). The assessment objectives (AOs) dictate that essays should prioritise higher-order skills, with around 30% of marks for AO1 (describing theories or research about the question) and 70% for AO2/3 (evaluating theories or study and applying them to real-world contexts).
Essays should also reflect an understanding of the scientific method, focusing on the credibility of research through concepts such as validity, reliability, generalisability, and ethical considerations. Issues and debates (e.g., nature vs nurture, cultural bias, reductionism vs holism) are integral to strong evaluation and should be explicitly referenced where relevant.
While referencing names and dates is good practice, it is not the primary focus at A-level. Instead, the priority is demonstrating an accurate understanding of the theory or research and addressing the question clearly and concisely.
WHAT YOU NEED TO KNOW TO WRITE A GOOD PSYCHOLOGY ESSAY
Excelling in A-level psychology essays is not just about learning theories or research studies; it’s about applying that knowledge effectively and meeting the specific requirements of the assessment objectives. Without a solid grasp of these foundational concepts, students risk writing essays that lack structure, critical evaluation, or relevance to the question. These skills form the backbone of successful essay writing.
If you’re confident with all of these points, skip ahead to the sections on writing effective AO1 (description), AO2 (application), and AO3 (evaluation). If not, scroll down to strengthen your understanding of the areas where you feel less confident. The detailed explanations will give you the tools to write essays meeting A-level standards.
THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A THEORY AND A RESEARCH STUDY: Knowing this ensures you don’t confuse describing theoretical concepts with presenting evidence from studies.
ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES (AOs): Understanding AO1 (knowledge), AO2 (application), and AO3 (evaluation) helps you focus your essays on the skills that examiners assess and allocate your time and effort effectively.
MARK DISTRIBUTION: Knowing how marks are distributed (e.g., 30% AO1 and 70% AO2/3) ensures that you emphasise evaluation and application over mere description.
STRUCTURES LIKE PEEL OR PEC: Using these frameworks helps you write well-organised and logical paragraphs, avoiding vague or undeveloped points.
EVALUATION SKILLS: Critical evaluation is key to scoring well in AO3, requiring you to assess strengths, weaknesses, alternative explanations, and real-world applications.
HOW TO STRUCTURE AN EVALUATION: Critiquing a theory or study comprehensively and logically while incorporating broader considerations such as ethics or methodological flaws is essential for building strong arguments.
If you need more clarity on the above concepts, refer to the detailed explanations later in this guide before continuing. If you are confident that you know the above terms, you can move directly to the sections on writing effective AO1, AO2, and AO3 below..
GOOD PRACTICES FOR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY ESSAYS
UNDERSTAND THE ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES (WHY THIS MATTERS)
Balancing the assessment objectives (AO1, AO2, and AO3) is essential for writing high-quality essays that score well. Essays that focus solely on describing theories (AO1) without evaluating (AO3) or applying knowledge (AO2) will lose marks. A clear understanding of all assessment objectives is key to meeting examiner expectations.
KEEP THE CORRECT BALANCE
For a 16-mark question, marks are distributed as follows:
30% (5–6 marks): AO1 (knowledge)
70% (10–11 marks): AO3 (evaluation)
If the essay includes a quote and scenario, AO2 (application) is required. The breakdown changes:
30% (6 marks): AO1 (knowledge)
40% (6–7 marks): AO3 (evaluation)
30% (4 marks): AO2 (application)
FOCUS ON WHAT THE QUESTION ASKS
Every part of your essay must directly address the question. At A-level, this means cutting out irrelevant information and tailoring your response to the specific focus.
AVOID IRRELEVANT CONTENT OR SCENE-SETTING
Do not provide unnecessary definitions or background information. For example:
If evaluating a theory, keep AO1 brief and focus on critical analysis (AO3).
EXAMPLES: WHAT TO INCLUDE AND EXCLUDE
QUESTION: DISCUSS THE DOPAMINE HYPOTHESIS AS AN EXPLANATION FOR SCHIZOPHRENIA
Include A concise description of the dopamine hypothesis, such as how dopamine overactivity in the mesolimbic pathway contributes to positive symptoms of schizophrenia. Critical evaluation (AO3) should include supporting evidence, such as PET scan studies or the effectiveness of antipsychotics, and limitations, like oversimplification or contradictory findings. Alternative explanations, such as genetic predispositions or neural correlates, can be included only if used as comparative critiques to highlight the strengths and weaknesses of the dopamine hypothesis.
Exclude: Avoid unnecessary context, such as defining schizophrenia in detail, unless explicitly required by the question. Do not include unrelated biological explanations unless you use them as alternative explanations to strengthen or critique the dopamine hypothesis.
HOW TO WRITE EFFECTIVE AO1
READ AND ANALYSE THE QUESTION
Begin by carefully reading the essay question to understand exactly what it asks. Misinterpreting the question is a common pitfall. For example, students might describe Milgram’s shocking experiment when the question requires explicitly an explanation of his Agency Theory. Additionally, students often write everything they know about a theory or study in a haphazard way, which fails to address the nuances of the question. Take a moment to pause, identify the specific requirements, and underline key terms and command words such as “outline” or “explain.
KNOW THE LIMITS OF AO1
Remember that AO1 is capped at six marks throughout the examination, which is approximately one-third to three-quarters of a page, depending on handwriting size. You should never write beyond six marks, as you will not gain any more marks no matter how good your A01 rendition is.
AO1 outlines the components of a theory or study clearly and concisely, avoiding evaluation or application, which belong to AO3 and AO2, respectively.
Ensure the plan flows logically so your response presents the theory systematically and concisely.
PLAN YOUR RESPONSE
Create a brief plan to organise your ideas logically. Identify the main components of the theory or study and note down the key terms or concepts you need to include. Consider the examiner’s expectations and highlight the key elements for answering the question.
For example, when planning a response about the Working Memory Model (WMM), consider its central components: the central executive, which directs attention and coordinates subsystems; the phonological loop, which processes verbal and auditory information; the visuospatial sketchpad, which handles visual and spatial data; and the episodic buffer, which integrates information from the subsystems and long-term memory. You may also mention why the model was proposed (as an improvement on the Multi-Store Model) and its practical applications.
USE PE (POINT + EXPLAIN)
Describe each component systematically using the PE (Point + Explain) structure. This ensures clarity and depth while preventing your response from becoming disorganised.
For example, when describing the phonological loop in the WMM:
"The phonological loop is responsible for processing verbal and auditory information. It has two components: the phonological store, often called the 'inner ear,' temporarily holding auditory information, and the articulatory control process, or 'inner voice,' which rehearses this information silently. For example, silently repeating a phone number involves the articulatory process."
Incorporate accurate psychological terminology such as "neurotransmitters," "episodic buffer," or "receptors." Stick to describing the theory or study’s components without including evaluative points, as these belong in AO3.
BEGIN YOUR ANSWER
Start directly and clearly, addressing the question immediately. Avoid lengthy introductions or unnecessary details; AO1 marks are limited, so you don’t have time. Besides, if the introduction does not address the question, you will not gain marks for doing this.
For example, in response to a question such as “Discuss biological explanations for schizophrenia,” you might begin with:
"One biological explanation for schizophrenia is the dopamine hypothesis. This theory suggests that excessive dopamine activity in specific brain pathways, such as the mesolimbic system, contributes to symptoms like delusions and hallucinations."
FINAL CHECK
Review your AO1 response to ensure that it directly addresses the question. Ensure all relevant components are included and described systematically, avoiding unnecessary repetition. Ensure your writing is concise, logically structured, and free from evaluation or application.
By following this approach, your AO1 section will effectively summarise a theory's or study's key elements, providing a strong foundation for the rest of your essay.
HOW TO WRITE EFFECTIVE AO3
STRUCTURE YOUR EVALUATION LOGICALLY
Your AO3 section should be structured to build a cohesive argument:
First, the research evidence should be evaluated, moving from weaker to more vigorous studies to demonstrate progression and critical thinking. Critique the methodologies and address contradictions or alternative findings. After dealing with research, incorporate broader evaluative points, including practical applications and grenade points like reductionism, determinism, cultural bias, and ethics.
This structured approach ensures your evaluation is clear, comprehensive, and logically connected to the essay question.
START WITH EVALUATING RESEARCH
WHY START WITH RESEARCH?
Research evidence forms the foundation of any practical theory evaluation. Determining whether a theory is supported by robust empirical findings or contradicted by substantial evidence shapes the theory's credibility and guides the direction of your critique.
A theory’s credibility depends on the quality and consistency of its supporting research. If a theory is well-supported, its broader relevance and practical applications gain legitimacy. Conversely, its validity and utility are questioned if it is undermined by contradictory evidence or methodological flaws.
Additionally, starting with research evidence sets a logical structure for your essay. By systematically evaluating the quality of the research, you can build a coherent critique that either strengthens the case for the theory or effectively dismantles its credibility. This approach provides a clear framework for your argument and ensures your evaluation is well-organised and persuasive.
CLARIFYING WEAK TO STRONG RESEARCH
When evaluating a theory using supporting evidence, "weak to strong" refers to the evidence's scientific rigour and methodological robustness. This approach ensures a logical progression, starting with less reliable or generalisable evidence and building towards the most scientifically robust research. Here's how to structure this:
START WITH WEAKER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE
Non-Experiments: These include observational studies or correlational research, which lack the control of experimental designs. For example, studies observing memory performance in naturalistic settings might support a theory but fail to establish causation.
Animal Studies: Although these can provide insight into biological mechanisms, their applicability to human behaviour is limited due to differences between species. For instance, research on rats regarding dopamine pathways in schizophrenia offers biological evidence but lacks full generalisability to humans.
Case Studies: Highlight cases such as Clive Wearing for the Multi-Store Model. These illustrate distinctions (e.g., STM vs LTM) but are limited due to unique circumstances and poor generalisability.
WHY THIS APPROACH MATTERS.
Starting with weaker evidence and progressing to more substantial evidence demonstrates your ability to critically evaluate research based on its methodological quality. This logical progression highlights your understanding of how different types of evidence contribute to the credibility of a theory, strengthening your AO3 evaluation. By building from less reliable to more robust research, your essay flows logically and avoids appearing disorganised.
IMPORTANT DISTINCTION
Conflicting evidence (studies or findings that challenge the theory) should be discussed separately from supporting evidence. This separation maintains clarity and ensures the essay remains focused. Mixing supporting and conflicting evidence risks confusing the reader and weakens the strength of your argument. Constantly evaluate each type of evidence distinctly to create a structured and coherent critique.
EVALUATION BEYOND RESEARCH
After discussing the research evidence, move on to broader evaluative points that address the theory’s practical relevance and implications.
DISCUSSING PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS IN AO3: HOW TO DO IT EFFECTIVELY
When evaluating a theory in AO3, incorporating its practical applications can significantly enhance the quality of your argument. Demonstrating how a theory informs real-world practices or interventions shows a deeper understanding of its relevance and utility. However, students must use this strategy thoughtfully, ensuring their examples align with the theory’s credibility.
WHAT DOES DISCUSSING PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS MEAN?
When you discuss a theory's practical applications, you explain how its insights address real-world issues, such as improving mental health, education, or workplace productivity. This demonstrates that the theory is conceptually valid and useful in practice, strengthening your evaluation.
EXAMPLES OF PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
1. The Working Memory Model (WMM)
The WMM’s robust empirical foundation and widespread acceptance strengthen its practical applications.
Example of Application: In ADHD management, interventions have been developed based on the WMM’s components, such as the phonological loop and central executive. For instance, breaking tasks into smaller, manageable steps to reduce cognitive overload is rooted in the model’s framework. Similarly, rehearsal techniques targeting the phonological loop are employed to enhance working memory skills in children with ADHD.
Why It’s Relevant: These applications underline the WMM’s scientific validity and ability to address real-world cognitive challenges effectively.
2. Bowlby’s Attachment Theory
Bowlby’s attachment theory has real-world implications, particularly in childcare and parenting practices.
Example of Application: The critical period concept has informed hospital policies to allow parents to stay with their children during long-term care, minimising separation anxiety. Furthermore, developing programs like early intervention parenting schemes has drawn directly from Bowlby’s emphasis on secure attachments, promoting better emotional and social outcomes for children.
Why It’s Relevant: These applications highlight the theory’s utility in shaping evidence-based practices, demonstrating its enduring impact on developmental psychology and societal policies.
BUT NOT ALL THEORIES CAN BE APPLIED
While discussing real-world applications can enhance AO3, this strategy is only effective for theories that are methodologically sound and widely accepted within the scientific community. Applying a debunked or weak theory risks undermining your evaluation.
Freud’s Psychosexual Theory as an Example
Freud’s theory is often criticised for lacking falsifiability, reliance on anecdotal evidence, and limited empirical support.
Why Applications Don’t Work: Suggesting that Freud’s theories justify psychoanalytic therapy can appear contradictory if you’ve already criticised the theory’s foundations. For instance, if the theory lacks empirical validity, discussing its application to therapeutic practices becomes redundant or implies a failure to recognise its limitations.
What to Do Instead: Highlight the theory’s historical significance but note that its lack of scientific rigour makes it unsuitable for practical use today, contrasting it with evidence-based approaches like CBT.
USING ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS IN AO3
WHY ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS ENHANCE EVALUATION
Incorporating alternative explanations into AO3 strengthens your critical evaluation by highlighting the limitations of the original theory and offering more robust or nuanced perspectives. This demonstrates higher-order thinking, a key requirement at A-level. However, it is essential to use these critiques strategically to maintain focus and clarity.
HOW TO INTRODUCE ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS
When using an alternative explanation, briefly explain its key points and why it provides a better account of the phenomenon under discussion. Then, it will be linked back to the original theory to critique its shortcomings. Avoid letting the alternative explanation dominate the essay, as the focus should remain on the primary theory.
EXAMPLES OF ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS
MILGRAM’S OBEDIENCE STUDY VS SOCIAL IDENTITY THEORY
Milgram explained obedience through situational factors such as the agentic state and proximity. However, social identity theory (SIT) offers a compelling alternative. SIT suggests that participants conformed due to group identification with the experimenter and their perceived social role rather than blind obedience. Reicher and Haslam’s BBC Prison Study supports this, showing that group identification can lead individuals to resist or conform depending on their perceived group identity. This critique highlights that Milgram’s theory may oversimplify obedience by ignoring social dynamics.
BOWLBY’S MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESIS: EARLY ATTACHMENT AND LONG-TERM IMPACTS
Bowlby’s hypothesis attributes emotional and social difficulties to early separation from a primary caregiver. Rutter challenged this by distinguishing between deprivation (loss of attachment) and privation (failure to form any attachment), arguing that privation has more severe long-term effects. His findings from Romanian orphan studies indicate that the quality of caregiving, not separation alone, determines outcomes. This critique suggests that Bowlby’s hypothesis lacks nuance and oversimplifies the impact of early separation.
PRIORITISE CLARITY AND FOCUS
Essays should prioritise clarity and avoid tangents. If alternative explanations are introduced, state briefly why they are better or worse without making them the essay’s primary focus. For example:
STAY ON TOPIC: Use alternative explanations to critique the original theory and then return to the essay's primary focus. Do not over-explain the alternative. A concise critique is sufficient to enhance your AO3 and demonstrate higher-order thinking.
FINAL NOTE
Using alternative explanations effectively demonstrates critical evaluation and a sophisticated understanding of the topic. However, the key is balance: critique the original theory and integrate the alternative explanation, but ensure the essay remains focused on answering the question.
MNEMONIC FOR A03 EVALUATION
ERIC ROGER MINGS SOCK CHANGE DIDN’T GO NICELY AT ALL, AMEN
This detailed mnemonic helps students remember key A03 points for evaluating psychological theories and studies.
E – ETHICS
Evaluate the ethical issues in research, including adherence to BPS GUIDELINES (e.g., informed consent, deception, right to withdraw).
Consider SOCIALLY SENSITIVE RESEARCH, such as studies that may reinforce stereotypes or impact marginalised groups.
Reflect on ANIMAL ETHICS, including the justification for using animals, the harm caused, and adherence to ethical guidelines.
R – REDUCTIONISM VS HOLISM
REDUCTIONISM: Does the theory or study simplify behaviour too much by reducing it to one cause (e.g., biology or learning)?
HOLISM: Does it consider multiple factors or the broader context (e.g., social, cultural, or environmental influences)?
Example: Biological explanations for schizophrenia focus on dopamine but ignore social stressors.
M – METHODOLOGY
Evaluate the VALIDITY (does it measure what it claims?), RELIABILITY (can it be replicated?), and PRACTICAL PROBLEMS OR BENEFITS of the method.
Example: A lab experiment like Milgram's study is reliable but lacks ecological validity because it doesn't represent real-life settings.
S – SCIENCE
Is the research or theory SCIENTIFIC?
Consider if it’s based on experiments, FALSIFIABLE, and uses objective methods.
Example: Freud’s theories are criticised for lacking falsifiability, while cognitive neuroscience is praised for its empirical basis.
C – CULTURAL BIAS
Consider ETIC (imposing one culture’s norms on another) vs EMIC (developing culturally specific insights) approaches.
Look for ETHNOCENTRISM (judging other cultures by the researcher’s cultural standards).
Example: Milgram’s obedience study is culturally biased as it was conducted in the USA and may not generalise to collectivist cultures.
D – DETERMINISM VS FREE WILL
DETERMINISM: Does the explanation assume behaviour is controlled by biological, psychic (unconscious), or environmental forces?
FREE WILL: Does it allow for personal choice and agency?
Example: The biological approach is deterministic, suggesting behaviour is driven by genetics or neurotransmitters, ignoring individual autonomy.
G – GENDER BIAS
BETA BIAS: Minimising differences between genders, e.g., generalising male findings to females.
ANDROCENTRISM: Focusing on male experiences while ignoring females.
OESTROGEN-CENTRIC VIEWS: Overemphasising female hormonal factors.
Example: Kohlberg’s theory of moral development has been criticised for beta bias by failing to consider female moral reasoning.
N – NATURE VS NURTURE
NATURE: Biological influences like genes, epigenetics, or neurotransmitters.
NURTURE: Environmental factors like upbringing and social influences.
Consider INTERACTIONIST APPROACHES, such as the diathesis-stress model, where both genetic predisposition and environmental stressors contribute to conditions like schizophrenia.
KEY TERMS: genotype, phenotype, epigenetics.
A – ALTERNATIVE APPROACH
Does another approach explain the phenomenon better?
Example: Biological approaches to schizophrenia (dopamine hypothesis) may explain the condition better than the psychodynamic approach (childhood trauma).
A – ALTERNATIVE THEORY
Consider alternative theories explaining the same phenomenon.
Example: Social identity theory explains group conflict better than Milgram’s agency theory, which focuses on obedience.
A – APPLIED TO REAL LIFE
How does the theory or research help us understand or improve real-world situations?
Example: The multi-store model of memory shows that people with a short-term memory span of less than 5 items may have learning difficulties, helping educators tailor support.
EXAMPLE APPLICATION: MILGRAM’S STUDY
E – ETHICS: Deceptive and caused psychological distress, but Milgram argued the findings justified this.
R – REDUCTIONISM: Focuses on authority but ignores cultural or social factors.
M – METHODOLOGY: High reliability due to controlled conditions but lacks ecological validity.
S – SCIENCE: Scientific with experimental methods, but challenging to falsify broader obedience theories.
C – CULTURAL BIAS: Ethnocentric—findings from the USA may not apply to collectivist cultures.
D – DETERMINISM: Suggests obedience is driven solely by authority, ignoring free will.
G – GENDER BIAS: Participants were mainly male.
N – NATURE VS NURTURE: Focuses more on situational factors (nurture) and neglects individual differences (nature).
A – ALTERNATIVE APPROACH: An evolutionary approach might explain this phenomenon better.
A – ALTERNATIVE THEORY: Social identity theory may explain group behaviour better.
A – APPLIED TO REAL LIFE: Helps understand atrocities like the Holocaust or improve whistleblowing systems.
Incorporating broader issues, or grenades, adds depth to your evaluation and shows critical thinking. These points reflect on the implications of the theory or research for psychology as a discipline.
Reductionism is an important consideration when evaluating whether a theory oversimplifies complex behaviours. For example, the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia has been criticised for being reductionist as it attributes the disorder solely to neurotransmitter activity, neglecting environmental or psychological factors. This suggests that a more holistic approach, such as the diathesis-stress model, might provide a more comprehensive explanation.
Determinism can be explored by questioning whether the theory implies that specific factors entirely control behaviour, leaving no room for free will. Bowlby’s maternal deprivation hypothesis, for instance, has been criticised for being overly deterministic by claiming that early separation during the critical period inevitably leads to emotional difficulties. This perspective ignores individual differences and the role of later experiences in overcoming early adversities.
Cultural bias is another crucial point. Bowlby’s focus on a single primary caregiver reflects Western norms and does not consider collectivist cultures where caregiving responsibilities are shared among multiple family members. This reduces the generalisability of the maternal deprivation hypothesis and highlights the importance of cultural considerations in attachment research.
Ethical concerns should also be addressed when relevant. Milgram’s obedience research, for instance, raised significant moral issues, such as the psychological distress caused to participants. While the findings provided valuable insights into obedience, the study's ethical cost challenges its acceptability and highlights the importance of considering participant welfare in research.
These broader issues contextualise the theory or research within psychology’s wider debates, strengthening your critical analysis.
CONCLUDING THE AO3 SECTION
Not all specifications require a conclusion for AO3. Check your exam board requirements. If a conclusion is necessary, summarise your main evaluative points and directly answer the essay question. The conclusion should integrate your analysis, providing a final judgement on the theory’s validity or usefulness.
For example, when concluding an evaluation of the MSM, you might write:
"In conclusion, the Multi-Store Model provides a strong framework for understanding memory, supported by evidence from case studies and neuroimaging. However, its oversimplification of memory processes and lack of attention to interactions between STM and LTM highlight its limitations. Despite this, its real-world applications, particularly in dementia care, underscore its relevance and practical value."
FINAL CHECK
Ensure your AO3 section addresses the essay question, flows logically, and is well-balanced. Avoid superficial points or shopping list evaluations. Fully develop each argument using structured frameworks like PEC or PEEL and integrate broader considerations to provide a well-rounded critical analysis.
By following this approach, you will craft a substantial AO3 section that meets A-level psychology essay requirements and demonstrates high-level critical thinking.
HOW TO WRITE EFFECTIVE AO2
ESSAYS WITH AO2 APPLICATION
A question that includes AO2 will begin with a quote or scenario, requiring students to link theories or research to the specific example provided.
For instance, LOTTA’S GRANDMOTHER
SCENARIO: Lotta’s grandmother suffered a stroke to the left hemisphere, damaging Broca’s area and the motor cortex.
QUESTION: Discuss the localisation of function in the cerebral cortex. (16 marks)
MARKS BREAKDOWN:
AO1 (6 marks): Describe the localisation of function, including Broca’s area and the motor cortex.
AO3 (6 marks): Evaluate evidence for and against localisation of function.
AO2 (4 marks): Apply knowledge to Lotta’s grandmother (2 marks per applied point).
EXAMPLE AO2 APPLICATION (4 MARKS):
Damage to Broca’s area likely caused Broca’s aphasia, impairing Lotta’s grandmother’s ability to form coherent sentences. (2 marks)
Damage to the motor cortex would have resulted in paralysis or weakness on the right side of her body, as motor control is contralateral. (2 marks)
AO1, AO2, AND AO3
When a 16-mark essay includes AO2 (application), a quote or scenario will always precede the essay question. This requires students to apply their knowledge to a specific case. For example:
SCENARIO: “Lotta’s grandmother suffered a stroke to the left hemisphere, damaging Broca’s area and the motor cortex.”
ESSAY QUESTION: “Discuss localisation of function in the cerebral cortex; refer to Lotta’s grandmother in your answer.”
MARK ALLOCATION FOR A01, A02, AND A03
AO1 = six marks: Description of localisation of function (limited to six marks).
AO2 = four marks: Application to Lotta’s grandmother (address Broca’s area and the motor cortex, using a 2 + 2 structure).
AO3 = eight marks: Evaluation and critical discussion of localisation of function.
MARK BREAKDOWN
AO1 = six marks
This is limited to 6 marks in all essay questions, meaning you only need to describe the theory or research relevant to the question.
In this case, describe localisation of function, including:
The role of Broca’s area in speech production.
The role of the motor cortex in voluntary movement.
How functions are lateralised in the left and right hemispheres.
Use concise, focused descriptions to score these marks, as no more than six marks can be awarded for AO1.
AO2 = FOUR MARKS
These marks are awarded for applying your knowledge to the scenario. You must refer directly to Lotta’s grandmother’s stroke in this example.
AQA requires you to address both aspects of the damage (Broca’s area and the motor cortex) for full marks. Use a 2 + 2 structure:
2 marks for Broca’s area: Lotta’s grandmother is likely to struggle with speech production, such as forming words or sentences. She may retain comprehension, as this involves Wernicke’s area.
2 marks for the motor cortex: Lotta’s grandmother may experience paralysis or weakness on the right side of her body, as the motor cortex controls contralateral movement.
Ensure both points are tied to the scenario for full AO2 marks.
AO3 = EIGHT MARKS
The most significant portion of marks (8) is for evaluation and analysis.
In this case, critically evaluate the localisation of function:
SUPPORTING EVIDENCE:
Petersen et al. used brain imaging to show that Broca’s area is active during speech production, supporting localisation.
Case studies like Phineas Gage demonstrate how damage to specific brain areas affects behaviour.
CRITIQUES:
Lashley’s equipotentiality theory suggests that cognitive functions like learning are distributed rather than strictly localised.
Brain plasticity shows that other areas can take over functions when damage occurs, challenging strict localisation.
Use balanced arguments with evidence and counterpoints to achieve high AO3 marks.
WHAT IS A THEORY?
A theory is an idea or explanation about why something happens. Theories are big ideas that help us understand patterns and behaviours. They aren’t random guesses or casual opinions—they are carefully thought-out explanations based on logical reasoning and can be used to make predictions.
For example, anyone can say, "I think people remember happy moments better than sad ones." That’s an opinion. A proper theory, however, would provide a clear explanation of why this might happen. For instance, a theory about memory might suggest that positive experiences are remembered more clearly because they activate certain areas of the brain that strengthen those memories.
The difference between a casual opinion and a proper theory is that a theory is formalised and organised—it’s not just a personal idea but a framework for understanding something that can be applied across situations.
In simple terms, a theory is a big idea that explains why something happens and meaningfully ties together many observations. Unlike everyday opinions, theories are designed to be tested, questioned, and applied broadly.
WHAT ARE PSYCHOLOGICAL THEORIES?
Psychological theories are no different from any other type of theory—they are big ideas that explain why something happens. The key difference is that psychological theories focus on explaining how and why people think, feel, or behave in specific ways.
For example, like a physics theory might explain gravity, a psychological theory predicts and explains human behaviour. These theories are based on the idea that human thoughts, emotions, and actions can be observed, organised, and explained through patterns.
Psychological theories often make assumptions about how humans work.
WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A THEORY (EXPLANATION) AND A RESEARCH STUDY?
Students often confuse theories with research studies, but they are very different and play separate roles in psychology.
A research study is a specific project where psychologists gather data to test whether a theory is true or false. Research studies are practical, systematic investigations involving experiments, observations, or measurements. They provide concrete, real-world evidence.
A research study aims to test and either support or challenge a theory. Without research, a theory remains unproven.
EXAMPLE: TESTING A THEORY
This is to help students understand that theories are not facts but require evidence and research.
THEORY
The theory being tested is the privation hypothesis, which suggests that a lack of consistent attachment during critical early developmental periods (privation) leads to long-term cognitive, emotional, and social difficulties.
HYPOTHESIS
Experimental Hypothesis: Children who experienced severe privation (e.g., growing up in Romanian orphanages with minimal emotional care) will display more significant long-term developmental challenges than those who were not deprived.
Null Hypothesis: Privation will not lead to significant long-term developmental challenges.
DESIGN
The study was a natural experiment, comparing children who experienced privation to those who did not.
Independent Variable (IV): Degree of privation (Romanian orphans vs. UK adoptees without deprivation).
Dependent Variables (DV): Cognitive development (IQ scores), emotional well-being (attachment patterns), and social behaviour (e.g., peer relationships).
Control Group: UK adoptees who had consistent early caregiving environments.
PARTICIPANTS
The study involved 165 Romanian orphans adopted by UK families and a control group of 52 British children adopted under normal circumstances.
PROCEDURE
Rutter and his team assessed the children at several developmental milestones:
Upon adoption (baseline measures).
At ages 4, 6, 11, and into adolescence.
Data collection methods included IQ testing, behavioural observations, parent interviews, and teacher reports.
Comparisons were made between Romanian orphans (adopted before and after 6 months of age) and the UK adoptees.
RESULTS
The findings revealed:
Children adopted before 6 months of age showed recovery in cognitive and emotional development, closely resembling UK adoptees.
Those adopted after 6 months experienced significant challenges, including:
Lower IQ scores.
Difficulties forming secure attachments (e.g., disinhibited attachment).
Poor social skills and higher rates of behavioural problems.
CONCLUSION
NULL HYPOTHESIS REJECTED: The findings support the privation hypothesis for children adopted after 6 months, as they faced long-term developmental difficulties.
Limitations to Hypothesis: Recovery among children adopted before 6 months suggests that early intervention and caregiving can mitigate the effects of privation, challenging the idea that privation always causes irreversible damage.
KEY DIFFERENCES
THEORY: A broad idea that explains behaviour
Abstract, conceptual, and untested.
Provides the foundation for research questions.
RESEARCH STUDY: A specific way to test the theory
Practical, data-driven, and based on systematic methods.
Provides evidence to support or refute the theory.
EXAMPLE TWO
ZIMBARDO’S THEORY
Zimbardo theorised that social roles and situational factors significantly influence behaviour. Assigned roles of authority or subordination can lead individuals to act in ways they typically wouldn’t, sometimes resulting in extreme behaviour. This theory highlights how roles and environments, not just personality traits, shape actions.
ZIMBARDO’S RESEARCH: THE STANFORD PRISON EXPERIMENT (1971)
To test his theory, Zimbardo conducted the Stanford Prison Experiment. Male college students recruited through volunteer sampling were randomly assigned as guards or prisoners in a simulated prison at Stanford University. Guards enforced rules, while prisoners wore uniforms and were referred to by numbers. Guards became authoritarian, while prisoners displayed distress and submission. The study supported Zimbardo’s theory, demonstrating how situational factors and roles drive behaviour, overriding individual personality traits.
THEORY AND RESEARCH CONNECTION
Zimbardo’s theory proposed that roles and context shape behaviour. The Stanford Prison Experiment empirically validated this, showing how quickly individuals conformed to roles, reinforcing the theory’s credibility.
ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES
WHAT ARE ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES AND WHY ARE THEY IMPORTANT?
DEFINITION
Assessment objectives are the specific skills and knowledge students must demonstrate in their examinations or coursework. These objectives are carefully designed to assess competencies, from factual recall and understanding to critical analysis and evaluation.
PURPOSE
Assessment objectives serve as a framework to ensure that students are evaluated on various skills rather than focusing on one aspect of learning. They are typically divided into categories: knowledge and understanding, application, analysis, and evaluation.
For example, in psychology, students may need to demonstrate their ability to recall key theories (knowledge), apply them to scenarios (application), critically analyse research methods (analysis), and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of studies (evaluation).
IMPORTANCE
Exams are designed to test different skills outlined in the assessment objectives. For example, in A-level psychology, writing a 16-mark essay that only describes theories (AO1) will fail, regardless of how detailed the description is. The assessment prioritises AO2 (application) and AO3 (analysis and evaluation). To succeed, students must structure their essays to include all required skills, not just descriptions. This ensures a balanced and comprehensive response.
AO1: Report the facts (just like a journalist). Be precise and detailed.
AO2: Apply and analyse those facts (like an analyst solving problems). Show how the ideas fit into real-world examples or scenarios.
AO3: Evaluate and critique the facts (like a scientist testing ideas). Consider strengths, weaknesses, and the overall usefulness of theories or research.
Each objective plays a different role in building a strong psychology essay or exam answer, and mastering all three ensures a well-rounded, high-scoring response.
A detailed expansion of each assessment objective is given below.
ALL ABOUT AO1 -
KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING (THE REPORTER)
WHAT IT IS: AO1 is all about reporting facts. Think of yourself as a reporter describing psychological theories, concepts, or research studies without offering your opinion or critique. This means presenting precise, accurate, and detailed descriptions of theories or studies that show your understanding.
WHAT TO DO:
Describe theories: For example, what a theory says about why or how something happens.
Describe a piece of research, including the aim, procedure, findings, and conclusion logically.
Use psychological terms correctly and confidently.
Avoid adding opinions, critiques, or extra information. Stick to the facts.
ANALOGY: Imagine you’re a journalist writing about Baddeley and Hitch’s work on working memory. Your job is to report either their theory (what they think working memory is) or their research (what they did to test it). For instance:
Theory: They theorised that working memory isn’t a single system but has multiple components, like the phonological loop (which handles verbal information) and the visuospatial sketchpad (which handles visual information).
Research: In their studies, participants simultaneously performed verbal and visual memory tasks to show that these systems work independently.
Remember, you are just reporting this information, not evaluating it.
DESCRIBING A THEORY VS. DESCRIBING RESEARCH
When answering a psychology exam question, it is critical to distinguish between describing a theory and describing research, as the approach differs significantly. While some exam boards may blur the distinction, most, including AQA, expect tailored answers depending on the command words used in the essay question.
DESCRIBING A THEORY
If the question asks you to describe a theory, your focus should be on explaining its key concepts, assumptions, and mechanisms. In essence, you paraphrase the theory and present it clearly and concisely.
This typically involves:
Identifying the core ideas of the theory: What does the theory propose? For example, in Freud's psychodynamic theory, key assumptions include the structure of the mind (id, ego, superego) and the role of unconscious processes.
Explaining how the theory works: Describe how the theory explains behaviour or mental processes. For instance, classical conditioning explains learning as the association between a neutral stimulus and an unconditioned response.
Detailing key mechanisms: Highlight the processes central to the theory, such as reinforcement in operant conditioning or schemas in cognitive theory.
Linking to behaviour: Use examples to show how the theory applies to real-world behaviours—for example, explaining how Bowlby’s attachment theory relates to infant-caregiver bonds.
KEY TIP
Your description should focus on what the theory claims, how it explains behaviour, and why it is significant while remaining concise to stay within the allocated AO1 marks.
DESCRIBING RESEARCH VS DESCRIBING THEORY.
When a psychology exam question asks you to describe research, the focus is on providing a detailed and structured account of a study that supports, tests, or explores a specific concept. Unlike telling a theory, which focuses on assumptions and mechanisms, describing research involves explaining a study's methodology, results, and implications.
MILGRAM’S SHOCKING RESEARCH STUDY
Milgram’s research aimed to investigate the extent to which individuals would obey an authority figure, even when this obedience involved harming another person. Below is the accurate structure research study.
AIM
Milgram’s study investigated how far people would go in obeying an authority figure when instructed to harm another person. Specifically, it sought to understand the conditions under which individuals enter an agentic state, surrendering responsibility for their actions.
DESIGN
Milgram’s study was a structured observation conducted in a controlled environment (Yale University). It involved covert participant observation, as the participants were unaware they were being studied for obedience rather than memory.
HYPOTHESES: Milgram hypothesised that individuals would obey authority figures, but he did not anticipate the high levels of obedience that would occur.
VARIABLES The maximum shock level participants were willing to administer.
CONTROLS:
The same verbal prompts were used for all participants (e.g., "Please continue," "The experiment requires that you continue").
The same procedure was followed, with participants believing the shocks were real.
The learner’s responses (e.g., scripted cries of pain) were pre-recorded to ensure standardisation.
PARTICIPANTS
Sample: 40 male participants aged 20–50 recruited through newspaper advertisements.
Sampling Method: Volunteer sampling, as participants responded to an ad offering $4.50 for their time.
Demographics: Participants were from a variety of occupational and educational backgrounds.
APPARATUS/MATERIALS
Shock Generator: A fake shock generator was used, with voltage levels ranging from 15 volts to 450 volts, labelled with terms such as “Danger: Severe Shock.”
Observation Room: A controlled setting created a formal environment and maintained consistency.
PROCEDURE
Upon arrival, participants were introduced to a confederate who acted as another participant (the "learner").
Participants were permanently assigned the role of "teacher" through a rigged draw. The learner was strapped to a chair in another room, and electrodes were attached to their arm.
The teacher (participant) was instructed to administer an electric shock each time the learner gave an incorrect answer on a memory task. The shocks increased in intensity by 15 volts with each error, up to a maximum of 450 volts.
The learner’s responses (pre-recorded) included verbal protests at 150 volts and silence after 330 volts, simulating unconsciousness.
If participants hesitated, the experimenter (a confederate in a lab coat) used scripted verbal prompts to encourage them to continue.
The observation focused on whether participants administered the maximum shock level and their behavioural responses, such as sweating, trembling, or verbal protests.
FINDINGS
Quantitative Results:
65% of participants administered the maximum shock level of 450 volts.
100% of participants were administered shocks up to 300 volts.
Qualitative Observations:
Many participants showed signs of distress, such as sweating, trembling, nervous laughter, and verbal objections.
Despite their discomfort, most participants continued to obey the experimenter’s instructions.
CONCLUSION
Milgram concluded that people are highly likely to obey authority figures, even when they conflict with their personal morals. This finding supported Agency Theory, demonstrating that individuals enter an agentic state under authoritative influence.
The study highlighted the power of situational factors in determining obedience, challenging the belief that only "evil" individuals commit harmful acts.
A SIX-MARK APFC FOR MILGRAM
You can’t include all the above in a six-mark response. You should streamline the information for six marks while addressing key elements. A widely used but informal method is the APFS mnemonic: Aims, Participants (including design and controls), Findings, and Conclusions. This ensures all critical elements are addressed and avoids omitting key aspects of the research.
AIM: To investigate how far people would obey an authority figure when asked to harm another person, explicitly testing obedience under controlled conditions.
PROCEDURE: Milgram conducted a structured observation at Yale University. Forty male participants, recruited via volunteer sampling, were assigned the "teacher" role while a confederate acted as the "learner." Participants were instructed to administer increasingly severe electric shocks (15–450 volts) to the learner for incorrect answers on a memory task. The shocks were fake, but participants believed they were real. The learner’s responses were pre-recorded, and the experimenter used standardised verbal prompts to encourage participants to continue.
FINDINGS: 65% of participants administered the maximum 450-volt shock, and 100% continued to at least 300 volts. Many participants showed signs of distress, such as sweating, trembling, and nervous laughter, yet obeyed the experimenter’s instructions.
CONCLUSION: Milgram concluded that people are likely to obey authority figures, even when they conflict with their morals. This supported Agency Theory, demonstrating that situational factors strongly influence obedience.
ALL ABOUT AO2 -
APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS (THE ANALYST)
WHAT IT IS
AO2 is about applying knowledge. Think of yourself as an analyst who takes psychological theories, research, and concepts and applies them to real-world scenarios or hypothetical situations. It’s your opportunity to demonstrate how psychological ideas work in practice and how they can explain or solve problems.
WHAT TO DO
Take information from AO1: Use the theory, concept, or research you’ve already learned.
Apply it to the scenario: Explain how the psychological idea fits the situation or why it might help solve a problem.
Use examples: Show understanding by linking theories or research to real-life or provided scenarios.
Make connections: Highlight how psychological concepts logically explain behaviour or situations.
ANALOGY
For AO2, imagine you’re figuring out how a theory works. For example:
Apply Baddeley and Hitch’s working memory model to explain why someone struggles to remember a phone number while talking. You could say the phonological loop (verbal memory) is overloaded when processing too much verbal information simultaneously.
EXAMPLES OF AO2 APPLICATIONS
Mastering the AO2 application is crucial for earning high marks in psychology essays, as it demonstrates the ability to connect psychological theories and research with real-world scenarios. AO2 often involves designing studies, applying psychological concepts to specific cases, and explaining mechanisms in practical contexts. Different exam boards use varying command words for AO2 questions, so consult the Command Words section for tailored guidance. Below are structured examples to clarify how to approach AO2 in practice effectively.
SCENARIO 2: RAOUL AND SYNAPTIC TRANSMISSION
SCENARIO: Raoul has recently been prescribed a drug for a mental illness. He looks on the internet to find out more about the drug, but he does not understand the phrase "synaptic transmission."
QUESTION: Discuss the role of synaptic transmission in understanding brain function and its relevance to treating mental illness. (16 marks)
MARKS BREAKDOWN:
AO1 (6 marks): Describe the process of synaptic transmission.
AO3 (6 marks): Evaluate research and evidence supporting synaptic transmission.
AO2 (4 marks): Apply knowledge to Raoul’s case (2 marks per applied point).
EXAMPLE AO2 APPLICATION (4 MARKS):
Synaptic transmission involves neurotransmitters like serotonin or dopamine, which regulate mood and behaviour. (2 marks)
Drugs prescribed for mental illness target synaptic processes, either enhancing or inhibiting neurotransmitter activity, to restore balance and treat symptoms. (2 marks)
SCENARIO 1: JOSIE’S RECOVERY
SCENARIO: Josie is twelve. Last year, she was involved in a serious road accident and suffered head injuries that caused problems with speech and understanding language. A year later, Josie has recovered most of her language abilities.
QUESTION: Discuss the concepts of brain plasticity and functional recovery about recovery from trauma. (16 marks)
MARKS BREAKDOWN:
AO1 (6 marks): Explain brain plasticity and functional recovery.
AO3 (6 marks): Evaluate the strengths and limitations of research into plasticity and recovery.
AO2 (4 marks): Apply knowledge to Josie’s scenario (2 marks per applied point).
EXAMPLE AO2 APPLICATION (4 MARKS):
Point 1 (2 marks): Josie’s recovery can be explained by her brain’s ability to form new neural pathways through neuroplasticity. Like Josie’s, young brains have a higher synaptic density, allowing more connections to be formed and reorganised after damage. This explains why children tend to recover better than adults after brain injury.
Point 2 (2 marks): Functional recovery enabled undamaged areas of Josie’s brain to take over the functions previously managed by the damaged regions. For instance, language functions in the left hemisphere may have been partially relocated to corresponding areas in the right hemisphere, allowing her to regain much of her speech and language abilities.
SCENARIO 4: JULIA AND EXOGENOUS ZEITGEBERS
SCENARIO: Julia complains that her baby sleeps all day and keeps her awake all night.
QUESTION: Discuss the role of exogenous zeitgebers in regulating biological rhythms. (16 marks)
MARKS BREAKDOWN:
AO1 (6 marks): Describe the role of exogenous zeitgebers, such as light and social cues.
AO3 (6 marks): Evaluate research on exogenous zeitgebers, including their influence on biological rhythms.
AO2 (4 marks): Apply knowledge to Julia’s baby (2 marks per applied point).
EXAMPLE AO2 APPLICATION (4 MARKS):
Exposure to bright light during the day synchronises the baby’s circadian rhythm, as light acts as a primary external cue. (2 marks)
Creating a dark and quiet environment at night promotes melatonin production, helping the baby associate night-time with sleep. (2 marks)
12-MARK RESEARCH DESIGN QUESTION
EXAMPLE QUESTION
SCENARIO
Design an observational study to investigate how people spend their time at the gym. Include details of the type of observation, operationalised behavioural categories, sampling methods, and how the reliability of data collection could be assessed. (12 marks)
STRUCTURED ANSWER
TYPE OF OBSERVATION
Conduct a covert, non-participant, naturalistic, structured observation.
Covert: Observers remain unobtrusive, perhaps posing as gym members, to ensure natural behaviour and reduce observer effects.
Non-participant: Observers do not engage with participants, maintaining objectivity.
Naturalistic: Observation occurs in the gym's natural environment, enhancing ecological validity.
Structured: Use predefined behavioural categories to record activities systematically.
OPERATIONALISED BEHAVIOURAL CATEGORIES
Define clear, observable categories such as:
Cardio exercises: Running on a treadmill, cycling, rowing.
Strength training: Using free weights and resistance machines.
Stretching: Performing flexibility exercises or yoga.
Social interaction: Conversing with others using a mobile phone.
Resting: Sitting or standing without engaging in activities.
SAMPLING METHODS
Implement time sampling by observing and recording behaviours at regular intervals (e.g., every 5 minutes) during peak gym hours. This approach provides a representative snapshot of gym activities over time.
ASSESSING RELIABILITY
Enhance reliability through inter-observer reliability:
Train multiple observers to use the same behavioural categories consistently.
Conduct a pilot study to ensure observers' ratings are aligned.
Calculate the correlation between observers' data; a high correlation indicates strong inter-observer reliability.
By addressing these components, the study design ensures systematic data collection, enhancing the validity and reliability of findings regarding gym users' behaviours.
SCENARIO: WRITING A DEBRIEF
A researcher has completed a study investigating the effects of caffeine on reaction times. Write an appropriate debrief that could be given to participants. (4 marks)
ANSWER
“Thank you for taking part in this study on the effects of caffeine on reaction times. This research investigated whether caffeine consumption improves reaction speed in a timed task. All results will remain anonymous and confidential. If you would like to discuss your results or withdraw your data, please get in touch with the researcher using the details provided. If you experience discomfort during the study, we encourage you to let us know or seek support. Thank you again for your participation.”
SCENARIO: STANDARDISED INSTRUCTIONS
A researcher is experimenting with memory recall. Write the standardised instructions that participants could receive before beginning the task. (4 marks)
ANSWER
“You are about to take part in a memory recall task. You will be shown a list of 20 words for two minutes. After the time is up, you will be asked to recall as many words as possible in any order. Please write your answers clearly on the sheet provided. Do not speak to anyone during the task. If you have any questions, please ask now. Once we begin, we cannot answer questions.”
SCENARIO: CONSENT FORM
Write a consent form for a study investigating the relationship between stress levels and problem-solving abilities. (4 marks)
ANSWER
Consent Form
I agree to participate in a study investigating stress and problem-solving abilities. I understand that:
My participation is voluntary, and I can withdraw at any time without giving a reason.
My responses will be anonymised and kept confidential.
The study involves completing a problem-solving task under timed conditions, which may induce mild stress.
I can contact the researcher if I have any questions or concerns.
Signature: ___________________
Date: _______________________
These examples illustrate how to address different AO2 application questions effectively.
ALL ABOUT AO3 -
EVALUATION (THE SCIENTIST)
WHAT IT IS: AO3 is about evaluating and critiquing psychological theories and research. Think of yourself as a scientist testing an idea and deciding how strong or weak it is. This involves critical thinking and weighing up the evidence.
WHAT TO DO:
Assess strengths and weaknesses: What is good or bad about the theory or research? For example:
Strengths: Is there substantial evidence to support it? Is it reliable?
Weaknesses: Are there flaws in the methods? Is it too simplistic?
Discuss validity and reliability: Does the theory or research accurately explain the behaviour (validity)? Could the findings be repeated (reliability)?
Consider ethical issues: Were participants treated fairly? Could the research have harmed them?
Draw reasoned conclusions: Weigh the strengths and weaknesses to decide how beneficial or accurate the theory or research is.
Use the PEEL/C structure (see below for an explanation)
ANALOGY: For AO3, you’re the scientist saying, “Does Baddeley and Hitch’s working memory model hold up, is it any good?” You might highlight:
Strengths: It’s supported by dual-task studies showing separate verbal and visual memory systems.
Weaknesses: The central executive is poorly defined, making it hard to test scientifically.
Conclusion: Despite some weaknesses, the model is highly influential and has substantial evidence to support it.
APPLYING APFC: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AO1 AND AO3
Students often struggle with research studies and how to use them effectively in their answers for AO1 and AO3. Specifically, they get confused about what parts of the study belong to each assessment objective. Here’s how to differentiate:
AO1: DESCRIBING A RESEARCH STUDY
In AO1, if you are describing a research study (not a theory), you include all parts of APFC:
You do not include criticisms or evaluations in AO1 because the focus is on describing the research.
EXAMPLE (Ainsworth’s Strange Situation – AO1):
"Ainsworth aimed to assess attachment types in infants. She used a structured observational method known as the Strange Situation, where infants were placed in a series of scenarios, such as being left alone or reuniting with their caregiver. Ainsworth identified three attachment types: secure, insecure-avoidant, and insecure-resistant."
In AO3, you do not describe the Aims or Procedures of the study. This is an AO1 skill, and including it wastes time and space in your answer. Instead, you go straight to the Findings and Conclusions, using them to evaluate the research.
This means you “cut to the chase” and focus on:
Findings: How do they support or challenge a theory?
Conclusions: What broader insights do they provide?
Evaluation: Discuss strengths, weaknesses, and implications (e.g., ecological validity, cultural bias, ethical issues).
FOR EXAMPLE, Simpson supported Ainsworth’s findings by demonstrating that securely attached children tend to develop stronger peer relationships later in life, supporting the validity of attachment classifications. However, the study has been criticised for cultural bias. For example, Japanese infants frequently exhibit behaviours classified as insecure-resistant, not due to attachment insecurity but due to culturally specific child-rearing practices. This undermines the universality of Ainsworth’s conclusions.
In AO3, describing the study (e.g., its Aims and Procedures) is unnecessary because it’s an AO1 skill and does not contribute to critical evaluation. Your focus in AO3 is on analysis and assessment—assessing the implications of the study’s Findings and Conclusions. Repeating the study’s details wastes valuable time and does not demonstrate higher-order thinking.
EXAMPLES
WORKING MEMORY MODEL EVALUATION WITH APFC
"In their dual-task study, Baddeley and Hitch investigated whether short-term memory has separate components. Participants performed two tasks simultaneously: verbal reasoning and digit span tasks. The verbal reasoning task involved answering questions about letter pairs, and the digit span task required participants to remember a sequence of numbers. They found that reasoning performance remained accurate even when the digit span task was more difficult."
WHY THIS IS WRONG
This response spends too much time describing the Aims and Procedures, which belong in AO1, not AO3. It wastes words and does not critically evaluate the study.
BADDELEY AND HITCH WITH FC
"Baddeley and Hitch’s dual-task study supports the working memory model by demonstrating that the phonological loop and central executive can function simultaneously without interference. This provides strong evidence for the idea of separate components in working memory. However, the study lacks ecological validity, as performing artificial tasks like remembering numbers while reasoning does not reflect how memory is used in real life. Additionally, the central executive’s role remains unclear, making it difficult to test scientifically."
Why this is right:
This response skips describing the Aims and Procedures and focuses on the Findings and Conclusions, which is appropriate for AO3. It evaluates the study’s strengths (support for the working memory model) and weaknesses (ecological validity and unclear central executive role).
THE PEEL AND PEC STRUCTURE IN AO3
WHY UNAPPLIED POINTS DO NOT GAIN CREDIT IN EVALUATION
A common mistake students make in AO3 is providing a valid strength or weakness without applying it to the study or theory. For example, saying, "The study lacks ecological validity" may be correct, but this point lacks critical thinking without explaining why it matters or linking it to the research. Examiners call these "shopping list points" because they’re vague and could apply to anything.
AO3 demands that you explain the significance of each point and its relevance to the study or theory to gain marks.
EXAMPLE OF AN UNAPPLIED POINT
"The study lacks ecological validity."
WHY IT’S WRONG
This doesn’t explain why ecological validity matters or how it affects the research’s conclusions.
BETTER VERSION
"The study lacks ecological validity because the tasks, such as recalling random word lists, are artificial and do not reflect how memory works. This limits the ability to generalise the findings to everyday situations."
You demonstrate understanding and critical thinking by linking the critique directly to the study’s methods and outcomes.
EXAMPLES OF UNAPPLIED EVALUATION POINTS (AND HOW TO FIX THEM)
EXAMPLE 1: "THE SAMPLE SIZE IS TOO SMALL."
WHY IT’S WRONG
This is vague and doesn’t explain how a small sample affects the reliability or generalisability of the findings.
BETTER VERSION
"The sample size was only 10 participants, which is not representative of the general population. This limits the study’s generalisability, as the results may not apply to individuals from different demographic groups."
EXAMPLE 2: "THE STUDY IS DETERMINISTIC."
WHY IT’S WRONG
It doesn’t explain determinism or its relevance to the study.
BETTER VERSION
"The study is deterministic because it suggests that aggression is entirely caused by genetic factors, ignoring the role of free will or environmental influences. This oversimplifies behaviour and limits the theory’s explanatory power."
EXAMPLE 3: "IT LACKS CONSTRUCT VALIDITY.
WHY IT’S WRONG
This doesn’t explain construct validity or how the study fails to measure what it intends to.
BETTER VERSION
"The study lacks construct validity because it uses an IQ test to measure intelligence, which only assesses logical reasoning and memory. This ignores broader aspects of intelligence, such as creativity or emotional intelligence, weakening the study’s conclusions."
HOW TO STRUCTURE AO3 USING PEEL OR PEC
PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link) and PEC (Point, Explain, Consequences) are frameworks that ensure your evaluation points are clear, logical, and well-developed. Both structures help you avoid vague or superficial answers.
PEEL FRAMEWORK
POINT: Make a clear statement about a strength or weakness.
EVIDENCE: Support your point with research findings or examples.
EXPLANATION: Explain why this point matters and its significance.
LINK: Connect it back to the essay question.
EXAMPLE: EVALUATING BOWLBY’S MATERNAL DEPRIVATION HYPOTHESIS:
POINT: Bowlby’s hypothesis has been criticised for overemphasising the long-term effects of maternal deprivation.
EVIDENCE: In his 44 Thieves study, Bowlby linked early deprivation to affectionless psychopathy but failed to control for other factors like poverty.
EXPLANATION: His conclusions may be biased, as factors other than deprivation could explain the children’s behaviour.
LINK: Therefore, while Bowlby highlights the importance of early relationships, his hypothesis oversimplifies the causes of emotional problems.
PEC FRAMEWORK
POINT: State your point.
EXPLAIN: Explain the evidence and its implications.
CONSEQUENCES: Discuss the broader implications for the theory or research.
HOW TO PRACTISE APPLYING PEEL AND PEC
Start with a strength or weakness: Choose a clear point about the theory or study.
Find evidence: Use research or real-world examples to support your point.
Explain its significance: Why does this point matter? How does it affect the theory or study?
Link or Consequences: Tie it back to the question (PEEL) or discuss broader implications (PEC).
The choice of structure—PEEL, PEC, or combinations like PEEC (Point, Evidence, Explain, Consequences) or PEL (Point, Explain, Link)—is less important than the evaluation quality. Both frameworks achieve the goal of fully applied and developed evaluation points, ensuring higher AO3 marks.
EXAMPLES OF PEEL/C
EXAMPLE: EVALUATING FREUD’S TRIPARTITE PERSONALITY THEORY:
POINT: A limitation of Freud’s theory is that it lacks empirical support.
EXPLAIN: The id, ego, and superego are abstract concepts that cannot be directly measured. Freud’s reliance on case studies like Little Hans means his evidence is subjective.
CONSEQUENCES: This undermines the theory’s scientific credibility, as it cannot be tested or validated using objective methods
WORKING MEMORY MODEL:
POINT: The Working Memory Model is supported by dual-task studies.
EVIDENCE: Baddeley and Hitch found that participants could perform verbal reasoning and digit span tasks simultaneously without interference, demonstrating that the phonological loop and central executive are separate components.
EXPLANATION: This supports the idea that short-term memory is not a single store but consists of multiple components.
LINK: This strengthens the model’s credibility and explains how memory works in real-life multitasking scenarios.
ROSENHAN’S STUDY:
POINT: Rosenhan’s study has been criticised for its ethical issues.
EVIDENCE: Pseudopatients deceived hospital staff by faking auditory hallucinations to gain admission. The staff could not give informed consent and were potentially embarrassed by the findings.
EXPLANATION: This raises ethical concerns about deception and potential harm to participants.
LINK: While the study highlights issues with psychiatric diagnoses, these ethical problems reduce its credibility and limit its practical application
FINAL TAKEAWAYS
Avoid vague, unapplied points—always explain why your critique matters.
Use PEEL or PEC to structure your paragraphs and ensure depth.
Focus on critical thinking: Evaluate strengths, weaknesses, and implications.
Practise using clear, concrete examples to apply your knowledge effectively.
COMMAND WORDS
Command words vary between exam boards, and it is essential to understand the specific expectations of the board you are studying. Below is a breakdown for AQA, Edexcel, OCR, Eduqas, and IB.
AQA COMMAND WORDS
EXPLANATION
Used when the question asks for a description of a theory.
Example: "Discuss Milgram's explanation of obedience."
Requires describing Agency Theory as part of AO1 and using AO3 for evaluation.
STUDY
Indicates the focus is on describing a research study.
Example: "Describe a study into conformity."
Requires outlining Asch's experiment's aim, method, results, and conclusion.
RESEARCH
Depending on the context, this term can refer to either a theory or a research study.
COMMAND WORDS BY ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE
AO1: Outline and describe.
AO2: Explain, apply, and design.
AO3: Evaluate and analyse.
EDEXCEL COMMAND WORDS
DISCUSS
Requires AO2, such as explaining and applying knowledge.
Example: "Discuss explanations for schizophrenia."
It involves explaining theories like the dopamine hypothesis and applying them to scenarios.
EVALUATE
It focuses on AO3, which requires a critical appraisal of strengths, weaknesses, and implications.
Example: "Evaluate the role of genetic factors in schizophrenia."
DESCRIBE
Applies to AO1, focusing on factual recall or outlining.
Example: "Describe Bowlby’s theory of attachment."
COMMAND WORDS BY ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE
AO1: Outline and describe.
AO2: Explain, discuss, and apply.
AO3: Evaluate, assess, analyse.
OCR COMMAND WORDS
OUTLINE
It focuses on AO1 and provides brief descriptions or definitions.
Example: "Outline one theory of aggression."
EXPLAIN
Targets AO2, requiring application or more profound understanding.
Example: "Explain how a psychologist could investigate conformity in a classroom setting."
EVALUATE
It requires AO3, which focuses on strengths, weaknesses, and critical analysis.
Example: "Evaluate the social learning theory as an explanation for aggression."
COMMAND WORDS BY ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE
AO1: Outline.
AO2: Explain.
AO3: Evaluate and discuss.
EDUQAS COMMAND WORDS
DESCRIBE
Used for AO1, asking for a detailed theory or research study explanation.
Example: "Describe the behaviourist approach to learning."
APPLY
It requires AO2, which applies knowledge to a given context.
Example: "Apply Freud’s psychodynamic theory to explain a phobia."
CRITICALLY EVALUATE
It focuses on AO3, which requires detailed analysis, including strengths, weaknesses, and implications.
Example: "Critically evaluate Milgram’s study of obedience."
COMMAND WORDS BY ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVE
AO1: Describe and outline.
AO2: Apply and explain.
AO3: Evaluate, critically evaluate.
IB COMMAND WORDS
DESCRIBE
Targets Level 1 (basic recall and understanding).
Example: "Describe one study related to memory."
EXPLAIN
It requires Level 2, which focuses on understanding and connections.
Example: "Explain how biological factors influence aggression."
DISCUSS
It focuses on Level 3, which requires balanced arguments, evidence, and evaluation.
Example: "Discuss the role of culture in shaping behaviour."
EVALUATE
Asks for Level 3, focusing on critical analysis and weighing evidence.
Example: "Evaluate the cognitive approach to understanding behaviour."
COMMAND WORDS BY LEVEL
Level 1: Describe and state.
Level 2: Explain and apply.
Level 3: Evaluate, discuss, and contrast.
WHY THE MARK SCHEME MATTERS
Understanding and using the mark scheme is essential for writing practical answers in psychology exams. By studying mark schemes, you can:
WORK OUT EXACTLY WHAT THE EXAMINER WANTS
The mark scheme tells you what is required for each question and helps you focus on including key points that earn marks.
KNOW EXACTLY WHAT TO INCLUDE
Focus on the specific details the question asks for, ensuring your answer aligns with the mark scheme’s requirements.
AVOID UNNECESSARY DETAIL
The mark scheme encourages concise and relevant answers, helping you avoid wasting time on points that won’t earn credit.
USE TERMINOLOGY EFFECTIVELY
Correct use of psychological terms and concepts demonstrates understanding and earns higher marks.
ENSURE CLARITY AND FOCUS
Following the mark scheme helps you structure your answers logically, making it easier for examiners to award marks.
By aligning your answers with the mark scheme, you can meet the exact criteria examiners seek and maximise your marks.
EXAMPLE AQA MARK SCHEME: ASCH (CONFORMITY)
Question: Outline and evaluate Asch’s research into conformity. (16 marks)
MARK SCHEME GUIDANCE
AO1: KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING (6 MARKS)
Include the Aims, Procedures, Findings, and Conclusions.
For example:
Aim: Investigate the influence of group pressure on conformity.
Procedure: Participants were placed in groups of 6-8 confederates who gave incorrect answers on a line judgment task.
Findings: 75% conformed at least once; the conformity rate was 32% on critical trials.
Conclusion: People conform due to normative social influence, even when the group is clearly wrong.
AO3: EVALUATION (10 MARKS)
Include strengths and weaknesses, such as:
Strength: High control in the laboratory setting increases internal validity.
Weakness: Lack of ecological validity due to artificial tasks.
Weakness: Ethical concerns, such as deception, as participants were unaware of the confederates’ roles.
Strength: Subsequent studies, like Mori and Arai, replicated findings, increasing reliability.
KEY TIP: Avoid listing strengths and weaknesses without explaining them. Use frameworks like PEEL to develop your points fully and link them to the question.
ACCESSING MARK SCHEMES
Most exam boards provide mark schemes for past papers on their websites. These are invaluable resources for understanding how to structure answers and earn marks.
EXAMPLES OF EXAM BOARD RESOURCES
AQA: Past Papers and Mark Schemes
Edexcel: Past Papers, Mark Schemes, and Examiner Reports
OCR: Past Papers and Mark Schemes
WJEC: Past Papers and Marking Schemes
KEY TAKEAWAYS
Use the mark scheme to understand exactly what examiners look for in answers.
Focus on the criteria provided, ensuring your responses are concise, relevant, and well-structured.
Practice with past papers to familiarise yourself with the type of content and terminology that gains marks.
Access mark schemes on your exam board’s website to refine your understanding of how to earn full credit.
By integrating mark scheme insights into your preparation and writing, you can ensure that your answers are both accurate and examiner-friendly, helping you achieve the highest possible marks.
GENERAL ADVICE ON MARKS
AQA PSYCHOLOGY
Maximum essay score: 16 marks
EDEXCEL PSYCHOLOGY
Maximum essay score: 20 marks
EDUCAS PSYCHOLOGY
Maximum essay score: 16 marks
(Essays are typically capped at 16 marks for long-response questions in line with their banded mark schemes.)
OCR PSYCHOLOGY
Maximum essay score: 20 marks
(Essay-style questions such as "Evaluate..." or "Discuss..." are assessed out of 20 marks, depending on the specific paper.)
IB PSYCHOLOGY
Maximum essay score: 22 marks
(Extended Response Questions in IB Psychology are graded out of 22 marks. These questions are part of the Paper 1 and Paper 2 assessments.)
ESSAY TIMINGS FOR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY
Aiming for 1 minute per mark is helpful when writing essays at A-level Psychology. This method ensures you allocate your time effectively to cover all parts of the essay.
