WRITING ESSAYS
HOW TO WRITE AN ESSAY FOR PSYCHOLOGY
To write an essay for psychology, you need to understand the following:
WHAT A THEORY IS: The foundation of psychological explanations.
WHAT RESEARCH IS: Evidence that supports or challenges theories.
ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES: The skills and knowledge being assessed (AO1, AO2, AO3).
MARKS FOR ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES: How marks are distributed across AO1 (knowledge), AO2 (application), and AO3 (evaluation).
PEEL STRUCTURE: A clear framework for constructing paragraphs (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link).
EVALUATION: How to critically assess theories and research.
HOW TO STRUCTURE AN EVALUATION: Including strengths, weaknesses, alternative explanations, and real-world applications.
CONCLUSION: Summarising and addressing the essay question directly.
Understanding these elements will prepare you to write clear, focused, and well-structured essays in psycholog
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 that are 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 ties lots of observations together in a meaningful way. 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 certain ways.
For example, just like a theory in physics might explain gravity, a psychological theory makes predictions and explanations about 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. For example:
A memory theory might assume that the brain has different “stores” for short-term and long-term information.
A motivation theory might assume that people act to satisfy their needs or achieve goals.
In the same way that a physics theory helps scientists understand the physical world, psychological theories help us understand the human mind and behaviour. They’re formalised ideas that guide psychologists in exploring complex questions about why humans are the way they are.
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.
WHAT IS A THEORY AGAIN?
DEFINITION: A theory is a broad explanation or idea about why something happens. It is based on logic and reasoning but is not automatically proven true.
NATURE: A theory is conceptual—it explains patterns and behaviours but remains unproven until tested.
EXAMPLE: A psychologist might theorise that bad behaviour in children aged 6–9 is caused by eating baked beans. This theory is just an idea until research is conducted to support or disprove it.
WHAT IS A RESEARCH STUDY?
DEFINITION: A research study is a specific project where psychologists gather data to test whether a theory is true or false.
NATURE: Research studies are practical, systematic investigations involving experiments, observations, or measurements. They provide concrete, real-world evidence.
PURPOSE: The goal is to test a theory and either support or challenge it. Without research, a theory remains unproven.
EXAMPLE: To test the baked beans theory, the psychologist conducted a research study:
Participants: 100 children were randomly divided into two groups.
Procedure: One group ate baked beans on toast, while the other had toast only.
Observation: At break time, observers counted how many times the children broke school rules.
RESULT: The results showed no difference between the groups, discrediting the theory.
KEY DIFFERENCES
THEORY: A broad idea that explains behaviour (e.g., "baked beans cause bad behaviour").
Abstract, conceptual, and untested.
Provides the foundation for research questions.
RESEARCH STUDY: A specific way to test the theory (e.g., the baked beans experiment).
Practical, data-driven, and based on systematic methods.
Provides evidence to support or refute the theory.
SUMMARY
A theory is a big idea about why something happens, while a research study is the practical test to see if the theory is true. Without research, a theory is just an unproven idea. Theories guide research, and research provides the evidence needed to prove or disprove those theorie
APPLYING A THEORY AND A RESEARCH STUDY TO MILGRAM
THE THEORY: AGENCY THEORY
WHAT IT IS: Milgram's Agency Theory suggests that people obey authority figures because they shift from an autonomous state (where they act according to their own morals) to an agentic state (where they see themselves as following orders and not responsible for their actions). This theory explains why people commit harmful acts under authority.
NATURE: This is a psychological theory—it’s an explanation about why obedience happens, based on observation and reasoning. However, until it is tested, it remains an idea.
THE RESEARCH STUDY: MILGRAM’S SHOCK EXPERIMENT (1963)
WHAT IT IS: To test Agency Theory, Milgram designed an experiment where participants were told to deliver electric shocks to another person under the instruction of an authority figure.
PROCEDURE: Participants believed they were part of a study on learning and memory. They were instructed to increase the voltage of shocks with each wrong answer given by a "learner" (an actor).
RESULTS: Milgram found that 65% of participants delivered the maximum voltage of 450V, even when the "learner" screamed in pain.
CONCLUSION: The findings supported Agency Theory, as participants often said they obeyed because they felt the authority figure was responsible for their actions, not themselves.
HOW THEORY AND RESEARCH WORK TOGETHER
THEORY: Agency Theory provided the explanation: people obey authority because they shift into an agentic state.
RESEARCH STUDY: The shocking experiment was Milgram’s way of gathering evidence to test this theory. His results provided empirical support for the idea, making the theory more credible.
Without the experiment, Agency Theory would remain just an idea. The research gave Milgram evidence to demonstrate its validity OBJECTIVES
ASSESSMENT OBJECTIVES
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.
AO1 - KNOWLEDGE AND UNDERSTANDING (THE REPORTER)
WHAT IT IS: AO1 is all about reporting facts. Think of yourself as a reporter tasked with describing psychological theories, concepts, or research studies without offering your opinion or critique. This means presenting clear, accurate, and detailed descriptions of theories or studies in a way that shows your understanding.
WHAT TO DO:
Describe theories: For example, what a theory says about why or how something happens.
Explain research: Include the aim, procedure, findings, and conclusion in a logical order.
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 (handles verbal information) and visuospatial sketchpad (handles visual information).
Research: In their studies, participants performed tasks involving verbal and visual memory simultaneously 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 question in psychology, it’s essential to know whether you’re being asked to describe a theory or a piece of research, as both require different approaches.
DESCRIBING A THEORY (E.G., WORKING MEMORY MODEL)
When describing a theory, use the P.E. structure:
POINT: Clearly state what the theory is.
EXPLAIN: Describe the components or key ideas of the theory using correct terminology.
EXAMPLE: WORKING MEMORY MODEL (BADDELEY AND HITCH, 1974)
Point: The working memory model suggests that short-term memory consists of multiple components.
Explain: These components work together to process different types of information:
The central executive acts as a control system, directing attention and managing information flow between the subsystems.
The phonological loop processes verbal and auditory information, such as speech and sounds.
The visuospatial sketchpad handles visual and spatial information, like mental imagery and navigation.
DESCRIBING RESEARCH (E.G., BADDELEY AND HITCH’S DUAL-TASK STUDY, 1976)
When describing research, use the APFC structure:
AIMS: What the study was trying to investigate.
PROCEDURES: How the study was conducted (design, methodology).
FINDINGS: What the study discovered.
CONCLUSIONS: What the results mean in the context of the theory or question.
EXAMPLE: BADDELEY AND HITCH (1976)
AIMS: To investigate whether different components of working memory can operate independently.
PROCEDURES: Participants performed two tasks simultaneously:
A verbal reasoning task (deciding if statements about letters, like “A is followed by B,” were true or false).
A digit span task (remembering a sequence of numbers).
The difficulty of the digit span task was varied to see how it affected performance on the reasoning task.
FINDINGS: As the digit span task became more difficult, participants’ reasoning performance slowed slightly but remained accurate. This suggested the two tasks were using different components of working memory.
CONCLUSIONS: The study supported the working memory model by showing that the phonological loop (used for the digit task) and the central executive (used for the reasoning task) can work independently without overloading each other.
KEY TIPS
For Theories (AO1): Use P.E.—state and explain the theory clearly without adding evidence or evaluation.
For Research (AO1): Use APFC to ensure all necessary details are included systematically.
By following these structures, your answers will meet AO1 requirements and provide clear, focused, and accurate descriptions of theories and research.
HOW TO WRITE AO1: STARTING WITH KEY CONCEPTS
When writing AO1, it is essential to include all the key concepts in the theory. These provide the foundation of your description and ensure you cover everything the examiner expects to see.
EXAMPLE: WORKING MEMORY MODEL (BADDELEY AND HITCH, 1974)
For the Working Memory Model, the key concepts are:
It is a model of STM only
It originated because of failures with MSM
It was renamed Working memory to demonstrate it is not a passive store
Central Executive: The control centre of working memory, which directs attention and manages the two subsystems.
Phonological Loop: Processes verbal and auditory information. It has two parts: the phonological store (the "inner ear") and the articulatory control process (the "inner voice"). Ariculatory process
Visuospatial Sketchpad: Processes visual and spatial information, like mental imagery or navigation. Visual cache and inner scribe
Episodic Buffer (added later by Baddeley in 2000): Integrates information from the subsystems and long-term memory into a coherent sequence.
The Working Memory Model (WMM) is an explanation of how short-term memory is organised and how it works. Baddeley and Hitch (1974) proposed that it has multiple components rather than being a single store.
HOW TO STRUCTURE YOUR AO1 RESPONSE
Start with the core idea: Briefly introduce the theory.
Example: The Working Memory Model (WMM) was proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) as an alternative to the multi-store model of memory. It suggests that short-term memory is an active system with multiple components that work together to process different types of information.Explain each key concept: Define and describe each component, using correct terminology.
Example:The central executive is the control system of working memory. It directs attention and coordinates the two subsystems: the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad.
The phonological loop processes verbal and auditory information. It is divided into the phonological store, which holds sounds, and the articulatory control process, which rehearses information.
The visuospatial sketchpad handles visual and spatial information, such as navigating a room or imagining shapes.
The episodic buffer, added later in 2000, integrates information from the phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and long-term memory, creating a complete sequence of events.
Conclude with the overall purpose or application of the theory:
Example: The WMM explains how short-term memory works in everyday tasks, such as following directions (visuospatial sketchpad) while remembering verbal instructions (phonological loop).
TIPS FOR STRONG AO1 RESPONSES
Be concise but thorough: Cover all the key concepts without going off-topic.
Use correct terminology: This demonstrates your understanding and earns marks.
Stay descriptive: AO1 is about reporting, not evaluating. Avoid opinions or critiques.
Include all key concepts: Missing a key component could limit your mar
USING THE EDEXCEL MARK SCHEME FOR AO1
The Edexcel mark scheme often specifies exactly what examiners expect in AO1 answers. By looking at the mark scheme, you can identify:
Key Concepts: The mark scheme lists the essential terms and ideas that must be included to achieve full marks. For example, with the Working Memory Model, you must mention the central executive, phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, and episodic buffer.
Terminology: Correct use of psychological terms is non-negotiable. Examiners look for accurate descriptions of components, such as “articulatory rehearsal process” or “temporary storage for spatial information”.
Structure and Detail: The mark scheme often highlights how much detail is needed. For example, simply naming the components isn’t enough—you need to briefly explain their role and how they interact.
Clarity and Relevance: The mark scheme values concise, clear descriptions that stay on topic. Avoid over-explaining or adding evaluation, as this could waste time and lower the focus on AO1.
APPLYING THIS TO WORKING MEMORY MODEL (EXAMPLE)
Using what the Edexcel mark scheme prioritises:
Question: Describe the Working Memory Model proposed by Baddeley and Hitch.
AO1 (6 Marks):
The Working Memory Model (WMM) is an explanation of how short-term memory is organised and how it works. Baddeley and Hitch (1974) proposed that it has multiple components rather than being a single store.
The central executive is the control system that directs attention and coordinates the two subsystems. It has limited capacity and does not store information itself.
The phonological loop processes verbal and auditory information. It consists of the phonological store, which holds sounds, and the articulatory control process, which rehearses this information silently (the “inner voice”).
The visuospatial sketchpad processes visual and spatial information, such as mental images or navigating a room.
The episodic buffer was added later (2000) and integrates information from the other components with long-term memory, creating a coherent sequence of events.
Key Points from Mark Scheme Met:
Accurate use of terminology (e.g., phonological store, central executive).
Detailed explanation of each component.
Includes all key concepts (e.g., episodic buffer).
Relevant and concise.
WHY THE MARK SCHEME MATTERS
By studying the Edexcel mark scheme, you can:
Know exactly what to include: Focus on key points that earn marks.
Avoid unnecessary detail: Stick to what the question asks for.
Use terminology effectively: Demonstrating mastery of psychological terms improves your score.
Ensure clarity and focus: A well-structured answer is easier for examiners to award marks.
By aligning your AO1 responses with the mark scheme, you ensure that your answers meet the exact criteria examiners look for, maximising your marks. Let me know if you’d like to explore the mark scheme for another topic!
AO2 - APPLICATION AND ANALYSIS (THE ANALYST)
WHAT IT IS: AO2 is about applying knowledge. Think of yourself as an analyst who takes psychological theories or research and applies them to real-life situations or new scenarios. It’s your job to show how psychological ideas work in practice.
WHAT TO DO:
Take the information from AO1 and apply it to real-world examples or specific scenarios.
Use the theory or research to analyse behaviour, explaining how it fits the situation or why it might help solve a problem.
Make connections between theories, research, and examples where relevant.
ANALOGY: For AO2, you’re the person figuring out how a theory works in real life. For example, you might apply Baddeley and Hitch’s working memory model to explain why someone struggles to remember a phone number while talking. You could explain that the phonological loop (verbal memory) becomes overloaded when trying to process too much information at once.
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 strong 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 up the strengths and weaknesses to decide how useful or accurate the theory or research is.
Use the PEEL structure:
Point: Make a clear point about the strength or weakness.
Evidence: Provide evidence or examples to back it up.
Explanation: Explain why this is a strength or weakness.
Link: Link it back to the essay question or theory.
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 systems for verbal and visual memory.
Weaknesses: The central executive is poorly defined, making it hard to test scientifically.
Conclusion: Despite some weaknesses, the model is highly influential and has strong evidence to support it.
THE PEEL STRUCTURE IN AO3
PEEL stands for:
Point: Make a clear statement about the strength or weakness of a theory or study.
Evidence: Provide specific evidence or examples to back up your point (e.g., findings, studies, or concepts).
Explanation: Explain why this is a strength or weakness, linking it to the validity, reliability, or applicability of the theory or research.
Link: Connect your evaluation back to the essay question or the broader topic, demonstrating its relevance.
WHY PEEL IS IMPORTANT
Using PEEL ensures that your AO3 responses are:
Structured: A clear format helps the examiner follow your argument.
Focused: It avoids wasting words on irrelevant details or listing points without explanation.
Critical: Explaining strengths and weaknesses in detail demonstrates the critical thinking skills needed for higher marks.
Applied: Linking back to the question or theory ensures your evaluation stays relevant to the topic.
Without PEEL, students often write disjointed “shopping lists” of points (e.g., listing strengths and weaknesses) without developing or applying their arguments, which leads to lower marks.
PEEL APPLIED (RIGHT WAY)
QUESTION: Evaluate Baddeley and Hitch’s working memory model.
Point: The working memory model is supported by strong experimental evidence.
Evidence: For example, Baddeley and Hitch’s dual-task study showed that participants could perform a reasoning task and a digit span task simultaneously with little interference.
Explanation: This supports the idea that short-term memory has separate components, such as the phonological loop for verbal tasks and the central executive for reasoning. It also demonstrates the validity of the model in explaining how memory works in real time.
Link: Therefore, the findings strengthen the credibility of the working memory model as a more accurate explanation of short-term memory compared to the previous multi-store model.
SHOPPING LIST UNAPPLIED (WRONG WAY)
QUESTION: Evaluate Baddeley and Hitch’s working memory model.
It is supported by dual-task studies.
The central executive is hard to test.
The model has real-world applications.
The visuospatial sketchpad is useful for explaining navigation.
Why this is wrong: This approach lists points without expanding or linking them to the question. It doesn’t demonstrate critical thinking or explain why these points matter, which limits the marks the student can earn.
COMPARISON: PEEL VS. SHOPPING LIST
PEEL: Provides depth, analysis, and a clear connection to the question.
Shopping List: Lacks explanation, depth, and application, leading to superficial answers.
HOW TO PRACTISE PEEL
To master PEEL:
Identify a strength or weakness.
Find specific evidence to support your point.
Explain why this evidence is relevant and how it impacts the validity or reliability of the theory or study.
Link your argument back to the question, ensuring your evaluation is applied.
Using PEEL effectively will transform your AO3 responses, ensuring they are detailed, critical, and focused on answering the question. Let me know if you’d like further example
APPLYING APFC: THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN AO1 AND AO3
In APFC, the first two components—Aims and Procedures—are descriptive and belong to AO1. These explain what the researcher intended to investigate and how the study was conducted.
For AO3 (Evaluation), you do not need to repeat the Aims and Procedures. Instead, focus directly on the Findings and Conclusions to support your evaluation. This approach ensures you avoid wasting time on unnecessary detail and stay focused on critical analysis.
WRONG EXAMPLE (AO3 EVALUATION USING BADDELEY AND HITCH)
"In their dual-task study, Baddeley and Hitch investigated whether short-term memory has separate components. Participants performed two tasks at the same time: a verbal reasoning task and a digit span task. 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 research.
RIGHT EXAMPLE (AO3 EVALUATION USING BADDELEY AND HITCH)
"Baddeley and Hitch’s dual-task study supports the working memory model, as it demonstrates 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 directly on the Findings and Conclusions to evaluate the study. It critically analyses the study’s strengths (support for the working memory model) and weaknesses (ecological validity and the central executive's unclear role).
KEY TAKEAWAY
For AO3, avoid describing the research in detail. Use the Findings (F) and Conclusions (C) to evaluate the study critically by discussing its strengths, weaknesses, and broader implications. This approach ensures a focused and concise evaluation.
EVALUATION EXAMPLES
EXAMPLE 1: "IT LACKS ECOLOGICAL VALIDITY"
Why this is wrong: This is a common shopping list point, often added without explaining how or why a study lacks ecological validity. Simply stating this does not show an understanding of the concept. Ecological validity refers to whether the findings of a study can be applied to real-world settings. To avoid being vague, you need to explain why the study’s conditions don't reflect real life and how this limits the applicability of its findings.
For example: If a memory experiment was conducted in a laboratory setting using artificial tasks, like recalling random word lists, you need to explain why these conditions might not reflect how memory works in everyday life.
EXAMPLE 2: "THE STUDY IS DETERMINISTIC"
Why this is wrong: Simply stating that a study or theory is deterministic doesn’t show an understanding of how determinism impacts the findings. Determinism suggests that behaviour is caused by forces beyond an individual’s control, like genetics or environment. A point like this needs to be tied back to the specific study, explaining how it presents deterministic views and why that matters.
For example: If discussing a study on aggression, you might say the findings suggest that aggression is caused solely by genetic predisposition (biological determinism), which ignores other potential influences like free will or environmental factors.
EXAMPLE 3: "THE SAMPLE SIZE IS TOO SMALL"
Why this is wrong: While this is often true in many studies, just stating that the sample size is too small without explaining its implications is a weak point. You must elaborate on how a small sample size affects the reliability of the findings and why it limits generalisability.
For example: In a study with only 10 participants, you could argue that the sample is not representative of the wider population, meaning the results may not apply to others in different demographic groups.
EXAMPLE 4: "IT LACKS CONSTRUCT VALIDITY"
Why this is wrong: Throwing in this statement without clarification makes it a shopping list point. Construct validityrefers to whether a test or measure accurately captures the concept it intends to measure. You need to explain how the study fails to measure the intended construct and why that weakens the conclusions.
For example: In a study on intelligence, if the researchers only used a basic IQ test, you could argue that this lacks construct validity because intelligence is a broader concept that includes creativity, emotional intelligence, and problem-solving skills.
EXAMPLE 5: "THE RESEARCH IS REDUCTIONIST"
Why this is wrong: Simply stating that something is reductionist doesn’t demonstrate understanding. Reductionismrefers to oversimplifying complex behaviours by reducing them to a single cause, like biology or environment. You need to explain how the study reduces a complex behaviour and why this is problematic.
For example: If discussing biological explanations of mental health, you could explain that reducing mental health issues to chemical imbalances ignores the role of social, cognitive, or environmental factors, leading to an incomplete understanding.
HOW TO AVOID SHOPPING LIST POINTS
For each of these examples, you must avoid just stating a general critique without:
Explaining it fully (what does it mean?),
Applying it to the specific study or theory being discussed,
Evaluating its impact on the findings or conclusions of the research, and
Linking it back to the question to show how it strengthens or weakens the argument.
By developing your points through point-evidence-explain-evaluate (PEEE) or similar frameworks, you will show deeper understanding and avoid the trap of making unconnected, hit-and-miss claims
PEEL PARAGRAHS
Point (P): The behavioural approach in psychology emphasizes the significance of observable behaviours as a means to understand and explain human actions.
Explanation (E): This approach contends that behaviours can be studied objectively, and through the process of conditioning, associations between stimuli and responses can be identified. Behavioural psychologists believe that external factors and environmental influences play a crucial role in shaping an individual's behaviour.
Evidence (E): Classic experiments like Pavlov's dog, where dogs were conditioned to salivate at the sound of a bell, and Skinner's operant conditioning studies, demonstrate the principles of the behavioural approach in action. These experiments provide empirical evidence of how behaviours can be modified through learning and environmental factors.
Link (L): In summary, the behavioural approach offers valuable insights into understanding and modifying behaviours, making it a fundamental perspective within psychology. By focusing on observable actions and their causes, it provides practical applications in various fields, such as education and therapy.
This PEEL point highlights the key aspects of the behavioural approach, including its focus on observable behaviours, the role of conditioning, and the empirical evidence supporting its principles.
IDENTIFY THE PEEL POINTS BELOW:
The problems with using methods such as ablations and post-mortems is that participants such as Paul Leborgne aka “Tan” may have individual differences in brain organisation, for example “Tan” may have a larger speech area than other people, especially if the person was bilingual for example. It may, therefore, not be possible to generalise the findings from Tan to other people. Moreover, post-mortems do not show real-time activity in the brain as the person is dead. Similarly, ablations are not a precise research tool, cuts may have different consequences on different brain organisations. However, since this time much more advanced methods of investigating the brain have been introduced, for example electrical stimulation, this method is more precise as it can pinpoint smaller detail such as the topographical maps in the motor and sensory cortices. However, as animals are its main targets, it’s also difficult to generalise as animals have different motor systems, e.g., tails. Lastly, the introduction of scans is the most robust evidence of localisation because …. Scans can use human participants, 1000s of participants can be recruited, it’s not invasive, scans look at real-time brain activity (not dead brains)
This means that researchers can confidently assume most people have functions organised or localised in the same places.
Here are two evaluative points for Asch's study on conformity using FC (Findings and Conclusions):
Support from McCarthy and Nicholsons' Research (FC): Asch's findings on conformity have received support from subsequent research conducted by McCarthy and Nicholson. Their study replicated Asch's experiment in a more naturalistic setting, where participants had to make judgments in a real-world context. The researchers found that individuals were still susceptible to conformity, even in situations outside the lab. This support enhances the validity of Asch's findings, suggesting that they apply to real-life scenarios and are not limited to the controlled conditions of a laboratory. Therefore, Asch's conclusions about the influence of group pressure on conformity are further substantiated by the consistent findings of McCarthy and Nicholson.
Limited Generalisability (Conclusions): One limitation of Asch's study lies in the generalizability of its conclusions. Asch primarily used male college students as participants in his experiments, which raises concerns about the extent to which the findings can be applied to a broader population. The study's sample may not represent the entire population, particularly regarding age, gender, and cultural diversity. Consequently, it is uncertain whether Asch's conclusions about conformity would hold for individuals from different demographic backgrounds or age groups. This limitation suggests that the scope of Asch's conclusions might be narrower than initially proposed and should be considered with caution when applied to diverse populations.
APFC to Asch's study on conformity:
Aims (A): Solomon Asch conducted this study to investigate the extent to which people would conform to the opinions of a group, even when they knew the group's answer was incorrect. He aimed to understand the factors that influence conformity.
Procedures (P): In Asch's experiment, participants were shown a line and then asked to choose the matching line from a set of comparison lines. They did this in a group of confederates, who were instructed to give incorrect answers on some trials. The real participant was seated in a position where they had to respond after the confederates.
Findings (F): Asch found that participants conformed to the incorrect answers given by the group on a significant number of trials. About 75% of participants conformed at least once, even when they knew the group was wrong. This demonstrated the powerful influence of group pressure on individual behaviour.
Conclusions (C): From his study, Asch concluded that social pressure and the desire to fit in with a group could lead individuals to conform and give incorrect answers. He highlighted the importance of social factors in shaping human behaviour.
So, in applying APFC to Asch's study, we have outlined the Aims, Procedures, Findings, and Conclusions of his research on conformity. This approach provides a comprehensive understanding of the study's key components
let's label the Findings and Conclusions and structure the evaluation using the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link) framework with signposting:
ASCH EVALUATION
Point (P): Asch's study on conformity provides valuable insights into human behaviour.
Evidence (E): The study's findings revealed that many participants conformed to incorrect group judgments on simple perceptual tasks, even when they knew the group was wrong. This demonstrated the powerful impact of group pressure on individual decision-making.
Explanation (E): These findings suggest that individuals are often willing to compromise their judgment to fit in with a majority, highlighting the strength of normative social influence and the need for social approval. This phenomenon is crucial in understanding how social norms and group dynamics influence behaviour.
Link (L): Now, let's evaluate these findings and conclusions regarding their significance and limitations.
Point (P): One significant aspect of Asch's study is its experimental rigour and controlled conditions.
Evidence (E): Asch carefully manipulated variables such as group size and unanimity, ensuring that the influence of group pressure could be systematically studied.
Explanation (E): This controlled approach allowed for the establishment of causal relationships between group pressure and conformity, increasing the internal validity of the findings.
Link (L): However, it's essential to consider the external validity of these findings and their applicability to real-world situations beyond the laboratory.
Point (P): Conclusions drawn from Asch's study have been influential in the field of social psychology.
Evidence (E): Asch's conclusions suggest that individuals are highly susceptible to social influence, even when it conflicts with their judgments.
Explanation (E): This insight has been foundational in understanding phenomena like groupthink, herd behaviour, and the role of conformity in decision-making.
Link (L): Nevertheless, it's vital to acknowledge the study's limitations, such as its sample composition and potential cultural biases.
Point (P): Asch's study has been both praised and criticized for its ecological validity.
Evidence (E): Critics argue that the artificial nature of the tasks and the laboratory setting may not accurately reflect real-life situations where conformity occurs.
Explanation (E): This limitation raises questions about the ecological validity of Asch's findings and whether they can be applied to everyday scenarios.
Link (L): In conclusion, while Asch's study provides valuable insights into the power of conformity, researchers and psychologists should consider its limitations and the need for research in more naturalistic settings to fully understand the complexities of human behaviour in social contexts.
GENERAL ADVICE ON MARKS AND COMMAND WORDS
In AQA psychology essays, the maximum score is 16 marks.
A 16-mark essay combining A01 and A03 comprises six marks for A01 and ten marks for A03.
If A02 (application) is included in a 16-mark essay, the breakdown is six marks for A01, four marks for A02, and six marks for A03.
A01 is limited to a maximum of 6 marks and often involves command words like "outline" and "describe."
A03 focuses on evaluation and commonly uses command words like "evaluate."
When the essay question includes "outline and evaluate" or “ discuss” this means it is an essay with A01 and A03.
In essays where A01 and A03 are combined The outline part) typically allocates 1/3 of the marks to A01 and 2/3 to A03 (evaluation).
For instance, in a 10-mark question, this translates to approximately 3-4 marks for A01 and 6-7 marks for A03.
Examiners closely review essays to ensure students maintain a balanced approach with around 1/3 for A01 and 2/3 for A03 in “outline and evaluate or “discuss” essays.
In essays where A01, A02 and A03 are combined, the breakdown is A01 = 3/8, A02 = 1/4, A03 = 3/8
ESSAY TIMINGS
If you aim to spend 1 minute per mark when writing a 16-mark essay for AQA psychology, you can allocate your time as follows:
A01 (6 marks): Spend approximately 6 minutes on this section. In A01, you typically outline or describe relevant theories, concepts, or research studies related to the question.
A02 (10 marks): Dedicate around 10 minutes to this section. A02 involves applying your knowledge by discussing, analyzing, and providing examples or evidence to support your arguments. You may also need to consider counterarguments or alternative viewpoints.
By following this time allocation, you should be able to complete your 16-mark essay within 16 minutes. Remember that these time recommendations are approximate and can vary based on your writing speed and familiarity with the topic. It's essential to practice under timed conditions to improve your efficiency and ensure that you can effectively convey your knowledge and analysis within the given time frame.
HOW MUCH DO YOU WRITE FOR A 16-MARK ESSAY?
The number of pages a 16-mark essay in AQA psychology would translate to depends on several factors, including your handwriting size, line spacing, and the size of the paper you're using. Generally, if you're writing neatly and using regular lined paper, a 16-mark essay could span approximately 1.5 to 2 pages. However, this is just a rough estimate, and the actual length can vary from person to person.
It's more important to focus on the content and structure of your essay rather than its length. Ensure you address the question, provide a clear argument, support your points with evidence, and use a well-structured essay format, including an introduction, main body, and conclusion. The quality of your essay matters more than its length.
PUTTING IT ALTOGETHER
To recap:
Understand the Assessment Objectives (AOs):
AO1 (A01): Demonstrate knowledge and understanding of psychological concepts, theories, research studies, and research methods.
AO2 (A02): Apply psychological knowledge and understanding to analyze, evaluate, and generate hypotheses.
AO3 (A03): Evaluate psychological theories, research studies, methodologies, and practical applications.
Read and Analyse the Question:
Carefully read and underline key terms and command words in the question, such as "outline," "evaluate," "discuss," or "apply."
Ensure you know what is being asked of you for each AO.
Plan Your Essay:
Create a clear essay plan or outline before you start writing. Allocate time for each section based on the marks available.
Your essay should have an introduction, main body, and conclusion.
Introduction (AO1):
Begin with a clear introduction that provides context and outlines the key points you will discuss.
State the main arguments or theories you will address.
Main Body (AO2/AO3):
Address the main points or theories one by one.
Use the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explanation, Link) structure for each point:
Point: Make a clear point or argument.
Evidence: Provide evidence such as research findings, studies, or theories.
Explanation: Explain the significance of the evidence and how it supports your point.
Link: Connect your point to the essay question and the next point you will discuss.
Use clear and concise language. Avoid overly complex sentences.
Application (AO2):
When required, apply psychological knowledge to real-life examples or scenarios.
Show how the theories or concepts you discuss can be applied to practical situations.
Evaluation (AO3):
For evaluation questions, consider both the strengths and weaknesses of theories, research studies, or methodologies.
Use critical thinking to weigh the evidence and come to a reasoned conclusion.
Avoid making unsupported claims; use empirical evidence to support your arguments.
Use Proper Citations:
When referencing studies or theories, cite them properly using the author's name, publication year, and other relevant details.
Conclusion (AO1/AO2/AO3):
Summarize the main points you've discussed in the essay.
If the question requires evaluation, provide a balanced final assessment of the topic.
Proofread and Edit:
Review your essay for grammar, spelling, and punctuation errors.
Ensure that your writing is clear and concise.
Practice and Get Feedback:
Practice writing essays under timed conditions to improve your time management skills.
Seek feedback from teachers, peers, or online resources to identify areas for improvement.
Time Management:
Allocate time wisely. If the essay is worth 16 marks, consider spending about 1 minute per mark.
Stay Calm and Stay Focused:
Manage exam stress by staying calm and focused during the exam. Stick to your plan and avoid rushing.
Remember that practice is key to improving your essay-writing skills. Over time, you'll become more proficient at structuring and writing psychology essays for AQA exams.
FULL ESSAY EXAMPLE: ASCH
Title: Solomon Asch's Conformity Experiment (16 marks) Time 20 minutes max ; GRADE C/B
Description of Asch's Conformity Theory (6 Marks - AO1):
Introduction: Solomon Asch's Conformity Experiment, conducted in the 1950s, remains a classic and influential study in the field of social psychology. This essay will first provide a brief description of Asch's theory of conformity, followed by an evaluation of its strengths and weaknesses, applying the PEEL (Point, Evidence, Explanation, and Link) structure.
Point: Solomon Asch's conformity theory focuses on the idea that individuals often conform to group norms and opinions, even if they disagree with those views.
Evidence: Asch conducted a series of experiments where participants were asked to judge the length of lines. They were placed in a group of confederates who intentionally provided incorrect answers to see if the real participants would conform to the group's incorrect judgments.
Explanation: The results of Asch's experiments revealed that a significant proportion of participants conformed to the group's incorrect judgments, even when they knew the group was wrong. This demonstrates the power of social influence and the tendency of individuals to conform to avoid social discomfort or being seen as deviating from the group.
Link: In summary, Asch's theory of conformity highlights how social pressure can lead individuals to abandon their judgments and conform to group norms, a phenomenon observed in his line-judgment experiments.
Evaluation of Asch's Conformity Theory (10 Marks - AO3):
Point 1 - Strengths of Asch's Conformity Experiment (PEEL): Point: One strength of Asch's research is its experimental rigour, making it highly controlled and replicable.
Evidence: Asch carefully designed his experiments, ensuring that the Confederates' responses were scripted and consistent across trials. This control enhances the reliability of the study.
Explanation: This methodological strength means that other researchers can replicate the study with a high degree of accuracy, strengthening the credibility of Asch's findings.
Link: The methodological rigour of Asch's experiments bolsters the validity and trustworthiness of his conformity theory.
Point 2 - Weaknesses of Asch's Conformity Experiment (PEEL): Point: One significant weakness of Asch's research is the limited ecological validity.
Evidence: Participants in Asch's experiments were presented with a contrived task of line judgment, which does not represent real-world conformity situations accurately.
Explanation: In everyday life, conformity occurs in more complex and emotionally charged situations, such as peer pressure in adolescence or conformity to societal norms. Asch's controlled experiments do not capture these nuances.
Link: The lack of ecological validity in Asch's research raises questions about the generalizability of his findings to real-life situations.
Conclusion: In conclusion, Solomon Asch's conformity theory has substantially contributed to our understanding of social influence. His controlled experiments, while methodologically robust, lack ecological validity, which limits their applicability to real-world conformity scenarios. Despite this limitation, Asch's work remains a cornerstone in the field of psychology, highlighting the powerful impact of social pressure on individual behaviour.
