Paper 1 Weak Points

Question 1

Evaluate explanations of interference

Question 2

Evaluate leading questions:
(3 Points)

Answer 2

P1: R/S for leading q’s (response bias, car crash)
L: no emotion/ repercussion
P2: R/S (broken glass, after week forms false memory)
L: 16/50 false memory is not a majority
P3: RLA (wallet robbery, lack of emotional arousal)
L: Yerkes-Dodson Law

Question 3

Evaluate anxiety & EWT:
(3 Points)

Answer 3

P1: R/S anxiety decreasing accuracy (weapon focus)
L: Low eco validity
P2: R/S anxiety decreasing accuracy (London dungeons higher eco validity)
L: not anxiety, surprise
P3: R/S anxiety increasing accuracy (Yuille & Cutshall Canadian robbers - anxiety = better memory of the event)
L: only 13 dissenter must be early before group norm is established, not generalisable

Question 4

Evaluate resistance to SI:
(2 Points)

Answer 4

P1: R/S for social support (disrupted unanimity, NSI)
L: dissenter must be early before group norm is established
P1: research lacks eco validity and MR (people would resist killing - nazis)
L: real life application (binge drinking)

Question 5

Outline a study into minority influence:
(3 Points)

Answer 5

• Moscovici (32 groups of 6 women)
• 36 slides blue or green (24/36 incorrect or 36/36 incorrect)
• 1% conformed in inconsistent compared to 8% in consistent

Question 6

Evaluate Moscovici:
(2 Points)

Answer 6

P1: R/S consistency works (blue green slides 8%)
L: lack of mundane realism (no consequence to incorrect answer)
P2: sample bias (all female - individual differences)
L: issues with generalisations

Question 7

Evaluate social change:
(3 Points)

Answer 7

P1: social change is gradual (suffragettes 7yrs - status quo easier)
L: supports snowball effect and diachronic consistency
P2: does not apply to deviant groups (ISIS - unlikely to agree with terrorists)
L: extreme anti-social, social change can be positive
P3: interventions help create social change (Montana 14% drink driving)
L: prevent boomerang, balance challenging and normalising

Question 8

Explain stages of attachment study:
(5 Points)

Answer 8

• Schaffer and Emerson (60 Glaswegian infants)
• visited monthly until 1 then again at 18 months
• measured separation anxiety and stranger distress
• 65% mother, 3% father, 27% both. 75% attached to father at 18months
• Asocial, Indiscriminate, Specific, Multiple

Question 9

Evaluate Glasgow babies:
(2 Points)

Answer 9

P1: scientific (highly controlled behavioural categories)
L: not generalisable
P2: sample bias (middle class Glaswegian babies)
L: unethical (no direct informed consent, mild distress)
LL: right to withdraw

Question 10

Support and criticism of role of the father:
(6 Points)

Answer 10

+ single father can develop maternal role
+ father develops play and confidence
+ 75% had attachment at 18 months
- role of father differs depending on child gender
- mother is more influential during adolescence
- 65% main attachment was mother compared to 3% father

Question 11

Evaluate learning theory:
(3 Points)

Answer 11

P1: lack of R/S (Pavlov’s dogs nothing to do with attachment)
L: ignores role of emotion
P2: reductionist to assume all attachment is cupboard love (Harlow)
L: ignores emotion and social interactions
P3: explains multiple attachments (attach to whoever feeds us)
L: assumes environment and ignores biology (mammals)

Question 12

Outline a study into maternal deprivation:
(3 Points)

Answer 12

• Bowlby’s 44 thieves
• 44 thieves, 44 not - interviewed parents and criminal records
• 14/44 had affectionless psychopathy, 12/14 had MD, 5/30 had MD but not affectionless psychopathy

Question 13

Evaluate 44 thieves:
(3 Points)

Answer 13

P1: correlational, self-report and retrospective
L: unethical to study experimentally
P2: R/S for MD (Harlow)
L:
P3:
L: