paper 3 2018 Flashcards
Natalie likes going to the casino. At first she would go only once a month.
Now she goes at least four times a week. She realises she has an addiction
to gambling, and is seeking help. Her psychologist has suggested a number
of different methods of modifying this behaviour.
Describe one method of modifying addictive behaviour with reference to
Natalie. (15)
Credit could be given for:
Identified on the specification are:
Agonist and antagonist substitution
Aversion therapy
The question asks for the description of one. In situations where the candidate has
described two methods, examiners should read both and credit the description that allows
the candidate to achieve the higher mark.
It is likely that the candidates will describe one of the methods identified from the
specification.
Agonist and Antagonist Substitution
Agonist: A treatment that aims to treat individuals through maintenance / substitution
treatment systems.
Antagonist: Although a form of treatment as a last resort. Such treatments involve the
blocking / limiting of effect of substances on the brain resulting in withdrawal of pleasure.
Aversion Therapy: Clearly illustrated in the film Clockwork Orange, this (ethically
questionable) therapy uses conditioning techniques (Classical Conditioning) from the
Behaviourist approach to get an individual that might have obsessions or addictions to
associate the addicted items / things with something undesirable ( e.g. nausea, electric
shock). In theory the patient will overtime come to associate the addicted item to the
negative experience, and thus recue cravings for addicted item in order to avoid negative
experience.
It would be expected in the response that for the candidate to achieve higher bands of
marks they will need to explain the process by which aversion therapy works. For
example, UCS UCR, NS+ UCS UCR, CS CR.
NB: Any other appropriate method of modifying would be credited
Credit could be given for:
Application to the scenario of Natalie:
Through the description made of the modification technique reference to Natalie and
what she might need to do help combat her addictive behaviour.
As descriptive components of the therapy are made, application of these to Natalie.
Use of Natalie to give examples of descriptive aspects of the therapy.
Evaluate two individual differences explanations of addictive behaviour. (10)
Credit could be awarded for:
It is very likely that evaluative commentary will focus on or around those identified by the
specification and thus could relate to personality or cognitive biases or field dependence.
Indicatively evaluative commentary might focus here on:
Supporting evidence, Griffiths (1994) Cognitive Biases; Guangheng Dong et al. (2013)
Personality.
Evidence Against: Rozin et al. (1993) - Personality; Methodological issues of the
Griffiths study that impinges on the validity of the research findings of cognitive biases.
Evaluation could also be extended by ignorance of individual difference explanations
of biological factors that underpin the behaviour (e.g. dopamine or addiction genes).
Ignorance of social psychological factors (peer influence or role of the media) which
might equally have a profound influence on the showing of addictive behaviours.
Methodological criticisms of studies that are used to support explanations is a valid
form of evaluation - only if the evaluation is linked back its impact on the validity of the
explanation.
Any other appropriate individual differences explanation of addictive behaviour
Describe one social psychological explanation of criminal behaviour (10)
Credit could be given for:
It is very likely that candidates will tend to focus and choose from those identified from the
specification. These are:
Differential association theory
Gender socialisation
Normalisation theory
The Differential Association theory basically suggests that criminal behaviour can be
explained in terms of processes of social learning (observation and imitation of
behaviour). By mixing with people who have favourable / similar attitudes as you, you
are more likely to be influenced by them, and therefore show similar (criminal)
behaviours.
Gender socialisation explains criminality in terms of the process by which we learn
norms, customs and behaviours that allow us to function in society. Through
observational learning of (same sex) role models gendered behaviours result.
Differences in the freedom surrounding male and female social movement also places
more restraint on females than males offering them a greater potential (then females) to
participate in criminal activity.
Normalisation theory suggests that if a (criminal) behaviour is shown by a majority
within a group – those that do not show that behaviour become the “deviants” and
those tend to go along with the behaviour as it increasing appears normal for that group
to show.
Any other appropriate social psychological explanation of criminal behaviour.
NB: In situations where the candidate has described two explanations, examiners should
read both and credit the explanation that allows the candidate to achieve the higher mark.
‘Criminality is the clear outcome of biological processes’.
Evaluate biological explanations of criminal behaviour with reference to this
statement. (15)
Credit can be given for AO2:
Reference to the quotation through comments made:
Strengths and weaknesses of the explanations that can be used to support (or refute) the
statement.
Assessment of the quotation in the light of research / conclusions drawn from different
explanations.
Credit could be given for:
Evaluation could take the form of:
It is likely that the range of responses for this question will largely be within the focus of
the specification:
Biological explanations (inherited criminality; amygdala; disinhibition hypothesis)
There are a range of ways in which evaluation could be effectively constructed:
Presentation of research evidence to illustrate support explanations Crowe (1972) –
inherited criminality; Gospic (2011) – Role of amygdala; real world applications etc.
Presentation of research evidence refuting explanations. (E.g. Diathesis stress raising
the issue of not being able to explain bullying just through nature alone. Studies that
are used to support other explanations can be used as evidence against the
explanation being evaluated ( e.g. Dunlop et al. (2012) – personality traits;
Schonenberg et al (2014) – cognitive factors ; Osborne et al – differential association;
or social factors associated with gender socialisation such as Pollak (1950 or Carlen
(1997)
Comparative comments made from looking at alternative explanations which emphasis
the issues being ignored by the biological explanations that are clearly a focus on
other explanations.
Any other relevant evaluation points.
