paper 3 2019 Flashcards
Describe the characteristics of addictive behaviours (10)
Credit could be given for:
* Griffiths (2005) identification of 6 core characteristics of addictive behaviours:
1) Salience.
2) Mood Modification.
3) Tolerance.
4) Withdrawal Symptoms.
5) Conflict.
6) Relapse.
* Any other appropriate characteristic.
Nigel works with people with a variety of addictive behaviours. One of his
clients, Richard, has read about individual differences explanations and
believes they fully explain his addiction. Nigel disagrees.
Evaluate individual differences explanations of addictive behaviour with
reference to Nigel and Richard. (15)
Credit could be given for:
Application to the scenario could include Nigel and Richard and the fact that individual
differences explanations do or do not fully explain behaviour.
* Discussion of individual difference explanation of addictive behaviour with
reference to Nigel.
* Application of evaluation to Nigel to help him understand the effectiveness of the
explanation.
* Use of Nigel or Richard in giving examples that illustrate strengths / weaknesses
of the individual differences explanation.
* Any other appropriate application.
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 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.
* It is very possible that students may bring in supporting studies from other explanations of addictive
behaviour as a way of illustrating weakness in these individual differences explanations. This is permissible
but simple descriptions of these studies will receive little credit if they are not linked to a clear evaluation
point.
* Evaluation could also be extended by ignorance of individual differences 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.
* Any other appropriate evaluation.
N.B. Methodological criticisms of studies that are used to support explanations is a valid form of evaluation – only if
the evaluation is linked back to its impact on the validity of the explanation.
Describe one individual differences explanation of criminal behaviours. (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:
* Eysenck’s criminal personality
* Intelligence factors
* Psychopathic personality
* Hans Eysenck’s (1967, 1978) theory of personality made up of dimensions of
extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism, is a general theory of personality that
can be applied to criminal behaviour. For example, through an extravert’s need
level for high levels of arousal, instability or their lack of empathy. The criminal
behaviours shown by an individual were likely according to Eysenck to be the net
outcome of a mix between one’s innate personality traits and the environment in
which the person was brought up.
* Intelligence – In the very early 1900’s research into crime often categorised those
who committed crimes as “feeble minded and mentally deficient”. The issue of
criminality and lower levels of measurable intelligence has excited much research
both for an against the view. (Moffitt et. al.; Lynam et. al.; Stattin and KlackenbergLarson),
* Psychopathic personality – Nathaniel Thornton advocated a view of the link
between psychopathy and criminal behaviour. This is still a highly debated area,
and as Silver (1999) says the features of psychopathy such as impulsivity, criminal
versatility, callousness and lack of empathy are all important. A view not agreed
with by all for example Cleckley who sees the criminal as consistently purposive,
whereas the psychopaths seems hardly purposive at all.
N.B. The question requires a description of one explanation. In cases where candidates
describe more than one, examiners should credit the better description. There is no
evaluation component to this question, evaluation comments get no credit.
‘When modifying criminal behaviours, social implications are more important
than ethical implications.’
Evaluate methods of modifying criminal behaviours with reference to this
statement. (15)
Credit can be given for AO2:
Reference to the statement through comments made:
* Strengths and weaknesses of the method of modification that can be used to
support (or refute) the statement.
* Assessment of the statement in the light of research / conclusions drawn from
different methods of modification.
* Any other appropriate reference.
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:
* Anger Management.
* Restorative Justice.
There are a range of ways in which evaluation could be effectively constructed:
* Presentation of research evidence to illustrate support for the method of modification Landenberger and
Lipsey, (2005), Taylor and Novaco (2006) – anger management; varied victim satisfaction surveys, Dignan
(2005), Sherman and Strang (2007) restorative justice etc.
* Presentation of research evidence refuting explanations. Presenting the view that an alternative method of
modification might be better to explain the benefits of one over the other. Studies such as those above
that support one method of modification can be used as counter evidence against the other.
* Comparative comments made from looking at alternative methods of modification which emphasise the
issues being ignored by the method of medication being evaluated in the response.
* Any other relevant evaluation points.
