GCE EXAMINERS' REPORTS
PSYCHOLOGY
AS/Advanced
SUMMER 2015
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
Grade boundary information for this subject is available on the WJEC public website at:
https://www.wjecservices.co.uk/MarkToUMS/default.aspx?l=en
Online results analysis
WJEC provides information to examination centres via the WJEC secure website. This is
restricted to centre staff only. Access is granted to centre staff by the Examinations Officer
at the centre.
Annual Statistical Report
The annual Statistical Report (issued in the second half of the Autumn Term) gives overall
outcomes of all examinations administered by WJEC.
Unit
Page
PY1
1
PY2
3
PY3
7
PY4
10
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
PSYCHOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2015
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
PY1: APPROACHES IN PSYCHOLOGY
Principal Examiner:
Lucy Hartnoll
General
Despite the pressure on the candidates to complete both AS papers at the end of the
academic year, it was pleasing to see that most of the candidates attempted all questions
and used their time efficiently. Once again, it must be noted that while centres are using
formulaic structures and ‘model’ answers to better prepare candidates for questions, this
strategy often prevents the better candidates from accessing top bands.
1.
2.
(a)
The vast majority of candidates were able to at least outline two assumptions
of the biological approach with some elaboration. The best answers outlined
a relevant assumption and made good use of example (including the effect on
behaviour) to demonstrate knowledge and understanding. However, many
candidates failed to elaborate the assumption with reference to the effect on
behaviour (e.g. they would provide a description of neurotransmitters without
providing an example of a particular neurotransmitter and its effect on
personality/behaviour).
(b)
Generally, candidates demonstrated awareness of the three stages of GAS,
however the level of detail varied from basic, to good use of biological
terminology. The best candidates showed thorough understanding of the
biology behind the Alarm, Resistance and Exhaustion stages; weaker
answers lacked detail in relation to biological terms/processes. Candidates
who accessed the top band demonstrated a good balance between range
and depth in their answers. In these cases, candidates described the
background to Selye’s research, his experiments with rats, as well as offering
a full biologically based description of GAS.
Overall, answers to Dream Analysis were better than those describing Free
Association. Very few candidates failed to make links between the psychodynamic
approach and the relevant therapy, and many candidates make very good links
between the assumption of the role of the unconscious mind and the underlying
aims. Answers to dream analysis tended to centre around the symbolic nature of
dreams, the idea of the manifest and latent content (although some mix these terms),
with better candidates being able to describe the processes involved in dreamwork.
Better candidates also included detail in relation to the work of Solms or Hajek &
Belcher, indicating how this research supports the idea of dreams as wish fulfilment.
Free association answers tended to be more general and less detailed in relation to
the actual process involved and the role of the therapist. A significant number of
candidates described the cases of Anna O or Little Hans at the expense of other
important description that should have been included. In future, candidates need to
be able to provide more detail in relation to the processes involved in free association
(e.g. the role of the therapist, transference, ‘working through’ etc). Where identifiable
research was discussed it was generally well used to outline the effectiveness of the
therapy.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
1
3.
The vast majority of candidates were able to identify two relevant strengths and
weaknesses of the behaviourist approach. More candidates than ever attempted to
‘explain, elaborate and link’ the strength or weakness but a significant number were
either missing out the ‘link’ to the approach or the explanation of why something is a
strength/weakness. In many instances the ‘link’ or example was superficial (e.g. ‘the
behaviourist approach is reductionist as it reduces behaviour to external factors’).
Candidates who accessed the top band followed the writing frame as advised in
previous reports, i.e. outline the strength/weakness, explain why it is a
strength/weakness and provide a relevant example in order to elaborate the
explanation.
4.
he vast majority of answers were reasonably good, demonstrating a range of points
of comparison (e.g. reductionism, determinism, nomothetic/idiographic etc). Many
candidates wrote in a formulaic manner (e.g. ‘both approaches are reductionist, the
BA is reductionist because.....the CA is reductionist because.....), however such
analysis was all too often lacking any real depth. As stated previously, while
‘formulaic’ answers are ensuring candidates receive marks in the reasonable/good
bands, they are also limiting the best candidates from accessing marks in the top
band. Better candidates ‘thought outside of the box’ and away from formulaic
answers, contrasting for example, the ignorance of the nature/nurture debate within
the cognitive approach with the emphasis on nature within the biological approach.
The contrast between the two approaches in terms of the nature-nurture debate was
often muddled, and in some centres it was clear that candidates had been
misadvised.
5.
Overall, answers to this question were once again good. The majority of candidates
were able to explain two relevant methods, which tended to be laboratory
experiments and case studies, and provide several points of evaluation for each
method. Generally, relevant examples were used to elaborate the relevant methods
(e.g. Loftus & Palmer, Clive Wearing, HM), but better candidates fully explained why
the method was relevant to the approach, for example:
“The cognitive approach makes use of case studies in order to uncover which areas
of the brain are responsible for which cognitive functions. For example, the case of
Clive Wearning has been used to support the ideas of the multi-store model, the
theory that our memory is made up of several storage systems.....”
Better candidates also attempted to link strengths and weaknesses of the method
back to the examples provided, however many candidates provided only generic
evaluation of the methods which tended to be rather ‘list-like’.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
2
PSYCHOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2015
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
PY2: PSYCHOLOGY: CORE STUDIES AND APPLIED RESEARCH METHODS
Principal Examiner:
Rhiannon Murray
General
Generally the examining team were pleased with the standard attained by many candidates
in most of the questions. Most candidates are now attempting to answer all of the questions,
rather than specialise or focus their time on answering fewer questions. Candidates seemed
to be achieving as well in Section B as they are in Section A. Some causes of concern are
the inclusion of irrelevant and un-creditable detail in answers and the formulaic nature of
questions in ‘Evaluate the methodology’ which, when used, can really stifle the development
of the discussion and is frequently seeming to limit the more able candidate. Section C
questions are continuing to be answered reasonably well.
Section A
This section contained highs and lows in performance. After a reasonable answer to
question 1, many candidates achieved their best mark for question 2, however this was offset by a generally lacklustre performance in question 3.
1.
This question was generally answered well by many candidates. Very few
candidates now offer either context or aims. It was good to see the clear
appreciation and understanding that some candidates had about the context of depth
perception. Many students attained credit by explaining some quite complex
concepts such motion parallax and texture gradient. Many candidates discussed the
nature/nurture debate and how it links to depth perception, with varying degrees of
success. Some candidates described relevant research findings such as Lashley &
Russell (1934), however some candidates also described research such as
Gregory’s Case Study of S.B., which is sadly not relevant as it was published in
1963, after Gibson and Walk’s research.
2.
Nearly every candidate was able to achieve credit in their response to this question,
although a handful did describe Milgram’s research. Many candidates were
achieving ‘top band’ marks because of the excellent level of descriptive detail
included in their answers. A few errors that were made included candidates thinking
the first 6 of 18 trials were all control trials and the last 12 of 18 trials were the critical
trials. Candidates also included description of variations not sited in the original
article (but are regularly seen in later articles or YouTube clips), such as naïve
participants writing down their answers.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
3
3.
This question proved to be quite challenging for some candidates. In weaker
answers, candidates gave vague estimations of findings such as ‘they found
correlations between characteristics and fear’ or gave inaccurate information such as
‘the most feared animal was a spider’. In this study there are potentially many
findings that could be described and gain credit, however some candidates may have
been better off if they had narrowed the range of findings revised in greater depth in
order to describe them accurately. Most candidates included some attempt to offer
conclusions, they ranged from the very superficial ‘Bennett-Levy and Marteau
concluded phobias were because of evolution’ to the spot-on ‘Bennett-Levy &
Marteau concluded that humans are probably not prepared to fear specific animals,
but that the fear of an animal or the nearness we are willing to demonstrate relies on
the presence of perceived characteristics. Fear and nearness may be linked to
certain fear evoking properties, such as sudden movement or sliminess, and the
animal’s discrepancy from the human form’.
Section B
Candidates again offer restricted, formulaic responses to questions 5 and 6. Candidates are
using strategies like M.E.R.V.S. and trying to ‘shove’ the research into these categories,
rather than using these frameworks as scaffolding and suggestions for possible discussion.
There is a worryingly growing trend for repetitive comments; candidates need to be warned
that this does not lead to repetitive credit. Better answers also tended to be more critical in
their consideration of strengths and weaknesses, frequently demonstrating both sides of an
argument. The ‘alternative evidence’ question continues to be the weakest performance for
many candidates.
4.
The quality of the criticism offered about Buss’s research has sadly seemed to
decline. Many students continue to be almost obsessed with the number of
participants in his sample. They continue to equate the size of the sample with the
validity of the research, many overlook the 37 samples from 33 countries, and just
focus on N=10,047. Although I am not decrying the impressive number of
participants included in the research, (especially as this data was collected on an
‘old-fashioned’ questionnaire and not online), just because there were 10,047
participants involved does not mean you can generalise the findings to the whole
world’s population (which in 1989 was estimated to be 5.19 billion people)! Better
answers tended to critique the generally opportunistic nature of many of the samples
used or criticised the generally ‘western’ nature of the samples. Ethical issues again
were frequently cited, with Buss being inappropriately pilloried for deceiving and
embarrassing his participants.
5.
Again, evaluation of Rosenhan's research tended to be dominated by discussions of
ethics. Some candidates continue to mistakenly consider the pseudopatients to be
the 'sample', and as such their ethical criticisms relating to this do not generally
attract credit. Better answers not only discussed the ethical issues raised in the
research, but then discussed whether the lack of consent was worth it. Other
frequently discussed issues included the pros and cons of field research, discussion
of the sample of hospitals chosen by Rosenhan and most offered positive comments
such as they represented a variety of hospital types found in the USA at the time.
Rosenhan was frequently condemned for only conducting his research in the USA;
candidates really need to be made aware that this really isn’t such a ‘research sin’
and that perhaps this just means that his research may have limited application to
other cultures.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
4
6.
Many candidates are still spending a significant proportion of their time describing the
‘alternative evidence’ in great detail and then tacking on a minimal statement that
disputes or suggests support for Gardner and Gardner’s research. Better answers
make the criticism the main focus and then just use the alternative evidence to
supplement the evaluation of the core study.
Section C
Question 7 was by far the most popular question attempted in this section. Although when
question 8 was attempted, it was generally answered well. A handful of candidates
attempted both questions, in these instances examiners assessed both and credited the
candidate with the better mark. It does however mean they obviously have less time to
devote to answering the questions they needed to ask. Although it did not influence the mark
awarded, it was noted by examiners that there were frequently spelling errors in the key
terms, such as laboratory and opportunity, which is particularly disappointing when these
phrases are in the question.
7.
(a)
Most candidates were able to offer an excellent answer for this question. Most
candidates clearly linked an appropriate advantage and disadvantage. When
candidates did lose marks it was generally due to either the advantage or
disadvantage not being linked or to candidates offering a description of a
laboratory experiment such as ‘An advantage of a lab experiment is that the
independent variable is manipulated in a laboratory’.
(b)
This is really a discriminating question. Many candidates were unable to
select an appropriate issue of reliability. Those who did, select issues such as
‘The children selected to be in the research may be different ages and may
not all be able to read the story given to them by the researcher’ or ‘The
children may have different ideas about what is meant by a ‘good’ or ‘bad’
storybook’. Although not all were successful in dealing with their specified
issue, most who were offered advice regarding how they would standardise
procedures (if appropriate) were credited.
(c)
This was generally answered better than (b), many candidates were able to
identify an issue of validity, such as limited population validity because all of
the children were selected from one library. Again not were successful in
dealing with their selected issue.
(d)
Many candidates lost credit on this question because of insufficient detail in
their advantage. Advantages which state ‘An advantage of opportunity
sampling is that it is a quick and easy way of selecting children in the library’
would be classed as insufficient. The link is good but unless comparison is
made to another sampling technique such as ‘An advantage of opportunity
sampling is that it would be a quicker and an easier way of selecting children
in the library than using a method such as stratified sampling’, full credit isn’t
awarded. This was incredibly frustrating for the team as this exact issue was
noted in the last PE report.
(e)
Most candidates were able to identify an ethical issue and discuss it in
relation to the scenario. A popular issue in this scenario was a lack of
informed consent because the sample were children. A few candidates
persist in not identifying the issue they are attempting to discuss.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
5
8.
(f)
Although some candidates insist on offering inferential conclusions for
descriptive data, many candidates were achieving 3 marks with simple
straightforward conclusions such as ‘More children (10) who read the story
with pictures rated the story as ‘good’ compared to only 2 of the children who
read the story without pictures’.
(a)
Many candidates were able to offer an appropriate advantage and
disadvantage of using questionnaires, some did falter though when trying to
apply them to this scenario.
(b)
Popular issues identified included the participants not interpreting the list of
depressive symptoms in the same way or the team of psychologists varying in
how they assessed the questionnaires. Many offered advice which
standardised or clarified instructions or even suggested changing it to an
interview so the participants could ask questions about depressive symptoms
if unsure.
(c)
A popular issue included other variables in the couples lives that might be
influencing their depressive symptoms such as support from other family
members.
(d)
It was clear that many candidates did not know what quota sampling was.
Candidates made inappropriate statements such as ‘An advantage of quota
sampling is that it offers us a more random selection of couples than other
sampling techniques’. This clearly indicates a lack of appreciation of sampling
terminology as if they had written ‘An advantage of quota sampling is that it
offers us a more representative selection of couples than other sampling
techniques’, they could have received credit.
(e)
Most candidates were concerned for the psychological well-being of the
couples. Most noted issues of possible psychological harm if they thought
they were depressed because of their relationship or if they attained a high
score in the depressive symptoms list. Confidentiality or Privacy of data also
was noted and discussed as an issue.
(f)
Candidates generally did better on this question than on 7(f). Most noted the
Co-habiting individuals had a lower mean number of depressive symptoms
than married individuals or that married individuals had a higher mean
number of depressive symptoms than co-habiting individuals. Those very few
who noted the mean number of depressive symptoms for both married and
co-habiting individuals was similar also received credit.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
6
PSYCHOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2015
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
PY3: PSYCHOLOGY: RESEARCH METHODS AND ISSUSE IN RESEARCH
Principal Examiner:
Andy Favager
General
In section A and B both questions were answered well but candidates seemed to score
better on question 2. Candidates seemed to have a better grasp of what an interview was
and consequently the questions that followed (question 2) as opposed to a field experiment
and the related questions (question 1).
Section C also seemed to be a discriminator with candidates producing varied answers with
and without depth and description. Question three dealing with ethical issues in the use of
human participants and question four the disadvantages of the scientific method were both
well answered with question four seeming to gain the most marks. In answering both
questions the candidate could refer to the same studies which many did. Specifically when
answering question three a lot of candidates were using research and studies which did not
directly deal with the ethical issues that were described and consequently did not receive top
marks also too much time seemed to be spent on describing the study and ethical issues
that it caused. Question five discuss ethical issues that arise from applying psychology to
the real world was the least answered questions but when attempted was done well. Also a
lot of the answers for question three and four were very centre based and prescriptive and
this consequently disadvantaged the candidates especially those of high ability and it tended
to prevent them gaining the top band marks.
Section A
Question 1
(a)
(i)
Generally well answered with many candidates gaining full marks although
some candidates did not define a field experiment in detail and only received
partial credit e.g. not stating that the IV was still manipulated.
(ii)
Generally again well answered with many candidates gaining full marks for
giving a good advantage and disadvantage of a field experiment.
(b)
Poorly answered question with most candidates only defining an experimental
hypothesis as a testable statement which consequently only received partial credit.
Many candidates wrote a hypothesis indicating the IV and DV but this received no
credit.
(c)
(i) and (ii) were both answered well with most candidates being able to identify the IV
and DV.
(d)
Mixed answers were given on this question with many candidates only gaining partial
credit because their explanation of significant at the 5% level was muddled or lacked
clarity.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
7
(e)
This question was well answered with many candidates being able to write a
directional hypothesis.
(f)
(i)
Again this was well answered with many candidates able to fully define what
is meant by the term mode and consequently received full marks.
(ii)
Again this question was well answered with many candidates giving a clear
detailed advantage and disadvantage of using a mode and again received full
credit.
(g)
(i) and (ii) were both well answered by candidates although some fell into the trap of
just repeating the question e.g. lack if informed consent is when no informed consent
is given and consequently this received no credit.
Section B
Question 2
(a)
(i)
Generally well answered most candidates clearly defining the term interview.
(ii)
Generally well answered with many candidates gaining full marks although
some candidates did not explain their answer in detail and only received
partial credit for identifying the disadvantage or advantage of using open
questions in an interview. Also some candidates did not read the question
carefully and gave an advantage and disadvantage of an interview but still
received some credit.
(iii)
Generally again well answered with many candidates gaining full marks for
giving a good advantage and disadvantage of quantitative data but again
some candidates misread the question and gave an advantage and
disadvantage of qualitative data and consequently received no credit.
(b)
A poorly answered question with most candidates not knowing what was meant by
the term concurrent validity.
(c)
Mixed answers to this question with some candidates identifying and explaining two
issues that would affect the validity of answers given by the clinical psychologist and
receiving full credit. Many candidates did not put their answer in context and
consequently only received partial credit.
(d)
(i)
Most candidates received full credit for this question as they were able to fully
define the term systematic sampling.
(ii)
Again this was well answered most candidates giving a good advantage and
disadvantage of systematic sampling.
(e)
(i) and (ii) again were both well answered by candidates but again some fell into the
trap of just repeating the question e.g. protection from psychological harm is when
the participant does not suffer any psychological harm and consequently this
received no credit.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
8
Section C
Question 3
This question was well answered although a lot of candidates wrote very prescriptive
answers and just listed ways of dealing with ethical issues e.g. ethical committees,
guidelines, prior general consent and presumptive consent. Although a lot of candidates
wrote a reasonably appropriate answer they struggled to gain top band marks because they
did not elaborate on how successful the method was of dealing with any ethical issues. Due
to the prescriptive nature of some candidate’s answers they did not really understand the
method they were describing and consequently had trouble explaining how successful or not
the method was.
Question 4
Again this question was well answered with a lot of disadvantages well elaborated and a lot
of good studies referred to such as Ash, Milgram and Loftus and Palmer but a lot of
candidates also gained credit for using studies that were not lab experiments but used
scientific methods which also gained credit.
Question 5
Question five was the least popular question answered by candidates but when attempted
the answers were very good, the best answers referred to the role of the military and media
and the ethical issues that arose from these application of psychology in the real world.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
9
PSYCHOLOGY
General Certificate of Education
Summer 2015
Advanced Subsidiary/Advanced
PY4: PSYCHOLOGY: CONTROVERSIES, TOPICS AND APPLICATIONS
Principal Examiner:
John Griffin
General
Teachers should be congratulated for steering their students through to this ‘last exam
before university’; students should be congratulated for crowning a school career of testing
with one final effort, often a very good one, too.
2015 was the year of Freud. He carried many a Q1 ‘science’ essay, but made appearances
in Q2 (determinism), Q3 (memory), Q7 (dreams), and Q12 (aetiologies of schizophrenia).
Unfortunately much of the Freudian material was distinctly average AS rather than A2
standard. This was, again, a problem in general; some A2 material needs to be present,
either evidence or argument, in an A2 synoptic paper.
The ‘cloning’ of essays was commented on by far too many examiners; many centres
appear to have a standard essay in detail that is memorised by students, rather than an
outline that is embellished by further individual study. It is assumed that this has grown as a
response to institutional pressures on teachers. However, it is not seen as an effective way
of preparing for the exam, due to the lack of basic understanding resulting in some muddled
and confused responses given the pressure of the situation. This is a concern and teachers
are strongly advised not to pursue this route to give their students, especially those targeting
A* - B grades the best opportunity for success.
Many comments were made by examiners about the ‘scene-setting’ paragraphs in essays,
the ultimate being the page-long descriptions of schizophrenia before aetiologies are finally
introduced. Centres are reminded that such material fails to address the question set.
Question 1 (the status of psychology as a science)
(a)
There were many weak answers describing lab experiments, almost inevitably with
Loftus & Palmer as an illustration. The better answers established the features of
science and related them to an example thoroughly.
(b)
There were some excellent pieces of work, a tribute to the students and their
teachers, with a depth and breadth of understanding astonishing for being written in
just over half an hour under exam pressures. In general, however, examiners were
disappointed with the range and quality of responses. Evidence was largely AS
material, and no real depth of argument was demonstrated, rather a series of
vignettes centred on AS studies.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
10
Thanks to a major textbook, many quoted an aspect of early quantum physics and
related it to difficulties in measuring human behaviour; it was credited, although it is
scientifically erroneous to compare the two; the Hawthorne Effect may be far more
appropriate. Stereotyped versions of Freudian theory or a note about defects in
Skinner boxes were quoted as evidence of modern psychology’s unscientific nature.
It is as if the last half-century of psychological advance did not exist. There are
echoes of this in the pervasive suggestion that case studies are unscientific;
Ramachandran uses 33 such cases in ‘Telltale Brain’, his popularisation of
neuroscience, and stresses throughout the book their centrality to scientific
discovery. There was also almost no mention of journals and peer review as aspects
of the scientific process.
Question 2 (free will and determinism in psychology)
This was generally the weaker of the two questions in Controversies.
(a)
Some centres tended to have well-developed explanations with apposite illustrations
from psychology; many had ones that missed the point or simply recycled the
question.
(b)
Most candidates used the approaches as a basis for identifying determinist factors,
and then asserting some element of free will, with no further discussion. Surprisingly,
almost nobody took up the neuroscience arguments that followed Libet’s landmark
study. It seems odd as when the question was set last, there were a considerable
number of such answers. Higher-level argument was rare, but some of the better
responses took in the implications for humanity and the more earthly implications for
social institutions such as the justice system. Too often, alas, the only comment after
identifying the implications of ‘no free will’ for criminality was ‘it’s not right that people
who commit crimes should get away with it’.
Question 3 (alternatives to the multi-store model of memory)
This question elicited a multitude of limited responses, almost all dealing exclusively with
WMM and LOP, and with nothing on reconstructive memory or any other model. AO1 was
often very basic, with candidates struggling with any detail of components in WMM. AO2
was even weaker, with dual task studies badly explained, and no real attempt to explain how
WMM was better than MSM. Examiners mentioned the false criticism that WMM didn’t really
deal with LTM – it wasn’t intended to!
Question 4 (psychological benefits of relationships)
After years of badgering by presenters at WJEC seminars, the idea of parenthood as a
relationship has finally been dragged into the light, just in time for the penultimate paper. The
standard of answer has risen considerably since the last time this question was asked, and
those who chose the parent-child relationship as a major focus tended to do well. Other
highlights were use of peer friendships, support groups (e.g. for recovering addicts, LGBT
teens), pets and computer-mediated relationships. However, examiners commented on the
use of model answers by some centres that were actually quite basic, as well as the
inevitable anecdotal AO2. This approach will not gain the top marks as there is no grounding
of understanding and therefore fails to engage fully with the requirements of the question.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
11
Question 5 (issues in measurement of intelligence)
Very few centres attempted this. As in the past, it was largely done well, with some adopting
the validity/reliability route and others the sociocultural. It is probably one of the best
questions for developing a century-wide perspective of a socio-political nature, and several
candidates did this superbly.
Question 6 (events in middle adulthood)
A small number of centres attempted this, and almost to a person used Holmes and Rahe’s
SRRS as a structural device. There were some evidential overlaps with Q4 where marriage,
happiness and mental health material could be reworked. AO2 tended to be more anecdotal
and thus weaker. Evaluative comments should always be made relevant to the context and
due consideration given to their appropriateness rather than casually repeating generic
statements.
Question 7 (explanations of dreaming)
A few used a range of biological and psychological theories and used evidence to assess
them. Dreaming has become a big growth area in research in the last decade, especially
since work like Solms’ disconnection of dreams from REM has removed some of the
epiphenomenal status from it, and opened the field for enquiry. There were a small number
of scripts that noted more recent work including evolutionary theories. Otherwise, a limited
range of theories were used, largely reverse learning, activation-synthesis and Freud (again,
often at length, and AS level at best). There needs to be consideration of materials not
commonly seen in texts book to ensure up to date material used and an appreciation of the
situation at present; for example, not a single script seen attempted to link dreaming during
sleep with day-dreaming or Kleitman’s BRAC hypothesis. There were often muddled
passages of prose, and ‘essays were littered with generic AO2’, as one team leader noted.
Question 8 (treatment of addiction)
This question was generally answered very well. Candidates had been prepared with
substitution therapies, CBT, token economies and support groups, and the standard of AO2
was generally as good, with many candidates noting that individual needs implied
individually-tailored treatment.
Question 9 (learning styles)
A small number of candidates attempted this question, some clearly in desperation
reproducing VAK ideas from school. The informed candidates almost exclusively reproduced
Cardwell & Flanagan’s textbook material, but omitted the more critical material. There is a
wealth of critical AO2 out there, but not in these responses.
Question 10 (punishment & treatment)
Examiners reported rather predictable responses relying on textbook materials, with limited
descriptions of token economies. Many candidates looked at anger management and social
skills programmes, and these tended to be in the mid-range; the best candidates dissected
prison as a punishment/treatment centre as well as having discussion of what might befall a
prisoner on release, with little support for them. Many quoted ‘boot camp’ material without
pointing out it was an American enterprise (the UK version was called ‘attendance centre’),
but did not develop the approach by discussing more modern UK army/discipline/outwardbound initiatives for young offenders.
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
12
Zero tolerance is essentially a preventative strategy; however since it is in major textbooks
as a punishment it was fully credited (as long as made explicitly clear to the concept of
punishment). Sentencing takes place before the actual punishment/treatment, so when this
was used there was credit given only if linked to the nature of punishment/treatment (not to
the length of sentence).
Question 11 (internal factors in sport)
Very few candidates attempted this in other than sheer desperation, and with desperate
results. There were a couple of candidates who had studied this and gave a good account of
AO1; AO2 was however very general or anecdotal.
Question 12 (aetiologies of schizophrenia)
As always, this was a very popular question and generally well answered with a range of
thoroughly evaluated theories (varieties of dopamine hypothesis, varieties of genetic theory,
inflammatory response theories). Teachers had clearly prepared students well.
There was evidence of centre model answers, which the weaker candidates often muddled.
Double-bind (often given as double-blind) and expressed emotion were conflated and poorly
evaluated by the weaker candidates, and often diathesis-stress was mentioned as a
conclusion without any real description or relevant evidence.
GCE Psychology Report Summer 2015/ED
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.
13
WJEC
245 Western Avenue
Cardiff CF5 2YX
Tel No 029 2026 5000
Fax 029 2057 5994
E-mail: exams@wjec.co.uk
website: www.wjec.co.uk
© WJEC CBAC Ltd.