AQA A-level Psychology (7182): Paper 3 – Cognition and development – Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, for revision and practice on this content. They are not reproduced past-paper questions, and they do not replicate the exam’s exact structure, question count or mark tariffs – examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers from your board or school.

These questions cover Cognition and development, section 4.3.4 of the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025. The topic is assessed in Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology, Section B, which the specification describes as one topic from option 1 with multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, worth 24 marks. All people, places and data below are fictional.

Revise first with the study guide and revision notes. The AQA A-level Psychology hub and 7182 checklist show the rest of the course.

Questions

1. Explain the difference between assimilation and accommodation in Piaget’s theory. [2]

2. Outline what is meant by the zone of proximal development. [2]

3. Tomasz is 5. His nursery worker lays out 7 red toy buses and 3 blue toy buses and asks: “Are there more red buses or more buses?” Tomasz answers: “More red buses.”

Using Piaget’s theory, explain Tomasz’s answer. [4]

4. Leila, aged 13, is teaching her cousin Yusuf, aged 6, to fold a paper boat. At first she folds most of it while he watches. Next time she points to where each fold goes. By the end of the afternoon she only says “Check your corners” when he gets stuck.

Using Vygotsky’s theory, explain how Leila is helping Yusuf learn. [4]

5. Researchers at the fictional Harwick Infant Lab tested 12 five-month-old infants. Each infant watched a ball roll behind a screen. In the possible event the ball reappeared at the other side. In the impossible event a wall was visible behind the screen, yet the ball still reappeared on the far side of it. Every infant saw both events, in a counterbalanced order. Looking time was recorded in seconds.

Infant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12
Possible	8	11	9	14	7	10	12	9	13	6	10	11
Impossible	15	18	13	21	13	8	19	16	20	12	17	9

The researchers predicted that infants would look longer at the impossible event. They used a sign test. For N = 12, the critical value of S for a one-tailed test at p ≤ 0.05 is 2. The result is significant if S is equal to or less than the critical value.

(a) Identify the experimental design used in this study. [1] (b) Calculate the mean looking time for each event. Give your answers to one decimal place. [2] (c) Calculate S and state whether the result is significant. Show your reasoning. [3] (d) Explain one reason why longer looking at the impossible event may not show that the infants understood it was impossible. [3]

6. Children of different ages heard this story: Asha promised her grandmother she would never use the oven alone. Today is her best friend’s birthday, the shops are shut, and Asha wants to bake a cake. They were asked how Asha’s grandmother would feel if Asha baked the cake.

• Child X: “Grandma will be happy because cake is yummy.”
• Child Y: “Grandma might be cross, because she doesn’t know it’s for a birthday. If someone told her, she’d be fine.”
• Child Z: “Asha knows Grandma worries about the oven, and Grandma knows Asha wants to be a good friend. Someone watching could see they both have a point.”

Identify the level of Selman’s perspective-taking shown by each child. [3]

7. Outline the procedure and findings of the Sally-Anne study. [4]

8. A fictional newspaper headline reads: “Scientists find the empathy cells: mirror neurons explain why we understand each other.”

Explain one reason why this headline may overstate the evidence for the role of the mirror neuron system in social cognition. [3]

9. Discuss Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. [16]

10. Evaluate Baillargeon’s explanation of early infant abilities. [8]

11. Evaluate Vygotsky’s theory of cognitive development. Refer to Piaget’s theory in your answer. [8]

Answers

1. Assimilation is fitting new information into an existing schema without changing the schema [1]. Accommodation is changing an existing schema, or creating a new one, because the new information does not fit [1]. [2] Examiner insight: the mark for each term comes from saying what happens to the schema; “taking in information” alone does not separate the two.

2. The gap between what a learner can do on their own [1] and what they can achieve with help from a more knowledgeable other [1]. [2] Examiner insight: both ends of the gap are needed; “the area where learning happens” is too vague for either mark.

3. Tomasz is likely in Piaget’s pre-operational stage (about 2–7) [1]. He is failing class inclusion: he cannot see that the red buses are a sub-class of the larger class “buses” [1]. He compares the red buses with the blue buses (7 against 3) instead of with all 10 buses [1]. Piaget would say he lacks the logical operations to hold the whole class and its parts in mind at once, which develop in the concrete operational stage [1]. [4] Examiner insight: application marks need the scenario’s numbers and wording; a correct definition of class inclusion with no mention of Tomasz’s buses gains only the knowledge marks.

4. Folding the boat is within Yusuf’s zone of proximal development: he cannot do it alone yet but can with help [1]. Leila is the more knowledgeable other [1]. She scaffolds by giving a lot of support at first (folding while he watches) [1] and then reducing it to pointing and finally a brief hint, so Yusuf gradually takes over the task himself [1]. [4] Examiner insight: the scaffolding mark depends on showing support being reduced over time, using the three stages Leila goes through.

5. (a) Repeated measures (every infant saw both events) [1]. [1] (b) Possible: 120 ÷ 12 = 10.0 seconds [1]. Impossible: 181 ÷ 12 = 15.1 seconds [1]. [2] (c) 10 infants looked longer at the impossible event and 2 looked longer at the possible event (infants 6 and 12), so S = 2 [1]. S (2) is equal to the critical value (2) [1], so the result is significant at p ≤ 0.05 and the null hypothesis can be rejected [1]. [3] (d) Infants may look longer at the impossible event because it is more novel or visually interesting [1], for example the ball appearing beyond a wall may simply look unusual [1]. Looking time only shows that infants detected a difference, so the researchers must infer understanding, which reduces internal validity [1]. [3] Examiner insight: in the calculation, state S, the comparison with the critical value and the conclusion as three separate steps, because each carries its own mark.

6. Child X: Level 0, undifferentiated and egocentric, assuming Grandma feels what the child feels [1]. Child Y: Level 1, social-informational, recognising Grandma has different information [1]. Child Z: Level 3, third-party or mutual perspective-taking, seeing both views as an outsider would [1]. [3] Examiner insight: the level number with a matching label scores; a correct label attached to the wrong child does not.

7. Baron-Cohen, Leslie and Frith (1985) compared autistic children, children with Down syndrome and typically developing children [1]. Children watched Sally put a marble in her basket and leave; Anne moved it to her box [1]. They were asked where Sally would look for her marble when she returned (the false belief question) [1]. About 85% of typically developing children and 86% of children with Down syndrome said the basket, compared with 20% of autistic children [1]. [4] Examiner insight: name the belief question explicitly; describing the dolls without the question that tests false belief limits the procedure marks.

8. Much evidence for mirror neurons in humans comes from fMRI, which shows activity in brain areas [1], not the firing of individual neurons [1]. Activity during observation is also correlational, so it may follow understanding rather than cause it [1]. [3] Examiner insight: link the reason back to the headline’s claim (“explain”) to show why the evidence falls short, not just that research has limits.

9. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; these are indicative creditworthy points.

Knowledge: Schemas are mental structures [1]. New information is assimilated into schemas [1] or schemas are accommodated when information does not fit [1]. Equilibration is the drive to restore balance after disequilibrium [1]. Development passes through sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete operational and formal operational stages [1]. Object permanence appears in the sensorimotor stage [1]; pre-operational children show egocentrism and fail conservation and class inclusion [1].

Evaluation: McGarrigle and Donaldson’s Naughty Teddy study found more children conserved when the change looked accidental [1], suggesting Piaget’s task design caused failure [1]. Samuel and Bryant found fewer errors with one question [1], supporting the sequence but not the ages [1]. Hughes’s policeman doll task showed less egocentrism when the task made sense to children [1]. Baillargeon’s violation of expectation research suggests object permanence much earlier than 8 months [1]. A strength is the theory’s influence on discovery learning in education [1]. Piaget gave little weight to social interaction compared with Vygotsky [1]. A balanced conclusion: the order of stages is well supported but the ages and limits on thinking are underestimated [1]. [16] Examiner insight: evaluation scores higher when each study is followed by what it means for Piaget’s claims, rather than just being described.

10. The real exam marks this with levels of response; these are indicative creditworthy points.

Baillargeon proposed an innate physical reasoning system [1], tested with violation of expectation, where longer looking is taken to show surprise [1]. Strength: the method does not need motor skills, which Piaget’s search tasks required [1]. Baillargeon and DeVos found 3½-month-olds looked longer when a tall carrot failed to appear in a window [1], supporting early physical knowledge [1]. Limitation: Rivera, Wakeley and Langer found infants looked longer at a larger rotation even with no box [1], suggesting a preference for movement [1]. Looking time is inferred, so the mental state behind it is uncertain, which links to the nature-nurture debate about how innate the knowledge is [1]. [8] Examiner insight: for “Evaluate”, keep description to a sentence or two and spend most of the answer on strengths and limitations of the explanation and its method.

11. The real exam marks this with levels of response; these are indicative creditworthy points.

Vygotsky argued learning is social first and individual later [1], with learning in the zone of proximal development supported by scaffolding [1]. Wood and Middleton found the most effective mothers adjusted their help to how their child was doing [1], supporting scaffolding [1]. Unlike Piaget, who saw the child as discovering through stages driven by maturation [1], Vygotsky explains why teaching and peers speed up development [1]. Limitation: the ZPD is hard to measure, so the theory is difficult to test [1]. Vygotsky says less about individual and biological differences than Piaget, so the two theories may be complementary [1]. [8] Examiner insight: comparison with Piaget earns credit only when it shows something about Vygotsky’s strengths or weaknesses, not as a separate description of Piaget.

Where marks are usually lost

• Defining a term correctly but not applying it to the named child or the scenario details.
• Mixing up class inclusion, conservation and egocentrism in scenario questions.
• In sign test questions, forgetting to state the direction of the comparison or the conclusion.
• Giving means without units or to the wrong number of decimal places.
• Describing the Sally-Anne dolls but not the false belief question or the three groups’ results.
• Treating looking time as direct evidence of what infants think.
• Matching Selman’s labels to the wrong level number.
• Writing long descriptions in “Evaluate” questions and leaving little room for evaluation.

Next steps

• Recheck weak areas in the study guide and revision notes.
• Revisit schemas and the cognitive approach in Approaches in Psychology and practise with the Approaches practice questions.
• Find your gaps with a diagnostic test.
• Want feedback from a teacher? Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025, section 4.3.4 Cognition and development, assessed in Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology, Section B.