AQA A-level Psychology (7182): Paper 3 – Forensic Psychology – 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 Forensic Psychology for AQA A-level Psychology (7182), from the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025. The content is section 4.3.9, topic 16 in Option 3. The specification assesses it in Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology, Section D, “one topic from option 3, 15–17 above, multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks”. All people, places and data below are fictional.

Learn the content first in the Forensic Psychology study guide and the Forensic Psychology revision notes. The 7182 course hub and the 7182 checklist show the whole course.

Questions

1. Outline two features you would expect at the crime scene of a disorganised offender. [2]

2. Police in Elmbury Cross (a fictional town) have linked six burglaries. The two burglaries furthest apart are 4.8 km apart. Using circle theory, an analyst draws a circle with these two crimes at opposite ends of its diameter. Suspect P lives 1.1 km from the centre of the circle. Suspect Q lives 3.6 km from the centre.

(a) Calculate the radius of the circle. [1] (b) Explain which suspect better fits a marauder pattern. [3]

3. Read these statements made by fictional offenders.

A. “I only took a few things. The insurance pays them back anyway.” B. “I grew up around people who did this.” C. “He looked at me in the queue, so I knew he wanted trouble.” D. “I get bored easily and like taking risks.”

(a) Which statement is the clearest example of minimalisation? [1] (b) Explain which cognitive distortion is shown in statement C. [2]

4. Explain one limitation of the data-driven approach to offender profiling. [3]

5. A fictional twin study recruited twin pairs in which at least one twin had a criminal conviction.

Twin type	Number of pairs	Pairs where both twins had a conviction
Monozygotic (MZ)	48	17
Dizygotic (DZ)	64	9

(a) Calculate the concordance rate for MZ and for DZ twins. Give each answer as a percentage to one decimal place. [2] (b) Explain what these findings suggest about genetic explanations of offending. [2] (c) Explain one reason why these data do not show that offending is caused only by genes. [2]

6. Dev, 19, grew up on a fictional estate where his older cousins sold stolen phones. They taught him which shops had weak security and told him that “big companies don’t lose anything”. Dev has now been arrested for shoplifting. Explain how differential association theory could account for Dev’s offending. [4]

7. Outline Kohlberg’s pre-conventional level of moral reasoning and explain how it may relate to offending. [3]

8. Outline two aims of custodial sentencing. [4]

9. A fictional young offender unit, Brackwell, introduced a token economy. Mean rule-breaking incidents per week were 14.5 in the eight weeks before the scheme, 6.2 in the eight weeks during it, and 11.3 in the eight weeks after it ended.

(a) Calculate the percentage reduction in mean incidents from before to during the scheme. Show your working. [2] (b) Explain what the figure for the eight weeks after the scheme suggests about token economies. [2] (c) Explain one ethical issue with using a token economy in custody. [2]

10. Discuss Eysenck’s theory of the criminal personality. [16]

11. Rhys, 16, damaged a community garden run by retired volunteers. He says it was “just a laugh”. The local youth team is considering a restorative justice meeting. Evaluate restorative justice as a way of dealing with offending behaviour. Refer to Rhys in your answer. [8]

12. Discuss neural explanations of offending behaviour. [8]

Answers

1. Any two: the crime appears unplanned or spontaneous [1]; evidence such as the weapon or body is left at the scene [1]. Also credit: signs of a sudden attack or little attempt to hide evidence. [2] Examiner insight: each feature must describe the scene; “the offender has low intelligence” is an offender characteristic, not a scene feature.

2. (a) Radius = 4.8 / 2 = 2.4 km [1]. [1] (b) Suspect P lives 1.1 km from the centre, inside the 2.4 km circle [1]. Marauders commit crimes close to home, so their home base usually lies inside the circle [1]. Suspect Q lives 3.6 km from the centre, outside it, which fits a commuter pattern instead [1]. [3] Examiner insight: use both distances from the stem; an answer that only defines a marauder cannot reach full marks.

3. (a) A [1]. [1] (b) Hostile attribution bias [1]: the offender reads an ambiguous look in a queue as a sign of aggression [1]. [2] Examiner insight: the second mark needs the scenario detail (the look in the queue), not just a definition.

4. Databases contain mainly solved crimes [1]. Offenders who are never caught may behave differently [1], so profiles built from these patterns may not fit the offender police are looking for [1]. [3] Examiner insight: “explain” questions need a chain: point, why it is a problem, consequence for profiling.

5. (a) MZ: 17 / 48 x 100 = 35.4% [1]. DZ: 9 / 64 x 100 = 14.1% [1]. [2] (b) MZ concordance is about two and a half times the DZ rate [1]. As MZ twins share all their genes and DZ twins about half, this suggests genes play a role in offending [1]. [2] (c) MZ concordance is far below 100% [1], so environmental factors must also matter; MZ twins may also be treated more alike than DZ twins, inflating the genetic estimate [1]. [2] Examiner insight: calculation marks need the stated precision; 35% instead of 35.4% loses the mark.

6. Differential association says offending is learned through close groups such as family [1]. Dev’s cousins gave him attitudes favourable to crime, such as “big companies don’t lose anything” [1]. He also learned techniques, such as which shops had weak security [1]. When pro-crime attitudes outweigh anti-crime ones, offending becomes more likely, so Dev went on to shoplift [1]. [4] Examiner insight: separate attitudes and techniques; each earns its own mark only when tied to a detail about Dev.

7. At the pre-conventional level, moral decisions are based on avoiding punishment and gaining rewards [1]. Offenders reasoning at this level may break the law if they think they will not be caught [1] or if the reward, such as money, seems greater than the risk [1]. [3] Examiner insight: name the level correctly; describing the conventional level by mistake earns nothing.

8. Any two, each outlined: Deterrence [1]: the unpleasant experience puts off the offender and the public from offending [1]. Incapacitation [1]: the offender is removed so cannot harm the public [1]. Also credit retribution or rehabilitation. [4] Examiner insight: one mark for naming each aim and one for outlining it; a list of four names scores only two.

9. (a) (14.5 − 6.2) / 14.5 x 100 [1] = 57.2% reduction [1]. [2] (b) Incidents rose to 11.3 after the scheme ended [1], suggesting behaviour change depended on the tokens and did not last once reinforcement stopped [1]. [2] (c) Offenders may be denied basic privileges unless they earn tokens [1], which raises concerns about dignity and whether consent is genuine in custody [1]. [2] Examiner insight: in (b), use the 11.3 figure; a general comment about token economies without the data limits marks.

10. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point. This plan shows indicative creditworthy content.

AO1: Eysenck proposed three dimensions measured by the EPQ [1]: extraversion, neuroticism and psychoticism [1]. Extraverts have an underaroused nervous system, so seek stimulation and risk [1]. High N people are unstable and react strongly to threat [1]. The criminal personality is high on all three [1]. Such people are harder to condition, so socialisation is weaker [1].

AO3: Eysenck and Eysenck (1977) found prisoners scored higher on E, N and P than controls, which supports the theory [1]. However, Farrington et al. (1982) found offenders were consistently high on P but not on E [1], so the extraversion part of the theory is weaker [1]. Bartol and Holanchock (1979) found offenders in a New York prison were less extraverted than controls [1], suggesting the theory may not apply across cultures [1]. The theory assumes personality is a stable trait, but behaviour varies across situations [1]. It combines biological and social factors, an interactionist strength [1]. But it may reduce offending to personality scores and ignore wider factors such as poverty [1]. Offending is many different behaviours, so one personality type may not fit all [1]. A balanced conclusion: evidence supports P more than E and N, so the theory is only partly supported [1]. [16] Examiner insight: high-level answers explain why each study supports or challenges the theory; naming a study without that link adds little.

11. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point. Indicative content:

Restorative justice brings offender and victim together with a mediator [1]. Rhys would hear how the damage affected the volunteers [1], which may challenge his minimalisation that it was “just a laugh” [1]. Sherman and Strang (2007) found restorative justice reduced reoffending for some offenders [1], although it worked more consistently with violent than property crime, so the benefit for Rhys’s property offence is less certain [1]. Victims often report satisfaction [1]. However, it needs Rhys to accept responsibility, and his comment suggests he may not [1]. The volunteers may also be distressed by meeting him, so their consent and support are essential [1]. [8] Examiner insight: refer to Rhys throughout; an answer that never uses the scenario cannot reach the top level.

12. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point. Indicative content:

Neural explanations link offending to brain differences, especially in the prefrontal cortex, which controls impulses [1]. Raine et al. (1997) found lower prefrontal activity in 41 murderers than in matched controls [1]. Raine et al. (2000) found less prefrontal grey matter in people with antisocial personality disorder [1]. Meffert et al. (2013) found that offenders with psychopathy showed reduced empathy-related brain activity unless told to empathise, so the issue may be a “switch” rather than absent ability [1]. However, the findings are correlational, so brain differences may result from experiences such as head injury [1]. Raine’s 1997 sample were people pleading insanity, so may not generalise [1]. The explanation is reductionist, ignoring social factors [1]. It raises questions about responsibility in court, a determinism issue [1]. [8] Examiner insight: the “cause or effect” point gains credit only when you name what else could cause the brain difference.

Where marks are usually lost

• Giving offender characteristics when the question asks about the crime scene.
• Ignoring numbers in the stem, such as distances or incident rates.
• Rounding calculations to the wrong precision or leaving out working.
• Defining a cognitive distortion without applying it to the person described.
• Listing aims of custody without outlining each one.
• Treating concordance rates as proof of a purely genetic cause.
• Describing studies in essays without saying whether they support or challenge the explanation.
• Forgetting to use the scenario in applied extended answers.

Next steps

• Check your weak spots with a free diagnostic.
• Revisit the study guide and the Approaches practice set for linked biological and learning ideas, and the Issues and debates guide for determinism and reductionism.
• Want feedback on your essays? Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

These questions are based on the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025, section 4.3.9 Forensic Psychology, assessed in Paper 3 Section D.