AQA A-level Psychology (7182): Paper 3 – Relationships – 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 section 4.3.2 Relationships of the AQA AS and A-level Psychology (7181, 7182) specification, Version 1.4 (1 September 2025), for teaching from September 2025, for AQA A-level Psychology (7182). Relationships is an option 1 topic, assessed in Section B of Paper 3: Issues and Options in Psychology, which the specification describes as “multiple choice, short answer and extended writing, 24 marks”. All studies, people, apps and data below are fictional.

Revise first with the Relationships study guide and the Relationships revision notes. Course links: AQA A-level Psychology hub and AQA A-level Psychology checklist.

Questions

1. Outline the matching hypothesis. [2]

2. Filter theory proposes that potential partners pass through three filters. Name the three filters in the order in which they operate. [3]

3. Explain the difference between the comparison level and the comparison level for alternatives in social exchange theory. [4]

4. Read the scenario.

Dev and Ana (fictional) have been together for nine years. They co-own a flat, share a dog and most of their friends are mutual. Ana admits she is “not especially happy” in the relationship. Her colleague has asked her out, but she says she “could never start again from scratch”.

Using Rusbult’s investment model, explain why Ana is likely to stay with Dev. [4]

5. A fictional research team in the town of Harwick asked a panel of judges to rate photographs of 30 established couples for attractiveness on a scale from 1 (low) to 10 (high). The researchers then randomly re-paired the same 60 people into 30 “random couples” and compared the two sets.

Pairing	Mean difference between partners’ ratings	Pairs whose ratings were within 1 point
Real couples	1.1	20 of 30
Random couples	2.4	9 of 30

(a) Calculate the percentage of real couples whose ratings were within 1 point of each other. Give your answer to one decimal place and show your working. [2] (b) Explain what these findings suggest about the matching hypothesis. [2] (c) Explain one limitation of using established couples to test the matching hypothesis. [2]

6. Read the four statements made by Leon (fictional) at different points as his relationship ended. Identify the phase of Duck’s model shown by each statement.

A “I told my sister everything last weekend and she thinks I should end it.” B “I keep lying awake listing everything that’s wrong, but I haven’t said anything.” C “Looking back, we just wanted different things. I’ve learned what I need.” D “We finally sat down and had it out. She says she’ll try harder.”

[4]

7. Explain what is meant by the absence of gating in online relationships, and explain why it may help a person who is socially anxious. [4]

8. A fictional dating app, Pairwell, ran an anonymous online questionnaire for 200 of its users. It asked whether they had ever given inaccurate information in their profile about their weight, height or age. 58 users admitted misreporting weight, 34 height and 22 age.

(a) Calculate the percentage of users who admitted misreporting their weight. [1] (b) Explain why this questionnaire may underestimate deception in online profiles. [2] (c) Outline how a researcher could measure deception in profiles more objectively, and identify one ethical issue this would raise. [3]

9. Read the scenario.

Jodie (fictional) follows a fictional pop singer. She checks his accounts many times a day, believes he would understand her better than anyone else, and feels upset when he is photographed with a partner. She has said she has no wish to meet him in person or break any rules.

(a) Identify the level of parasocial relationship Jodie shows, and justify your answer. [2] (b) Use the attachment theory explanation to explain why Jodie might have formed this relationship. [4]

10. Discuss equity theory as an explanation of romantic relationships. [16]

11. Evaluate the absorption addiction model of parasocial relationships. [8]

12. Discuss research into self-disclosure in online relationships. [8]

Answers

1. People seek partners whose level of physical attractiveness is similar to their own [1]. They balance the wish for an attractive partner against the risk of rejection, so they choose a realistic match [1]. [2] Examiner insight: “Partners who look alike” does not earn the mark; the hypothesis is about similar levels of attractiveness.

2. Social demography [1], then similarity in attitudes [1], then complementarity [1]. [3] Examiner insight: The order matters here; similarity and complementarity in the wrong order would lose marks.

3. The comparison level is the level of reward a person believes they deserve from a relationship [1], based on their past relationships and wider expectations [1]. The comparison level for alternatives is whether another relationship, or being single, would give more profit than the current one [1]. So CL judges the relationship against expectations, while CLalt judges it against what else is available [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “Explain the difference” needs an explicit contrast, not two separate definitions side by side.

4. Ana’s satisfaction is low (“not especially happy”), which on its own would reduce commitment [1]. But her investment is high: nine years of time and effort are intrinsic investments [1], and the shared flat, dog and mutual friends are extrinsic investments she would lose [1]. She also sees her alternatives as poor (“could never start again from scratch”), so high investment and poor alternatives keep her committed despite low satisfaction [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Each mark needs a detail from the scenario linked to a named factor; a description of the model alone earns little.

5. (a) 20 ÷ 30 × 100 [1] = 66.7% [1]. [2] (b) Real couples were more similar in attractiveness than random pairs (mean difference 1.1 compared with 2.4) [1]. This supports the matching hypothesis, as it suggests partners of similar attractiveness tend to end up together [1]. [2] (c) The matching hypothesis is about choosing a partner, but established couples show who stayed together, not who people first approached [1]. Partners may have become similar in attractiveness ratings over time, or matched on other factors such as status, so the data cannot show deliberate choice [1]. [2] Examiner insight: In data questions, quote the figures from the table; a general statement about matching without the numbers often limits marks.

6. A: social phase [1]. B: intra-psychic phase [1]. C: grave dressing phase [1]. D: dyadic phase [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Read for the clue in each statement: private brooding, confronting the partner, involving others, or telling a story afterwards.

7. Gating refers to obstacles that can stop a relationship starting face-to-face, such as appearance, a stammer or shyness [1]. Online, these gates are absent at first, so attraction can develop through shared interests and self-disclosure [1]. A socially anxious person may find face-to-face first meetings stressful, so they may avoid them or come across badly [1]. Online, they can communicate without these cues being visible and form a relationship they might not otherwise start, as McKenna et al. (2002) found with lonely and socially anxious people [1]. [4] Examiner insight: The second half must be about the socially anxious person specifically, not about online relationships in general.

8. (a) 58 ÷ 200 × 100 = 29% [1]. [1] (b) Users may not admit misreporting, even anonymously, because of social desirability bias [1]. Some may not realise their profile is inaccurate, for example if an old photo or estimate of weight is out of date, so deception is under-reported [1]. [2] (c) The researcher could compare each user’s profile with objective measures, such as height and weight taken in a laboratory and age checked from an identity document [1][1]. One ethical issue is that participants may need to be partly deceived about the aim, or may feel embarrassed when inaccuracies are found, so they need full debriefing and the right to withdraw their data [1]. [3] Examiner insight: For research-methods parts, a vague answer such as “use a better method” earns nothing; name the specific measure.

9. (a) Intense-personal [1]. She has intense, compulsive feelings and believes the singer would understand her, but there is no sign of uncontrollable fantasies or extreme behaviour that would make it borderline-pathological [1]. [2] (b) The attachment explanation suggests early attachment shapes an internal working model of relationships [1]. Jodie may have an insecure-resistant attachment type, linked to an anxious need for closeness and fear of rejection [1]. A parasocial relationship can meet these needs without the risk of being rejected or let down, since the singer cannot reject her [1]. Her upset when he is seen with a partner fits the anxious, jealous feelings associated with this attachment type [1]. [4] Examiner insight: Name the attachment type and use at least one detail from Jodie’s behaviour, or the answer stays general.

10. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point; the points below show the kind of content that would be credited. [16]

Knowledge (AO1): Walster et al. (1978) proposed that people want fairness in relationships rather than maximum profit [1]. Equity means the ratio of inputs to outputs is balanced for both partners, not that inputs are equal [1]. An under-benefited partner may feel anger and resentment [1], and an over-benefited partner may feel guilt [1]. Inequity motivates partners to restore balance by changing what they put in or how they perceive the balance [1]. Dissatisfaction is predicted to be greatest for the under-benefited partner [1].

Evaluation (AO3): Utne et al. (1984) found that married couples who saw their relationship as equitable were more satisfied, which supports the theory [1]. However, the evidence is correlational, so satisfaction might make partners perceive more fairness rather than the reverse [1]. Berg and McQuinn (1986) found equity did not predict which dating relationships lasted [1], while self-disclosure did, suggesting equity is less important than the theory claims [1]. Clark and Mills (1979) argued that in communal relationships partners do not keep score [1], so worrying about fairness may be a sign the relationship is already in trouble [1]. People differ in how much they care about fairness, so the theory may not apply equally to everyone [1]. Most research uses Western samples, so concern with equity may reflect cultural norms, which links to cultural bias [1]. Compared with social exchange theory, equity theory better explains why over-benefited partners can be dissatisfied [1]. A reasoned judgement: the theory captures part of satisfaction, but does not explain commitment as fully as Rusbult’s model [1]. Examiner insight: Top-band answers keep AO3 linked to the theory’s specific claims, such as the guilt of over-benefit, instead of listing generic limitations.

11. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response; these are indicative creditworthy points. [8]

Brief description: absorption means preoccupation with a celebrity to build a sense of identity [1], and addiction means needing ever stronger involvement to maintain satisfaction [1]. Strength: the model links to the Celebrity Attitude Scale, so its ideas can be measured [1]. Maltby et al. (2005) found intense-personal celebrity worship was linked to poorer body image in female adolescents, suggesting the model has real-world relevance [1]. Limitation: research is mostly correlational, so it cannot show that absorption causes problems rather than following from them [1]. Measures rely on self-report, which may be affected by social desirability [1]. The model describes increasing involvement but explains less well why only some people progress to borderline-pathological levels [1]. Judgement: useful for describing extreme cases, but it needs causal evidence [1]. Examiner insight: An 8-mark “Evaluate” needs most of its content to be evaluation; keep description to two or three lines.

12. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response; these are indicative creditworthy points. [8]

Reduced cues theory (Sproull and Kiesler, 1986) predicts less self-disclosure online, because missing non-verbal cues lead to deindividuation [1]. The hyperpersonal model (Walther, 1996) predicts more self-disclosure, faster and deeper [1], because people control their self-presentation and have time to plan messages [1]. Joinson (2001) found more disclosure in computer-mediated conversations than face-to-face [1], and that visual anonymity increased disclosure, which supports the hyperpersonal model over reduced cues theory [1]. However, early research used text-based chat, and modern apps with photos and video supply many of the “missing” cues [1]. Self-disclosure online may be idealised, so a relationship can collapse when partners meet face-to-face [1]. Judgement: the evidence favours the hyperpersonal model for anonymous text contact, but findings may not generalise to current platforms [1]. Examiner insight: “Research into” questions reward named theories and studies used as evidence; an answer based only on personal experience of social media will stay in the lower levels.

Where marks are usually lost

• Defining a theory in an application question but not using the scenario’s names and details.
• Mixing up the filter order, or calling the first filter “proximity” without the specification’s term, social demography.
• Treating equity as equal inputs rather than a fair ratio.
• Naming Rusbult’s factors but not saying they predict commitment.
• Matching Duck’s phases to quotes without spotting the key clue (private, partner, network, afterwards).
• Calculation answers without working, or rounded to the wrong number of decimal places.
• Research-methods parts answered with “use a bigger sample” when the question asks for an objective measure.
• Extended answers that are mostly description, with evaluation tacked on at the end.

Next steps

Check your weaker areas against the AQA A-level Psychology checklist, and revisit the attachment types in the Paper 1 introductory practice questions before parasocial questions. Then try a timed Section B under exam conditions using your board’s past papers.

• Find your gaps with a diagnostic test.
• Want help 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 4.3.2 Relationships, and the Paper 3 assessment details in section 2.2. Check the current version at aqa.org.uk/7182.