OxfordAQA International A-level Psychology (9685): 3.4.2 Issues and debates in 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 section 3.4.2 Issues and debates in psychology in the OxfordAQA International AS and A-level Psychology (9685) specification, Version 3.1 (International A-level exams May/June 2020 onwards). The specification assesses this content in Unit 4: Approaches and application, Section B (30 marks of compulsory questions), and expects you to illustrate answers with knowledge from other areas of the course. Every person, place and data set below is fictional.

Revise first with the issues and debates study guide and the issues and debates revision notes. The 9685 course hub and the 9685 checklist show the rest of the course.

Questions

1. Outline what is meant by soft determinism. [2]

2. Distinguish between biological reductionism and stimulus-response (environmental) reductionism. [4]

3. Three fictional students make these comments. Identify whether each one takes a nature, nurture or interactionist position.

A: “Babies everywhere start to babble at about the same age, so it must be built in.” B: “My cousin only became a confident swimmer because her coach praised every length.” C: “Some people inherit a tendency to sleep lightly, but whether it becomes a problem depends on how noisy their home is.”

[3]

4. A fictional study by Dr Ellis Varn, using 32 participants, reported a significant “colour-word recall effect”. Eight fictional laboratories later repeated the study with the same procedure.

Laboratory	Participants	Significant result (p < 0.05)?
A	48	Yes
B	150	No
C	96	Yes
D	210	No
E	64	No
F	180	No
G	72	Yes
H	140	No

(a) Calculate the percentage of replications that found a significant result. [1] (b) Calculate the mean number of participants per replication. [1] (c) Explain what these results suggest about the original finding. Refer to replicability and to the sample sizes. [4] (d) Give two reasons, other than the effect not being real, why a replication might fail. [2]

5. A fictional researcher at Brockwell Nursery explains children’s sharing by recording only two things: each time a teacher praises a child (stimulus) and whether the child then shares (response). Explain why this is stimulus-response reductionism, and what the approach might miss. [4]

6. Fictional researchers tested 4-month-old infants on a violation of expectation task in two fictional communities. On Kelby Island, infants are carried for most of the day and handle few objects. In Marrow Vale, infants have daily play with many objects. The table shows how many infants looked longer at an impossible event than a possible one.

Community	Infants tested	Looked longer at impossible event
Kelby Island	36	27
Marrow Vale	40	31

(a) Calculate the percentage of infants in each community who looked longer at the impossible event. [2] (b) Explain what these results suggest about the nature-nurture debate. [3] (c) Explain one limitation of using looking time as evidence for this conclusion. [2]

7. A fictional psychologist proposes “attention drift theory”: “People forget a list when their attention drifts. If they remember the list, their attention did not drift.” Explain why this theory is not falsifiable, and write a falsifiable directional hypothesis based on it. [4]

8. Two fictional observers coded 40 intervals of playground behaviour as “cooperative” or “not cooperative”. They agreed on 34 intervals. Observer 1 knew the hypothesis; Observer 2 did not.

(a) Calculate the percentage agreement. [1] (b) Explain how Observer 1 knowing the hypothesis could threaten objectivity. [2] (c) Suggest one change that would improve objectivity and explain why. [2]

9. The fictional Ashworth Academy has decided not to give detentions for lateness, because “teenagers’ body clocks make them late; it is not their choice”. Discuss this policy with reference to the free will and determinism debate. [6]

10. Evaluate reductionism as a way of explaining behaviour. Refer to at least one topic you have studied. [8]

11. “Psychology meets the standards of a science.” Discuss this statement. [12]

12. Discuss the nature-nurture debate in psychology. Refer to at least two topics you have studied. [16]

Answers

1. Behaviour has causes, such as biology or past learning [1], but people can still make conscious choices within those limits, so choice and causation are not opposites [1]. [2] Examiner insight: “a bit of free will” alone earns little; the second mark needs the point that behaviour is still caused.

2. Biological reductionism explains behaviour at the physical level [1], for example the dopamine hypothesis of schizophrenia [1]. Stimulus-response reductionism explains behaviour as learned links between stimuli and responses [1], for example Skinner’s account of behaviour as responses strengthened by reinforcement [1]. [4] Examiner insight: “distinguish” needs a contrast with one example each side; two separate definitions with no example cap the answer.

3. A: nature [1]. B: nurture [1]. C: interactionist [1]. [3] Examiner insight: statement C mentions an inherited tendency, but the outcome depends on the home, so “nature” would lose the mark.

4. (a) 3 of 8 = 37.5% [1]. (b) 960 / 8 = 120 participants [1]. (c) Only a minority of replications found the effect, so it is not reliably replicable [1]. The three significant labs had smaller samples (mean 72) than the five that were not significant (mean 148.8) [1]. Larger samples give more accurate estimates, so the effect may be smaller than claimed or absent [1]. The original used only 32 participants, so its result may have been a chance finding (a Type I error) [1]. (d) Differences in samples, such as age or culture [1]; small differences in procedure or setting between labs [1]. [8] Examiner insight: in (c), quote figures from the table; “most labs failed” without numbers or the sample-size pattern stays general.

5. It reduces sharing to one stimulus (praise) and one response (sharing) [1], so it fits the behaviourist level of explanation [1]. It might miss the child’s thoughts, such as understanding that the other child is upset [1], and social factors such as friendships in the group, which a holistic account would include [1]. [4] Examiner insight: application marks need Brockwell Nursery’s details (praise, sharing), not a general definition.

6. (a) Kelby Island: 27 / 36 = 75% [1]. Marrow Vale: 31 / 40 = 77.5% [1]. (b) The percentages are very similar despite very different experience with objects [1]. This suggests that early understanding of objects does not depend much on handling them [1], which supports a stronger role for nature, as Baillargeon’s research suggests [1]. (c) Longer looking may show surprise at something new or visually different rather than knowledge that hidden objects exist [1], so the measure needs interpretation and may not show understanding [1]. [7] Examiner insight: in (b), compare the two percentages before drawing the conclusion; a conclusion with no data reference loses the first mark.

7. Any result can be explained: forgetting is put down to drift, and remembering to no drift [1], so no observation could ever count against the theory, which fails Popper’s criterion [1]. Hypothesis: participants who complete a distracting task while learning a 20-word list will recall fewer words [1] than participants who learn the list with no distraction [1]. [4] Examiner insight: the hypothesis must have two conditions and a measurable outcome; “attention affects memory” is not testable as written.

8. (a) 34 / 40 = 85% [1]. (b) Observer 1 may expect cooperation and code unclear intervals to fit the hypothesis [1], so the data reflect expectations rather than behaviour [1]. (c) Use two observers who do not know the hypothesis (a blind design) [1], so neither can bias the coding towards the expected result [1]. [5] Examiner insight: in (c), the explanation must link the change to removing bias, not just say it “makes it more reliable”.

9. The policy takes a biological determinist view: lateness is caused by an internal body clock, not chosen [1]. This could reduce blame for something students cannot fully control, as with sleepiness caused by narcolepsy [1]. However, the sleep/wake cycle is reset by zeitgebers such as light, so students can shift their rhythm by changing routines [1]. A soft determinist would say biology makes lateness more likely, but students still make choices within that limit, such as when they go to bed [1]. Removing all consequences treats a probable cause as certain, which is closer to hard determinism than the evidence supports [1]. A balanced policy might make allowances while still expecting students to manage what they can [1]. [6] Examiner insight: “discuss” needs both sides tied to the academy, ending in a judgement about the policy itself.

10. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point. These are indicative creditworthy points. Reductionism explains behaviour by breaking it into smaller parts, at a lower level of explanation [1]. Biological reductionism: the dopamine hypothesis links positive symptoms of schizophrenia to dopamine activity [1]. Strength: this gives testable variables and led to antipsychotic drugs that block D2 receptors [1]. Limitation: drugs block dopamine receptors within hours but symptoms usually take days or weeks to improve, so dopamine is not the whole account [1]. Stimulus-response reductionism: behaviourists reduce learning to conditioned associations [1]. Tolman and Honzik (1930) found rats learned a maze without reinforcement, which suggests a cognitive level is missing [1]. Holism: groupthink (Janis, 1972) is a group effect that cannot be seen in one person [1]. Judgement: reductionism is useful for building treatments, but a full account needs several levels of explanation [1]. [8] Examiner insight: each evaluation point should say what reductionism gains or loses, not just restate a study.

11. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point. These indicative paragraphs show the content that earns credit.

Define. Science relies on objectivity and the empirical method [1], replicability [1], falsifiability [1] and theory construction through hypothesis testing [1].

For. Watson (1913) argued psychology should be objective natural science aiming at prediction and control, and behaviourism produced testable laws [1]. The working memory model of Baddeley and Hitch (1974) was revised with the episodic buffer in 2000 to fit amnesia evidence: theory construction working as intended [1]. Baillargeon (1987) tested Piaget’s timing for object permanence, showing developmental theory is falsifiable [1].

Against. The Open Science Collaboration (2015) found significant results in 36% of replications, against 97% of the original studies [1]. Participants react to being studied, so demand characteristics threaten objectivity [1]. Measures such as looking time still need interpretation, so objectivity is partial [1].

Counter-point and judgement. The replication problem was found by scientific methods, and fixes such as larger samples are scientific corrections [1]. Psychology meets the standards in its biological and cognitive areas more fully than elsewhere, so the answer depends on which part is meant [1]. [12] Examiner insight: name each feature of science, then test psychology against it with a named example; a list of features with no examples stays in the lower levels.

12. The real exam marks extended answers with levels of response, not point by point. These indicative paragraphs show the content that earns credit.

Define. Nature is heredity, the influence of genes [1]; nurture is the environment, all non-genetic influences [1]. The specification asks about relative importance, so the answer should weigh, not pick a side [1]. The interactionist approach says each influences the other [1].

Cognitive development. Baillargeon (1987) found some infants of 3.5 months looked longer at impossible events, suggesting early object knowledge (nature) [1]. But looking time may reflect novelty, so this is not decisive [1]. Vygotsky argued that higher thinking develops through social interaction and scaffolding (nurture) [1]. Piaget’s theory is interactionist: maturation sets stages, but experience drives accommodation [1].

Biopsychology. Maguire et al. (2000) found larger posterior hippocampi in London taxi drivers [1], with volume correlated with time spent driving, suggesting experience changes the brain (plasticity) [1]. The study is correlational, so people with larger hippocampi may have chosen the job [1], but the years-of-driving link fits an interaction [1].

Sleep. The sleep/wake cycle depends on an inherited endogenous pacemaker reset by exogenous zeitgebers such as light [1]. Narcolepsy type 1 involves genetic risk plus a trigger that is thought to lead to loss of orexin-producing cells [1].

Judgement. Most evidence fits interactionism [1], though this makes it harder to measure the share of each influence, because each changes the other [1]. [16] Examiner insight: top answers weigh evidence on both sides for each topic and end with a judgement on relative importance.

Where marks are usually lost

• Calculations with no working, or percentages that ignore the different group sizes in a table.
• Giving a definition when the question gives a scenario; application marks need the scenario’s details.
• Calling a theory “unfalsifiable” without saying why no result could count against it.
• Writing hypotheses with no conditions or no measurable outcome.
• Treating a failed replication as proof the original researcher was dishonest.
• Using “determinism” with no type, or confusing it with reductionism.
• Describing Maguire et al. (2000) as proof of plasticity without noting the correlational design.
• Extended answers that describe four debates instead of evaluating the one asked about.
• No judgement at the end of a “discuss”, “evaluate” or “to what extent” answer.

Next steps

Check every answer you missed against the issues and debates study guide. For more examples, use the Unit 2 practice questions the introductory topics practice questions and the scientific approaches practice questions. To find your weakest topics across 9685, try our diagnostics. For one-to-one help, Book a free trial class.

Official syllabus

OxfordAQA International AS and A-level Psychology (9685) specification, Version 3.1 (International A-level exams May/June 2020 onwards): section 3.4.2 (Issues and debates in psychology), section 3.4 (synoptic aims), section 2.3 (Unit 4 structure) and section 4.3 (assessment objectives).