OxfordAQA International A-level Psychology (9685): 3.4.1 Scientific approaches in psychology – Study Guide

This guide covers section 3.4.1 Scientific approaches 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 section sits in Unit 4: Approaches and application, which the specification calls a synoptic unit. Unit 4 is a 1 hour 30 minute written exam worth 90 marks and 30% of the International A-level, and Section A, Approaches in psychology, carries 30 marks of compulsory questions.

Use it with the approaches revision notes and the approaches practice questions. The 9685 course hub and 9685 checklist show the rest of the course.

Because the unit is synoptic, the specification says you should use knowledge from other areas of the course in Sections A and B. Revisit the Unit 1 introductory topics guide and the Unit 2 biopsychology guide with that in mind.

Coverage table

Syllabus reference	What you must know or be able to do (from the document)	Where assessed
3.4.1 Learning approach: behaviourism	Classical conditioning and Pavlov’s research; operant conditioning, types of reinforcement and Skinner’s research	Unit 4, Section A
3.4.1 Learning approach: social learning theory	Imitation, identification, modelling, vicarious reinforcement, the role of mediational processes and Bandura’s research	Unit 4, Section A
3.4.1 The cognitive approach	The study of internal mental processes; the role of schema; theoretical and computer models; the emergence of cognitive neuroscience	Unit 4, Section A
3.4.1 The biological approach	Influence of genes, biological structures and neurochemistry on behaviour; genotype and phenotype; genetic basis of behaviour; evolution and behaviour	Unit 4, Section A
3.4 (all of Unit 4)	Knowledge (AO1), application (AO2), and analysis and evaluation (AO3) of concepts, theories, studies, methods and ethical issues	Unit 4

The specification gives approximate Unit 4 weightings of AO1 9%, AO2 8% and AO3 13% of the whole A-level. Evaluation is the largest share, so every approach below needs strengths and limitations ready.

The behaviourist approach: classical conditioning and Pavlov

Behaviourists study only behaviour that can be observed and measured. They assume all behaviour is learned from the environment, and that the same laws of learning apply to humans and other animals, so much of their work used animals.

Classical conditioning is learning by association. Key terms:

• Unconditioned stimulus (UCS): something that triggers a response without learning, such as food.
• Unconditioned response (UCR): the natural reflex, such as salivation to food.
• Neutral stimulus (NS): something that produces no response at first.
• Conditioned stimulus (CS): the former NS, once it has been paired with the UCS enough times to trigger the response alone.
• Conditioned response (CR): the learned response to the CS.
• Extinction: the CS is presented again and again without the UCS, and the CR fades.
• Spontaneous recovery: an extinguished CR reappears after a rest period.
• Stimulus generalisation: a stimulus similar to the CS also produces the CR.
• Discrimination: the animal responds to the CS but not to similar stimuli.

Pavlov’s research. Ivan Pavlov won the 1904 Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for work on digestion. While studying digestion in dogs, he noticed they salivated before food arrived, for example at the sight of the person who fed them. He then paired neutral stimuli with food. His stimuli included metronomes, whistles and tuning forks; whether he used a bell is debated. After repeated pairings, the sound alone produced salivation.

Evaluation. Pavlov measured salivation precisely under controlled conditions, so findings were objective and replicable. Classical conditioning also has practical use: it underpins therapies that link a feared stimulus with relaxation. But the research used dogs, and human learning involves thought, so generalising is a problem. It also explains only simple reflex responses, not new, complex behaviour.

Operant conditioning, reinforcement and Skinner

Operant conditioning is learning from the consequences of behaviour. Behaviour followed by a pleasant outcome is repeated; behaviour followed by an unpleasant outcome is not.

• Positive reinforcement: something pleasant is added after a behaviour, so the behaviour increases.
• Negative reinforcement: something unpleasant is removed or avoided after a behaviour, so the behaviour increases.
• Punishment: an unpleasant consequence after a behaviour, so the behaviour decreases.
• Primary reinforcer: meets a biological need (food). Secondary reinforcer: gains value by association (money, praise).
• Schedules of reinforcement: continuous, fixed ratio, variable ratio, fixed interval and variable interval.

Negative reinforcement is not punishment. Both reinforcements make behaviour more likely.

Skinner’s research. B. F. Skinner set out his approach in The Behavior of Organisms (1938). He built the operant conditioning chamber, or Skinner box, with a lever for rats and a pecking key for pigeons. A hungry rat that pressed the lever received a food pellet, and soon pressed it deliberately (positive reinforcement). The same set-up can show negative reinforcement: if pressing the lever switched off something unpleasant, such as a loud noise, lever pressing would also increase. With Charles Ferster, Skinner later published Schedules of Reinforcement (1957). A variable ratio schedule, where reward comes after an unpredictable number of responses, produces behaviour that is most resistant to extinction. Skinner also argued that punishment only suppresses behaviour for a time.

Evaluation. Skinner’s lab work was controlled and objective, which fits psychology’s aim to be a science. Its principles are used in token economies and in classroom behaviour systems. However, it is environmentally deterministic: it treats behaviour as shaped by past reinforcement, leaving little room for choice. It also ignores mental processes such as expectation, which social learning theory and the cognitive approach later added.

Worked example: application paragraph

Question: Explain how operant conditioning could account for a teenager checking their phone very often. [4]

Each notification works as positive reinforcement, because a new message is a pleasant consequence of checking. Messages arrive at unpredictable times, so checking is on a variable ratio schedule. Skinner’s work shows this schedule produces steady responding that is highly resistant to extinction. This explains why the teenager keeps checking even when most checks find nothing new.

Social learning theory and Bandura

Social learning theory (SLT) keeps the behaviourist idea that learning comes from the environment. It adds that we learn by watching others, and that thinking sits between what we see and what we do.

• Modelling: a model shows a behaviour that an observer may copy. The term also covers the observer’s copying of it.
• Imitation: copying the model’s behaviour.
• Identification: the observer feels similar to the model or wants to be like them, which makes imitation more likely. Models who are similar, admired or high in status are more often imitated.
• Vicarious reinforcement: learning from the consequences that someone else receives. Seeing a model rewarded makes copying more likely.
• Mediational processes: in Social Learning Theory (1977), Bandura described four. Attention: the observer must notice the behaviour. Retention: they must remember it. Reproduction: they must be able to perform it. Motivation: they must want to perform it, often because of expected rewards.

Bandura, Ross and Ross (1961). The researchers tested 72 children aged 37 to 69 months from the Stanford University nursery school. One group watched an adult attack an inflatable Bobo doll, hitting it with a mallet and shouting phrases such as “Pow”. A second group watched a non-aggressive model, and a control group saw no model. Children who saw the aggressive model copied much more physical aggression. Same-sex models had more influence, and boys showed more physical aggression than girls.

Bandura (1965). Children saw a model behave aggressively and then be rewarded, punished, or face no consequences. Those who saw the model punished copied less aggression. When all children were then offered rewards for copying, aggression rose in every group. This shows that vicarious reinforcement affected the performance of the behaviour, not whether it was learned.

Evaluation. SLT explains learning without direct reinforcement, which strict behaviourism cannot. The Bobo doll studies used controlled observations and standardised procedures, so they can be replicated. But a Bobo doll is designed to be hit, so children may have shown demand characteristics, and the studies measured behaviour straight afterwards, not over time. SLT also says little about biological factors, such as hormones, that may help explain why boys were more physically aggressive.

The cognitive approach: mental processes, schema and models

The cognitive approach studies internal mental processes: perception, attention, memory, language and thinking. These cannot be seen directly, so cognitive psychologists infer them from behaviour measured in controlled experiments. Ulric Neisser’s 1967 book Cognitive Psychology helped establish the field.

Schema. A schema is a mental framework of beliefs and expectations built from experience. Schemas let us process information quickly and fill gaps. But they can also distort what we perceive and recall. Frederic Bartlett, in Remembering (1932), described English participants recalling a Native American folk tale, “The War of the Ghosts”. Over repeated recalls, they left out or changed unfamiliar details to fit their own culture, for example recalling “canoes” as “boats”.

Theoretical models describe a mental process as stages or parts, often as boxes and arrows. The multi-store model of memory (Atkinson and Shiffrin, 1968) proposes a sensory register, a short-term store and a long-term store. You met it in Unit 1.

Computer models use the computer as an analogy: information is input, processed and stored, then output. Some researchers go further and write programs that simulate thinking, then compare the program’s output with human performance.

Evaluation. The approach uses lab experiments with tight control, so it is scientific and its findings can be replicated. It has practical value; for example, work on schema helps explain errors in eyewitness memory. However, mental processes are inferred, not observed, so models can be too abstract to test fully. The computer analogy also ignores emotion and motivation, which affect human thinking but not machines. Many tasks are artificial, such as recalling word lists, so ecological validity can be low.

The emergence of cognitive neuroscience

Cognitive neuroscience studies how brain structures and activity support mental processes. The term is said to have been coined by Michael Gazzaniga and George Miller in the late 1970s. Its roots are older: in 1861 Paul Broca linked damage to an area of the left frontal lobe with an inability to produce speech. Scanning methods such as PET and fMRI now let researchers see which areas are active during a mental task.

Maguire et al. (2000). Structural MRI scans showed that licensed London taxi drivers had larger posterior hippocampi than control participants who did not drive taxis. Posterior hippocampal volume correlated positively with time spent as a taxi driver. This suggests the adult brain can change in response to demands such as learning the city’s streets.

Evaluation. Cognitive neuroscience gives objective, physical evidence for processes that were once only inferred, which makes the cognitive approach more scientific. But scans show correlations: an active area may not cause the process. Brain areas also work in networks, so linking one function to one area can be oversimplified.

The biological approach

The biological approach explains behaviour through genes, biological structures such as the brain and nervous system, and neurochemistry. It assumes the mind is located in the brain, so thought and behaviour have a physical basis.

Genotype and phenotype. The genotype is a person’s genetic make-up. The phenotype is how those genes are expressed in observable traits and behaviour, shaped by interaction with the environment. Phenylketonuria (PKU) shows the difference. It is an inherited condition: a person who inherits two altered copies of the PAH gene cannot break down phenylalanine. Without treatment this causes intellectual disability. A low-phenylalanine diet from early infancy, after a newborn heel-prick screening test, allows normal development. The genotype stays the same, but the phenotype changes.

Genetic basis of behaviour. Twin studies compare concordance, the extent to which both twins share a trait. Identical (monozygotic, MZ) twins share all their genes. Non-identical (dizygotic, DZ) twins share about half on average. If MZ concordance is clearly higher than DZ concordance, a genetic influence is suggested. Adoption studies compare adopted children with biological and adoptive parents.

Neurochemistry. Neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine carry signals across synapses. Too much or too little of a neurotransmitter is linked to changes in mood and behaviour. Drugs that change neurotransmitter activity are one sign that brain chemistry affects behaviour.

Evolution and behaviour. Darwin’s theory of natural selection says that traits which increase survival and reproduction are passed on. Evolutionary psychologists apply this to behaviour. Buss (1989) studied 10,047 people in 37 cultures. Men placed high value on youth in a partner, which Buss linked to fertility. Women preferred older partners, which he linked to status and resources. Consistent patterns across many cultures suggest an evolved basis.

Evaluation. The approach uses scientific methods such as scanning and controlled drug trials, and it has led to treatments. But no trait shows 100% MZ concordance, so environment must also play a part. Twin studies also face a confound: MZ twins are often treated more alike than DZ twins. Evolutionary explanations are hard to test because we cannot observe ancestral environments, and they risk being written after the event. Reducing complex behaviour to genes or chemicals may also miss social and cognitive causes.

Worked example: evaluation paragraph

Question: Evaluate the biological approach. (one paragraph of a longer answer)

One limitation is that genetic evidence rarely shows behaviour is fixed by genes alone. If a trait were wholly genetic, MZ twins would show 100% concordance, but twin studies do not find this. This means the environment shapes how a genotype becomes a phenotype, as PKU shows: the same genotype leads to very different outcomes depending on diet. So the approach is strongest when it is combined with environmental explanations.

Common errors

• Calling negative reinforcement a punishment. Negative reinforcement increases behaviour.
• Writing that the bell is the UCS. Before conditioning it is the NS; afterwards it is the CS.
• Describing the Bobo doll study without naming the conditions or the finding about same-sex models.
• Listing the four mediational processes in the wrong order or calling the third “repetition”.
• Saying the cognitive approach observes mental processes. It infers them.
• Treating a brain scan correlation as proof that an area causes a process.
• Mixing up genotype and phenotype, or saying twin studies prove behaviour is genetic.
• Evaluating with generic points (“it lacks ecological validity”) without saying which study and why.

Where to go next

Test yourself with the approaches practice questions. Section B builds on these approaches in the issues and debates guide. For exam planning across all four units, read the 9685 exam preparation guide. To refresh the Unit 2 brain and nervous system content, use the biopsychology revision notes.

Official syllabus

OxfordAQA International AS and A-level Psychology (9685) specification, Version 3.1 (International A-level exams May/June 2020 onwards), section 3.4.1 Scientific approaches in psychology; Unit 4 details in section 2.3 and assessment objectives in section 4.3.