OxfordAQA A Level Psychology: Introductory Topics — Practice Questions

These are original questions written for Marlbridge, in the style and at the standard of the examination. They are not reproduced past-paper questions — examination boards hold copyright in their own papers. Use these alongside the official past papers available free from your board.

Related: Introductory Topics revision notes

---

Section A

1. Distinguish between an aim and a hypothesis, and between a directional and a non-directional hypothesis. [4]

2. Define operationalisation and explain why it matters. [3]

Section B

3. Explain four sampling methods, giving one strength and one weakness of each. [8]

4. Explain the difference between independent groups, repeated measures and matched pairs designs, giving one advantage and one disadvantage of each. [9]

5. Explain the following and how each is controlled: demand characteristics, investigator effects, order effects. [6]

6. A study reports a correlation of +0.78 between hours of revision and exam score.

(a) Describe what this shows. [2] (b) Explain two reasons why this does not prove revision causes higher scores. [4] (c) State one appropriate way to display these data. [1]

7. Explain the difference between reliability and validity, and describe one way of assessing each. [6]

8. Distinguish between normative social influence and informational social influence, and explain why this distinction predicts whether a change in behaviour will persist. [5]

9. Outline two definitions of abnormality and explain one limitation of each. [6]

---

Answers

1. An aim is a general statement of what the researcher intends to investigate; a hypothesis is a precise, testable prediction about the relationship between variables [1] [1]. A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis states the direction of the expected difference, used where previous research suggests it; a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis states only that there will be a difference, used where the evidence is mixed or absent [1] [1].

2. Operationalisation is defining a variable in terms of how it will be precisely measured or manipulated [1]. It matters because a vague variable such as “aggression” cannot be measured consistently [1]; operationalising it as “number of physical contacts in a ten-minute observation” makes the study replicable and the results comparable [1].

3. Any four, 2 marks each: Random — everyone in the population has an equal chance of selection; free from researcher bias, but may still produce an unrepresentative sample by chance and requires a full list of the population [1] [1]. Opportunity — whoever is available; quick and cheap, but highly unrepresentative and open to researcher bias in whom they approach [1] [1]. Volunteer — participants respond to an advertisement; convenient and gives willing participants, but produces volunteer bias, as volunteers tend to be more motivated and helpful than average [1] [1]. Stratified — the sample reflects the proportions of subgroups in the population; the most representative method, but time-consuming and the strata must be known in advance [1] [1]. Systematic — every nth person is selected; objective and simple, but not truly random and a periodic pattern in the list could bias it [1] [1].

4. Independent groups — different participants in each condition; no order effects, but participant variables may confound the results and more participants are needed [1] [1] [1]. Repeated measures — the same participants in every condition; participant variables are controlled and fewer participants are needed, but there are order effects and greater risk of demand characteristics [1] [1] [1]. Matched pairs — different participants matched on key variables; controls participant variables without order effects, but matching is time-consuming and can never be perfect [1] [1] [1].

5. Demand characteristics — cues that lead participants to guess the aim and change their behaviour [1]; controlled by a single-blind procedure or a cover story [1]. Investigator effects — the researcher unintentionally influences the outcome through expectations or manner [1]; controlled by a double-blind procedure or standardised instructions [1]. Order effects — practice or fatigue from doing one condition before another [1]; controlled by counterbalancing, so half the participants do the conditions in each order [1].

6. (a) A strong positive correlation [1] — as revision hours increase, exam scores tend to increase [1]. (b) Correlation does not establish the direction of causation — students who find the subject easy may enjoy it and therefore revise more, so high ability could cause both [1] [1]. A third variable such as motivation, family support or teaching quality may cause both the revision and the score [1] [1]. (c) A scattergram [1].

7. Reliability is the consistency of a measure — whether it gives the same result on repeated use [1]. Validity is whether the measure actually measures what it claims to measure [1]. Reliability can be assessed by test–retest, giving the same test to the same people after an interval and correlating the scores, or by inter-observer reliability, correlating two independent observers’ records [1] [1]. Validity can be assessed by concurrent validity, correlating the new measure with an established one, or by face validity, judging whether the items appear to measure the intended construct [1] [1].

8. Normative social influence (NSI) is conforming out of a need to be liked or accepted, producing only public compliance [1] [1]. Informational social influence (ISI) is conforming out of a need to be right, because the situation is ambiguous or the other person is seen as more expert, producing internalisation — both public and private acceptance [1] [1]. This predicts persistence: because NSI changes only outward behaviour, it lasts only while the person is being observed by the group, whereas ISI changes the underlying belief, so the change persists even in the group’s absence [1].

9. Any two, 3 marks each: Statistical infrequency — behaviour that is statistically rare is classed as abnormal [1]; limitation — rarity does not mean harmful, so unusually high intelligence would be wrongly classed as abnormal, and a very common problem such as mild anxiety would be wrongly classed as normal [1] [1]. Deviation from social norms — behaviour that breaks unstated social rules is classed as abnormal [1]; limitation — norms vary by culture and era, so the same behaviour can be classed differently depending on where and when it is judged [1] [1]. Failure to function adequately — an inability to cope with ordinary daily demands is classed as abnormal [1]; limitation — who judges “adequate” functioning is subjective, and some highly unusual behaviour, such as an eccentric lifestyle, causes no distress or dysfunction at all [1] [1].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Writing an aim in place of a hypothesis.
• Not operationalising variables in a stated hypothesis.
• Confusing reliability with validity.
• Accepting a correlation as evidence of cause.
• Confusing normative with informational social influence, or omitting why the distinction affects persistence.
• Giving a definition of abnormality without a linked limitation.