Approaches, Issues and Debates: 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: Approaches, Issues and Debates revision notes

---

Section A

1. Name five approaches in psychology and state the core assumption of each. [5]

2. Define the nature–nurture debate. [2]

Section B

3. Explain the behaviourist approach.

(a) Distinguish between classical and operant conditioning, giving an example of each. [6] (b) Give two strengths and two limitations of the approach. [8]

4. Explain the difference between hard determinism, soft determinism and free will, and explain why determinism creates a problem for the legal system. [7]

5. Explain the difference between idiographic and nomothetic approaches, giving an example of a method associated with each. [4]

6. Explain four ethical issues in psychological research and how each can be dealt with. [8]

Section C

7. Distinguish between reductionism and holism, giving one strength and one limitation of a reductionist explanation. [5]

8. Distinguish between alpha bias and beta bias, and explain how Ainsworth’s Strange Situation illustrates an imposed etic. [5]

9. Explain why research on the genetic basis of criminality can be scientifically defensible yet still raise ethical concerns beyond participant protection. [3]

---

Answers

1. Behaviourist — all behaviour is learned from the environment through conditioning, and only observable behaviour should be studied [1]. Cognitive — behaviour is explained by internal mental processes that can be studied scientifically through inference [1]. Biological — behaviour has a physical basis in genes, neurochemistry and brain structure [1]. Psychodynamic — behaviour is driven by unconscious conflicts and early childhood experience [1]. Humanistic — people have free will and an innate drive towards self-actualisation, and should be studied as whole individuals [1].

2. The debate over the extent to which behaviour is determined by inherited biological factors (nature) [1] versus experience and the environment (nurture) [1].

3. (a) Classical conditioning — learning through association, in which a neutral stimulus repeatedly paired with an unconditioned stimulus eventually produces the same response alone [1] [1]; e.g. Pavlov’s dogs salivating to a bell [1]. Operant conditioning — learning through consequences, in which behaviour followed by reinforcement is more likely to be repeated and behaviour followed by punishment less likely [1] [1]; e.g. a rat pressing a lever for food in a Skinner box [1]. (b) Strengths: it is highly scientific, using controlled laboratory experiments with objective, measurable variables, so cause and effect can be established [1] [1]. It has produced effective real-world applications, such as token economies and systematic desensitisation for phobias [1] [1]. Limitations: it is environmentally deterministic, ignoring free will and conscious choice, which many find an unsatisfying account of human behaviour [1] [1]. Much of the evidence comes from animal studies, and humans have cognitive processes and language that rats and pigeons do not, so extrapolation is questionable [1] [1]. (Also accept: reductionist, ignores biological and cognitive factors.)

4. Hard determinism — all behaviour is entirely caused by internal or external factors beyond our control, so free will is an illusion [1]. Soft determinism — behaviour is caused, but people can still exercise conscious choice within those constraints [1]. Free will — people are self-determining and can choose their own behaviour [1]. Determinism is a problem for the legal system because the law assumes offenders are responsible for their actions and could have chosen otherwise [1]. If behaviour is fully determined by genes or upbringing, holding someone morally responsible and punishing them is difficult to justify [1]. Defences based on genetic or neurological causes have been argued in court [1], though the courts generally maintain responsibility on the grounds that a determinist defence would make all punishment unjustifiable [1].

5. Idiographic — focuses on the individual as a unique case, producing rich, detailed data rather than general laws [1]; associated with case studies and unstructured interviews [1]. Nomothetic — seeks to establish general laws applying to everyone, using large samples and statistical analysis [1]; associated with experiments and questionnaires [1].

6. Any four, 2 marks each: Informed consent — participants must know what the study involves before agreeing; dealt with by a consent form, or presumptive/retrospective consent where full disclosure would invalidate the study [1] [1]. Deception — misleading participants; dealt with by full debriefing afterwards and approval from an ethics committee that the deception is necessary and proportionate [1] [1]. Protection from harm — participants must not face greater risk than in everyday life; dealt with by stopping the study if distress occurs and offering counselling [1] [1]. Right to withdraw — participants must be told they can leave at any time and have their data removed [1] [1]. Confidentiality — data must be anonymised, using numbers or initials rather than names, and stored securely [1] [1].

7. Reductionism breaks a complex phenomenon down into simpler, more basic components, such as genes or neurochemistry (biological reductionism) or stimulus-response links (environmental reductionism) [1]. Holism argues that behaviour can only be understood by studying the whole system, not its isolated parts, since properties emerge from the interaction of components [1]. Strength of reductionism: it produces testable hypotheses and has led to effective treatments, such as drug therapies based on the biological approach [1]. Limitation: it can oversimplify behaviour and risks explaining away meaning, losing sight of the complex, real-world context in which behaviour actually occurs [1] [1].

8. Alpha bias exaggerates differences between groups (e.g. genders or cultures); beta bias minimises or ignores them [1] [1]. Ainsworth’s Strange Situation was developed in the US and then applied elsewhere as though it were a culturally universal measure — an imposed etic [1]. Applying this US-derived measure to German infants classified a higher proportion as insecure-avoidant, when the behaviour actually reflected a culture that values early independence, not genuine attachment insecurity — the measure was biased because it assumed one culture’s norm applied everywhere [2].

9. Such research can be conducted using sound, rigorous scientific methods and therefore be methodologically defensible [1]. However, ethical concern extends beyond how participants in the study itself are treated, to how the findings will be used, who funds the research, how it is reported, and what policies it might invite — for example, findings could be misused to justify discrimination against a group even if the original study was conducted properly [2].

---

Where marks are usually lost

• Confusing negative reinforcement with punishment.
• Giving evaluation points without explaining why they matter.
• Describing free will and determinism as a simple binary.
• Naming ethical issues without saying how each is addressed.