AQA A LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 2
VERIFIED QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS LATEST EDITION
Give \one \reason \why \schema's \are \useful? \- \ANS-When \we're \in \unknown \situations \schemas \help \us \
know \how \to \behave. \So \when \we \do \not \know \what \to \do \our \schema \fills \in \the \gaps \for \us \and \
allow \us \to \process \situations \better.
Give \one \reason \why \schema's \are \not \useful? \- \ANS-schemas \may \exclude \information \which \doesn't \
conform \to \our \prior \expectations. \As \a \result, \we \may \form \stereotypes \which \are \difficult \to \shift, \
even \if \new,disputing \information \is \presented. \This \means \we \may \not \be \processing \the \world \
around \us \accurately \and \may \misjudge \or \represent \a \person \or \situation.
Discuss \the \defense \mechanism \shown \by \Jed? \- \ANS-Displacement \is \when \we \redirect \our \hostile \
feelings \onto \something \else \because \it \is \not \appropriate \to \express \their \feeling \towards \the \person \
or \object \in \question. \Jed \can't \take \his \frustration \out \on \his \teacher, \who \issued \the \detention \and \
he \displaced \his \feelings \by \kicking \the \locker.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \
(A01 \Behaviourist) \- \ANS-The \behaviourist \approach \suggests \that \the \basic \processes \that \govern \
learning \in \all \species \are \the \same. \We \learn \through \two \concepts: \operant \conditioning \and \
classical \conditioning.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \(classical \
conditioning) \- \ANS-The \idea \of \classical \conditioning \was \developed \by \Pavlov \who \found \that \we \
learn \through \association. \He \found \that \it \was \possible \to \condition \dogs \to \associate \the \sound \of \a \
bell \with \food. \This \resulted \in \the \dogs \producing \a \salivation \response \at \the \sound \of \a \bell \even \
when \no \food \was \present. \Pavlov \demonstrated \that \repeated \exposure \to \an \event \leads \to \a \
learned \and \uncontrollable \behaviour.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \(operant \
conditioning) \- \ANS-Skinner \suggested \behaviour \resulted \from \learning \through \the \consequences \of \
, our \actions. \He \conducted \research \into \operant \conditioning \theory \using \rats, \and \found \that \three \
types \of \consequences \will \affect \behaviour: \positive \reinforcement \involves \rewarding \a \behaviour, \
which \increases \it \being \repeated; \negative \reinforcement \involves \removing \an \unpleasant \outcome \
to \increase \it \being \repeated; \punishment \involves \adding \an \unpleasant \outcome,reducing \the \
behaviour.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \(similarity \
to \biological) \- \ANS-Both \the \behaviourist \approach \and \biological \approach \share \a \similarity \in \being \
determinist. \Both \ignore \the \influence \that \the \person \can \have \and \whether \they \have \free \will \and \
can \make \their \own \choices \in \these \decisions.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \
(difference) \- \ANS-However, \they \differ \in \that \the \behaviourist \approach \is \environmentally \
determinist \while \the \biological \approach \is \biologically \determinist. \Stating \that \behaviour \is \the \
product \of \internal \biological \factors \(e.g. \genes, \hormones, \neurotransmitters, \etc.) \while \
behaviourists \argue \that \behaviour \is \determined \by \the \environment \and \is \a \product \of \stimulus-
response \associations
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach \
(similarity) \- \ANS-Both \approaches \take \a \nomothetic \approach \when \studying \human \behaviour. \
Both \investigate \behaviour \to \try \to \create \universal \laws \that \apply \to \all \human \beings. \Biologists \
argue \that \this \is \possible \because \human \beings \share \similar \physiologies, \and \behaviourists \argue \
that \this \is \possible \because \all \behaviour \is \the \result \of \learning \and \stimulus-response \associations. \
Therefore, \the \aim \of \generating \universal \laws \that \apply \to \all \humans \is \another \similarity \between \
the \behaviourist \and \biological \approaches.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach \(nature \+ \
nurture) \- \ANS-the \behaviourist \approach \and \biological \approach \are \different \in \their \position \on \
the \nature-nurture \debate. \Behaviourist \views \rest \firmly \on \the \nurture \side \of \the \debate, \and \that \
human \beings \are \blank \slates \and \that \all \behaviour \is \learned. \Biological \psychologists \argue \a \
nature-based \view \of \behaviour. \They \posit \that \behaviour \is \the \result \of \innate \biological \factors \
(e.g. \genes, \hormones, \neurotransmitters. \etc.) \and \is, \therefore, \the \product \of \nature \and \not \
nurture. \Therefore, \despite \their \similarities \in \terms \of \determinism \and \their \approach \to \
investigation, \the \behaviourist \and \biological \approaches \are \radically \different \in \terms \of \their \
position \on \the \nature-nurture \debate.
Name \a \difference \between \somatic \nervous \system \and \autonomic \nervous \system? \- \ANS-The \
somatic \nervous \system \facilitates \communication \between \the \central \nervous \system \and \the \
VERIFIED QUESTIONS AND
ANSWERS LATEST EDITION
Give \one \reason \why \schema's \are \useful? \- \ANS-When \we're \in \unknown \situations \schemas \help \us \
know \how \to \behave. \So \when \we \do \not \know \what \to \do \our \schema \fills \in \the \gaps \for \us \and \
allow \us \to \process \situations \better.
Give \one \reason \why \schema's \are \not \useful? \- \ANS-schemas \may \exclude \information \which \doesn't \
conform \to \our \prior \expectations. \As \a \result, \we \may \form \stereotypes \which \are \difficult \to \shift, \
even \if \new,disputing \information \is \presented. \This \means \we \may \not \be \processing \the \world \
around \us \accurately \and \may \misjudge \or \represent \a \person \or \situation.
Discuss \the \defense \mechanism \shown \by \Jed? \- \ANS-Displacement \is \when \we \redirect \our \hostile \
feelings \onto \something \else \because \it \is \not \appropriate \to \express \their \feeling \towards \the \person \
or \object \in \question. \Jed \can't \take \his \frustration \out \on \his \teacher, \who \issued \the \detention \and \
he \displaced \his \feelings \by \kicking \the \locker.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \
(A01 \Behaviourist) \- \ANS-The \behaviourist \approach \suggests \that \the \basic \processes \that \govern \
learning \in \all \species \are \the \same. \We \learn \through \two \concepts: \operant \conditioning \and \
classical \conditioning.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \(classical \
conditioning) \- \ANS-The \idea \of \classical \conditioning \was \developed \by \Pavlov \who \found \that \we \
learn \through \association. \He \found \that \it \was \possible \to \condition \dogs \to \associate \the \sound \of \a \
bell \with \food. \This \resulted \in \the \dogs \producing \a \salivation \response \at \the \sound \of \a \bell \even \
when \no \food \was \present. \Pavlov \demonstrated \that \repeated \exposure \to \an \event \leads \to \a \
learned \and \uncontrollable \behaviour.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \(operant \
conditioning) \- \ANS-Skinner \suggested \behaviour \resulted \from \learning \through \the \consequences \of \
, our \actions. \He \conducted \research \into \operant \conditioning \theory \using \rats, \and \found \that \three \
types \of \consequences \will \affect \behaviour: \positive \reinforcement \involves \rewarding \a \behaviour, \
which \increases \it \being \repeated; \negative \reinforcement \involves \removing \an \unpleasant \outcome \
to \increase \it \being \repeated; \punishment \involves \adding \an \unpleasant \outcome,reducing \the \
behaviour.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \(similarity \
to \biological) \- \ANS-Both \the \behaviourist \approach \and \biological \approach \share \a \similarity \in \being \
determinist. \Both \ignore \the \influence \that \the \person \can \have \and \whether \they \have \free \will \and \
can \make \their \own \choices \in \these \decisions.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach, \
(difference) \- \ANS-However, \they \differ \in \that \the \behaviourist \approach \is \environmentally \
determinist \while \the \biological \approach \is \biologically \determinist. \Stating \that \behaviour \is \the \
product \of \internal \biological \factors \(e.g. \genes, \hormones, \neurotransmitters, \etc.) \while \
behaviourists \argue \that \behaviour \is \determined \by \the \environment \and \is \a \product \of \stimulus-
response \associations
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach \
(similarity) \- \ANS-Both \approaches \take \a \nomothetic \approach \when \studying \human \behaviour. \
Both \investigate \behaviour \to \try \to \create \universal \laws \that \apply \to \all \human \beings. \Biologists \
argue \that \this \is \possible \because \human \beings \share \similar \physiologies, \and \behaviourists \argue \
that \this \is \possible \because \all \behaviour \is \the \result \of \learning \and \stimulus-response \associations. \
Therefore, \the \aim \of \generating \universal \laws \that \apply \to \all \humans \is \another \similarity \between \
the \behaviourist \and \biological \approaches.
Outline \the \key \features \of \the \behaviourist \approach. \Compare \to \the \biological \approach \(nature \+ \
nurture) \- \ANS-the \behaviourist \approach \and \biological \approach \are \different \in \their \position \on \
the \nature-nurture \debate. \Behaviourist \views \rest \firmly \on \the \nurture \side \of \the \debate, \and \that \
human \beings \are \blank \slates \and \that \all \behaviour \is \learned. \Biological \psychologists \argue \a \
nature-based \view \of \behaviour. \They \posit \that \behaviour \is \the \result \of \innate \biological \factors \
(e.g. \genes, \hormones, \neurotransmitters. \etc.) \and \is, \therefore, \the \product \of \nature \and \not \
nurture. \Therefore, \despite \their \similarities \in \terms \of \determinism \and \their \approach \to \
investigation, \the \behaviourist \and \biological \approaches \are \radically \different \in \terms \of \their \
position \on \the \nature-nurture \debate.
Name \a \difference \between \somatic \nervous \system \and \autonomic \nervous \system? \- \ANS-The \
somatic \nervous \system \facilitates \communication \between \the \central \nervous \system \and \the \
