AS Level issues and debates
- Syllabus
- 9990–2028–2029
- Topic
- —
- Level
- AS
Learning objectives
—Application of psychology to everyday lifeConsider how each core study, where appropriate, can be applied to everyday life.—Individual and situational explanationsConsider individual and situational explanations in relation to each core study, where appropriate.—Nature versus nurtureConsider the nature versus nurture debate in relation to each core study, where appropriate.—Use of children in psychological researchConsider the use of children in psychological research in relation to each core study, where appropriate.—Use of animals in psychological researchConsider the use of animals in psychological research in relation to each core study, where appropriate.
A valid application turns study evidence into a bounded ethical action
| Application move | Required content |
|---|---|
| 1 Evidence | State the exact result/conclusion that matters |
| 2 Mechanism | Explain why that result predicts change in the target setting |
| 3 Action | Specify who changes what, how and where |
| 4 Outcome | Name the behaviour/experience to improve and how it could be checked |
| 5 Boundary/ethics | Restrict transfer to comparable people/tasks and protect consent, welfare and autonomy |
| Core study evidence | Ethical prospective application | Boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Bandura: children imitated modelled aggression | Teachers/media can model and reinforce specific prosocial speech/actions, then observe whether those actions increase | Laboratory imitation does not prove lasting violence; do not expose children to harm |
| Andrade: simple doodling improved monitoring/recall in a monotonous task | Permit low-demand doodling during comparable listening situations and compare attention/recall | Do not assume all drawing or complex tasks help every learner |
| Milgram: legitimate authority/prods produced high obedience | Build clear whistleblowing, challenge and stop-work routes so unsafe authority can be questioned | Use evidence to reduce harmful obedience, not manipulate people into unethical acts |
A retrospective explanation (‘authority may explain obedience’) is not yet an application. The application must add a feasible intervention or policy. Evaluate ecological similarity, effectiveness evidence, cost, unintended effects and whether the action remains ethical.
‘This study helps us understand everyday life’ earns no mechanism or action. A laboratory result can inspire a cautious pilot, not a universal recommendation; an application that reproduces the original harm is not justified.
Behaviour reflects both characteristics of the person and features of the situation
| Explanation level | Causal focus | Good evidence form |
|---|---|---|
| Individual/dispositional | Relatively stable or person-specific biology, personality, cognition, history, skill or state | Measured participant characteristic predicts different behaviour under comparable conditions |
| Situational | External setting, instructions, authority, victim/model, reward, group or task changes behaviour | Manipulated/contextual condition predicts different behaviour across participants |
| Interaction | A person characteristic changes sensitivity to a situation, or context expresses/suppresses a tendency | Person × condition pattern rather than either side alone |
| Core study | Individual reading | Situational reading |
|---|---|---|
| Dement & Kleitman | Dream content/recall varied by participant | Laboratory sleep, waking schedule and EEG attachment may alter sleep/recall |
| Piliavin | Passengers differed in willingness/experience/position | Ill victim was helped more readily than drunk victim; victim/model/group context altered cost–reward |
| Fagen elephants | Training speed and success varied with age, health and prior capacity; one elephant did not complete | Shaping, banana reinforcement, trainer cues and tourist distraction altered learning |
To argue a side: define the level without circular wording, cite one exact result/procedure, then explain the causal link. Prefer an interaction conclusion when evidence supports both—situations change probabilities, while individuals enter them with different capacities and histories.
‘People were different’ is description, not an individual explanation; identify the characteristic. ‘It happened in a situation’ is tautological; identify the external feature and how it changed behaviour.
Nature and nurture are interacting sources, not competing labels
| Side | Includes | Evidence needed |
|---|---|---|
| Nature | Genetic inheritance, evolved predisposition, hormones, neural structure/function and maturation | Biological measure, heritability/species/sex pattern or development evidence—with confounds considered |
| Nurture | Learning, modelling, reinforcement, culture, relationships and other post-birth experience | Manipulated/observed experience predicts change while alternatives are controlled |
| Interaction | Biology shapes what can be learned; experience changes expression and sometimes biology | A mechanism linking predisposition and environment |
| Bandura aggression study | Debate reading |
|---|---|
| Nurture evidence | Children exposed to aggressive adult models produced more imitative aggression than non-aggressive/control conditions despite prior aggression matching—direct support for observational learning |
| Possible nature contribution | Boys showed more physical aggression; hormones/evolved tendencies are possible explanations, but sex also covaries with socialisation and the study did not measure genes or testosterone |
| Best conclusion | Model behaviour and model/child sex affected expression; strong evidence for nurture in imitation, not proof that biology is absent or that sex difference is genetic |
Define each side, cite an operational result, then state what the design can actually infer. Experimental exposure can support learning causally; an unmeasured biological explanation remains a plausible interpretation, not a measured finding.
Nature does not mean unchangeable, nurture is not limited to parenting, and a biological difference may itself reflect experience. Avoid declaring ‘both’ without explaining how evidence or mechanism connects them.
Research with children needs developmental validity and stronger safeguarding
| Scientific value | Method requirement |
|---|---|
| Study development before adult patterns exist | Sample exact age/developmental stage; do not treat children as small adults |
| Test child-specific education, health or protection | Use age-appropriate tasks/scales/language and real settings |
| Follow change over time | Longitudinal design distinguishes age/cohort/history carefully |
| Issue | Safeguard / validity consequence |
|---|---|
| Consent/assent | Guardian consent plus the child's informed, voluntary assent; authority must not coerce |
| Withdrawal/debrief | Explain repeatedly in simple language; child may not recognise or exercise the right |
| Protection | Minimise fear, pain, embarrassment, drugs and scanner/task distress; monitor non-verbal distress |
| Comprehension | Pilot instructions/vocabulary and avoid mistaking language or game interpretation for the construct |
| Privacy | Protect school/health data and avoid labels that follow the child |
| Adult core-study procedure changed to children | Problem |
|---|---|
| Hölzel MRI/mindfulness | Keeping still and understanding homework affect scan validity; developing grey matter creates alternative explanation |
| Perry personal-space tasks | Oxytocin risk, many trials and computer/figure interpretation may produce distress or measure game skill |
| Baron-Cohen Eyes Test | Emotion vocabulary, social experience and test anxiety may lower scores without indicating the same theory-of-mind construct |
Parental permission does not remove the child's right to assent, withdraw or be protected. Child data are necessary for child claims but may not generalise to adults; adult tasks require redesign, not simple reuse.
Animal research requires scientific necessity, welfare control and cautious inference
| Decision | Required question |
|---|---|
| Replace | Can non-animal observation, existing data, simulation or ethical human work answer it? |
| Reduce | What is the smallest sample/design that can produce interpretable evidence rather than waste animals? |
| Refine | How can housing, handling, procedure, enrichment, stopping rules and aftercare minimise distress and support natural behaviour? |
| Benefit–harm | Is the scientific value specific, credible and proportionate to welfare cost? |
| Infer | Which species/setting similarity justifies the conclusion, and where must human transfer stop? |
| Core animal study | Scientific value | Welfare/inference boundary |
|---|---|---|
| Hassett rhesus-monkey toy preferences | Observation of sex-linked interaction with wheeled/plush objects in another primate tests whether human toy patterns may not be solely social instruction | Captivity, object familiarity/social context and small species-specific sample matter; monkey preference does not prove human innate gender roles or justify sex-specific marketing |
| Fagen elephant trunk-wash training | Shaping/reinforcement showed a practical, less forceful route for veterinary cooperation and revealed individual learning/health differences | Training must be voluntary/positive and sensitive to illness/age; zoo distractions and individual elephants limit species/general learning claims |
Animal work can permit close observation, controlled exposure and investigation of behaviour that cannot ethically be manipulated in humans. Comparative evidence is strongest when the mechanism is conserved and naturalistic behaviour/welfare are preserved; it is weakest when captivity or training creates the behaviour being generalised.
‘Animals are similar to humans’ is not enough—name the relevant similarity. Ethical approval does not make harm irrelevant, and absence of human participants does not remove consent-like duties: researchers remain responsible for necessity, humane care and stopping avoidable distress.