Edexcel A-Level Psychology A2 Topic F Criminological Psychology Questions

AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)
AO1
- Impulsive anti-social behaviour can be caused by anti-social
personality disorder which is linked to abnormalities in the brain.
- People diagnosed with ASPD can be aggressive, hostile, violent
and threatening to others, which can lead to criminal acts.
- ASPD can be explained as a form of innate pathology in brain-
functioning in areas such as the prefrontal cortex.
- Those with ASPD do not conform to acceptable social behaviour,
and so are more likely to demonstrate anti-social behaviour.
AO3
- Yang et al. (2008) found, using fMRI brain scanning, that
emotional information was not processed in the frontal regions of
the brain of those with ASPD leading to anti-social behaviour.
- Criminal behaviour as suggested by self-fulfilling prophecy would
be where the individual internalises the label of being violent and
behaves according to that belief so it is not due to ASPD.
- ASPD can be empirically tested giving the theory credibility as it
has been found that those with ASPD have structural and
functional impairment leading to anti-social behaviour.
- Anti-social behaviour could be as a result of the media as opposed
to ASPD as Anderson and Dill (2000) found a correlation between
increased aggression and playing violent video games.
Look for other reasonable marking points.

(8)

\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|l|l|}
\hline Level

Mark

Descriptor

AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)
Candidates must demonstrate an equal emphasis between knowledge and
understanding vs evaluation/conclusion in their answer.

0

No rewardable material.

Level 1

1-2
Marks

Demonstrates isolated elements of knowledge and understanding.
(AO1)
A conclusion may be presented, but will be generic and the supporting
evidence will be limited. Limited attempt to address the question.
(AO3)

Level 2

3-4
Marks

Demonstrates mostly accurate knowledge and understanding. (AO1)
Candidates will produce statements with some development in the form
of mostly accurate and relevant factual material, leading to a superficial
conclusion being made. (AO3)

Level 3

5-6
Marks

Demonstrates accurate knowledge and understanding. (AO1)
Arguments developed using mostly coherent chains of reasoning.
leading to a conclusion being presented. Candidates will demonstrate a
grasp of competing arguments but evaluation may be imbalanced.
(AO3)

Level 4

7-8
Marks

Demonstrates accurate and thorough knowledge and understanding.
(AO1)
Displays a well-developed and logical evaluation, containing logical
chains of reasoning throughout. Demonstrates an awareness of
competing arguments, presenting a balanced conclusion. (AO3)

\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|l|l|}
\hline

AO2 (4 marks)
Credit up to four marks for accurate description in relation to scenario.
For example:
- The police would ask Francesco about features of the shop to
encourage him to revisit what he was doing (1). They could ask
Francesco about what he thinks the employees might have seen
from their perspective (1). He could describe the robbery
sequence backwards starting from when they drove off (1) which
may reduce the influence of Francesco's schema/prior knowledge
on the sequence of events during the robbery (1).
Look for other reasonable marking points.
Generic answers score 0 marks.

(4)

AO2 (2 marks)
Credit up to two marks for accurate description in relation to scenario.
For example:
- Weapon focus means Francesco was concentrating on the robbers'
guns (1) so his attention was diverted from the features of the
robbers themselves (1).
Look for other reasonable marking points.
Generic answers score 0 marks.

(2)

AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)
AO1
- Pre-trial publicity is reports about the crime that took place that are
published in the public domain on social media, newspapers or the
radio before a case goes to trial.
- To test the effects of pre-trial publicity on jury-decision making
psychological research has often utilised mock juries and replicated
trials for the investigation process.
- High profile cases are often more newsworthy due to public interest
and media values, so they are often reported more widely in the
press and social media than every-day criminal cases.
- The credibility of a defendant or victim may be reported in either a
negative or positive way by the media in any pre-trial publicity.
AO3
- Steblay et al. (1999) found a significant effect of pre-trial publicity
on judgements about the defendant, suggesting that negative
information about a defendant and crime can lead to an increased
likelihood of a guilty verdict when juries make their decisions.
- In mock jury research there is no real impact from the decision so
it may not reflect real life where jurors consider a range of issues
when sentencing a defendant, so research may not reflect the
actual impact of pre-trial publicity on decisions made in courts.
- During a trial jurors are requested to disregard pre-trial publicity
and are not allowed to research the case during the trial, therefore
there may not be any effect of publicity on a decision, regardless of
whether it is a high profile or low profile case.
- Ruva and McEvoy (2008) found that the perception of a defendant's
credibility was higher when pre-trial publicity had been positive, so
the impact could lead to jurors making both lenient or harsh
decisions about the defendant's guilt.
Look for other reasonable marking points.
(8)
\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|l|l|}
\hline Level
Mark
Descriptor
AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)
Candidates must demonstrate an equal emphasis between knowledge and
understanding vs assessment/conclusion in their answer.
0
No rewardable material.
Level 1
1-2
Marks
Demonstrates isolated elements of knowledge and understanding.
(AO1)
Generic assertions may be presented. Limited attempt to address the
question. (AO3)
Level 2
3-4
Marks
Demonstrates mostly accurate knowledge and understanding. (AO1)
Candidates will produce statements with some development in the form
of mostly accurate and relevant factual material, leading to a generic or
superficial assessment being presented. (AO3)
Level 3
5-6
Marks
Demonstrates accurate knowledge and understanding. (AO1)
Arguments developed using mostly coherent chains of reasoning
leading to an assessment being presented which considers a range of
factors. Candidates will demonstrate understanding of competing
arguments/factors but unlikely to grasp their significance. The
assessment leads to a judgement but this may be imbalanced. (AO3)
Level 4
7-8
Marks
Demonstrates accurate and thorough knowledge and understanding.
(AO1)
Displays a well-developed and logical assessment, containing logical
chains of reasoning throughout. Demonstrates an awareness of the
significance of competing arguments/factors leading to a balanced
judgement being presented. (AO3)
WPS03 June 2106 \\ HEALTH PSYCHOLOGY

AO2 (1 mark)
Credit one mark for an accurate statement in relation to
scenario.
For example:
- Cognitive behavioural therapy leads to a 55\% reduction in
reoffending (1).
Look for other reasonable marking points.
Generic answers score 0 marks.

(1)

AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)
AO1
- 45 participants in the study were shown films clips on video, each
involving a traffic accident.
- The participants had a questionnaire to complete at the end of each
film they watched.
- Leading questions elicited higher speed estimates, 'smashed' resulted
in 40.5mph compared to 'hit' which was 34.0mph.
AO3
- Using a large sample of participants gives the findings strong
generalisability to the likely recall of witnesses in real life, so can be
applied to actual eyewitness memory.
- Demand characteristics from repeating the task may mean
participants guessed the aim, so it is an unreliable test of eyewitness
memory in real-life where a crime would be seen once.
- Eyewitnesses to crimes are not usually questioned using a pre-
prepared questionnaires, therefore this lacks task validity so their
results may not apply to real life crime.
- The results indicate leading questions can alter recall which should be
applied to interviewing eyewitnesses to ensure accuracy.
Look for other reasonable marking points.

(8)

\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|l|l|}
\hline Level

Mark

Descriptor

AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)
Candidates must demonstrate an equal emphasis between knowledge and
understanding vs assessment/conclusion in their answer.

0

No rewardable material.

Level 1

1-2
Marks

Demonstrates isolated elements of knowledge and understanding. (AO1)
Generic assertions may be presented. Limited attempt to address the
question. (AO3)

Level 2

3-4
Marks

Demonstrates mostly accurate knowledge and understanding. (AO1)
Candidates will produce statements with some development in the form of
mostly accurate and relevant factual material, leading to a generic or
superficial assessment being presented. (AO3)

Level 3

5-6
Marks

Demonstrates accurate knowledge and understanding. (AO1)
Arguments developed using mostly coherent chains of reasoning. leading to
an assessment being presented which considers a range of factors.
Candidates will demonstrate understanding of competing arguments/factors
but unlikely to grasp their significance. The assessment leads to a
judgement but this may be imbalanced. (AO3)

Level 4

7-8
Marks

Demonstrates accurate and thorough knowledge and understanding. (AO1)
Displays a well-developed and logical assessment, containing logical chains
of reasoning throughout. Demonstrates an awareness of the significance of
competing arguments/factors leading to a balanced judgement being
presented. (AO3)

\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|l|l|}
\hline

AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)
AO1
- The researchers used secondary data from court trials that
had taken place in 2000 and 2001.
- The data gathered was taken from an actual jury trial rather
than a mock jury.
- All the defendants in the trials were black and the jurors were
multi-ethnic.
- They found that juries with a high percentage of white jurors
were more likely to convict black defendants.
AO3
- The data used was outdated as there is 12 years between the
data and the study, therefore it may no longer represent the
outcomes of jury trials.
- There is high ecological validity from the data as the study
was of real life trials and therefore is more likely to apply to
other real life jury decisions.
- There is low generalisability to all trials due to the biased
nature of the sample.
- There is strong practical application for the criminal justice
system in America to change policies for jury composition.
Look for other reasonable marking points.

(8)

\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|l|l|}
\hline Level

Mark

Descriptor

\begin{tabular[t]{l}
AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)

Candidates must demonstrate an equal emphasis between knowledge and understanding vs evaluation/ conclusion in their answer.
\end{tabular}}

0

No rewardable material.

Level 1

1-2
Marks

\begin{tabular}[t]{l}
Demonstrates isolated elements of knowledge and understanding. (AO1)

Generic assertions may be presented. Limited attempt to address the question. (AO3)
\end{tabular}

Level 2

3-4
Marks

\begin{tabular}[t]{l}
Demonstrates mostly accurate knowledge and understanding. (AO1)

Candidates will produce statements with some development in the form of mostly accurate and relevant factual material, leading to a generic or superficial assessment being presented. (AO3)
\end{tabular}

Level 3

5-6
Marks

\begin{tabular}[t]{l}
Demonstrates accurate knowledge and understanding. (AO1)

Arguments developed using mostly coherent chains of reasoning leading to an assessment being presented which considers a range of factors. Candidates will demonstrate understanding of competing arguments/factors but unlikely to grasp their significance. The assessment leads to a judgement but this may be imbalanced. (AO3)
\end{tabular}

Level 4

7-8
Marks

\begin{tabular}[t]{l}
Demonstrates accurate and thorough knowledge and understanding. (AO1)

Displays a well-developed and logical assessment, containing logical chains of reasoning throughout. Demonstrates an awareness of the significance of competing arguments/factors leading to a balanced judgement being presented. (AO3)
\end{tabular}

AO2 (1 mark), AO3 (1 mark)
Credit one mark for identification of a reason in relation to the scenario
(AO2).
Credit one mark for justification/exemplification of the reason (AO3).
For example:
- Anika needs to restrict the range of her sample as she only wants
to investigate individuals who had been a member of a jury and
been involved in the decision-making process (1) so she can only
use people who had been a member of a jury and not general
members of the public who have not been on a jury as they would
not be representative of her target population (1).
Look for other reasonable marking points.
Generic answers score 0 marks.

(2)

\begin{tabular}[t]{l}
AO2 (1 mark)

Credit one mark for correct answer.
\begin{itemize}
\item[-] 21
\end{itemize}

Reject all other answers.
\end{tabular}

(1)

AO2 (1 mark), AO3 (1 mark)
Credit one mark for accurate identification of an improvement in terms
of validity in relation to the scenario (AO2).
Credit one mark for justification/exemplification of the improvement in
terms of validity (AO3).
For example:
- Anika should gather a wider range of jurors from different places
in addition to the library to increase the population validity (1) so
she could ensure that that her sample was more representative of
the characteristics of all jurors rather than just those at her local
library who may differ from the target population (1).
Look for other reasonable marking points.
Generic answers score 0 marks.

(2)

\begin{tabular}[t]{|l|l|l|}
\hline