The five areas of psychology

• Social — behaviour is shaped by the presence, actions and expectations of other people (Milgram, Bocchiaro, Piliavin, Levine). Strength: highly applicable to real problems. Weakness: can ignore the individual.
• Cognitive — behaviour is explained by internal mental processes such as memory and attention, often modelled on information processing (Loftus and Palmer, Grant, Moray, Simons and Chabris). Strength: scientific, testable, useful. Weakness: often artificial and machine-like.
• Developmental — behaviour changes across the lifespan, especially in childhood (Bandura, Chaney, Kohlberg, Lee). Strength: directly informs parenting and education. Weakness: longitudinal work is slow and can suffer attrition.
• Biological — behaviour has a physiological basis in the brain, genes and hormones (Sperry, Casey, Blakemore and Cooper, Maguire). Strength: objective, uses scientific technology. Weakness: reductionist and determinist.
• Individual differences — people differ, and those differences can be described and measured (Freud, Baron-Cohen, Gould, Hancock). Strength: avoids over-generalising. Weakness: risks labelling, and measurement can be culturally biased (Gould).

The key skill: the same behaviour can be placed in more than one area. Bandura's Bobo doll study is developmental, but you could argue it is social (it is about the influence of another person) — OCR explicitly allows this, provided you justify it.

Behaviourist and psychodynamic

• Behaviourist perspective — all behaviour is learned from the environment through classical and operant conditioning (and, for Bandura, observation). It rejects unobservable mental causes and insists on measurable behaviour. OCR's exemplars: Bandura et al. (1961) (imitation and vicarious reinforcement) and Chaney et al. (2004) (operant reinforcement of inhaler use). Strength: scientific and highly applicable (behaviour modification, therapy). Weakness: environmentally determinist and ignores cognition and biology.
• Psychodynamic perspective — behaviour is driven by the unconscious mind, early childhood experience and conflict between the id, ego and superego, managed by defence mechanisms. OCR notes psychodynamic ideas in Freud (1909), Kohlberg (1968) and Hancock et al. (2011). Strength: takes emotion, childhood and the whole person seriously, and founded talking therapy. Weakness: concepts cannot be directly measured, so it is very hard to falsify; it relies heavily on case studies.

Which perspective?

Nature/nurture and freewill/determinism

• Nature — behaviour is innate, genetic or physiological. Evidence: Sperry (hemispheric specialisation), Casey (neural correlates of self-control that persist over 40 years), Baron-Cohen (a specific, apparently biologically based theory-of-mind difficulty).
• Nurture — behaviour is learned from the environment. Evidence: Bandura (imitation), Chaney (reinforcement), Blakemore and Cooper (visual experience shapes the cortex), Lee et al. (culture shapes moral evaluation).
• Interaction: Maguire's taxi drivers show experience physically changing the brain — nature and nurture are not opposites but partners.
• Determinism — behaviour is caused by forces beyond our control: biological (Casey, Sperry), environmental (Bandura, Chaney) or psychic (Freud). Freewill — we choose. Bocchiaro's 9.4% of whistle-blowers, and Milgram's participants who refused, are the standing evidence that the situation does not compel everyone.

Soft determinism is the sophisticated position: behaviour is strongly constrained, but not wholly compelled, and people retain some choice within those constraints. That is the position most of the core studies actually support.

Which debate does the study illustrate?

Tap a study, then tap the debate it illustrates best.

Reductionism/holism and individual/situational

• Reductionism — explaining behaviour at the simplest possible level. Sperry and Maguire reduce complex abilities to brain regions; Chaney reduces adherence to reinforcement. It is scientific and testable, and it produces applications — but it can be simplistic.
• Holism — behaviour must be understood as a whole, in context. Freud's Little Hans is holistic (the whole child, family and history); so is Levine's cultural analysis of helping. Rich, but hard to test.
• Situational explanation — the cause lies in the environment. Milgram's variations, Piliavin's cost-reward context, and Simons and Chabris's task difficulty are all situational.
• Individual explanation — the cause lies within the person. Casey's low delayers, Baron-Cohen's autistic adults and Hancock's psychopaths are all individual explanations.

Why it matters: the individual/situational debate is not academic. If offending is situational, we change the environment; if it is individual, we treat or detain the person. The debate decides the policy.

Individual or situational?

Usefulness of research and ethical considerations

• Usefulness — does the research have real-world value? Strongly useful: Loftus and Palmer (eyewitness evidence and police interviewing), Grant (revision strategy), Chaney (a device that improves children's health), Simons and Chabris (road safety — 'sorry mate, I didn't see you'). Less obviously useful: Blakemore and Cooper's kittens, unless you accept extrapolation.
• Usefulness is limited by validity: research with poor ecological validity or an unrepresentative sample may not transfer. Ask who it is useful for.
• Ethical considerations — BPS: Respect (consent, right to withdraw, confidentiality), Competence, Responsibility (protection from harm, debrief) and Integrity (deception). Milgram deceived and stressed; Piliavin and Levine obtained no consent at all (field experiments on the public); Freud's Little Hans could not consent; Blakemore and Cooper's kittens were permanently harmed.
• The cost-benefit defence is standard — but you cannot weigh a benefit before you know what you will find.

Usefulness

Socially sensitive research and psychology as a science

• Conducting socially sensitive research — research whose findings have consequences for the participants or for the group they represent. Gould (1982) is the definitive example: culturally biased IQ testing was used to argue for the innate inferiority of ethnic groups and shaped immigration policy. Hancock et al. (2011) (psychopaths' language) and Baron-Cohen et al. (1997) (autism) also carry real risks of stigma. But refusing to study sensitive topics leaves prejudice unexamined — so the answer is care, not avoidance.
• Psychology as a science — requires empiricism, objectivity, replicability, falsification, control and standardisation and quantifiable measurement. Loftus and Palmer, Grant, Moray, Bandura and Maguire all meet these standards well. Freud (1909) does not: a single case, interpreted through a theory that can explain any outcome, is very difficult to falsify.

Ethnocentrism runs through both debates: Gould's tests, Kohlberg's American boys, and Milgram's American men all raise the question of whose behaviour is being treated as the human norm.

Match the term to its meaning

Tap a term on the left, then its correct definition on the right.

How to argue in Section B

Section B asks for an extended discussion, not a list. A strong paragraph does four things:

• State the position clearly ("A situational explanation of obedience is supported by...").
• Evidence it with a named study and a specific finding — a number, a condition, a comparison ("...Milgram's obedience fell from 65% to 20% when an ordinary man gave the orders").
• Counter it with the opposing position and its evidence ("...but Bocchiaro found 9.4% still blew the whistle in the same situation, so the situation does not compel everyone").
• Reach a reasoned conclusion — usually an interactionist or soft-determinist one, and say why.

You are not limited to the core studies in Section B. You may draw on Component 01 and Component 03 material too, and you may argue that a study placed in one area belongs in another — provided you justify it.

Which debate?

Which area?

Falsifiability

Freewill or determinism?

How Section B is assessed

Section B asks for an extended discussion that recognises the inter-relationships between areas, perspectives and debates. It rewards argument, not recall.

• You are not limited to the core studies — you may bring in Component 01 and Component 03 material, including the key research from your applied options.
• You may argue that a study belongs in a different area from the one OCR places it in, provided you justify it.
• Structure every paragraph: state the position, evidence it with a named study and a specific finding, counter it, then conclude.

Reach a real conclusion. Examiners reward a reasoned judgement — usually interactionist or soft determinist — with a reason. Sitting on the fence with "there are arguments on both sides" is not a conclusion.

The big ideas to know

That is Section B — the extended discussion half of Component 02. Press Finish to see your score.