Paper 3 plans psychology aqa a level
PAPER 3 PLANS
ISSUES AND DEBATES
DISCUSS THE FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM DEBATE. REFER TO 2 TOPICS LEARNT
AO1
FREE WILL:
HUMAN BEINGS are SELF- DTEREMINING- can CONTROL/ SHAPE our behaviours
Take responsibility for our actions- e.g. HUMANISTIC APPROACH- can bring change by
learning to deal with situations differently- when psychological barriers removed- work
towards SELF ACTUALISATION
Belief in free will doesn’t deny there may be environmental/ biological forces exerting
influence on behaviour- we are able to RJEECT THESE FORCES as the masters of our own
destiny
Inconsistent with aims of science: sciences based on CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS- free will
implies behaviours and thinking are non-determinist (sciences- aims to predict and control
behaviour)
DETERMINISM:
Free will has no place in explaining behaviour- all human behaviour results from either
internal/ external forces not under our conscious control- all behaviour has CAUSE so can
be PREDICTED and CONTROLLED
HARD- fatalism- all behaviour has a cause- free will ILLUSION- identify and describe these
causes- everything we do is dictated by external/ internal forces- CANNOT CONTROL
FORCES- compatible with SCIENCE- can be tested in experiment (IV MANIPULATIONS and
DV)
SOFT- JAMES: important ft of COG APPROACH- some room for change in behaviour- we
have conscious control over how we behave- FREEDOM to make RATIONAL CHOICES
despite DETERMINING FOCRES- choice is limited by SCHEMA influenced by environment
through experience
BIOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND PHSYICAL DETERMINISM: (attached to stem)
BIO DETERMINSIM- bio approach- mental health characteristics have genetic basis (e.g.
hormone testosterone in aggression)- many neurological/ physiological processes not
under conscious control – neurotransmitters, brain structure and hormone levels
controlled by genes
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM- SKINNER: free will is an ILLUSION- all behaviour result of
CONDITIONING- REINFORCEMENT through life controls our choices- may think we are
acting INDEPENDENTLY but behaviour is shaped by ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS/ AGENTS OF
SOCIALISATION e.g. institutions, parents…
PSYCHIC DTEREMINISM- FREUD: like skinner- free will is an ILLUSION- placed more
emphasis on psychic drives- determined by UNCONSCIOUS CONFLICTS REPRESSED in
, CHILDHOOD- fixations/ psychosexual stages- no such thing as an accident- even ‘SLIP OF
THE TONGUE’ is underlying conscious e.g. homosexuality- phallic stage fixation
THE SCIENTIFIC EMPHASIS ON CAUSAL EXPLANATAIONS:
Every event in the universe has a CAUSE which can be explained by GENERAL LAWS
If variable is changed you can measure the effect of change on that variable
Knowledge of CAUSES and LAWS- help scientists PREDICT/ CONTROL events in future
LAB EXPERIMENTS- enable researchers to simulate the conditions - removing all
EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES in attempt to precisely CONTROL/ PREDICT human behaviour
E.g. Harlow- research involved IV (wire mother with milk or cloth covered) and DV
(attachment formed)- demonstrated contact comfort not food DTEREMINED
ATTACHMENT- can assume attachment formed was determined by the wire mother or
cloth cover
AO3
DETERMINSITIC: CONSISTENT WITH AIMS ON SCIENCE RS: IDEA human behaviour is
ORDERLY and OBEYS LAWS places psychology on equal footing with other more
established sciences e.g. bio- led to DRUG development controlling symptoms- e.g. anti-
psychotics- reduce symptoms of SCHITOPHRENIA blocking dopamine receptors on the PS
NEURON
BUT- DENNET- even in PHSYCIAL SCIENCES now widely accepted causal relationships are
PROBABILISTIC not DETERMINISTIC- e.g. genes only inc peoples predisposition to mental
illness- they are not the cause
HD: INCOMPAITABLE WITH LEGAL SYSTEM OPERATION AR: ALLOWS individuals to excuse
their behaviour on the grounds of LESS REPSONSIBILITY- problem as CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM which advocates that only in EXTREME CASES e.g. diagnosis of mental illness or
self-defence can someone claim they were not acting under FREE WILL
- attempts in CRIMINAL CASES US- murderers claim behaviour was DETERMINED by
INHERITED AGGRESSIVE TENDENCIES to avoid the DEATH PENALTY- MOBLEY- KILLED PIZZA
SHOP MANAGER- claimed that he was BORN TO KILL- evidence from family violent history-
although argument REJECTED by court- UNDESRIABLE- excuses behaviour unfairly
FREE WILL: FACE VALIDITY RS: everyday experience gives impression we are CONSTANTLY
exercising free will- everyone makes different choices everyday- INTERNAL LOCUS OF
CONTROL-high degree of influence over events and own behaviour- mentally healthier
than people with EXTERNAL LOC - ROBERTS- adolescents with a strong belief in fatalism-
significant greater risk of depression- ‘why try as all determined’- even if we don’t have
free will- fact we think we will has a POSITIVE IMPACT on mind/ behaviour
FW: OPPOSED BY EVIDENCE AR: LIBET ET AL- MOTOR AREAS OF BRAIN- activated before
pps had a conscious awareness of their decision to move their finger- decision was a
PREDTERMINED ACTION
AND- CHUN SIONG SOON- pps displayed activity in their PRE- FRONTAL CORTEX up to 10
seconds before they were aware of their decision to act- suggests behaviour is PRE-
DETERMINED by neural activity in brain
BUT- OTHER RESEARCHERS conducted similar studies finding brain activity simply
indicated a READINESS TO ACT not an INETNTION to move- suggests neuroscience does
support the concept of FREE WILL
,DISCUSS THE IDEOGRAPHIC AND NOMOTHETIC APPROACH. REFER TO 2 TOPICS LEARNT
AO1
THE IDEOGRAPHIC APPROACH:
Nature of the INDIVIDUAL
Gains INSIGHT into persons UNIQUE way of entering the world
EACH studied as UNIQUE ENTITIES- own subjective experience, motivations, values
Produce QUALOTATIVE DATA (case studies, unstructured interviews, self- report methods)
THE NOMOTHETIC APPROACH:
GENERAL LAWS of human behaviour
People can be compared classified and measured
Likely future behaviour is PREDICATBLE/ CONTROLLED
Produce SCIENTIFIC measures which are used to compare to others (experiments)
IA EXAMPLES:
HUMANISTIC APPROACH
ROGERS/ MASLOW: measure the SELF- own CONSCIOUS EXPEIRNCES
More concerned with UNIQUE experience than general laws
PSYCHODYNAMIC APPROACH
FREUD: used case studies a lot to measure life of patients BUT ALSO USED NOMOTHETIC
METHODS (universal laws of behaviours/ personality development)
NA EXAMPLES:
BEHAVIOURAL, SLT, COGNITIVE, BIOLOGICAL
Approaches tend to be reductionist, deterministic and scientific
Hypothesis formed with large group of people- controlled and generalised findings- looks
for statistical difference
AO3
IA: COMPLETE AND GLOBAL AC OF INDIVIDUAL RS: DETAILED understanding of individual-
CHALLENGES GENERAL LAWS of NOMOTHETIC APPROACH- can use sicnetifc studies and
find further findings- e.g., HM- single case study generates HYPOTHESES for further study-
understanding of brain functioning can further be GENERALISED for our understanding-
best way to research- use BOTH approaches- THEY WORK TOGETHER and ideographic finds
further findings- each approach isn’t MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
, IA: UNSCIENTIFIC AR: not scientifically EVIDENCE- BASED- any findings are MEANINGLESS-
e.g., FREUD- Oedipus complex developed from a single case study of LITTLE HANS- can’t
GENERALISE/ COMPARE without further examples- rely on SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION-
BIAS
BUT- scientific basis of ideographic research can be increased by reflexivity- AWARENESS
of researchers own observer bias- increases level of OBJECTIVITY
NA: SCIENTIFIC RS: can establish NORMS of behaviour through STANDARDISED
CONDITIONS/ ANALYSIS (e.g., average IQ of 100)- scientific credibility
BUT- MILTON AND DAVIS- studies should start with NOMOTHETIC approach and once
LAWS are produced, they can focus on INDIVIDUALS- COMBINE APPROACHES to gain full
understanding
NA: IGNORES INDIVIDUAL AR: ‘losing the whole person’ within psychology- e.g. predicting
a 1% lifetime risk of developing SCHIZOPHRENIA fails to tell us about what it’s like to
SUFFER with it
AND in lab tests of MEMORY- participants treated as a series of scores and their
SUBJECTIVE EXPEIRNCE is ignored- overlooks richness of human experience
PAPER 3 PLANS
ISSUES AND DEBATES
DISCUSS THE FREE WILL AND DETERMINISM DEBATE. REFER TO 2 TOPICS LEARNT
AO1
FREE WILL:
HUMAN BEINGS are SELF- DTEREMINING- can CONTROL/ SHAPE our behaviours
Take responsibility for our actions- e.g. HUMANISTIC APPROACH- can bring change by
learning to deal with situations differently- when psychological barriers removed- work
towards SELF ACTUALISATION
Belief in free will doesn’t deny there may be environmental/ biological forces exerting
influence on behaviour- we are able to RJEECT THESE FORCES as the masters of our own
destiny
Inconsistent with aims of science: sciences based on CAUSAL EXPLANATIONS- free will
implies behaviours and thinking are non-determinist (sciences- aims to predict and control
behaviour)
DETERMINISM:
Free will has no place in explaining behaviour- all human behaviour results from either
internal/ external forces not under our conscious control- all behaviour has CAUSE so can
be PREDICTED and CONTROLLED
HARD- fatalism- all behaviour has a cause- free will ILLUSION- identify and describe these
causes- everything we do is dictated by external/ internal forces- CANNOT CONTROL
FORCES- compatible with SCIENCE- can be tested in experiment (IV MANIPULATIONS and
DV)
SOFT- JAMES: important ft of COG APPROACH- some room for change in behaviour- we
have conscious control over how we behave- FREEDOM to make RATIONAL CHOICES
despite DETERMINING FOCRES- choice is limited by SCHEMA influenced by environment
through experience
BIOLOGICAL, ENVIRONMENTAL AND PHSYICAL DETERMINISM: (attached to stem)
BIO DETERMINSIM- bio approach- mental health characteristics have genetic basis (e.g.
hormone testosterone in aggression)- many neurological/ physiological processes not
under conscious control – neurotransmitters, brain structure and hormone levels
controlled by genes
ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINISM- SKINNER: free will is an ILLUSION- all behaviour result of
CONDITIONING- REINFORCEMENT through life controls our choices- may think we are
acting INDEPENDENTLY but behaviour is shaped by ENVIRONMENTAL EVENTS/ AGENTS OF
SOCIALISATION e.g. institutions, parents…
PSYCHIC DTEREMINISM- FREUD: like skinner- free will is an ILLUSION- placed more
emphasis on psychic drives- determined by UNCONSCIOUS CONFLICTS REPRESSED in
, CHILDHOOD- fixations/ psychosexual stages- no such thing as an accident- even ‘SLIP OF
THE TONGUE’ is underlying conscious e.g. homosexuality- phallic stage fixation
THE SCIENTIFIC EMPHASIS ON CAUSAL EXPLANATAIONS:
Every event in the universe has a CAUSE which can be explained by GENERAL LAWS
If variable is changed you can measure the effect of change on that variable
Knowledge of CAUSES and LAWS- help scientists PREDICT/ CONTROL events in future
LAB EXPERIMENTS- enable researchers to simulate the conditions - removing all
EXTRANEOUS VARIABLES in attempt to precisely CONTROL/ PREDICT human behaviour
E.g. Harlow- research involved IV (wire mother with milk or cloth covered) and DV
(attachment formed)- demonstrated contact comfort not food DTEREMINED
ATTACHMENT- can assume attachment formed was determined by the wire mother or
cloth cover
AO3
DETERMINSITIC: CONSISTENT WITH AIMS ON SCIENCE RS: IDEA human behaviour is
ORDERLY and OBEYS LAWS places psychology on equal footing with other more
established sciences e.g. bio- led to DRUG development controlling symptoms- e.g. anti-
psychotics- reduce symptoms of SCHITOPHRENIA blocking dopamine receptors on the PS
NEURON
BUT- DENNET- even in PHSYCIAL SCIENCES now widely accepted causal relationships are
PROBABILISTIC not DETERMINISTIC- e.g. genes only inc peoples predisposition to mental
illness- they are not the cause
HD: INCOMPAITABLE WITH LEGAL SYSTEM OPERATION AR: ALLOWS individuals to excuse
their behaviour on the grounds of LESS REPSONSIBILITY- problem as CRIMINAL LEGAL
SYSTEM which advocates that only in EXTREME CASES e.g. diagnosis of mental illness or
self-defence can someone claim they were not acting under FREE WILL
- attempts in CRIMINAL CASES US- murderers claim behaviour was DETERMINED by
INHERITED AGGRESSIVE TENDENCIES to avoid the DEATH PENALTY- MOBLEY- KILLED PIZZA
SHOP MANAGER- claimed that he was BORN TO KILL- evidence from family violent history-
although argument REJECTED by court- UNDESRIABLE- excuses behaviour unfairly
FREE WILL: FACE VALIDITY RS: everyday experience gives impression we are CONSTANTLY
exercising free will- everyone makes different choices everyday- INTERNAL LOCUS OF
CONTROL-high degree of influence over events and own behaviour- mentally healthier
than people with EXTERNAL LOC - ROBERTS- adolescents with a strong belief in fatalism-
significant greater risk of depression- ‘why try as all determined’- even if we don’t have
free will- fact we think we will has a POSITIVE IMPACT on mind/ behaviour
FW: OPPOSED BY EVIDENCE AR: LIBET ET AL- MOTOR AREAS OF BRAIN- activated before
pps had a conscious awareness of their decision to move their finger- decision was a
PREDTERMINED ACTION
AND- CHUN SIONG SOON- pps displayed activity in their PRE- FRONTAL CORTEX up to 10
seconds before they were aware of their decision to act- suggests behaviour is PRE-
DETERMINED by neural activity in brain
BUT- OTHER RESEARCHERS conducted similar studies finding brain activity simply
indicated a READINESS TO ACT not an INETNTION to move- suggests neuroscience does
support the concept of FREE WILL
,DISCUSS THE IDEOGRAPHIC AND NOMOTHETIC APPROACH. REFER TO 2 TOPICS LEARNT
AO1
THE IDEOGRAPHIC APPROACH:
Nature of the INDIVIDUAL
Gains INSIGHT into persons UNIQUE way of entering the world
EACH studied as UNIQUE ENTITIES- own subjective experience, motivations, values
Produce QUALOTATIVE DATA (case studies, unstructured interviews, self- report methods)
THE NOMOTHETIC APPROACH:
GENERAL LAWS of human behaviour
People can be compared classified and measured
Likely future behaviour is PREDICATBLE/ CONTROLLED
Produce SCIENTIFIC measures which are used to compare to others (experiments)
IA EXAMPLES:
HUMANISTIC APPROACH
ROGERS/ MASLOW: measure the SELF- own CONSCIOUS EXPEIRNCES
More concerned with UNIQUE experience than general laws
PSYCHODYNAMIC APPROACH
FREUD: used case studies a lot to measure life of patients BUT ALSO USED NOMOTHETIC
METHODS (universal laws of behaviours/ personality development)
NA EXAMPLES:
BEHAVIOURAL, SLT, COGNITIVE, BIOLOGICAL
Approaches tend to be reductionist, deterministic and scientific
Hypothesis formed with large group of people- controlled and generalised findings- looks
for statistical difference
AO3
IA: COMPLETE AND GLOBAL AC OF INDIVIDUAL RS: DETAILED understanding of individual-
CHALLENGES GENERAL LAWS of NOMOTHETIC APPROACH- can use sicnetifc studies and
find further findings- e.g., HM- single case study generates HYPOTHESES for further study-
understanding of brain functioning can further be GENERALISED for our understanding-
best way to research- use BOTH approaches- THEY WORK TOGETHER and ideographic finds
further findings- each approach isn’t MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE
, IA: UNSCIENTIFIC AR: not scientifically EVIDENCE- BASED- any findings are MEANINGLESS-
e.g., FREUD- Oedipus complex developed from a single case study of LITTLE HANS- can’t
GENERALISE/ COMPARE without further examples- rely on SUBJECTIVE INTERPRETATION-
BIAS
BUT- scientific basis of ideographic research can be increased by reflexivity- AWARENESS
of researchers own observer bias- increases level of OBJECTIVITY
NA: SCIENTIFIC RS: can establish NORMS of behaviour through STANDARDISED
CONDITIONS/ ANALYSIS (e.g., average IQ of 100)- scientific credibility
BUT- MILTON AND DAVIS- studies should start with NOMOTHETIC approach and once
LAWS are produced, they can focus on INDIVIDUALS- COMBINE APPROACHES to gain full
understanding
NA: IGNORES INDIVIDUAL AR: ‘losing the whole person’ within psychology- e.g. predicting
a 1% lifetime risk of developing SCHIZOPHRENIA fails to tell us about what it’s like to
SUFFER with it
AND in lab tests of MEMORY- participants treated as a series of scores and their
SUBJECTIVE EXPEIRNCE is ignored- overlooks richness of human experience
