2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q64 marksAssumptions of the approach
2022 May/June · Paper 12 · Q9 (a)4 marksBandura et al. (aggression)
No questions match this filter.
References only, not question text. Open Official paper ↗ where Cambridge publishes the paper,
or see the official Cambridge past-papers page; for other papers, ask your
school. “Paper 42” means Paper 4, variant 2.
Practice questions
Original questions written by HomiLabs in the style of the exam, with answers and mark schemes. They are not
Cambridge past paper questions and have not been reviewed by Cambridge. Try each one before opening the answer.
Q1Bandura et al. (aggression) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)State the number of children who took part in Bandura et al.'s study of the imitation of aggression, and the nursery school they attended.[2]
(b)Outline how the children were matched before being placed in the three conditions.[2]
Show answer
(a) 72 children (36 boys and 36 girls) from the nursery school of Stanford University.
1 mark: 72 children (accept 36 boys and 36 girls). 1 mark: Stanford University nursery school.
(b) Each child was rated for pre-existing aggressiveness by the experimenter and a nursery teacher who knew the children well; children were then put into groups of three with similar aggression scores and one from each trio was assigned to each condition.
1 mark: rated on prior aggression by the experimenter and a teacher (rating scales for physical, verbal, object aggression and aggression inhibition). 1 mark: children with similar ratings were matched in threes and split across conditions.
Q2Bandura et al. (aggression) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Describe what the adult model did in the aggressive-model condition of Bandura et al.'s study.[3]
(b)Describe what the model did in the non-aggressive condition.[1]
Show answer
(a) After about a minute of assembling toys, the model turned to the large inflated Bobo doll and attacked it for the rest of the session: laid it on its side and sat on it, punched it on the nose, struck it on the head with a mallet, tossed it in the air and kicked it about the room, while saying things such as 'Sock him in the nose', 'Hit him down', 'Kick him' and 'Pow'.
1 mark each for any three of: model attacks the Bobo doll after about 1 minute; sits on Bobo / punches it on the nose; hits it with a mallet; tosses it in the air / kicks it around the room; repeated the sequence about three times; aggressive verbal comments (e.g. 'Sock him in the nose', 'Pow'); non-aggressive comments ('He keeps coming back for more').
(b) The model quietly assembled the tinker toys for the whole session and ignored the Bobo doll.
1 mark: played quietly with tinker toys / ignored Bobo.
Q3Bandura et al. (aggression) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain why the children were mildly frustrated (Stage 2) before being observed in Bandura et al.'s study.[2]
(b)Outline how this mild aggression arousal was produced.[2]
Show answer
(a) The researchers wanted all children to be in a similar state of mild arousal so that any aggression could be expressed; without this, children who had seen the non-aggressive model might be inhibited, and the frustration also ensured the control group had an equal chance to show aggression, so that differences were due to the model.
1 mark: to raise the chance of aggression being shown / arouse all children equally. 1 mark: so that differences in aggression could be attributed to the model condition (or so that the non-aggressive group's behaviour was not just due to inhibition).
(b) Each child was taken to a room containing very attractive toys (e.g. a fire engine, a jet fighter, a doll set). After about two minutes of play the experimenter said these were her very best toys and she had decided to keep them for other children.
1 mark: child allowed to play with attractive toys briefly. 1 mark: told the toys were reserved for other children / taken away.
Q4Bandura et al. (aggression) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Identify two categories of behaviour that were recorded in the test room in Bandura et al.'s study.[2]
(b)Explain how inter-rater reliability was checked in this study.[2]
Show answer
(a) Any two of: imitative physical aggression; imitative verbal aggression; imitative non-aggressive verbal responses; partially imitative responses (e.g. mallet aggression on other toys, sitting on Bobo without hitting); non-imitative aggression (e.g. punching Bobo, aggressive gun play).
1 mark each for any two named categories.
(b) The male model watched every child, and a second observer independently scored half of the children; the two sets of scores were compared and were highly correlated, showing the coding was consistent.
1 mark: a second observer independently scored some children (half). 1 mark: scores compared / correlated and found to agree highly.
Q5Bandura et al. (aggression) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)In the final stage of Bandura et al.'s study each child spent 20 minutes in the test room and was observed through a one-way mirror. Behaviour was recorded at 5-second intervals. Calculate the number of response units recorded for each child.[2]
(b)Explain one reason why using a one-way mirror improved the validity of the observation.[2]
Show answer
(a) 240 response units.
M1: 20 × 60 = 1200 seconds. A1: 1200 ÷ 5 = 240.
(b) The children could not see the observers, so they were less likely to change their behaviour because they knew they were being watched; this reduced demand characteristics, so the aggression recorded was more likely to be the child's natural response to the model.
1 mark: observers hidden / covert observation. 1 mark: reduces participant reactivity / demand characteristics, so behaviour more genuine.
Q6Bandura et al. (aggression) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Outline one finding from Bandura et al.'s study about the sex of the child.[2]
(b)Suggest one reason, based on social learning, why children may be more likely to imitate a same-sex model.[2]
Show answer
(a) Boys produced more imitative physical aggression than girls, whereas the difference between boys and girls in imitative verbal aggression was much smaller.
1 mark: boys showed more (imitative) physical aggression than girls. 1 mark: comparison/detail, e.g. girls and boys similar in verbal aggression, or boys more influenced by the male model.
(b) Children identify more with models who are similar to them, and they may expect the same consequences (vicarious reinforcement) for behaviour shown by someone like themselves; also some behaviour is seen as sex-appropriate, e.g. physical aggression as 'masculine'.
1 mark: identification with a similar model. 1 mark: expansion – sex-typed behaviour seen as appropriate / expectation of similar consequences.
Q7Bandura et al. (aggression) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Hamza's parents notice that their 6-year-old son copies the wrestling moves he sees on television on his younger cousin. Using Bandura et al.'s study, suggest two pieces of advice for Hamza's parents.[4]
Show answer
(a) 1. Limit his viewing of aggressive role models, or watch with him, because Bandura found children who saw an aggressive adult copied specific aggressive acts, whereas those who saw a non-aggressive model did not. 2. Provide non-aggressive same-sex models (e.g. his father or older brother playing calmly and resolving conflict without force), because children in Bandura's study imitated the behaviour of the model they watched, and boys were especially influenced by male models.
For each piece of advice: 1 mark for a suitable, ethical suggestion; 1 mark for a link to Bandura's findings.
Q8Bandura et al. (aggression) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 6 marks
(a)Bandura et al.'s study is often said to be high in standardisation but low in ecological validity. Evaluate this claim.[4]
(b)Explain one ethical issue raised by Bandura et al.'s study.[2]
Show answer
(a) High standardisation: every child experienced the same room layout, same toys, same 10-minute modelling period, same frustration procedure and the same 20-minute test, and models followed a set script of aggressive acts and phrases, so the study could be replicated and differences attributed to the IV. Low ecological validity: the child watched a stranger attack an inflatable doll that is designed to bounce back, alone in an unfamiliar room, for only a short time; hitting a Bobo doll is not the same as hurting a real person, so it may not reflect aggression in everyday life. However, it was set in a familiar nursery school with real toys, which partly supports validity.
1 mark: standardisation with example (same script/acts, timings, toys). 1 mark: benefit – replicable/reliable/control. 1 mark: low ecological validity with example (Bobo designed to be hit, stranger model, short exposure). 1 mark: balanced judgement or counterpoint (school setting, toys familiar).
(b) Protection from harm: young children were deliberately frustrated and exposed to an aggressive adult, which may have caused distress and taught them aggressive behaviour that could persist after the study.
1 mark: named issue (protection from harm / consent of children / right to withdraw). 1 mark: linked to the study.
Q9Bandura et al. (aggression) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Bandura et al.'s study of the imitation of aggression in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about generalisability.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths, e.g. (1) controlled lab setting with standardised procedure – same toys, timings, scripted model behaviour, so cause and effect between the model condition and imitation can be established; (2) quantitative data from time sampling every 5 s gave objective comparisons between groups, and inter-rater reliability was high; (3) matched-participants design on prior aggression controlled participant variables. Weaknesses, e.g. (1) generalisability – all children came from one university nursery (Stanford) and were aged about 3 to 5 years, so results may not apply to older children or other cultures; (2) low ecological validity – a Bobo doll is designed to be hit and the model was a stranger; (3) ethics – children were frustrated and exposed to aggression; (4) only short-term effects were measured.
Level 4 (9–10): two strengths and two weaknesses, each developed with study detail, generalisability point clearly explained, well organised. Level 3 (6–8): four points, some lack detail or generalisability is brief. Level 2 (3–5): fewer points or mostly undeveloped/generic. Level 1 (1–2): one or two basic points. Generalisability must be included for top band.
Q10Bandura et al. (aggression) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 8 marks
(a)Describe one similarity and one difference between Bandura et al.'s study and Fagen et al.'s study of elephant learning.[8]
Show answer
(a) Similarity: both studies investigate learning from the learning approach and produced quantitative data – Bandura recorded counts of imitative acts in 5-second intervals, Fagen recorded whether elephants performed each step of the trunk wash. Difference: Bandura investigated social learning (observational learning without direct reinforcement) in human children in a laboratory experiment with three conditions, whereas Fagen investigated operant conditioning using direct positive reinforcement (food) to shape behaviour in young Asian elephants in Nepal in a natural working setting with no control group.
For each of similarity and difference: 1 mark identification, 1–2 marks explanation, 1 mark examples from each study (up to 4 marks each). Accept other valid similarities (e.g. both use non-adult participants; both standardised procedures) and differences (humans vs animals; lab vs field; social learning vs operant conditioning; experiment vs field study).
Q11Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Identify the research method used by Saavedra and Silverman.[1]
(b)Describe the participant in Saavedra and Silverman's study, including how his phobia began.[3]
Show answer
(a) A case study (of one child).
1 mark: case study.
(b) A 9-year-old Hispanic-American boy with a phobia of buttons. It began when he was about 5 years old: in his kindergarten class he was reaching for buttons in a large bowl for an art activity, the bowl tipped and the buttons fell on him, which was very distressing.
1 mark: 9-year-old boy. 1 mark: button phobia. 1 mark: origin – buttons fell on him from a bowl at school when he was about 5.
Q12Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Outline how the boy's fear hierarchy was arranged in Saavedra and Silverman's study.[2]
(b)Explain why the boy was asked to rate his distress on a 'feelings thermometer' throughout the therapy.[2]
Show answer
(a) Button-related stimuli were ranked from least to most distressing: large denim jeans buttons were least distressing, and small plastic buttons were the most distressing.
1 mark: ranked list from least to most distressing. 1 mark: correct examples (large denim buttons low; small plastic buttons high).
(b) It gave a quick numerical measure of his distress for each step, so the therapist could check whether distress fell with exposure and decide when to move to the next item in the hierarchy.
1 mark: quantitative / self-rated measure of distress. 1 mark: to track change and guide progress up the hierarchy.
Q13Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Saavedra and Silverman followed up the boy after treatment. State when the follow-ups took place and explain why follow-up is useful.[3]
Show answer
(a) At 6 months and 12 months after treatment. Follow-up shows whether the improvement lasted rather than being a short-term effect, so the therapy can be judged effective in the long term.
1 mark: 6 months and 12 months. 1 mark: shows whether improvement is long-lasting. 1 mark: e.g. rules out short-term demand effects / relapse check.
Q14Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 5 marks
(a)Explain how the boy's button phobia could have been acquired through classical conditioning.[3]
(b)Describe how positive reinforcement was used in the treatment.[2]
Show answer
(a) Before the incident buttons were a neutral stimulus. In kindergarten the buttons fell on him (unconditioned stimulus), causing distress and disgust (unconditioned response). Because buttons were paired with this experience, they became a conditioned stimulus that on their own produced fear/disgust (conditioned response), which then generalised to buttons on clothing.
1 mark: buttons as neutral → conditioned stimulus. 1 mark: the falling incident as UCS producing distress (UCR). 1 mark: association means buttons alone trigger fear/disgust (CR), with link to the case.
(b) The boy was rewarded (e.g. with praise and small agreed rewards) each time he completed a step of in-vivo exposure to buttons, which encouraged him to keep engaging with the feared items.
Q15Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 5 marks
(a)Describe the disgust imagery exposure used with the boy.[3]
(b)Explain why the researchers concluded that targeting disgust was important for this child.[2]
Show answer
(a) The therapist guided the boy to imagine buttons in unpleasant, disgust-related ways, for example imagining buttons falling on him or touching his body, and thinking about how they look, feel and smell. He stayed with these images while his disgust was rated and was encouraged to see that the disgusting thoughts were not dangerous, so the disgust reduced.
1 mark: imagined (not real) button scenarios. 1 mark: focus on disgust-related sensations (touching, smell, feel). 1 mark: repeated / rated until disgust reduced, linked to cognitive change.
(b) The boy's main reaction to buttons was disgust rather than fear, and behavioural exposure alone did not reduce it much; when the imagery focused on disgust his distress ratings fell and the gains lasted at follow-up.
1 mark: disgust was the dominant emotion. 1 mark: imagery that targeted disgust produced greater/lasting improvement than exposure with reinforcement alone.
Q16Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Ayesha, aged 10, is terrified of cotton wool after a bad experience at a clinic. Using Saavedra and Silverman's study, suggest how a therapist could help her.[4]
Show answer
(a) Build a hierarchy of cotton-wool situations from least to most distressing (e.g. a picture of cotton wool, a closed bag, touching a ball, rubbing it on her arm). Expose her gradually to each step, asking her to rate her distress on a feelings thermometer and moving on only when ratings fall. Reward each completed step with praise or small prizes. If she reports disgust, add imagery exercises where she imagines touching cotton wool, as disgust imagery helped the boy in the study.
1 mark: hierarchy with relevant examples. 1 mark: gradual exposure. 1 mark: rating scale / positive reinforcement. 1 mark: disgust imagery, linked to the study.
Q17Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Two friends are discussing Saavedra and Silverman's study. Nadia says the findings are useful for treating other children with phobias. Bilal says nothing can be generalised from a single case. Explain who you agree with.[4]
Show answer
(a) Bilal is partly right: it was one 9-year-old boy with a rare phobia in which disgust was the main emotion, so other children (different ages, cultures or phobias) may not respond the same way. However, Nadia also has a point: the study gives detailed, in-depth evidence that adding disgust-focused imagery helped where exposure alone did not, which therapists can test with other children whose phobias involve disgust. Conclusion: the case is useful for generating ideas but needs replication before generalising.
1 mark: Bilal's point explained with study detail (one boy, unusual phobia). 1 mark: Nadia's point explained (in-depth data; practical application). 1 mark: link to disgust imagery/exposure. 1 mark: reasoned conclusion.
Q18Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Saavedra and Silverman's study in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of qualitative and quantitative data.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths, e.g. (1) both quantitative data (feelings thermometer distress ratings at each step) and qualitative data (the boy's descriptions of feelings, parent interview data from the ADIS) were collected, giving a detailed and measurable picture; (2) case study gives in-depth insight into a rare phobia and the role of disgust; (3) useful application – disgust imagery added to exposure; (4) follow-ups at 6 and 12 months show lasting change. Weaknesses, e.g. (1) self-report ratings by a child may be affected by demand characteristics or limited understanding of the scale; (2) one participant limits generalisability; (3) therapist was also researcher – possible bias; (4) the cause of the original phobia was reconstructed from memory.
Level 4 (9–10): two strengths and two weaknesses, each developed with study detail; named issue (qualitative/quantitative data) explicitly discussed. Level 3 (6–8): four points, some lack detail. Level 2 (3–5): limited or generic points. Level 1 (1–2): basic points only.
Q19Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Identify the type of learning used to train the elephants in Fagen et al.'s study.[1]
(b)Explain how positive reinforcement and a bridging stimulus were used in the training.[3]
(b) Each time an elephant performed the target behaviour (or a step of it) it was given a food reward, which made that behaviour more likely to be repeated (positive reinforcement). A bridging stimulus (a signal such as a word or sound) was given at the exact moment the correct behaviour occurred, so the elephant could link that precise behaviour with the reward that followed a moment later.
1 mark: food reward given for the correct behaviour/step. 1 mark: reward increases the likelihood of the behaviour being repeated. 1 mark: bridging stimulus marks the exact moment of the correct behaviour / bridges the delay before the food.
Q20Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain why it was useful to train the elephants to perform a trunk wash.[2]
(b)Outline why Fagen et al. wanted to show that positive reinforcement could replace traditional elephant-training methods.[2]
Show answer
(a) A trunk wash collects a sample of fluid from the elephant's trunk that can be tested for tuberculosis (TB). TB is a serious disease in captive elephants and can pass between elephants and people, so being able to test elephants safely helps protect both elephant and human health.
1 mark: trunk wash gives a sample to test for TB. 1 mark: elaboration – TB is a serious risk to elephants / can spread between elephants and humans, so screening protects health.
(b) Traditional training of working elephants often relies on punishment, dominance and fear (negative reinforcement), which harms welfare and can make elephants dangerous to handle. Showing that elephants can learn new behaviour with rewards alone offers a more humane and safer alternative.
1 mark: traditional methods use punishment/dominance/fear. 1 mark: positive reinforcement is more humane / better welfare / safer for handlers.
Q21Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Core · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Explain how Fagen et al.'s study supports one assumption of the learning approach.[3]
Show answer
(a) The learning approach assumes that behaviour is learned from the environment, for example through the consequences of behaviour (operant conditioning). The trunk wash is not a natural behaviour for elephants, but it was acquired because each step was followed by a food reward and the steps were shaped into the full sequence, showing that a completely new behaviour can be learned through reinforcement.
1 mark: states an assumption (behaviour learned through experience/consequences). 1 mark: the trunk wash is a new, not innate, behaviour. 1 mark: it was acquired through reinforcement/shaping.
Q22Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)State the aim of Fagen et al.'s study of elephant learning.[2]
(b)Describe the participants in Fagen et al.'s study.[2]
Show answer
(a) To find out whether young (juvenile) Asian elephants could be trained, using operant conditioning with positive reinforcement only, to perform a trunk wash – the behaviour needed to collect a sample to test for tuberculosis – showing a humane alternative to traditional training methods.
1 mark: train elephants to perform the trunk wash (for TB testing). 1 mark: using positive reinforcement / operant conditioning.
(b) Five juvenile (young) Asian elephants living at an elephant facility in Nepal, cared for by their mahouts (handlers).
1 mark: five juvenile elephants. 1 mark: Asian elephants in Nepal / handled by mahouts.
Q23Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain two reasons why Fagen et al.'s study could be considered ethical in terms of the guidelines for research with animals.[4]
Show answer
(a) 1. No pain, punishment or distress was used: the elephants were trained only with food rewards, so the procedure was humane and caused no harm. 2. The research had clear benefits for the animals themselves – it allowed safe testing for tuberculosis and showed a kinder alternative to traditional training – so any small cost (e.g. time spent in training sessions) was outweighed by the benefits.
For each reason: 1 mark identification (no harm/punishment – rewards only; benefits to elephants' health and welfare outweigh costs; elephants kept in their normal environment with familiar handlers), 1 mark explanation linked to the study.
Q24Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Standard · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain how shaping was used to train the elephants in Fagen et al.'s study.[4]
Show answer
(a) The trunk wash was broken down into smaller steps – raising the trunk, keeping saline solution in the trunk, and lowering the trunk into a collection bag. Each step was reinforced with food as soon as it was performed, using a bridging signal to mark the exact moment of the correct behaviour. Once a step was reliable, rewards were given only for closer approximations, until the elephant performed the whole sequence on cue.
1 mark: behaviour broken into steps. 1 mark: named steps (trunk up, hold saline, trunk down into bag). 1 mark: immediate positive reinforcement with food / bridging stimulus. 1 mark: successive approximations combined into the full behaviour.
Q25Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 10 marks
(a)Evaluate Fagen et al.'s study of elephant learning in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of animals in research.[10]
Show answer
(a) Strengths, e.g. (1) animals in research: the study used only food rewards and no punishment, and it directly benefited the elephants (TB testing, a humane alternative to traditional training), so it meets ethical guidelines; (2) practical application – it shows handlers how to train useful health behaviours humanely; (3) carried out in the elephants' normal working environment, so it is high in ecological validity; (4) behaviour was broken into clearly defined steps, so progress could be recorded objectively. Weaknesses, e.g. (1) small sample of five juvenile elephants from one place in Nepal, so the findings may not generalise to adult elephants or other settings; (2) no control group (e.g. elephants trained traditionally), so it cannot show that positive reinforcement is better than other methods; (3) animals in research: findings from elephants may not generalise to human learning, and captive working elephants may differ from wild ones; (4) a field setting gives less control over extraneous variables (e.g. distractions, the elephants' daily workload).
Level 4 (9–10): two strengths and two weaknesses, each developed with study detail; animal issue clearly discussed. Level 3 (6–8): four points, some undeveloped. Level 2 (3–5): limited/generic. Level 1 (1–2): basic only.
Q26Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 8 marks
(a)Describe one similarity and one difference between Fagen et al.'s study and Saavedra and Silverman's study.[8]
Show answer
(a) Similarity: both used positive reinforcement and broke the target behaviour into graded steps – the elephants were given food for each step of the trunk wash (shaping), while the boy was rewarded for completing each step of his fear hierarchy during exposure. Difference: Saavedra and Silverman carried out a case study of one 9-year-old boy to remove a learned phobia, using exposure with reinforcement and disgust imagery, whereas Fagen et al. trained five juvenile elephants in Nepal to acquire a completely new behaviour (the trunk wash) for health testing.
Up to 4 marks for the similarity and 4 for the difference: identification (1), explanation (1–2), examples from both studies (1). Accept other valid points (e.g. both have practical applications; human vs animal participants; one participant vs five; removing behaviour vs acquiring behaviour; self-report ratings vs observation of steps).
Q27Fagen et al. (elephant learning) · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Explain whether the elephants' learning in Fagen et al.'s study is better explained by individual or situational factors.[4]
Show answer
(a) Situational: the learning was produced by the environment – the reinforcement schedule, the food rewards and the training sessions – which supports the learning approach's view that behaviour is shaped by consequences. Individual: the elephants did not all progress through the steps at the same speed, suggesting individual differences such as temperament, age or previous experiences with handlers also mattered. Conclusion: the situation (training) caused learning but individual characteristics affected how well it worked.
1 mark: defines individual vs situational. 1 mark: situational explanation linked to reinforcement in the study. 1 mark: individual explanation linked to differences between elephants. 1 mark: reasoned conclusion.
Q28Assumptions of the approach · Core · Paper 1 style · 4 marks
(a)Outline two assumptions of the learning approach.[4]
Show answer
(a) 1. Behaviour is learned through experience and interaction with the environment (nurture), rather than being innate. 2. Learning occurs through classical conditioning (association), operant conditioning (consequences such as reinforcement and punishment) and social learning (observing and imitating models).
For each assumption: 1 mark identification, 1 mark expansion/example.
Q29Assumptions of the approach · Standard · Paper 1 style · 3 marks
(a)Explain how Saavedra and Silverman's study supports one assumption of the learning approach.[3]
Show answer
(a) The assumption that behaviour is learned through experience: the boy's phobia developed after a single distressing experience with buttons (classical conditioning), and it was reduced by new learning – exposure with positive reinforcement – showing that a learned behaviour can be unlearned.
1 mark: states assumption. 1 mark: acquisition of phobia through association with the button incident. 1 mark: treatment through reinforcement/exposure as evidence of learning.
Q30Assumptions of the approach · Challenge · Paper 1 style · 6 marks
(a)Using the learning approach, explain whether the nature or nurture side of the debate is more strongly supported. Refer to two studies from the approach.[6]
Show answer
(a) The learning approach is on the nurture side. Bandura et al. showed that children who watched an aggressive adult reproduced specific acts and phrases they would not otherwise have shown, so aggression was learned by observation. Fagen et al. showed that elephants could acquire a completely new behaviour (the trunk wash) through shaping with food rewards. Saavedra and Silverman showed a phobia acquired through a frightening experience. However, nature also plays a part: boys in Bandura's study showed more physical aggression than girls, which may partly be biological, and individual animals differ in how quickly they learn. Conclusion: the studies strongly support nurture, but innate factors influence what is learned and how easily.
1 mark: defines nature/nurture. 2 marks: first study linked to nurture. 2 marks: second study linked. 1 mark: counterpoint for nature and conclusion.
Similar questions
Questions that test the same subtopic in different years, grouped so you can work on one skill at a time.
References only: find each question in its paper (official link where available, otherwise through your school).
Bandura et al. (aggression)5 questions · 5/9 sessions
