AS
AS Paper 2: Attachment and Approaches
Caregiver-infant interactions and attachment types, explanations of attachment and cultural variations, eyewitness testimony and forgetting, the approaches in psychology, plus research methods and statistics.
Questions
Question 1 [3 marks]
Eyewitness Testimony and Forgetting
Outline what is meant by 'proactive interference' as an explanation for forgetting.
Question 2 [3 marks]
Explanations of Attachment and Cultural Variations
Outline the 'critical period' as proposed by Bowlby's theory of attachment.
Question 3 [4 marks]
Approaches in Psychology
Outline classical conditioning and operant conditioning as explanations of learning.
Question 4 [4 marks]
Research Methods and Statistics
Outline the difference between a random sample and an opportunity sample.
Question 5 [4 marks]
Caregiver-Infant Interactions and Attachment Types
Explain one strength and one limitation of Schaffer and Emerson's sample in terms of generalisability.
Question 6 [4 marks]
Approaches in Psychology
A therapist helps a client explore how their childhood experiences created unconscious conflicts that are now affecting their adult relationships.
Identify the approach the therapist is using and explain two of its key assumptions.
Question 7 [4 marks]
Research Methods and Statistics
Explain one strength and one limitation of using a repeated measures design, compared with an independent groups design.
Question 8 [4 marks]
Caregiver-Infant Interactions and Attachment Types
Explain two limitations of observational research into caregiver-infant interactions such as reciprocity and interactional synchrony.
Question 9 [4 marks]
Approaches in Psychology
Explain Rogers's concept of congruence and conditions of worth in the humanistic approach.
Question 10 [4 marks]
Research Methods and Statistics
Explain the difference between a Type I and a Type II error in hypothesis testing.
Question 11 [4 marks]
Caregiver-Infant Interactions and Attachment Types
In the Strange Situation, baby Freddie ignores his mother when she leaves the room and shows little interest when she returns.
Use your knowledge of attachment types to identify and explain Freddie's likely attachment classification.
Question 12 [6 marks]
Research Methods and Statistics
Discuss the difference between reliability and validity in psychological research, including ways each can be assessed or improved.
Question 13 [6 marks]
Explanations of Attachment and Cultural Variations
Discuss Bowlby's theory of monotropy and the internal working model as an explanation of attachment.
Question 14 [6 marks]
Research Methods and Statistics
Discuss peer review and its role in the scientific process in psychology.
Model solutions
| Question 1[3 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying proactive interference as older, previously learned information disrupting recall of newer information | 1 |
| noting this occurs when memories are similar in content | 1 |
| a suitable example, e.g. an old phone number interfering with recall of a new one | 1 |
| Final answer: Proactive interference is when older memories disrupt recall of newer, similar memories, e.g. an old phone number interfering with remembering a new one. | |
| Question 2[3 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying the critical period as a specific, limited window of time in early development | 1 |
| stating that attachment must form within this period, around the first two and a half years, or it may not form/be more difficult | 1 |
| noting the idea has since been softened to a 'sensitive period', where attachment is merely more likely rather than only possible in this window | 1 |
| Final answer: Bowlby proposed a critical, later softened to sensitive, period of around the first two and a half years, in which attachment must, or is most likely to, form. | |
| Question 3[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying classical conditioning as learning through association, pairing a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus | 1 |
| a suitable example, e.g. Pavlov's dogs learning to associate a bell with food, salivating to the bell alone | 1 |
| identifying operant conditioning as learning through the consequences of behaviour | 1 |
| identifying reinforcement, positive or negative, as increasing behaviour, and punishment as decreasing it | 1 |
| Final answer: Classical conditioning is learning through association, e.g. Pavlov's dogs learning to salivate to a bell paired with food; operant conditioning is learning through consequences, with reinforcement increasing and punishment decreasing behaviour. | |
| Question 4[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying a random sample as one where every member of the target population has an equal chance of being selected | 1 |
| identifying a method of achieving this, e.g. assigning each member a number and using a random number generator to select participants | 1 |
| identifying an opportunity sample as one drawn from whoever is conveniently available at the time | 1 |
| noting an opportunity sample is quicker and easier to obtain, but is more likely to be biased/unrepresentative than a genuinely random sample | 1 |
| Final answer: A random sample gives every population member an equal chance of selection, e.g. via a random number generator; an opportunity sample uses whoever is conveniently available, which is quicker but more likely to be biased. | |
| Question 5[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying a strength, e.g. a reasonably sized sample was followed longitudinally over time | 1 |
| elaborating, e.g. this allowed the stages of attachment to be tracked as they developed rather than relying on a single snapshot | 1 |
| identifying a limitation, e.g. the sample came from a specific social and historical context, working-class families in 1960s Glasgow | 1 |
| elaborating that findings from this sample may not generalise well to families from different cultures, social classes or time periods | 1 |
| Final answer: Strength: a longitudinal design on a reasonable sample allowed the stages to be tracked over time. Limitation: the sample's specific social/historical background (1960s working-class Glasgow) limits generalisability. | |
| Question 6[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying the approach as psychodynamic | 1 |
| identifying the assumption that behaviour is influenced by unconscious processes | 1 |
| elaborating that early childhood experiences are seen as crucial in shaping adult personality/behaviour | 1 |
| noting a further assumption, e.g. that unresolved conflicts can produce psychological difficulties in adulthood | 1 |
| Final answer: This reflects the psychodynamic approach, assuming behaviour is driven by unconscious processes and shaped by early childhood experience, which can produce later psychological conflict. | |
| Question 7[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying a strength, e.g. participant variables are controlled since the same people take part in every condition | 1 |
| elaborating, e.g. this removes individual differences as a confounding variable between conditions | 1 |
| identifying a limitation, e.g. order effects, such as practice or fatigue, may affect performance in a later condition | 1 |
| elaborating, e.g. counterbalancing can reduce, but may not fully remove, this problem | 1 |
| Final answer: Strength: repeated measures controls for participant variables by using the same people in every condition. Limitation: order effects, such as practice or fatigue, can be reduced but not fully removed by counterbalancing. | |
| Question 8[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying that it is difficult to know an infant's internal mental state from observed behaviour alone | 1 |
| elaborating, e.g. we cannot be certain whether hand or mouth movements are intentional, meaningful responses or simply reflexes | 1 |
| identifying that many infant behaviours occur at once, making it hard to be sure exactly what is being observed and recorded | 1 |
| elaborating that this can reduce the reliability of the observation unless very clear, well-defined behavioural categories are used | 1 |
| Final answer: Limitations include the difficulty inferring an infant's true internal state from behaviour alone, and the difficulty isolating exactly what is being observed when many behaviours occur simultaneously, which can reduce reliability. | |
| Question 9[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying congruence as a close match between a person's self-image and their ideal self | 1 |
| elaborating that incongruence, a mismatch between the two, is associated with low self-worth or psychological difficulty | 1 |
| identifying conditions of worth as arising when a person only feels valued or loved when they meet another's expectations, e.g. a parent's | 1 |
| elaborating that this can prevent a person from achieving congruence or self-actualisation in adulthood | 1 |
| Final answer: Congruence is a close match between self-image and ideal self; conditions of worth, e.g. only feeling valued when meeting a parent's expectations, can produce incongruence and block later self-actualisation. | |
| Question 10[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying a Type I error as rejecting a true null hypothesis, concluding there is a significant effect when there is not | 1 |
| identifying a Type II error as accepting a false null hypothesis, concluding there is no significant effect when one actually exists | 1 |
| noting a Type I error becomes more likely if too lenient a significance level is chosen, e.g. p < 0.1 rather than p < 0.05 | 1 |
| noting a Type II error becomes more likely if too strict a significance level is chosen, e.g. p < 0.01, or if the sample size is too small | 1 |
| Final answer: A Type I error wrongly rejects a true null hypothesis (a false positive); a Type II error wrongly accepts a false null hypothesis (a false negative). The choice of significance level affects which is more likely. | |
| Question 11[4 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying Freddie as likely to be classified as insecure-avoidant | 1 |
| explaining that insecure-avoidant infants show little separation or stranger distress | 1 |
| explaining that they show little interest in reunion and do not seek contact with the caregiver | 1 |
| noting this pattern is associated with caregivers who are less responsive or emotionally unavailable | 1 |
| Final answer: Freddie's behaviour is consistent with insecure-avoidant attachment: little separation distress and little interest at reunion. | |
| Question 12[6 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying reliability as the consistency of a measure or finding | 1 |
| identifying a way reliability can be assessed, e.g. test-retest reliability, giving the same test to the same people on two occasions and correlating the scores | 1 |
| identifying validity as whether a study/measure genuinely measures what it claims to measure | 1 |
| identifying a type of validity, e.g. ecological validity, whether findings generalise to real-world settings | 1 |
| identifying a way validity can be improved, e.g. using a field experiment or naturalistic setting to increase ecological validity | 1 |
| noting that a measure can be reliable without being valid, e.g. a consistently applied but inaccurate measure, showing the two concepts are distinct | 1 |
| Final answer: Reliability is consistency, assessed via test-retest correlation; validity is whether something measures what it claims, e.g. ecological validity, improved via more naturalistic methods; a measure can be reliable without being valid, showing the concepts are distinct. | |
| Question 13[6 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| outlining monotropy, the idea that one primary attachment figure is of particular importance for healthy development | 1 |
| outlining the internal working model as a mental template of relationships formed from the primary attachment, guiding future expectations | 1 |
| an evaluation point, e.g. research support linking the quality of early attachment to later childhood or adult relationship quality | 1 |
| an evaluation point, e.g. the theory has been criticised for underestimating the role of multiple attachment figures, such as fathers or siblings | 1 |
| an evaluation point, e.g. the concept of monotropy has been seen as socially sensitive, as it may place pressure on mothers as the primary caregiver | 1 |
| an evaluation point, e.g. much supporting evidence is correlational, so a causal link between early attachment and later outcomes cannot be firmly established | 1 |
| Final answer: Outline monotropy and the internal working model; evaluate with research support for continuity into later relationships, but note criticism of underestimating multiple attachments, social sensitivity, and correlational evidence. | |
| Question 14[6 marks] | |
|---|---|
| Answer or working | Marks |
| identifying peer review as the evaluation of research by other qualified experts in the same field before it is published | 1 |
| outlining its purpose, e.g. checking the validity, methodology and significance of the work before it reaches the wider scientific community | 1 |
| identifying a use of peer review, e.g. an academic journal deciding whether to publish a study, or a funding body deciding whether to fund proposed research | 1 |
| an evaluation point, e.g. it helps maintain quality control and public confidence in published psychological research | 1 |
| an evaluation point, e.g. reviewers may be biased against research that challenges their own established theories, potentially slowing scientific progress | 1 |
| an evaluation point, e.g. the process can be slow, potentially delaying the publication of important or urgent findings | 1 |
| Final answer: Peer review is expert evaluation before publication, supporting quality control, but risking reviewer bias against challenging findings and delaying urgent publication. | |