AQA A-level Psychology Paper 1 (7182/1) - 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
Scroll to see replies
Original post by alex.25
hi guys u should defo all follow up psychology with rhi and a level psychology tutor on tiktok they show all the 8/16 markers that haven’t come up as well and flipping psychology is good as well. How many 16 markers do ppl think will come up?
im thinking 3
Does anyone know if the maths in research methods could come up in paper 1? e.g. nominal/ordinal data
Original post by Lizzie3232
Does anyone know if the maths in research methods could come up in paper 1? e.g. nominal/ordinal data
yeh one of my psychology teachers said that typically the research methods on paper 1 is stuff to do with data like means and modes and stuff and also statistical tests and also validity
Original post by alex.25
yeh one of my psychology teachers said that typically the research methods on paper 1 is stuff to do with data like means and modes and stuff and also statistical tests and also validity
Ohhh okay thankyou
Original post by Lizzie3232
Ohhh okay thankyou
it’s alright, he said don’t fully rely on that tho cuz they could shove anything form research methods in paper 1 or 3 but the stuff that i said is typically what comes up 🙏
Original post by alex.25
hi guys u should defo all follow up psychology with rhi and a level psychology tutor on tiktok they show all the 8/16 markers that haven’t come up as well and flipping psychology is good as well. How many 16 markers do ppl think will come up?
Hopefully less than the 16 markers last year, I heard there were three🤯
Original post by Neymarswho1730
Hopefully less than the 16 markers last year, I heard there were three🤯
yeh yeh there were, hopefully there’s only two but i feel like aqa barely put three in paper 1 so probs will this year idk
Original post by elloell
Does anyone know if they could ask a 16 or 8 marker solely on Asch's variations? If so does anyone have an example essay or essay plan? I have no idea what i would put for AO3.
In the booklet our teacher's made, it said that AO3 for Asch's original study can be used to also evaluate the variations.
I have left the ones we got given in our booklet:
However, a key problem with Asch’s study is that it was an artificial task in an artificial environment. Judging lines is a trivial task and resisting conformity can be stressful. It could be argued that participants didn’t feel strongly enough about lines to risk the ridicule of others. If the task involved a moral/ ethical judgement that the participant was more passionate about, the majority may have had less of an effect. This reduces the ecological validity of Asch’s findings as the results may not reflect how real world conformity operates, making us question the extent to which his conclusions apply in everyday life. Others argue that the nature of the task also encouraged demand characteristics. The answer to the task was so clear (unambiguous) that the naïve participant had worked out the aim - that others were deliberately saying the wrong answer to see if the participant would conform - and was just going along with the majority to fulfil the experimental requirements. This is an issue because if this is the case, then Asch was not measuring conformity at all, and therefore his conclusions about conformity are invalid. However, Asch argued that the signs of stress demonstrated by the naïve participants showed they believed the situation was true.
Another key issue with Asch’s research is the time period in which it took place. Asch’s study was conducted during the McCarthyist era where during the 1950’s, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists and became the subject of aggressive investigation if they appeared to not conform to American ideals and values. Therefore, at this time the participants in the study may have been more willing to conform (36.8% mean conformity rate is quite high on an unambiguous task). The same may not be true of participants today, therefore the study’s findings may lack temporal validity – accuracy over time. This matters because it means Asch’s research may just be
a “child of its time” and therefore conclusions made about conformity are no longer relevant.
This argument is highlighted by a replication of Asch’s study in the late 1970s in England. Perrin & Spencer used a group of science and engineering students. In their initial study they obtained only one conforming result out of 396 trials. This confirms that Asch’s original findings may have been caused by when the study was carried out. (However we need to consider that the country and participants were also different in this replication.)
Another issue with Asch’s research is the sample that he used. All Asch’s participants were American and this is a problem because it may mean his findings do not generalise to conformity in other people. Perrin and Spencer’s replication involving English Engineering students found very different results (as mentioned earlier, 1 conforming result out of 396 trials), supporting this low population validity argument.
Furthermore, Asch’s participants were all from an individualistic culture. Bond & Smith carried out a meta-analysis of conformity studies using the Asch paradigm, involving 134 published conformity studies across 17 different nations. They found that individualist cultures show lower conformity rates than collectivist cultures. This may be because collectivist cultures value group harmony and would prefer to agree with an incorrect majority to maintain this. This matters because it means that the conformity rates shown in Asch’s original participants don’t reflect the behaviour of those from other cultures, and therefore conclusions drawn about conformity may not extrapolate well to other areas.
How is everyone revising this close to the exam? I feel like I have done every past paper question and cannot revise anymore.
anyone in this situation?
anyone in this situation?
(Original post by alex.25)hi guys u should defo all follow up psychology with rhi and a level psychology tutor on tiktok they show all the 8/16 markers that haven’t come up as well and flipping psychology is good as well. How many 16 markers do ppl think will come up?
My guess is 3 16 markers since in recent years they like to do that
My guess is 3 16 markers since in recent years they like to do that
Original post by rachywoo2004
In the booklet our teacher's made, it said that AO3 for Asch's original study can be used to also evaluate the variations.
I have left the ones we got given in our booklet:
However, a key problem with Asch’s study is that it was an artificial task in an artificial environment. Judging lines is a trivial task and resisting conformity can be stressful. It could be argued that participants didn’t feel strongly enough about lines to risk the ridicule of others. If the task involved a moral/ ethical judgement that the participant was more passionate about, the majority may have had less of an effect. This reduces the ecological validity of Asch’s findings as the results may not reflect how real world conformity operates, making us question the extent to which his conclusions apply in everyday life. Others argue that the nature of the task also encouraged demand characteristics. The answer to the task was so clear (unambiguous) that the naïve participant had worked out the aim - that others were deliberately saying the wrong answer to see if the participant would conform - and was just going along with the majority to fulfil the experimental requirements. This is an issue because if this is the case, then Asch was not measuring conformity at all, and therefore his conclusions about conformity are invalid. However, Asch argued that the signs of stress demonstrated by the naïve participants showed they believed the situation was true.
Another key issue with Asch’s research is the time period in which it took place. Asch’s study was conducted during the McCarthyist era where during the 1950’s, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists and became the subject of aggressive investigation if they appeared to not conform to American ideals and values. Therefore, at this time the participants in the study may have been more willing to conform (36.8% mean conformity rate is quite high on an unambiguous task). The same may not be true of participants today, therefore the study’s findings may lack temporal validity – accuracy over time. This matters because it means Asch’s research may just be
a “child of its time” and therefore conclusions made about conformity are no longer relevant.
This argument is highlighted by a replication of Asch’s study in the late 1970s in England. Perrin & Spencer used a group of science and engineering students. In their initial study they obtained only one conforming result out of 396 trials. This confirms that Asch’s original findings may have been caused by when the study was carried out. (However we need to consider that the country and participants were also different in this replication.)
Another issue with Asch’s research is the sample that he used. All Asch’s participants were American and this is a problem because it may mean his findings do not generalise to conformity in other people. Perrin and Spencer’s replication involving English Engineering students found very different results (as mentioned earlier, 1 conforming result out of 396 trials), supporting this low population validity argument.
Furthermore, Asch’s participants were all from an individualistic culture. Bond & Smith carried out a meta-analysis of conformity studies using the Asch paradigm, involving 134 published conformity studies across 17 different nations. They found that individualist cultures show lower conformity rates than collectivist cultures. This may be because collectivist cultures value group harmony and would prefer to agree with an incorrect majority to maintain this. This matters because it means that the conformity rates shown in Asch’s original participants don’t reflect the behaviour of those from other cultures, and therefore conclusions drawn about conformity may not extrapolate well to other areas.
I have left the ones we got given in our booklet:
However, a key problem with Asch’s study is that it was an artificial task in an artificial environment. Judging lines is a trivial task and resisting conformity can be stressful. It could be argued that participants didn’t feel strongly enough about lines to risk the ridicule of others. If the task involved a moral/ ethical judgement that the participant was more passionate about, the majority may have had less of an effect. This reduces the ecological validity of Asch’s findings as the results may not reflect how real world conformity operates, making us question the extent to which his conclusions apply in everyday life. Others argue that the nature of the task also encouraged demand characteristics. The answer to the task was so clear (unambiguous) that the naïve participant had worked out the aim - that others were deliberately saying the wrong answer to see if the participant would conform - and was just going along with the majority to fulfil the experimental requirements. This is an issue because if this is the case, then Asch was not measuring conformity at all, and therefore his conclusions about conformity are invalid. However, Asch argued that the signs of stress demonstrated by the naïve participants showed they believed the situation was true.
Another key issue with Asch’s research is the time period in which it took place. Asch’s study was conducted during the McCarthyist era where during the 1950’s, thousands of Americans were accused of being communists and became the subject of aggressive investigation if they appeared to not conform to American ideals and values. Therefore, at this time the participants in the study may have been more willing to conform (36.8% mean conformity rate is quite high on an unambiguous task). The same may not be true of participants today, therefore the study’s findings may lack temporal validity – accuracy over time. This matters because it means Asch’s research may just be
a “child of its time” and therefore conclusions made about conformity are no longer relevant.
This argument is highlighted by a replication of Asch’s study in the late 1970s in England. Perrin & Spencer used a group of science and engineering students. In their initial study they obtained only one conforming result out of 396 trials. This confirms that Asch’s original findings may have been caused by when the study was carried out. (However we need to consider that the country and participants were also different in this replication.)
Another issue with Asch’s research is the sample that he used. All Asch’s participants were American and this is a problem because it may mean his findings do not generalise to conformity in other people. Perrin and Spencer’s replication involving English Engineering students found very different results (as mentioned earlier, 1 conforming result out of 396 trials), supporting this low population validity argument.
Furthermore, Asch’s participants were all from an individualistic culture. Bond & Smith carried out a meta-analysis of conformity studies using the Asch paradigm, involving 134 published conformity studies across 17 different nations. They found that individualist cultures show lower conformity rates than collectivist cultures. This may be because collectivist cultures value group harmony and would prefer to agree with an incorrect majority to maintain this. This matters because it means that the conformity rates shown in Asch’s original participants don’t reflect the behaviour of those from other cultures, and therefore conclusions drawn about conformity may not extrapolate well to other areas.
I had never heard of this point before wow "Furthermore, Asch’s participants were all from an individualistic culture. Bond & Smith carried out a meta-analysis of conformity studies using the Asch paradigm, involving 134 published conformity studies across 17 different nations. They found that individualist cultures show lower conformity rates than collectivist cultures. This may be because collectivist cultures value group harmony and would prefer to agree with an incorrect majority to maintain this. This matters because it means that the conformity rates shown in Asch’s original participants don’t reflect the behaviour of those from other cultures, and therefore conclusions drawn about conformity may not extrapolate well to other areas."
It seems like a biggy too, is this in the AQA Psych Textbook? Also guys it's impossible for biopsych to come up in Paper one right but you can link approaches, issues and debates to your 16 markers in Paper one right?
Original post by Mentor05
I had never heard of this point before wow "Furthermore, Asch’s participants were all from an individualistic culture. Bond & Smith carried out a meta-analysis of conformity studies using the Asch paradigm, involving 134 published conformity studies across 17 different nations. They found that individualist cultures show lower conformity rates than collectivist cultures. This may be because collectivist cultures value group harmony and would prefer to agree with an incorrect majority to maintain this. This matters because it means that the conformity rates shown in Asch’s original participants don’t reflect the behaviour of those from other cultures, and therefore conclusions drawn about conformity may not extrapolate well to other areas."
It seems like a biggy too, is this in the AQA Psych Textbook? Also guys it's impossible for biopsych to come up in Paper one right but you can link approaches, issues and debates to your 16 markers in Paper one right?
It seems like a biggy too, is this in the AQA Psych Textbook? Also guys it's impossible for biopsych to come up in Paper one right but you can link approaches, issues and debates to your 16 markers in Paper one right?
This was from our booklet that our teachers made.
We were never taught it but now we’ve covered year 13 topics I now understand it. You can link issues and debates to any of the papers, I’ll show the example evaluations you can use in any other areas.
An example of determinism as an EVALUATION point is:
One criticism of the biological explanations of aggression is that they can be said to be biologically deterministic, in that they suggest that our biology (which is out of our control) determines this behaviour. This takes away the responsibility from the individual and suggests that they have no control over their behaviour, that they are the mercy of their biology. This can have implications for the legal system dealing with the repercussions of aggression if the person is not seen to be responsible. Environmental determinists would also argue that it is rather limiting to rule out any environmental factors such as parental influence. It therefore may be problematic to explain aggression using only this idea.
An example of reductionism as an EVALUATION point is:
The Biological explanation of OCD can be seen to be a reductionist explanation. This might mean that other explanations are not accounted for and that reducing the disorder down to levels of serotonin or a single gne such as the SERT or COMT gene may be an oversimplification of a complex disorder. Many would argue that OCD cannot be explained solely by biological factors. Instead we should look to higher level / holistic explanations including societal factors such as family dysfunction. In fact, the most effective treatments seem to combine drug therapy with CBT taking a more interactionist (holistic and reductionist) approach towards the disorder suggesting that the disorder is a combination of various vulnerabilities and triggers.
Original post by rachywoo2004
This was from our booklet that our teachers made.
We were never taught it but now we’ve covered year 13 topics I now understand it. You can link issues and debates to any of the papers, I’ll show the example evaluations you can use in any other areas.
An example of determinism as an EVALUATION point is:
One criticism of the biological explanations of aggression is that they can be said to be biologically deterministic, in that they suggest that our biology (which is out of our control) determines this behaviour. This takes away the responsibility from the individual and suggests that they have no control over their behaviour, that they are the mercy of their biology. This can have implications for the legal system dealing with the repercussions of aggression if the person is not seen to be responsible. Environmental determinists would also argue that it is rather limiting to rule out any environmental factors such as parental influence. It therefore may be problematic to explain aggression using only this idea.
An example of reductionism as an EVALUATION point is:
The Biological explanation of OCD can be seen to be a reductionist explanation. This might mean that other explanations are not accounted for and that reducing the disorder down to levels of serotonin or a single gne such as the SERT or COMT gene may be an oversimplification of a complex disorder. Many would argue that OCD cannot be explained solely by biological factors. Instead we should look to higher level / holistic explanations including societal factors such as family dysfunction. In fact, the most effective treatments seem to combine drug therapy with CBT taking a more interactionist (holistic and reductionist) approach towards the disorder suggesting that the disorder is a combination of various vulnerabilities and triggers.
We were never taught it but now we’ve covered year 13 topics I now understand it. You can link issues and debates to any of the papers, I’ll show the example evaluations you can use in any other areas.
An example of determinism as an EVALUATION point is:
One criticism of the biological explanations of aggression is that they can be said to be biologically deterministic, in that they suggest that our biology (which is out of our control) determines this behaviour. This takes away the responsibility from the individual and suggests that they have no control over their behaviour, that they are the mercy of their biology. This can have implications for the legal system dealing with the repercussions of aggression if the person is not seen to be responsible. Environmental determinists would also argue that it is rather limiting to rule out any environmental factors such as parental influence. It therefore may be problematic to explain aggression using only this idea.
An example of reductionism as an EVALUATION point is:
The Biological explanation of OCD can be seen to be a reductionist explanation. This might mean that other explanations are not accounted for and that reducing the disorder down to levels of serotonin or a single gne such as the SERT or COMT gene may be an oversimplification of a complex disorder. Many would argue that OCD cannot be explained solely by biological factors. Instead we should look to higher level / holistic explanations including societal factors such as family dysfunction. In fact, the most effective treatments seem to combine drug therapy with CBT taking a more interactionist (holistic and reductionist) approach towards the disorder suggesting that the disorder is a combination of various vulnerabilities and triggers.
Thanks so much!! I’m revising all of these topics again before next Friday: Social Influence, memory, attachment, psychopathology, research methods, issues and debates and approaches! Then for paper 2 I’ll just have to refresh myself on biopsych but the rest should be ok
Original post by elloell
Does anyone know if they could ask a 16 or 8 marker solely on Asch's variations? If so does anyone have an example essay or essay plan? I have no idea what i would put for AO3.
Discuss Asch’s research into variables affecting conformity. 16 marks
Note: This essay focuses on only two of the three variables- whilst you could do all three, there is a
risk you may be comprising on spending time on developing effective evaluation which is worth
almost double the marks to ao1. No matter how much ao1 you write, it is capped at 6 marks.
Do not fall in the trap of writing about Asch’s original study then finally going onto to talk about
his variables. There is no need to write about his original study in this question.
One variable affecting conformity is task difficulty. Asch increased the difficulty of the line-judgement
task by ensuring the standard line and the comparison lines were more similar to each other in length.
Asch found conformity increased compared to his baseline study at 33% suggesting as the lines were
more similar, it became more difficult for participants to differentiate between the lines and select the
right answer. Asch shows that when we are unclear of the answer as the task becomes more difficult,
people conform due to informational social influence (ISI) reasons for the desire to be right assuming the
majority (confederates) are ‘experts’ who are correct.
Support for task difficulty increasing conformity comes from Lucas. They found conformity rates
increased when students had more difficult maths problems compared to those with easier ones. This
supports Asch’s findings showing when the task becomes more unclear as maths questions become more
difficult, people are more likely to conform due to ISI reasons as they are unsure of the right answer
assuming other students' answers are correct.
That said, Lucas found that high self-efficacy participants who were confident in their abilities, were less
susceptible to conforming than low self-efficacy participants. This matters suggesting the students'
abilities may affect whether they conform, problematic as it may be that task difficulty as well as
individual differences (self-efficacy) are both important in determining conformity. This casts doubt on
Asch’s research, suggesting it is not as simple as arguing increasing task difficulty increases conformity
when this is also influenced by individual differences which can make us less sensitive to conforming, a
factor Asch did not consider.
Another variable affecting conformity is group size. Asch varied the number of confederates in the
majority from just 1 to increasing the group to 15. Asch found a curvilinear relationship with 1 or 2
confederates having little effect on participants conforming. A group size of 3 showed conformity rates of
32% similar to the baseline study however any more than 3, conformity did not increase. This shows the
group size of the majority to influence the minority (naïve participant) matters with the optimum size
being 3 as adding more did not substantially increase conformity.
However, Campbell and Fairey question Asch’s findings. They argue the effect of group size on conformity
depends on the type of judgment being made and the individual's motivation. In situations where there is
no objective correct answer, like musical preferences, and the individual is motivated about fitting in
(NSI), a larger group size may increase conformity. However, when the task has a clear answer and
individuals are motivated to be correct (ISI) as in Asch’s study, a smaller group size may be sufficient to
elicit conformity. This questions Asch’s findings, failing to consider the specific context and motivation of
individuals as situations where people want to ‘fit in’ and there is no clear-cut answer, a larger group size
may increase conformity.
Asch’s research into group size has also been criticised for low ecological validity. This is because asking
participants to judge lengths of lines with strangers in controlled conditions, is trivial with no meaningful
social consequences attached compared to real-life conformity such as peer pressure. In fact, Williams
and Sogon found people are more likely to conform if the majority are friends compared to strangers.
This questions Asch’s findings, suggesting it matters who is in the group as opposed to the size being
important. It may be that had Asch varied the size of the group using friends not strangers increasing the
ecological validity by closely replicating the social pressures people face every day, conformity rates may
have been much higher than Asch observed.
guys do we really need that much detail for ao3?? i just do a peel para n thats all lol, like eg //
'a criticism of bowlby's approach to the critical period is that there is conflicting evidence, this is provided by the Czech twin case study. Here, a pair of twins weren't able to form an internal working model with their primary attachment figure due to them being locked away in a cupboard from 18 months to 7 years old, however, once adopted they formed loving relationships with their new parents. This suggests, the critical period is more like a sensitive period, and the effects of maternal deprivation can be reversed'
isnt that enough or idk
'a criticism of bowlby's approach to the critical period is that there is conflicting evidence, this is provided by the Czech twin case study. Here, a pair of twins weren't able to form an internal working model with their primary attachment figure due to them being locked away in a cupboard from 18 months to 7 years old, however, once adopted they formed loving relationships with their new parents. This suggests, the critical period is more like a sensitive period, and the effects of maternal deprivation can be reversed'
isnt that enough or idk
Original post by alex.25
Yeh i reckon three 16 markers icl , so just to confirm for variables affecting conformity , when u evaluate u evaluate asch’s main study? right
most of the time yes, as Asch's study uses mainly the same procedure. But not all of Asch's AO3 fits, plus there may be better fitting AO3 occasionally for the variations
Original post by alex.25
What’s anyone’s predictions?
3 again if im being honest, in social influence attachment and psychopathology
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- A-level Exam Discussions 2024
- A Level Exam Discussions 2023
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2024
- GCSE Exam Discussions 2023
- A-level Psychology Study Group 2022-2023
- AQA A Level Psychology Paper 1 (7182/1) - 17th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- AQA GCSE Mathematics Paper 1 (Foundation) 8300/1F - 19th May 2023 [ Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Psychology Paper 3 (7182/3) - 3rd June 2024 [Exam Chat]
- AQA A Level Psychology Paper 2 (7182/2) - 22nd May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- GCSE Biology Study Group 2022-2023
- Eduqas GCSE Mathematics Paper 1 Foundation Tier - 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Alevel Psychology
- A level 2022 Results remark
- aqa a level psychology 2024
- AQA A-level Physics Paper 1 (7408/1) - 24th May 2024 [Exam Chat]
- A-level Business Study Group 2022-2023
- Edexcel IGCSE Foundation tier Maths A Paper 1 1F (4MA1) - 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- AQA GCSE Computer Science Paper 1 (8525/1A, 1B, 1C) - 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- Eduqas A Level Psychology Component 1 (A290U 10-1) 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat]
- A-level History Study Group 2022-2023
Latest
Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
OCR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 3 (H567/03) - 3rd June [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 2 (H567/02) - 22nd May [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A Level Psychology Paper 3 (7182/3) - 3rd June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A Level Psychology Paper 1 (7182/1) - 17th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
EDEXCEL A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY (9PS 01) - 17th May [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A Level Psychology Paper 2 (7182/2) - 22nd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 weeks ago
Edexcel GCSE Psychology Papers 1 & 2 - 19th & 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level Psychology Paper 2 (7182/2) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel A-level Psychology Paper 1 (9PS0 01) - 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
What is your Method to remembering AO3 Evaluation Points in Psychology?Posted 1 month ago
Marking AQA a-level Psychology Essay: Evaluate and outline the social learning theoryLast reply 2 months ago
AQA A-level Psychology Paper 3 (7182/3) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]Trending
Last reply 20 hours ago
OCR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 3 (H567/03) - 3rd June [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 week ago
OCR A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY PAPER 2 (H567/02) - 22nd May [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A Level Psychology Paper 3 (7182/3) - 3rd June 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A Level Psychology Paper 1 (7182/1) - 17th May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
EDEXCEL A-LEVEL PSYCHOLOGY (9PS 01) - 17th May [Exam Chat]Last reply 2 weeks ago
AQA A Level Psychology Paper 2 (7182/2) - 22nd May 2024 [Exam Chat]Last reply 4 weeks ago
Edexcel GCSE Psychology Papers 1 & 2 - 19th & 26th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
AQA A-level Psychology Paper 2 (7182/2) - 25th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
Edexcel A-level Psychology Paper 1 (9PS0 01) - 19th May 2023 [Exam Chat]Last reply 1 month ago
What is your Method to remembering AO3 Evaluation Points in Psychology?Posted 1 month ago
Marking AQA a-level Psychology Essay: Evaluate and outline the social learning theoryLast reply 2 months ago
AQA A-level Psychology Paper 3 (7182/3) - 5th June 2023 [Exam Chat]
