Starting A-Level Pyschology...

Cognitive - look into cognitive maturity and moral reasoning that some argue children lack
Biological - genetic arguments of violence
Behavioural - learnt behaviour, I believe some argued that they watched Chucky before killing James Bulger? So look into social learning theory (SLT)

thank you! I heard that Venables watched chucky before killing James too, i was confused whether or not that would come under the learning or cognitive approach. i have found many causes for their behaviour that come under the social approach (the two boys had troubled home lives) but i seem to lack causes that come under the cognitive approach - would the cognitive approach just apply to Thompson /Venables age/lack of maturity at the time of the killing?

Watching Chucky comes under behavioural theory as they learnt about violence

Yes cognitive approach would include cognitive maturity a long with a number of other factors.

But bare in mind for this task, and the whole of psychology - the answer is normally a multitude of things coming together. So a genetic vulnerability to violence, accompanied with poor social background and influence from violent movies along with cognitive immaturity come together to help explain violence

Hi, I'm a Year 11 student who has been set summer work in preparation for Year 12 Psychology. I have been set the task to evaluate the Venables/Thompson case (the child killers of James Bulger) and Ruth Ellis, who murdered her husband. I have to relate the cases to the social, cognitive, biological and learning approaches and I don't know how to go about it or explain how the different approaches apply to why these killers did what they did. I'd really appreciate anyone's help!

In terms of the social psychology side:

In my first module in uni, we looked at the social side of the Venables case. There were numerous witnesses of the boys and I believe they were stopped up to two times, but in our society, we usually keep to our business and feel it goes against social rules to probe into people's business and this social rule prevented any intervention that could've saved James. Witnesses also assumed they were brothers and the children knew that people would assume that so they played on that lie, which could suggest a level of cognitive maturity. So in terms of the social approach, you can discuss social rules and why the witnesses didn't intervene.
After a quick search on Ruth Ellis, there seemed to be quite a lot of witnesses around and I think an innocent woman was injured. You can look into the behaviour of the witnesses. Witnesses heard the repeated clicking of the gun, so they knew it had no more bullets, yet no-one tried to prevent her from escaping (although she was arrested instantly). Her husband's friend was there too.

Social learning theory -
You can relate this to a study by Bandura.
Attention - the boys turned their attention to a particular act, in this case it was what they saw Chuvky do. Also many have reported that the boys didn't have a great unbringing, also possible that they saw something at home.
Retention - the boys retain/keep in the information theyhave witnessed. They save the information until an opportunity arises where they can use it.
Motor - they need the physical and mental capacity to produce the actions. The boys are old enough to physically go through with the acts they saw.
Motivation - they need a reason to complete the act.

I took Alevel Psyc, now going onto degree level.
Which exam board are you going by?