The experimental procedure question in the approaches section caught me out! I went for experimental method, but didn't state how they investigated operant conditioning. However, I did evaluate the method which would have got me the final mark if I had mentioned how. So 2/3 on that question.
With the unstructured interviews I gave the advantages of using them and applied it to the scenario. For example, the responses given by the children may introduced relevant ideas that the researcher may not have thought of etc.
I don't think it personally matters what you put in your evaluations as long as you have 5 basic features / assumptions and then go on to evaluate the approach with simple strengths and limitations. For psychodynamic you could have had: case study method (strength and a limitation with a comparison to the experimental method - behaviorism), determinism, unfalsifiable, unscientific, shows the importance of childhood on later adult behaviour, psychoanalysis (strengths and limitations) etc. As well as comparisons to other approaches the most obvious being Humanistic approach: Free Will v Determinism.
For the biological approach and SLT the same applies. To have it balanced I would have recommended three basic features / assumptions of each approach. As well as three evaluations for each approach.
Biological features: male sperm determines the anatomical sex, could have discussed sex hormones and that it believes gender development is dictated by physiological processes within the individual.
Biological evidence: studies on people with atypical sex chromosomes (Klinefelters and Turners syndrome), Imperato and McGinley (changes could be due to supportive environment as opposed to biological changes), and Mead's cross cultural research (gender depends on culture as well as gender related behaviours are not universal).
SLT: Firstly, children are rewarded for sex appropriate behaviour and punished for sex inappropriate behaviour, with Fagot as evidence for AO2 marks. Secondly, behaviour is learnt indirectly through the media, stereotyping and modeling, with Smith and Lloyd as evidence or Farragher or Baby X etc. Finally, evidence from the biological explanation such as David and Sigmundson (as well as Money) to show that biology can overrule socialisation.
---
The research methods section was heavily unclear. Any questions before the second study would apply to the first study only. Therefore, repeated measures design would have been the appropriate response.
---
To address the classical conditioning question I had to use my PSYB4 knowledge because I honestly didn't know how to explain it. I stated that a person can come to fear a previous neutral stimuli (balloon) if it is connected to a frightening event such as a fear from a balloon popping. So, if a balloon is popped it becomes quickly associated because of their temporal contiguity. I then went on to explain the whole UCS (balloon popping) = UCR (fear) to UCS (balloon popping) + NS (balloon) = UCR (fear) and then CS (balloon) = CR (fear).
Eh it doesn't even make sense to me now that I've explained it again.