Fifteen marks, one question, about forty minutes. Section C is worth more than the rest of Paper 1 put together, and it is marked on whether you can think like a psychologist rather than on how many studies you can list. The good news is that the shape of a strong answer barely changes.
📘 What you need to know
Section C offers two ERQs from two of the four contexts. You answer one, for 15 marks.
Questions are concept-based, framed around bias, causality, change, measurement, perspective or responsibility.
Examiners want breadth and depth of knowledge, using studies and theory.
They want a balanced evaluation: strengths, limitations, counterarguments and applications.
They want a clear structure: introduction, AO1 theory and evidence, AO3 evaluation, conclusion.
The AO3 command terms are evaluate, discuss, examine, compare and contrast, to what extent.
Start by defining the concept, not by describing a study.
The structure that scores
If you have written for twenty minutes and have not yet criticised anything, you are writing the wrong essay.
Define the concept first
These questions are built around a key concept, so open with a clear definition of it. Not a study, not a general introduction about how interesting psychology is — a definition of change, or bias, or measurement, in your own words, with a sentence on why it matters in this context.
That opening does two jobs. It tells the examiner you know what the question is about, and it gives you something to link every later paragraph back to.
A test for your introduction: could it be pasted onto a different question and still make sense? If yes, it is too generic. It should name the concept, the context, and the line you are going to take.
How each paragraph should work
Notice the study is in the middle, not at the start. Research is evidence for a point you are making, not the point itself.
Evaluate questions
If the command term is evaluate, you are weighing up strengths and limitations of one or more theories, methods or strategies.
Say plainly what is difficult about the topic. For example, that measuring attachment behaviour is fraught with problems from the outset.
Give examples of the methods or strategies used, such as a controlled observation with predefined behavioural categories.
Present each strength with expansion: a standardised procedure increases replicability, which increases reliability.
Present each limitation with expansion: an artificial setting reduces ecological validity.
Discuss questions
If the command term is discuss, you owe a balanced and considered review with more than one viewpoint.
Present a genuine second position, not a token sentence.
Support each argument with evidence, briefly.
Show that the behaviour is not explained by one factor but by interacting influences: cognitive, biological and social.
Include both strengths and limitations of the position you are examining.
Link ideas rather than listing them, using connectives like however, therefore and this suggests.
Marks in Section C go to thinking like a psychologist: defining concepts, applying them thoughtfully, and criticising evidence across contexts. A memorised essay reproduced word for word almost never fits the question it lands in.
Planning in five minutes
🧩 A plan you can write in the margin
Concept. Write the key concept and a one-line definition.
Position. Write the answer you are going to give in one sentence.
Three points. One line each, with the study or theory that supports it.
An evaluation for each point. A strength, a limitation, or a competing explanation.
Conclusion. Note which side the evidence lands on, so you do not drift into a summary.
Worked examples
WORKED EXAMPLE
Turn a question into a plan
“In the context of human relationships, evaluate the role of bias in social identity theory. [15 marks]” Produce a five-minute plan.
Concept
Bias: a limitation in objective thinking, where information is filtered through expectation and group membership.
PositionBias is central to the theory, but the theory also risks importing bias into its own research.Point 1
In-group favouritism and out-group derogation follow from social categorisation. Evidence, then evaluation of how it was measured.
Point 2
Research settings can create the very group bias they measure, which weakens ecological validity.
Point 3
Cultural bias: findings from one cultural context may not describe collectivist settings.
Conclusion: the concept explains a lot, and also constrains the evidencenotice each point already has its evaluation attached — that is what makes it a plan and not a list
WORKED EXAMPLE
Upgrade a weak paragraph
A student writes: “One study used a controlled observation with behavioural categories. This was a strength.” Improve it. [AO3]
What is missing
A strength named with no expansion, and no link to the concept or the question.
Add the expansionPredefined behavioural categories and a standardised procedure make the study replicable, which raises reliability.Add the other side
However, the setting was unfamiliar to participants, which lowers ecological validity.
Link back
So the measurement was consistent but may not reflect how the behaviour occurs in everyday life.
Strength, limitation, and a link in three sentencesthe phrase “which means that” is the cheapest way to force yourself to expand
💡 Exam tip
Define the concept in the first two sentences. Do not open with a study.
Refer to research briefly, focusing on what it shows about the concept rather than retelling the procedure.
Make every link explicit. Never assume the connection between concept and study is obvious.
Show how concepts interact, such as change and motivation, or bias and measurement. It reads as real understanding.
End with a reasoned conclusion that weighs the evidence and answers the question, rather than repeating your points.
