Bullet c: use memory research as the evidence
Bullet c is often omitted: use memory research, not just definitions. Reductionist end: Peterson and Peterson (1959) — trigrams, rehearsal blocked, one feature measured alone; the Multi-store Model (1968) — separate stores, structure not meaning; Glanzer and Cunitz — serial position, separate stores. Holistic end: Bartlett (1932) War of the Ghosts — a meaningful story retold, shortened and rationalised, from the meaning a reductionist design removes.
Reductionism: explain by the simplest parts
Bullet a wants both words. Reductionism — explaining a behaviour by breaking it into its simplest component parts. Reductionist is the adjective for a theory that does this. Two precise points: the grammar is examinable (reductionism is the approach; reductionist describes something that takes it), and it is a level of explanation, not a verdict — it says how far the behaviour was broken down, not that it is wrong.
Holism: the whole person and system together
Bullet b mirrors bullet a. Holism — explaining a behaviour by looking at the whole person and system together — the whole exceeds the sum of its parts. Holistic is the adjective for one that does this. "The whole" means the whole task (a real story), the whole person (experience, culture) and the whole situation. The parts interact, so studying them separately loses something real; a holistic account refuses to strip things away and pays with a messier account.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Cannot define reductionism or holism
The documented failure: get the definition wrong and everything built on it is wrong too. Scores nothing: "reductionism means too simple" (a criticism), or "holism means looking at everything" (too vague). Scores: reductionism = breaking a behaviour into its simplest parts; holism = the whole person and system together. Get these two word-perfect.
The vast majority could not accurately define reductionism or holism (Nov 2021 P1 Q25); June 2024 P1 Q26 was rated harder purely because of reductionism.
Defining the terms but never linking memory
Define both words, then stop — but bullet c requires research from human memory, so an answer with no memory material does a third of the question. With no AO2, and AO3 unavailable without AO2, the evaluation marks go too. Fix: every paragraph carries a debate word and a memory example — e.g. the Multi-store Model is reductionist because it breaks memory into stores.
Weak answers defined the terms with no link to memory research; strong answers used Bartlett, Glanzer and Cunitz, or Peterson and Peterson (June 2024 P1 Q26).
Evaluating the study, not the debate
Given a memory study in the stem, candidates evaluate its sample, controls and validity — without ever using the words reductionism or holism. The psychology is good but the question was different. Here the evaluation lens is the debate: say which position the design takes and why. Check each paragraph contains a debate word, not only sound methodology.
Candidates evaluated the investigation and never mentioned reductionism (June 2024 P1 Q26).
Identifying a strength is not explaining it
"A strength of reductionism is that it is scientific" names a point and stops. A creditworthy point has three parts — point, why, consequence: a reductionist explanation isolates one feature, which means everything else can be controlled and tested, so the finding can be repeated and checked. The connectives "which means" and "so" do the work.
Identification without justification on strength and weakness items (June 2024 P1 Q11b, Q15b).
A difference needs a connective
Asked for the difference, candidates write one definition on each and leave the contrast implied — one mark at best. The connective earns the second: "reductionism breaks behaviour into its simplest parts, whereas holism looks at the whole person and system together". Words that work — whereas, however, in contrast — force you to name the axis they differ on.
Difference answered as two separate definitions; the connective earns the second mark (June 2019 P1 Q6; June 2022 P1 Q7).
An improvement is not a weakness
"Use a real story instead of syllables" is an improvement — a change plus its benefit — not a weakness. The weakness behind it is that stripping the meaning out removes what produces the distortion, so it cannot show everyday memory. A weakness names what is wrong; an improvement, what to do next time. Answering one for the other forfeits the mark.
An improvement given where a weakness was asked (June 2019 P2 Q3c; June 2024 P1 Q5b).
The debate is a spectrum, not either-or
The debate is a spectrum, not two boxes — an AO3 point. Peterson and Peterson (1959) is the most reductionist, the Multi-store Model less so, Bartlett (1932) holistic. The honest line: the MSM is more reductionist than Bartlett, not "one is, one is not". Nor must you choose: the two levels answer different questions and are complementary — what the top band wants.
Reductionism is not the bad side
Reductionism and holism are levels, not grades; the debate asks which is more useful. Reductionism gains: one isolated feature is controllable; a single score is objective and repeatable — without it, no duration figure exists. Holism pays for realism: many things vary at once; judging distortion needs interpretation. Follow every point with its cost — say "however".
The 7-9 band is missed largely for lack of AO3 and balance (June 2023 P1 Q22; June 2024 P1 Q26).
Structure the 9-mark Assess on this debate
The 9-mark Assess is AO1 3 / AO2 3 / AO3 3; the weakness is AO3 and balance. AO1: define both terms and their memory form. AO2: the scenario's design detail — which position and why. AO3: a supported strength and weakness each side, then a judgement. Write AO2 before AO3.
Application is the design detail
The AO2 material is the design detail, nothing else. Not application: the researcher's name, the stem, a copied line. What places a study: the material (syllables vs a story), what was measured (a score vs a retelling), and what was removed — rehearsal, meaning, context.
Pair a debate word with a memory example
Self-check: every paragraph needs a debate word and a memory example. "The Multi-store Model is reductionist because it breaks memory into parts" passes; "the MSM is criticised because rehearsal is not the only route to LTM" fails — memory content, no debate word.
Reductionism — the approach of explaining a behaviour by breaking it down into its simplest component parts, and explaining the whole in terms of those parts.
Reductionist — the adjective: describes an explanation, theory or study that does this. "The Multi-store Model is a reductionist explanation of memory."
Holism — the approach of explaining a behaviour by looking at the whole person and the whole system together, on the view that the whole is more than the sum of its parts.
Full notes, flashcards, Q&A and the topic quiz for every premium subject.
Premium plans are US$8.99/month or US$49.99/year — first month free.
Studying with a parent's blessing? Show them this.
