The subject changed, not one brain
This asks how psychology as a subject has changed, not how a brain develops — the brain material is the evidence. Name the dimension that changed, then evidence it. Method: an accident described afterwards, then controlled experiments, then imaging a healthy brain. Precision: a vague the front matters became the named ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Ethics: a patient never asked, then informed consent and the right to withdraw.
Three stations: Gage, Sperry, Damasio
Answers build on Gage and Sperry; the three stations are the argument. 1848 Gage: an accidental injury, described afterwards, gives only a vague claim. 1968 Sperry (4.2.2): eleven split-brain patients in controlled trials, language lateralised left. 1994 Damasio (4.2.1): the skull measured and a 3D computer image built, damage located to the ventromedial prefrontal cortex. Nothing about Gage changed — psychology did.
Change is not automatically improvement
The recorded weakness: marks cluster at 1-6 for want of AO3, as candidates narrate and stop. The question wants a judgement on whether the change is progress. Gains: objectivity (a skull can be checked, an impression cannot), precision, and ethics. Costs: reductionism; generalisability barely improved, as Sperry's eleven had epilepsy surgery; rare damage cannot be created, so case studies were not replaced. Conclude: more objective and precise, but narrower.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Narrating the timeline instead of judging it
The documented failure: a competent history, never evaluated, so marks cluster at 1-6. Retelling an accident, a study and a scan is AO1 — three of nine. Fix it: after each station say what its evidence buys and costs (Gage richness for objectivity, Sperry control for generalisability); argue the other way once; end with a judgement, not "so psychology has changed".
Answers drew on Gage and Sperry but marks clustered at 1-6 for want of AO3 (June 2022 P1 Q27).
A result given where a conclusion was asked
A result is what was observed; a conclusion is what it shows, and rewording it earns nothing. "The left hand picked out the object but the participant could not name it" is a result; "the hemispheres have separate functions, language on the left" is the conclusion. When "conclusion" is asked, state what the pattern means, not the finding again.
The result-for-conclusion confusion is recorded where a result scored zero (June 2023 P2 Q1f) and again at June 2024 P1 Q5a.
Getting Sperry's crossover and number wrong
Sperry is a weak spot: few recall it or the number, and the crossover gets inverted. Eleven patients whose corpus callosum was cut for epilepsy; an image flashed to one visual field; the right field reaches the left hemisphere and can be named, the left reaches the right and cannot — yet the left hand finds the object by touch.
Candidates found Sperry (1968) difficult to recall accurately and it was uncommon (June 2023 P1 Q18); only a minority stated the number of patients (Nov 2021 P1 Q16a); the hemispheres were muddled up (June 2019 P1 Q16).
Corpus callosum treated as a region
Zero-scoring answers write about the corpus callosum as though it were another part of the brain with its own function. It is not: it is the band of nerve fibres joining the two hemispheres — a connection, not a region. Sperry's evidence only works because cutting it leaves each half with only the information sent to it. Call it a bridge, not a structure with a job.
Zero-scoring candidates tended to think the corpus callosum was another part of the brain (Nov 2020 P1 Q15b).
Confusing Damasio's aim with the 1848 change
The definition trap: asked for Damasio's aim (1994), candidates give Gage's behaviour change — known since 1848. Test: could the sentence have been written before 1994? If yes, it is background. The aim is to identify which areas were damaged; the 3D computer image is the detail that scores. Attributing the 1994 aim to 1848 erases the change.
Candidates confuse the aim of Damasio et al (1994) with the behaviour change in Phineas Gage, and creditworthy procedure detail centres on the 3D image of the brain (Nov 2020 P1 Q13a and Q13b).
Newer automatically means better
The whiggish reading — modern is scientific, all before guesswork — costs AO3 marks. Old evidence still works: rare damage cannot be made deliberately, so a natural injury is the only route to it. New evidence has limits: activity is not cause, control costs realism. Methods accumulated rather than replaced each other, so older evidence is not worthless.
The ethical change is just decoration
Ethics is not decoration but a strong AO3 point: it changed what research is possible. Gage never consented; research now requires informed consent, withdrawal and confidentiality. It cuts both ways: the sharpest brain evidence comes from damage that cannot be inflicted, so Sperry used patients already operated on for epilepsy. Ethics helped cause the change, not decorate it.
Reach the 7-9 band on the 9-mark Assess
The 9-mark Assess is AO1 3 / AO2 3 / AO3 3; the weakness is always AO3. AO1: the change in method, precision and ethics. AO2: tie the scenario's details to a station. AO3: one supported point each way. Conclude progress in precision, not breadth; AO2 before AO3.
Application means the stimulus's own detail
The stimulus's details are the only AO2 material. Not application: the name, the repeated stem, or a copied line. Quote a detail and say whether it shows the earlier or later way of working, and why. AO3 needs AO2, so a generic answer forfeits both.
Match what you write to the command word
Match the answer to the command word. Define wants the meaning, not an example. Describe (2) wants two unique points. Explain (2) wants knowledge plus a link. Compare wants a similarity and a difference joined by whereas. Assess (9) wants all three AOs and a conclusion.
The question is about psychology as a subject, not about a brain developing. Brain content is the evidence; the change is the answer.
Objectivity — evidence that does not depend on the opinion or expectation of the person collecting it.
Subjectivity — evidence shaped by the personal view, memory or expectation of the person giving it.
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.
