The four consequences from two questions
Two questions settle every operant term (Skinner, 1948): added or removed? (added = positive, removed = negative) and up or down? (up = reinforcement, down = punishment). So: positive reinforcement (pleasant added — money), negative reinforcement (unpleasant removed — stealing so hunger stops), positive punishment (unpleasant added — a fine), negative punishment (pleasant removed — prison). Positive/negative mean added/removed, not good/bad.
Primary vs secondary reinforcers
Two definitions carrying easy marks. Primary reinforcer: rewarding in itself because it meets a basic biological need — food, drink, warmth. Secondary reinforcer: no value of its own, but rewarding through association with a primary one, usually because it can be exchanged — money is the classic example. Most acquisitive crime is reinforced by a secondary reinforcer (a stolen phone is sold for money). Not "a lesser reward", and not those who enforce the law.
Social Learning Theory: the five terms
SLT (Bandura, 1977): behaviour is learned by observing others and imitating it. Role model: observed and copied, likelier if similar, admired or high-status. Modelling: the model demonstrates, the observer reproduces — the mark needs the process. Identification: wanting to be like the model. Observational learning: reproducing a behaviour you were not rewarded for. Vicarious reinforcement: imitating because the model was rewarded.
Strengths and weaknesses of each theory
Strengths and weaknesses of each theory. Operant conditioning — strength: controlled, objective, replicable evidence, plus interventions like token economy; weakness: much evidence is from animals, it is reductionist, and cannot explain a first offence. SLT — strength: explains offending never personally rewarded (crime in families) and adds thought; weakness: key evidence is aggression at a toy — weak validity for crime — and most observers of crime never offend.
Drawn from real examiner reports.
Strength or weakness stated, not justified
The documented failure on strengths and weaknesses is identification without justification: "a strength is that it is scientific" has no reason. A 4-mark item is 2 x AO2 + 2 x AO3, so each side needs point, why, consequence: not "it is reductionist" but "it explains crime by reward alone, so it misses a first offence". Tie it to the scenario, or the AO3 is lost.
Identification without justification on strength and weakness items is recorded at June 2024 P1 Q11b and Q15b.
Negative reinforcement is not punishment
The most cited Topic 6 error, a zero every time. Wrong: "negative reinforcement is something taken away because you did wrong" — that is negative punishment. Right: negative reinforcement is doing a behaviour to remove something unpleasant, making it more likely — stealing food so hunger stops. Check direction first: if the behaviour fell, it is punishment.
Negative reinforcement defined as punishment scored 0, with the report stating that having something taken away for doing wrong is punishment, not negative reinforcement (June 2023 P2 Q8).
Positive punishment read as reinforcement
The mirror trap: positive punishment gets defined as positive reinforcement — candidates see "positive" and reach for reward; one boy behaving anti-socially was read as praised. Both are "positive" because something is added; it differs by whether it is unpleasant (punishment, down) or pleasant (reinforcement, up). Name the type, what was added, and the effect.
Positive punishment defined as positive reinforcement is recorded at June 2024 P2 Q8, and candidates read the scenario as the boy being praised for anti-social behaviour at June 2022 P2 Q11; the reverse, positive reinforcement as punishment, is at June 2023 P2 Q9.
Vicarious reinforcement: reward the model
Two SLT definitions lost on a missing element. Vicarious reinforcement is indirect: the model is rewarded and the observer learns by watching — without the reward to the model it is direct conditioning. A secondary reinforcer became rewarding by association (money), not the police as "enforcers". And modelling needs observed then imitated.
Vicarious reinforcement given without the model being rewarded is at June 2023 P2 Q7, the police-or-army answer to a secondary reinforcer at June 2022 P2 Q7, and the modelling mark needing the observed-then-imitated process at June 2024 P2 Q10.
Describe the difference needs a connective
Two command-word traps. A describe-the-difference item scores 1 of 2 for two definitions side by side; the second mark needs a connective — "whereas negative punishment removes something pleasant". A 2-mark describe needs two unique points, not one reworded. And to "define" a consequence term you need the added/removed element and the direction.
A difference answered as two separate definitions with no connective is at June 2019 P1 Q6 and June 2022 P1 Q7, and a 2-mark describe answered with the same point twice at June 2023 P2 Q22.
Positive means good and negative means bad
The belief under almost every lost mark comes from ordinary English. In operant conditioning: positive = added, negative = removed — neither says whether it is nice. The other half: reinforcement raises behaviour, punishment lowers it. So negative reinforcement is not a mild punishment: it is a good outcome from removing something, and strengthens behaviour.
This confusion produced zero-scoring answers at June 2023 P2 Q8, the reverse slips at June 2023 P2 Q9 and June 2024 P2 Q8, and all terms confused at once at Nov 2021 P2 Q12.
SLT says anyone who sees crime will copy it
Students reduce SLT to "you copy what you see", then over-apply or reject it. It is conditional: the behaviour must be attended to and remembered, the observer must identify with the model, and be motivated — imitating more if the model was rewarded. So it predicts who copies which model, not that everyone copies everything; most who see crime never offend.
The modelling mark needs the explicit observed-then-imitated process, not just naming imitation (June 2024 P2 Q10).
Answer any consequence item in three clauses
Drill one shape for every consequence item: name it ("negative reinforcement"), say what moved ("taking the food removes hunger"), then what happened ("so stealing is more likely"). On application, use the scenario's own detail — the name and the stem are not application.
Reaching the 7-9 band on the 9-mark Assess
Marked AO1 3 / AO2 3 / AO3 3; the yearly weakness is AO3 and balance. Give brief AO1, then AO2 through the scenario's own details, two-sided AO3 each with a consequence, then a conclusion. AO3 needs AO2. Easy balance: each theory covers the other's gap.
Balance the two theories against each other
With two theories, the easiest balance is to weigh one against the other. Operant conditioning cannot explain a behaviour never rewarded — a first offence — which is the gap SLT fills. But SLT rests on aggression at a toy, not a crime, so its validity for crime is weaker.
Two theories, examined separately, each with its own strengths and weaknesses.
Operant conditioning (Skinner, 1948) — learning through the consequences of behaviour: a behaviour followed by a rewarding consequence is more likely to be repeated, and one followed by an unpleasant consequence is less likely.
Primary reinforcer — something rewarding in itself because it satisfies a basic biological need: food, drink, warmth, shelter.
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.
