Skip to main content
EnglandPsychologySyllabus dot point

How does psychology explain criminal behaviour or health behaviour, and how can it be applied?

Criminological or health psychology: explanations of the chosen application (offending or health behaviour), biological and social factors, treatments or interventions, and the named application studies.

An Edexcel A-Level Psychology answer to the application option, covering criminological psychology (biological and social explanations of offending, eyewitness testimony, the cognitive interview and treatments) and health psychology (theories of addiction and interventions), with GRAVE evaluation and named application studies.

Generated by Claude Opus 4.814 min answer

Reviewed by: AI editorial process; not yet individually human-reviewed

Have a quick question? Jump to the Q&A page

Jump to a section
  1. What this dot point is asking
  2. The answer
  3. Examples in context
  4. Try this

What this dot point is asking

Edexcel offers a choice of application: criminological psychology or health psychology. You must explain the chosen behaviour through biological and social or learning factors, describe and evaluate interventions or treatments, and use the named application studies, applying psychology to a real-world problem.

The answer

Criminological psychology: explanations of offending

Eyewitness testimony and the cognitive interview

Treatments and interventions

Criminological treatments include anger management (a cognitive-behavioural programme teaching offenders to recognise triggers and use coping skills) and token economies in prisons (operant conditioning, rewarding desirable behaviour with tokens). Both are evaluated for effectiveness, ethics and whether change generalises beyond the institution.

Health psychology: addiction and interventions

Evaluation (GRAVE)

  • Generalisability. Offender and addiction samples are often specific (prison populations, clinic attenders), so findings may not generalise to all offenders or addicts.
  • Reliability. Standardised programmes (manualised anger management, structured cognitive interviews) can be delivered consistently, supporting reliable comparison.
  • Application. Both options are explicitly applied: the cognitive interview improves police practice, and the theory of planned behaviour shapes effective health campaigns.
  • Validity. Biological explanations of offending are correlational, and self-report measures of addiction and intention can lack validity through social desirability bias.
  • Ethics. Treatments such as aversion therapy and token economies raise issues of consent and control, and labelling offenders can cause harm.

Examples in context

Example 1. Loftus and Palmer (1974) on eyewitness testimony. Participants watched a film of a car crash and were asked how fast the cars were going when they "hit", "smashed", "collided", "bumped" or "contacted" each other. The verb changed the speed estimate: "smashed" produced a mean estimate of about 40.8 mph and "contacted" about 31.8 mph. In a follow-up, those given "smashed" were more likely to falsely report seeing broken glass. This shows post-event information (a leading question) distorts memory, supporting the reconstructive view and explaining why the cognitive interview avoids leading questions, a direct application to police interviewing.

Example 2. Nicotine replacement therapy and the learning model of addiction. Smoking is maintained by positive reinforcement (the pleasant nicotine hit acting on dopamine reward pathways) and negative reinforcement (smoking removes unpleasant withdrawal). Nicotine replacement therapy (patches, gum) delivers nicotine without the harmful smoke, easing withdrawal so the person can break the behavioural habit of smoking while the dose is gradually reduced. Combined with cognitive-behavioural support that targets expectancies and triggers, it improves quit rates. This shows how biological and learning explanations together inform an effective, evaluated health intervention.

Try this

Q1. Explain one biological and one social explanation of offending behaviour. [4 marks]

  • Cue. Biological: brain or neurotransmitter abnormalities (low serotonin reducing impulse control). Social: social learning of crime by observing and imitating reinforced role models.

Q2. Outline how negative reinforcement can maintain an addiction. [3 marks]

  • Cue. Taking the substance removes the unpleasant withdrawal symptoms, and this relief reinforces continued use.

Q3. Evaluate the cognitive interview as a way to improve eyewitness testimony. [8 marks]

  • Cue. Strengths: more retrieval cues (context reinstatement, report everything) increase accurate recall and avoid leading questions; weaknesses: time-consuming, requires training, may increase inaccurate as well as accurate details; conclude it improves but does not guarantee accuracy.

Exam-style practice questions

Practice questions written in the style of Pearson Edexcel exam questions on this dot point, with worked answer explainers. The year tag is the paper they imitate, not the source.

Edexcel 20198 marksDescribe and evaluate one biological and one social explanation of offending behaviour. [8 marks]
Show worked answer →

This is split AO1 (description) and AO3 (evaluation), so cover both.

AO1 description (about half the marks). Biological: offending is linked to brain dysfunction (reduced prefrontal activity weakening impulse control, as in Raine's PET-scan study of murderers), to low serotonin (poor impulse control) and to the low-activity MAOA gene. Social: social learning theory says offending is observed and imitated from reinforced role models, and labelling theory says being labelled a criminal can produce a self-fulfilling prophecy that increases reoffending.

AO3 evaluation. Strengths: biological evidence is scientific and objective (scanning, gene studies); social explanations have strong support from observations of differential association and reoffending after labelling. Weaknesses: biological evidence is correlational and deterministic, risking the idea of a born criminal; social explanations underplay biology; both are reductionist alone, so an interactionist (biosocial) account is best.

Markers reward one clear biological and one clear social explanation, then balanced evaluation, with a judgement favouring interaction.

Edexcel 20226 marksA treatment programme reduced reoffending from 48%48\% in a control group of 5050 offenders to 30%30\% in a treated group of 5050 offenders. Calculate the number who reoffended in each group and the percentage-point reduction, and explain one reason for caution. [6 marks]
Show worked answer →

A quantitative item: show the calculation (AO2) then interpret (AO3).

Control group reoffending: 48%48\% of 50=0.48×50=2450 = 0.48 \times 50 = 24 offenders. Treated group reoffending: 30%30\% of 50=0.30×50=1550 = 0.30 \times 50 = 15 offenders. Percentage-point reduction: 48%30%=1848\% - 30\% = 18 percentage points (9 fewer offenders reoffended).

Interpretation: the lower reoffending in the treated group suggests the programme (for example anger management or a token economy) is effective at reducing crime.

Reason for caution: the difference could be due to other factors (the treated group might differ in motivation or sentence length), the sample is small, and reoffending may only be measured over a short follow-up, so the benefit might not last. An inferential test (chi-square on these frequency counts) is needed to confirm the difference is significant.

Markers reward the two correct frequencies (2424 and 1515), the percentage-point reduction (1818), and one valid caution (confounds, sample size, follow-up length or need for a significance test).

Related dot points

Sources & how we know this