AS 91872 annotated exemplars

An annotated exemplar is a sample of student evidence, with a commentary, to explain key aspects of the standard. It assists teachers to make assessment judgements at the
grade.

Download all exemplars and commentary [PDF, 324 KB]

TKI Psychology assessment resources (external link)

For Achieved, the student needs to analyse the interaction between psychological approaches.

This involves discussing at least two psychological approaches, focusing on the methodological and theoretical differences between each approach and how they interact. Psychological approaches refer to paradigms about people and the way that they function. Different approaches may offer different explanations for behaviours.  Examples of psychological approaches include behavioural, biological, cognitive, sociocultural, evolutionary, humanistic, psychodynamic.

The student has demonstrated an analysis of the interaction between psychological approaches by identifying the methodological and theoretical differences between the biological and sociocultural approach in relation to the causes of aggression. In psychology there are several different approaches. There may be several different theories within an approach, but they share common assumptions that tie them to that approach. 

The response also provides a basic description of an interaction between the biological and sociocultural approaches by showing how a biological predisposition (the MAOA gene affecting neurotransmitter levels and emotional regulation) can increase vulnerability to aggressive behaviour, while exposure to a violent social environment reinforces and normalises this behaviour.

For Merit, the student could more explicitly explain how the approaches interact and explain in further detail how the sociocultural approach would encompass the environment. This might include discussing whether twins were raised together and the impact of microenvironments within the family. The evidence could detail the types of environments that may interact with the MAOA (L) gene to increase risk of aggression. This should clearly link to sociocultural theory or research.

For Merit, the student needs to analyse, in depth, the interaction between psychological approaches.

This involves critiquing how the approaches interact with each other. The critique includes descriptions of, or references to, psychological theories, concepts and/or studies from published works.

The student has demonstrated how the approaches interact, with reference to psychological theories from published works such as the General Aggression Model (GAM) developed by Anderson (2004) and the Catalyst model (Ferguson, 2008). 

The student recognises that GAM was developed specifically to address limitations of single-factor explanations by integrating multiple influences. Further analysis occurs where the student explains that GAM incorporates “social, cognitive, personality, developmental and biological factors, and how they all contribute to an individual's actions and responses”. This demonstrates an understanding that aggression is best explained through the interaction of multiple approaches rather than any one approach alone.

The response identifies ethical issues (such as screening for specified variants of the MAOA gene) that could be associated with this explanation if applied in society. This could be extended to strengthen this point through discussion of how this point connects to the issue of “socially sensitive research”.  

The discussion of the Catalyst Model also demonstrates a critique of the interaction,
“Although it is not the environment itself that causes the violent tendency, an environmental factor causing strain on the individual...can act as a catalyst to their predisposition to aggressive behaviour”. This is an explicit analysis of the relative contribution of biological and environmental influences. The student is not simply stating that both matter; they explain the mechanism through which environmental factors interact with an existing biological predisposition. These points demonstrate evidence of a critique of the interaction between the two approaches. This supports evidence for the Merit criteria.

For Excellence, the student would critique the evidence and theory being discussed, referring explicitly to the behavioural approach, and/or evaluate the strengths of this interactionalist approach for explaining aggression. The response should seek to strengthen the discussion of the implications of the interaction between approaches, and explicitly discuss the effect on society and how it may be impacted by such an interactionalist explanation of aggression.

For Excellence, the student needs to comprehensively analyse the interaction between psychological approaches.

This involves a detailed critique focusing on the degree of interaction between the approaches and showing the impact of these interactions in a societal context.

The student response explains that interaction between the approaches is limited because they are based on contrasting objective and subjective theoretical perspectives, and highlights models of interaction such as the Diathesis stress model proposed by Meehl.   

The analysis is comprehensive because it moves beyond simply identifying an interaction to explaining the mechanism by which the approaches work together, demonstrating how genetic vulnerability interacts with environmental stressors to influence the development of schizophrenia. It also evaluates the degree of interaction by recognising that, despite working together in practice, the approaches remain conceptually distinct due to their differing theoretical (objective vs. subjective) perspectives. Furthermore, the response extends this analysis beyond theory by applying the interaction to societal contexts, such as informing treatment approaches and reducing relapse rates in schizophrenia, thereby demonstrating the broader impact of integrating psychological approaches.

The student has demonstrated a detailed critique focusing on the degree of interaction between the approaches, with detailed supporting evidence.

The critique of the degree of interaction effectively discusses the impact of this interaction on society and includes strong links to, and evaluation of, relevant research evidence throughout. The discussion of the findings from Falloon & Pederson highlights the importance of combining the biological and psychodynamic approaches in improving recovery rates. The response recognises the value of both drug treatment and therapeutic interventions, including individual and family therapy, in further reducing relapse rates. Overall, the response provides sufficient evidence to meet the Excellence criteria.