Edexcel Psychology 20 Marker Structure Explained (Level 5)

Main Ideas

• A 20-mark essay is an argument, not a memory test. For the Paper 3 question, “Assess the impact of socially sensitive research in psychology,” select evidence that answers the question rather than listing every study you remember.
• “Assess” requires evaluation and judgment. Explain consequences and implications, consider positive and negative effects, and reach an overall conclusion about how far the research has had an impact.
• Evaluation carries the larger share of the marks. The video describes the allocation as 8 marks for knowledge (AO1) and 12 for evaluation (AO3). Strong answers therefore use accurate knowledge selectively and sustain relevant evaluation throughout.
• Discuss implications for people and society. Consider who may benefit or be harmed, whether findings could be misused, and effects on areas such as public attitudes, policy, healthcare, or the legal system.
• Balance the argument. A strong essay explores benefits and harms, then makes a clear final judgment. Merely adding a generic evaluation paragraph at the end is not enough.
• Avoid common weaknesses: writing too much AO1, retelling studies without explaining their impact, using generic evaluation, ignoring the command word, and including loosely related evidence. The video also notes examiner concerns about students recounting knowledge without addressing how psychology developed over time, where that is relevant.
• Choose evidence selectively. Studies can be useful across different debates, but each example needs to be explicitly connected to the question.

Suggested Essay Structure

1. Introduction: Define socially sensitive research and briefly explain why it matters.
2. Benefit argument: Explain how socially sensitive research may benefit society.
3. Supporting evidence and implications: Use a relevant study and show what its findings could change or improve.
4. Harm argument: Explain how such research may harm individuals or groups, or have wider negative consequences.
5. Supporting evidence and implications: Use evidence to explore possible misuse, discrimination, labelling, or other consequences.
6. Final judgment: Weigh the arguments and answer the question directly with an overall assessment of the research’s impact.

Examples Used

• Milgram: Research on obedience may help explain how ordinary people comply with harmful authority. One possible implication is that institutions could reduce destructive obedience by limiting unquestioned authority structures.
• Raine et al.: Findings of differences in brain activity between murderers and non-murderers, including reduced prefrontal activity, may contribute to understanding violent behaviour and rehabilitation. Conversely, biological explanations could be used in arguments about diminished responsibility.
• Bradbury and Williams: Research into jury bias may reveal discrimination in the justice system and encourage procedural reform. However, awareness of systemic bias could also reduce public confidence in that system.
• Rosenhan and Bandura: These are mentioned as possible flexible examples, though the video does not develop them in detail.

Revision Approach

• Learn concise definitions for each relevant debate.
• Prepare a small set of flexible studies rather than memorising the whole textbook.
• Practise drawing out each study’s implications: Who benefits? Who could be harmed? Could the findings be misused? Could they improve society?
• Build logical chains of reasoning that connect evidence to consequences and keep the discussion tied to the question.

Speakers and Sources Featured

• Speaker: One presenter or narrator, who explains the essay structure and gives examples.
• Sources referred to by the presenter: Edexcel examiner reports, including reports from 2017 onward and specifically the 2022 and 2025 reports; Milgram’s obedience research; Raine et al.; Bradbury and Williams; and the studies of Rosenhan and Bandura.