Billy has a fear of the dark, and has read about Freud's psychoanalytic explanation of phobias. Billy thinks this is a good explanation for his fear, but his sister Janet does not agree.

Mark scheme

Marking points from the official mark scheme (Feb/Mar 2018). The mark or mark type is shown in brackets.

1. Marks: 1 mark for basic answer e.g. identification. +1 mark for elaboration/example.
2. Question does not ask what the phobia was of.
3. Most likely answer (other appropriate responses to be credited): Phobias are defence mechanisms against anxiety created by any unresolved conflict between the id and the ego. The ego uses displacement for example to rechannel anxiety to another 'thing'. In the classic case little Hans had a fear of horses, displaced from a fear of his father.
4. Marks: 1 mark basic answer. 2 marks elaboration, twice.
5. Most likely answer (other appropriate responses to be credited): There is no scientific evidence that the id, ego or superego exist
6. A phobia may be a direct result of an incident (e.g. phobia of a dog after being bitten by a dog) rather than displaced anxiety.
7. Very little/no supporting evidence. Only evidence is one case study.
8. Note: no marks for little Hans unless explicitly related to the psychoanalytic explanation.
9. Marks: 1–2 marks basic answer. 3–4 marks detailed answer/elaboration.
10. Most likely answer (other appropriate responses to be credited): Behaviourists believe all behaviour is learned including phobias (e.g. little Albert)
11. DiNardo et al. (1988) suggest a cognitive explanation. Not all people bitten by a dog develop a phobia of dogs.
12. Question always plural of each argument. Question always requires conclusion.
13. 1 mark for each for/against argument up to 4 max.
14. 1 mark for conclusion.
15. 0 marks for definition/explanation of a case study.
16. Note: If three (or more) arguments for one side, best two credited. If one argument only, max 2 marks.
17. Most likely answer (other appropriate responses to be credited):
18. For: a case study is a detailed investigation into one 'thing', in the case of abnormality; this would be a person
19. unique cases can be understood which adds to knowledge about the disorder
20. a range of different methodologies are often used: interviews, questionnaires, tests (psychometric, projective and physiological).
21. Against: a case study can be of one individual and so cannot be generalised
22. individual differences (or ‘everyone is unique') in disorders (e.g. cognitions) means that what is applied to one person cannot always be applied to others
23. people who have disorders are by definition abnormal and so findings cannot be applied to people without the disorder.
24. Conclusion: (a decision reached by reasoning) any appropriate conclusion drawn from the discussion that has been presented.
25. Marks: 1 mark if appropriate. 0 marks if the conclusion repeats what has already been stated.