Making AO2 Work: How to Apply Psychology Using Stranger Things

If you're studying AQA A Level Psychology, you've probably heard your teacher talk about AO2 marks — the ones you get for application. These are the marks that test how well you can apply your knowledge of psychological theory to real-world scenarios, not just explain it in the abstract.

Getting good at AO2 is one of the best ways to stand out — and also where a lot of students lose easy marks. So let’s break it down… with the help of Stranger Things.

What Is AO2?

AO2 marks are about using your psychology, not just knowing it. In exam questions, this often looks like a short scenario involving a character, and your job is to explain their behaviour using the appropriate theory or concept from the spec.

Think of AO2 like this:
AO1 = "What is the theory?"
AO2 = "How does it explain this specific situation?"

AO2 Example Question: Stranger Things Edition

Let’s say the exam gives you the following:

6-mark application question

Max is a new student at Hawkins High. At first, she’s reluctant to join any groups, but she eventually becomes close friends with Eleven, Mike, Lucas and Dustin. She soon starts to adopt their behaviours and way of speaking. Use your knowledge of social influence to explain Max’s behaviour. (6 marks)

How to Answer It

This is a typical AO2 social influence question — and it gives you the chance to bring in concepts like conformity, identification, and even normative social influence.

Here’s an example of how a strong answer might go:

Max’s behaviour can be explained by identification, a type of conformity where someone adopts the behaviour and attitudes of a group because they want to be accepted or feel part of it.

At first, Max is unsure about joining a group, but once she becomes friends with the others, she begins to act like them and speak like them. This suggests she is conforming to the group’s norms to strengthen her social bonds.

This behaviour could also be driven by normative social influence, where individuals conform to be liked and avoid rejection. Max may want to be accepted by her new friends at Hawkins, which is why she mirrors their behaviour.

What Makes This a Good AO2 Answer?

• It uses specific information from the scenario (Max’s behaviour, her desire to fit in).

• It links this back to theory from the spec (types of conformity and social influence).

• It keeps the explanation focused on the example — no drifting into general AO1-only territory.

Final Tips for AO2 Success

• Highlight key words in the scenario: What behaviours are they showing? What might they be feeling?

• Match the concept to the behaviour: Don't just mention a theory — explain how it fits.

• Stay focused on the example: Every sentence should tie back to the scenario in the question.

At Tutor Savvy, we love helping students turn their understanding into exam marks. AO2 doesn’t have to be scary — and with the right approach (and the right TV shows), it can even be fun.

Want to practise more AO2 questions like this? Join one of our AQA Psychology sessions — we’ll help you build real confidence in application skills.

Where are all the female participants?

Where Are All the Female Participants?

Or: Why Psychology Sometimes Feels Like a Boys’ Club

If you’ve ever studied a classic psychology experiment and thought, “Wait, where are the women?” — you’re not imagining it. From Milgram’s obedience study to Zimbardo’s prison simulation and Asch’s conformity experiments, early psychology has a bit of a gender representation problem.

Let’s take a closer look.

The Missing Half of the Population

Many foundational studies in psychology relied heavily , sometimes exclusively, on male participants, particularly white, middle-class, American men. Why? Convenience, mostly. University researchers often used male college students as participants (known as "WEIRD" samples – Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic). But convenience doesn’t equal good science.

This creates a serious problem: gender bias. If a study only includes men, can we really generalise the results to women? Probably not. And yet, many theories based on these studies were assumed to apply universally.

Alpha and Beta Bias – Let’s Define the Terms

Psychologists describe two types of gender bias:

• Alpha bias: When differences between genders are exaggerated. For example, Freud claimed women experience “penis envy” and have weaker superegos. Yikes.

• Beta bias: When differences are minimised or ignored, often by studying men and applying the findings to women too. This is where most classic research falls.

Milgram’s (1963) obedience study? 40 male participants.
Asch’s (1951) conformity study? All male.
Zimbardo’s (1971) prison experiment? Yep, just men.

Now imagine if the roles were reversed — how different might the findings have been?

Why It Matters

Gender bias in research doesn’t just impact theory — it affects how we understand behaviour in the real world. It can reinforce stereotypes, ignore female experiences, and create androcentric (male-centred) psychology.

For example, early research into stress responses focused on the “fight or flight” model — based mostly on male animals. But Taylor et al. (2000) proposed that women may have a different response: “tend and befriend”, based on different hormonal reactions like oxytocin. This highlights how vital it is to study both genders.

Is Psychology Getting Better?

Definitely. Today, ethical standards require diverse samples and more representative data. There’s a growing awareness of gender, culture, and intersectionality in research. Feminist psychology, led by figures like Carol Gilligan, has pushed back against male-centric theories, offering more nuanced insights into female experience.

But the legacy of early gender bias still shapes how psychology is taught and understood,, which is why it’s so important to question who’s in the sample, and who’s left out.

Takeaway for A-Level Students:
Next time you're evaluating a study, ask: “Whose experience is this based on?” If it’s a boys-only club, don’t be afraid to call it out — it might just earn you AO3 marks and help psychology grow up a little.

Is Milgram still relevant?

Spoiler: Yes – maybe more than ever.

Stanley Milgram’s 1963 obedience study is one of psychology’s most famous and controversial experiments. You’ve probably studied how participants were instructed to deliver electric shocks to a "learner" — and how 65% went all the way to the highest voltage. Shocking, literally.

But was this just a 1960s anomaly? Not at all.

Milgram’s findings are still incredibly relevant today. Why? Because the same psychological mechanisms he uncovered — authority, obedience, diffusion of responsibility — still explain human behavior in modern contexts. From military obedience to unethical corporate decisions and even cyberbullying, people continue to obey orders or follow the crowd, especially under perceived pressure.

Even modern replications, like Burger (2009), found similar obedience levels, despite updated ethical guidelines. That tells us something crucial: the forces that drive obedience haven’t gone anywhere — they’ve just evolved.

Milgram reminds us that ordinary people can do extraordinary things under the influence of authority. In a world filled with hierarchies, groupthink, and power dynamics, that lesson still matters.

Why case studies are the gossip columns of psychology

Fascinating? Yes. Generalisable? Not so much.

Case studies are the deep-dives of psychological research. They're rich, detailed, and often unforgettable — think Freud’s analysis of Little Hans, or Clive Wearing’s memory loss due to brain damage.

They give us insights that large-scale experiments sometimes can’t. In Clive Wearing’s case, we learned about the role of the hippocampus in memory. With HM, we learned that different types of memory (procedural vs. declarative) are stored differently in the brain.

But let’s talk limitations.

Case studies often focus on one individual, so findings may not apply to the wider population. They’re low in population validity. Plus, they’re usually retrospective and subject to researcher bias – especially when psychoanalysts like Freud are interpreting dreams and phobias.

Still, don’t write them off. Case studies are great for generating hypotheses, exploring rare conditions, and sparking further research.

So yes, they’re the gossip columns of psychology — rich in story, full of insight, but not always reliable enough to print on the front page of science.

Reliability vs. Validity: know the difference or risk failing a 16 marker

They sound similar – but mix them up and you’ll confuse both the examiner and yourself.

Let’s get clear:

• Reliability = consistency. If the same result is produced repeatedly under the same conditions, it’s reliable.
  Example: A personality test gives you the same result every time = good reliability.

• Validity = accuracy. Does it measure what it claims to measure?
  Example: A test claims to measure intelligence but actually measures memory? That’s low validity.

There are types of both:

• Internal reliability (e.g., split-half method)

• External reliability (e.g., test-retest)

And:

• Internal validity (control of variables, avoiding confounding variables)

• External validity (generalising beyond the study – ecological, temporal, population validity)

Take Loftus and Palmer (1974) – the study on eyewitness testimony. Their findings raised questions about internal validity (were participants recalling real memories, or were they influenced by the verb used?). On the other hand, it had high control – boosting internal reliability.

Key point: A test can be reliable but not valid. You can consistently get the wrong result! But for a test to be valid, it must be reliable first.

Learn this distinction and use it wisely; it can earn you precious AO3 marks.