You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 9 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Component 02 Section B asks you to view the core studies not just as individual pieces of research but through two broader lenses: perspectives (the underlying approaches psychology takes to explaining behaviour) and debates (the recurring cross-cutting arguments about the nature and value of psychological explanation). This lesson consolidates the four developmental studies — Bandura (1961), Chaney (2004), Kohlberg (1968) and Lee (1997) — under those two headings. Where the study lessons told each story in depth and the pair lessons compared studies within a theme, this lesson works across all four, showing how the same body of developmental research bears on the behaviourist perspective and on the major debates the specification names: nature–nurture, free will–determinism, reductionism–holism, the ethics of researching children, and the usefulness of research.
This is a high-value lesson for the exam, because Section B essay questions frequently ask you to discuss a perspective or a debate "with reference to the core studies you have studied", and the developmental studies are among the most fertile evidence you can bring. Handling perspectives and debates well is also what most clearly distinguishes strong candidates: it requires you to use the studies as evidence in an argument rather than merely describe them, and to hold competing considerations in balance. The lesson sets out each perspective and debate in turn, evidenced throughout with the four studies, and closes with a worked debate-essay specimen question.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 02 element | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| The behaviourist perspective, evidenced by the developmental studies | Section B — Perspectives: behaviourist | AO1; AO3 |
| The nature–nurture debate across the four studies | Section B — Debates: nature/nurture | AO1; AO3 |
| The free will–determinism debate across the four studies | Section B — Debates: free will/determinism | AO3 |
| The reductionism–holism debate across the four studies | Section B — Debates: reductionism/holism | AO3 |
| The ethics of researching children (and socially-sensitive research) | Section B — Debates: ethics; socially-sensitive research | AO3 |
| The usefulness of the developmental research | Section B — Debates: usefulness | AO2; AO3 |
The specification is referenced descriptively; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for its exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (defining the perspective and debates), AO2 (applying them to the studies and to novel material) and, principally, AO3 (using the studies to argue both sides of each debate and reach judgements).
The behaviourist perspective explains behaviour as learned from the environment, through observable processes, rather than as the product of innate factors, unconscious drives or free choice. It is one of the two perspectives the OCR specification names (the other being the psychodynamic), and the developmental area is its natural home, because two of the four developmental studies are the specification's named exemplars of behaviourism.
The perspective has two strands, and the developmental studies illustrate both:
| Behaviourist strand | Mechanism | Developmental exemplar |
|---|---|---|
| Social learning theory | Learning by observing and imitating a model | Bandura (1961) — children imitate an observed aggressive model |
| Operant conditioning | Learning through the consequences of behaviour (reinforcement) | Chaney (2004) — the Funhaler's positive reinforcement shapes medication use |
Bandura is the classic demonstration that behaviour can be acquired vicariously, by watching others, without the learner being directly reinforced — the social-learning extension of behaviourism. Chaney is a clean application of operant conditioning: a behaviour (correct inhaler use) is increased by attaching an immediate positive reinforcer (the whistle and spinner) to it. Together they show the behaviourist perspective's core commitment — that the environment shapes behaviour through learning — operating through its two principal mechanisms.
Strengths of the behaviourist perspective (as evidenced here). It is scientific and testable: both Bandura and Chaney measure behaviour objectively and manipulate or engineer environmental conditions, allowing clear conclusions. It is highly useful: because it locates the causes of behaviour in the modifiable environment, it yields practical interventions — Chaney's device is a direct example, and Bandura's findings inform how we manage children's exposure to aggressive models. And it takes nurture seriously, providing a well-evidenced account of how experience shapes development.
Weaknesses of the behaviourist perspective. It is often accused of being reductionist and deterministic (see the debates below): by reducing behaviour to learned responses to environmental stimuli, it can neglect the child's own cognition, emotion and agency. Bandura himself softened strict behaviourism by insisting that cognitive mediators — attention, memory, the sense of identification with the model — stand between stimulus and response, which is why his social learning theory is sometimes seen as a bridge from behaviourism toward the cognitive approach. So even within the developmental exemplars, the behaviourist perspective shades into a more cognitive one — a nuance worth noting in an essay.
It is worth developing this last point, because it is one of the most sophisticated things you can say about the behaviourist perspective and it is grounded in the developmental studies themselves. Strict, classical behaviourism — the behaviourism of Watson and, in its operant form, Skinner — was deliberately anti-mentalist: it treated the mind as a "black box" and confined itself to the observable links between environmental stimuli and behavioural responses, on the principle that a science of behaviour should study only what can be directly observed and measured. Bandura's social learning theory is a genuine departure from this. His whole account of imitation requires internal, unobservable processes: for a child to imitate a model, the child must attend to the model, retain a memory of what the model did, be able to reproduce it, and be motivated to do so. These are cognitive states, not stimulus-response links, and Bandura made them central. This is why his approach is often called social-cognitive rather than simply behaviourist, and why it is frequently presented as the bridge by which psychology moved from behaviourism toward the cognitive revolution. For an essay, the payoff is this: even the behaviourist perspective's own named developmental exemplar does not fit strict behaviourism, which shows both the perspective's evolution and the difficulty of keeping the "areas" and "perspectives" in tidy boxes. Chaney's operant account, by contrast, stays closer to classical behaviourism — the reinforcement works whether or not we posit rich internal states — so the two developmental exemplars actually illustrate different vintages of behaviourism, older (Chaney/operant) and newer (Bandura/social-cognitive).
A further weakness worth raising is that behaviourism, in emphasising environmental learning, can under-weight the biological and maturational constraints on development. A purely behaviourist reading would suggest that any behaviour can be shaped in any child given the right contingencies — but development is not infinitely plastic. Kohlberg's finding that moral reasoning unfolds in a fixed order tied to cognitive maturation is a standing reminder that some developmental sequences are constrained by readiness, not just by reinforcement history; you cannot reinforce a four-year-old into post-conventional moral reasoning. So the behaviourist perspective, powerful as it is within the developmental area, is best seen as one lens whose emphasis on learning needs supplementing with the maturational and cognitive story the other studies tell. Making this point — that the perspective's strength (its account of learning) is also the source of its blind spot (maturational constraint) — is exactly the kind of balanced evaluation an essay rewards.
The nature–nurture debate asks how far behaviour is determined by innate, biological factors (nature) versus learned from experience and environment (nurture). The developmental area is the flagship home of this debate, and the four studies map its terrain — but the sophisticated position, and the one the studies best support, is that nature and nurture interact.
| Study | Where it sits on nature–nurture |
|---|---|
| Bandura (1961) | Strongly nurture — aggression is learned by imitation; but presupposes the natural cognitive capacity to attend, remember and reproduce |
| Chaney (2004) | Strongly nurture — behaviour shaped by environmental reinforcement |
| Kohlberg (1968) | Interactionist — a maturationally ordered (nature-like) sequence that requires social experience (nurture) to unfold |
| Lee (1997) | Strongly nurture — moral evaluation is culturally learned, and the age effect shows it accumulates with socialisation |
The pattern is instructive. Three of the four studies weight heavily toward nurture — the developmental area, with its focus on learning, socialisation and cultural transmission, naturally emphasises experience. But Kohlberg supplies the crucial interactionist case: his stage sequence is ordered (a nature-like, maturational claim, since everyone passes through the stages in the same order) yet experience-dependent (children need social and moral engagement to progress). The best essay position, then, is not to pick a side but to argue that the developmental studies collectively show nature and nurture as intertwined: even the most nurture-heavy study (Bandura) relies on natural cognitive machinery, and even the most maturational (Kohlberg) requires environmental input. Deploying Kohlberg as the interactionist anchor, against the nurture-weighted others, is a strong way to structure a nature–nurture answer.
It is worth understanding why the developmental area tilts toward nurture, because seeing the reason also reveals the debate's subtlety. The area exists to explain how behaviour is acquired and how it changes over childhood — and change over time is, almost by definition, the province of experience rather than of fixed biology. A trait that were purely innate would not develop; it would simply be present. So there is a sense in which the developmental area is predisposed to emphasise nurture, because the very phenomena it studies (learning, socialisation, the acquisition of morality and habits) are the phenomena in which experience does its work. But this is exactly why Kohlberg is so valuable as a corrective: he shows that even within a developmental account, a strongly nature-like element — a maturationally fixed ordering of stages — can be essential. The stages do not appear in a random order determined by which moral lessons a child happens to encounter; they appear in the same order everywhere, which points to an underlying maturational constraint. So the developmental area does not simply equal nurture; it is the arena in which the interaction of maturational readiness and experience is most visible, precisely because both are needed to explain how an ordered developmental sequence unfolds through experience.
A subtle further point strengthens the interactionist case. Notice that in Bandura's study, the same-sex modelling effect — boys imitating the male model most — is itself an interaction of a broadly natural factor (the child's sex) with a learning process (imitation): the child's sex influences which model they identify with and therefore what they learn. And in Lee's study, the capacity to absorb cultural values, and the cognitive maturity to grasp increasingly subtle moral distinctions with age, are natural endowments on which the cultural content is inscribed. So across all four studies, nature and nurture are not merely both "present" as separate ingredients; they are entangled — natural factors shaping how learning proceeds, and learning realising natural potentials. The strongest nature–nurture answers make exactly this move: from "both matter" (a competent claim) to "they are inseparable, each conditioning the other" (a top-band claim), evidenced concretely from the studies.
The free will–determinism debate asks whether our behaviour is freely chosen or determined by forces beyond our control. The developmental studies mostly lean deterministic — which is unsurprising, since to explain development scientifically is to identify the forces that shape it — but they differ in the kind of determinism they imply, and each leaves some room for agency.
| Study | Type of determinism implied |
|---|---|
| Bandura (1961) | Environmental determinism — behaviour shaped by observed models (but children do not imitate everything; they select) |
| Chaney (2004) | Environmental determinism — behaviour shaped by reinforcement (but the child can still choose whether to use the device) |
| Kohlberg (1968) | A soft maturational determinism — a fixed, invariant stage sequence (but individuals vary in how far they progress) |
| Lee (1997) | Cultural determinism — evaluations shaped by the culture one is born into (but this is a statistical tendency, not an iron law) |
A good answer notices that the developmental area's determinism is rarely absolute. Bandura's children imitated a same-sex model more — they were selective, not passive; Kohlberg's sequence is fixed in order but not in destination, since most people stop short of the top; Lee's cultural influence is a tendency that varies between individuals. So while the studies explain behaviour by identifying its shaping forces (a determinist move), they also leave the child as an active participant — selecting models, progressing at their own rate, absorbing culture unevenly. The mature judgement is a soft determinism: behaviour is powerfully shaped by environmental, maturational and cultural forces, but not rigidly fixed by them.
The reductionism–holism debate asks whether behaviour is best explained by breaking it down into simpler component parts (reductionism) or by considering the whole person and context (holism). The developmental studies sit at different points on this axis.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 9 lessons in this course.