You are viewing a free preview of this lesson.
Subscribe to unlock all 4 lessons in this course and every other course on LearningBro.
Component 03 is the paper that most rewards a change of mindset. In the core-studies paper the material is what you have memorised; in the applied paper part of the material arrives on the day, printed in front of you as an unfamiliar article, blog, diary or email. You cannot revise the source. What you can revise is the routine for handling it — recognising the psychology it contains, suggesting an evidence-based response, and evaluating that suggestion — and the shape of the 15-mark essay, the highest-tariff single item on any OCR psychology paper, which folds knowledge, application and evaluation into one sustained argument. This lesson drills both. It sets out the Background–Key research–Application structure that organises every Component 03 topic, works the recognise–suggest–evaluate routine on a worked source, and builds a full 15-mark essay with tiered model answers, using the real Component 03 studies — Rosenhan on being sane in insane places, Wilson and Kelling's Broken Windows, Haney and colleagues' simulated prison. Master the moves and the unseen source stops being a threat and becomes the easiest marks on the paper.
| This lesson covers | OCR H567 Component 03 element | AO focus |
|---|---|---|
| The Background–Key research–Application structure of every topic | Section A (Issues in mental health) and Section B options — topic structure | AO1 knowledge of how topics are built |
| Applying psychology to a novel source (recognise–suggest–evaluate) | Section B — practical applications to a novel source | AO2 application to unseen material |
| Making and evaluating evidence-based suggestions | Application strand across all Component 03 topics | AO2 + AO3 suggestion and judgement |
| Structuring the 15-mark extended essay with issues and debates | Extended-response items across Component 03 | AO1 + AO2 + AO3 sustained essay |
The specification is referenced descriptively throughout; consult the official OCR H567 specification document for the exact published wording. This lesson develops AO1 (knowledge of the topics' background and key research), AO2 (applying psychology to novel sources and problems) and AO3 (evaluating suggestions and weaving in the issues and debates to reach judgements). It is technique-led: the content of the mental-health section and the four options is taught in full in the dedicated Component 03 courses; here we drill how to deploy it under the paper's distinctive question types.
Component 03 examines the compulsory Issues in Mental Health section plus two applied options (chosen from Child, Criminal, Environmental and Sport & exercise psychology). Whatever the topic, it is built from the same three strands, and knowing the shape tells you what each question is drawing on.
| Strand | What it contains | The exam skill it feeds |
|---|---|---|
| Background | The general theories, concepts and context of the topic | AO1 description; the knowledge you bring to a source |
| Key research | One prescribed study, in depth | AO1 description; AO3 evaluation of that study |
| Application | Using the psychology to address a real problem | AO2 suggestion; AO3 evaluation of the suggestion |
The applied character of the paper changes what "knowing the topic" means. In a pure-content paper you describe and evaluate; here the prized skill is transfer — taking a general finding (that labels stick, as Rosenhan showed; that visible disorder invites more disorder, as Broken Windows argues; that roles can override character, as the simulated prison suggested) and using it to reason about a concrete case you have never seen. That is why every topic culminates in an Application, and why the exam supplies unfamiliar sources for you to analyse.
Revise the moves, not the source. Because part of the Component 03 material is unseen, effective revision is less about accumulating facts and more about rehearsing the recognise–suggest–evaluate routine on articles you have never read. Practise on real-world stories — a news piece on reoffending, a blog about jetlag, a diary of exam stress — and force yourself to name the psychology, propose an evidence-based response, and critique it. That rehearsal is worth more than re-reading the option notes a fourth time.
It helps to understand why Component 03 is built this way, because the design of the paper tells you what it is really testing. The applied options exist to demonstrate that psychology is not merely an academic body of findings but a discipline that can be used to change things in the world — to improve mental-health care, to prevent crime, to design better environments, to help athletes and exercisers. If the paper simply asked you to describe theories and studies, it would be testing the same recall as Component 02 and would prove nothing about application. By supplying an unfamiliar source and asking what you would do about it, the paper forces the one thing that description cannot fake: genuine transfer of an idea from the context in which you learned it to a context you have never seen. This is why the background and key research of each topic matter even though the source is unseen — they are the reservoir of ideas you draw on to recognise the psychology in the source and to justify your suggestions. A student who has learned the topics but never practised applying them arrives with a full reservoir and no tap; a student who has rehearsed the recognise–suggest–evaluate routine on unfamiliar material can draw on that reservoir under pressure. The knowledge and the routine are complementary, and neglecting either is fatal to the paper: raw knowledge with no application skill stalls at recognition, while an application routine with no knowledge behind it produces confident-sounding but empty suggestions.
The defining Component 03 skill is applying psychology to a novel source — a short article, blog post, diary entry or email you have not seen before. The reliable routine has three moves.
Recognise. Read the source and identify the psychology in it: which topic, which concepts, which key research it illustrates. A source describing a neighbourhood left to decay, with graffiti and broken windows inviting further vandalism, is signalling the Broken Windows crime-prevention topic; a source describing a patient whose ordinary behaviour is reinterpreted as symptomatic once they are on a psychiatric ward is signalling Rosenhan and the stickiness of labels. Naming the relevant concept precisely — not "this is about crime" but "this illustrates the Broken Windows account of how visible disorder signals that norms are unenforced" — is where AO2 begins.
Suggest. Propose an evidence-based response to the problem the source raises. The suggestion must be tethered to the source and grounded in the psychology: for the decaying neighbourhood, a suggestion to repair visible disorder quickly and maintain the environment, justified by the Broken Windows mechanism; for the mislabelled patient, a suggestion to build in review and de-labelling procedures, justified by Rosenhan's demonstration that labels distort perception. A suggestion that could have been written without reading the source, or without any psychology behind it, earns little.
Evaluate. Weigh the suggestion honestly — will it work, what are its limits, what does the evidence really support, and which debates does it engage? The strongest applications concede the difficulties: that Broken Windows policing risks over-policing and confuses correlation with causation; that de-labelling must be balanced against the clinical value of diagnosis. This evaluative move is where AO3 enters an application answer and where the higher marks are.
| Move | The question it answers | Where it earns marks |
|---|---|---|
| Recognise | What psychology is in this source? | AO2 — precise identification |
| Suggest | What evidence-based response follows? | AO2 — application grounded in the psychology |
| Evaluate | How good is that response, and what does the evidence really support? | AO3 — judgement and debate |
The commonest apply-to-source error is generic advice — a suggestion that ignores the specific source and the specific psychology, of the "the police should try harder" variety. Every sentence of an application answer should be traceable either to the source in front of you or to a named piece of psychology. If a suggestion would read identically for a completely different source, it is not applying psychology; it is padding.
Specimen question modelled on the OCR H567 paper format
A local newspaper reports: "The old estate has gone downhill. Windows are smashed and left unrepaired, walls are covered in graffiti, and rubbish piles up. Residents say that once the first few windows were broken and nothing was done, things spiralled — more vandalism, more litter, and now people are frightened to go out at night." Using your knowledge of crime prevention, suggest and evaluate one strategy to reduce crime on the estate. [10]
This is an apply-to-source item of the kind in Component 03 Section B. A useful mark-scheme decomposition in our own words: roughly half the marks reward AO2 (recognising the relevant psychology in the source and making a suggestion tethered to it) and roughly half reward AO3 (evaluating the suggestion honestly, engaging the relevant issues and debates). Answers that give generic advice, or evaluate without a suggestion, cap low.
Mid-band response (5/10): The source shows a run-down estate where broken windows and graffiti have led to more crime. This links to the Broken Windows theory by Wilson and Kelling (1982), which says that visible signs of disorder like broken windows encourage more crime because people think no one is in control. A strategy to reduce crime would be to fix the broken windows and clean up the graffiti and rubbish quickly, so the area looks cared for and people are less likely to commit crime. This should work because it removes the signals of disorder. A weakness is that it might not fix the deeper causes of crime like poverty, so it may only help a bit.
Examiner-style commentary: This earns solid marks — the source is correctly recognised as Broken Windows, and a suggestion tethered to it (rapid repair and clean-up) is made with a brief justification (M1 recognition of Broken Windows, M1 tethered suggestion, M1 one limitation). It begins to evaluate. To reach the next band it needs deeper AO3: it names only one limitation and does not engage the causation problem (that disorder may correlate with rather than cause crime) or the risk of over-policing, and it does not reach a conditional judgement about when the strategy works best. The missing discriminator is a genuinely two-sided evaluation engaging the debates.
Stronger response (7/10): The estate in the source shows exactly the sequence Wilson and Kelling's (1982) Broken Windows theory describes: unrepaired damage and visible disorder signal that norms are unenforced, which invites further disorder and, the residents report, a spiral into more serious crime and fear. The evidence-based strategy is therefore an environmental one — repair broken windows fast, remove graffiti, clear rubbish and maintain the estate so that it visibly signals order and care, cutting off the escalation at its start. This is well grounded because it targets the specific mechanism the source illustrates rather than crime in general. But it must be evaluated honestly. First, the causal claim is contestable: disorder and crime may both stem from a third factor such as deprivation, so tidying alone may not reduce crime as much as Broken Windows implies. Second, "order-maintenance" policing built on this theory has been criticised for tipping into over-policing and unfairly targeting communities. On balance the strategy is a sensible, low-cost first step that is most effective when combined with genuine investment in the estate and its residents, rather than treated as a complete solution.
Examiner-style commentary: This is a strong answer: it recognises the psychology precisely, ties the suggestion to the source's mechanism, and evaluates two-sidedly (the causation problem and the over-policing risk), reaching a conditional judgement — earning the AO3 the mid-band missed. To reach top-band it needs one further move — an explicit statement of how the strategy could be tested or monitored (so its effect is evidenced rather than assumed), which would engage the usefulness and psychology-as-a-science debates more fully.
Subscribe to continue reading
Get full access to this lesson and all 4 lessons in this course.