AQA A-Level Psychology 2026 predictions – Paper 3

This year we’re back with our predicted AQA A Level Psychology papers and video walkthroughs!

Laura, my Head of Psychology has looked at the trends and patterns that have come up in the past. She’s done an analysis of the topics and questions that have appeared in previous exam seasons and has used this to write Psychology predicted papers for this year. 

For Paper 3 – Issues and Options in Psychology – there are questions and walkthroughs for ALL of the optional topics. We’ve not limited it to just a selection or the most popular like some revision resources do. WHICHEVER 3 topics you have prepared for and been taught, there will be questions and support for you!  

Please remember to revise everything as these are just predictions. We don’t have any additional information or know anything in advance of the exams - we have not seen the real papers!

………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

We know for Paper 3 – Issues and Options in Psychology – there are four sections in the paper that you need to complete – Issues and Debates (everyone will answer this section) and then the three optional topics that you have studied. DO NOT attempt to answer questions from a topic that you have not studied. 

Table of Contents

• Section A: Issues and Debates in Psychology – Reme …

• Relationships:

• Gender:

• Cognitive Development: 

• Schizophrenia:

• Eating Behaviour:

• Stress:

• Aggression: 

• Forensic Psychology:

• Addiction: 

Section A: Issues and Debates in Psychology – Remember, everyone will answer the questions in this section!

Holism vs Reductionism: A likely focus is the debate of holism versus reductionism. You should be prepared to explain how holism argues that behaviour can only be fully understood by considering the whole person and the interaction of multiple factors, such as biological, cognitive and social influences. In contrast, reductionism involves breaking behaviour down into simpler components, for example explaining mental disorders solely in terms of neurotransmitters or genes. High-level answers will apply this debate to different approaches, such as biological psychology being reductionist and the humanistic approach being holistic. Evaluation should be balanced and conclusive, recognising that reductionism is valuable for scientific testing and practical applications like drug therapies, while holism offers greater validity by reflecting the complexity of human behaviour, particularly in real-world settings.

Ethics:Another predicted topic is ethics in psychological research. You should revise key ethical issues such as informed consent, deception, protection from harm, confidentiality and the right to withdraw. Strong answers will go beyond listing guidelines and instead explain why ethical considerations are essential for protecting participants and maintaining public trust in psychology. You may be expected to refer to ethical guidelines set out by organisations such as the British Psychological Society, as well as to evaluate the debate between ethical responsibility and the need for socially sensitive or scientifically valuable research. Evaluation should acknowledge that strict ethical controls can limit the realism and usefulness of some studies, while also concluding that ethical regulation is necessary to prevent psychological and physical harm.

Cultural bias: Finally, cultural bias is highly likely to be assessed. You should be able to explain how cultural bias occurs when research, theories or diagnoses are based on the norms and values of one culture, typically Western, individualist societies, and then applied universally. Concepts such as ethnocentrism and imposed etics should be used accurately. High-level responses will evaluate the impact of cultural bias by considering how it can lead to misdiagnosis, misunderstanding of behaviour, and limited generalisability of findings. However, you should also recognise that cross-cultural research has increased awareness of cultural diversity and reduced bias over time.

Section B: Relationships OR Gender OR Cognitive Development (Students complete one option)

Relationships:

Self-disclosure: A likely focus is self-disclosure as an explanation for relationship formation. You should be prepared to explain how self-disclosure involves revealing personal information about oneself to others and how this develops in both breadth and depth over time. High-level answers will evaluate self-disclosure by considering supporting evidence linking intimacy to relationship satisfaction, alongside limitations such as cultural differences in norms around disclosure and the issue that self-disclosure may be a consequence, rather than a cause, of relationship development.

Equity theory: Another predicted area is equity theory as an explanation of relationship maintenance. You should revise how equity theory suggests that relationships are most satisfying when there is a fair balance between partners’ inputs (such as effort and emotional support) and outputs (such as affection and status). Inequity, whether under-benefiting or over-benefiting, is proposed to lead to dissatisfaction and potential relationship breakdown. Evaluation should consider research support demonstrating links between perceived fairness and satisfaction, while also addressing limitations such as the difficulty of objectively measuring inputs and outputs and the suggestion that some individuals may tolerate inequity due to commitment or emotional investment.

Attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships: There is also a strong possibility of questions on the attachment theory explanation of parasocial relationships. You should be able to explain how parasocial relationships are one-sided emotional bonds formed with media figures or celebrities, and how these can be understood using attachment theory. From this perspective, individuals with insecure attachment styles may be more likely to form parasocial relationships as a substitute for real-life intimacy, as these relationships provide perceived safety without the risk of rejection. Strong evaluation will consider evidence linking attachment style to parasocial involvement, while also recognising limitations such as overgeneralisation and the difficulty of establishing cause-and-effect relationships.

Gender:

Klinefelter’s Syndrome: A likely focus is Klinefelter syndrome as a biological explanation of gender-related behaviour. You should be prepared to explain how Klinefelter syndrome (XXY) results from atypical sex chromosome patterns and is associated with lower testosterone levels, reduced facial and body hair, and some typically female secondary sex characteristics. In exam questions, this is often used to illustrate the role of chromosomes and hormones in gender development. 

Social explanations for gender dysphoria: Predictions also suggest a focus on social explanations for gender dysphoria. You should be prepared to explain how gender dysphoria may develop as a result of social influences such as gender stereotypes, reinforcement, modelling, and cultural expectations about masculinity and femininity. For example, children may experience conflict or distress if their gender expression is punished or discouraged by parents, peers or wider society. High-level evaluation will consider the strength of this explanation in recognising the role of social context and cultural variation, while also acknowledging limitations, including the difficulty of explaining biological findings and the risk of oversimplifying a complex interaction between social and biological factors.

Psychodynamic explanation of gender development: Finally, there is a strong possibility of questions on the psychodynamic explanation of gender development, most notably Freud’s theory. You should be able to outline how gender identity develops through the resolution of the Oedipus or Electra complex during the phallic stage, with identification with the same-sex parent leading to the internalisation of gender roles. Evaluation is essential here and should be clearly argued. While the theory was influential in highlighting early childhood experiences and unconscious processes, it is heavily criticised for being unscientific, unfalsifiable, and based on limited and biased evidence. Additionally, it does not account for gender development in single-parent or same-sex parent families, reducing its explanatory power.

Cognitive Development: 

Vygotksy: A likely focus is the work of Lev Vygotsky, particularly his sociocultural approach to cognitive development. You should be prepared to explain how Vygotsky argued that cognitive development is driven by social interaction rather than occurring independently within the child. Key concepts such as the zone of proximal development (ZPD) and scaffolding are essential, with an emphasis on how learning occurs when a child is supported by a more knowledgeable other. High-level responses will evaluate this approach by recognising its strong real-world applications to education, while also acknowledging limitations such as difficulties in objectively measuring scaffolding and the lack of emphasis on biological maturation.

Baillargeon: Another predicted topic is the research of Renée Baillargeon, which challenges Piaget’s view that infants lack certain cognitive abilities. You should be able to explain how Baillargeon used violation of expectation methods to demonstrate that infants as young as a few months old show an understanding of object permanence. Evaluation should consider this as a major strength, as it suggests infants are more cognitively advanced than Piaget proposed. However, strong answers will also consider alternative explanations, such as whether longer looking times truly indicate understanding or may simply reflect perceptual novelty.

The Sally-Anne study: There is also a strong likelihood of questions focusing on the Sally–Anne study, conducted by Simon Baron-Cohen et al., which investigates theory of mind. You should revise how the study demonstrated that typically developing children are able to understand false beliefs by around four years of age, whereas children with autism often struggle with this task. Evaluation is essential and should address strengths such as the clear operationalisation of theory of mind, alongside limitations including the artificial nature of the task and questions about whether it fully captures real-life social understanding.

Section C: Schizophrenia OR Eating Behaviour OR Stress

(Students complete one option)

Schizophrenia:

Dopamine hypothesis: A highly likely focus is the dopamine hypothesis as a biological explanation for schizophrenia. You should be prepared to explain how this hypothesis proposes that schizophrenia is linked to abnormal dopamine transmission, particularly hyperdopaminergia in subcortical areas of the brain, which is associated with positive symptoms such as hallucinations and delusions. More developed answers may also refer to revised versions of the hypothesis, which suggest hypodopaminergia in the prefrontal cortex, helping to explain negative symptoms such as avolition. High-level evaluation will include supporting evidence from the effectiveness of antipsychotic drugs and research showing increased dopamine activity in people with schizophrenia, alongside limitations such as the inability of the theory to fully explain the disorder and the fact that dopamine dysfunction may be a consequence rather than a cause of schizophrenia.

Drug therapy: Another strong prediction is drug therapy as a treatment for schizophrenia. You should revise how typical antipsychotics, such as Chlorpromazine, work by acting as dopamine antagonists that block D2 receptors, reducing dopamine activity and alleviating positive symptoms. You should also be able to explain atypical antipsychotics, such as Clozapine, which target both dopamine and serotonin systems and are associated with fewer extrapyramidal side effects. Evaluation should be detailed and conclusive, considering strengths such as rapid symptom reduction and improved quality of life, balanced against limitations including serious side effects, issues with compliance, and the fact that drug therapy treats symptoms rather than addressing underlying causes.

Eating Behaviour:

Evolutionary explanations of food preference: A likely focus is evolutionary explanations of food preference. You should be prepared to explain how human food preferences have been shaped by natural selection to maximise survival and reproductive success. From this perspective, preferences for high-calorie, sweet and fatty foods are adaptive because they would have increased energy intake in ancestral environments where food scarcity was common. Taste aversion is also important, as humans have evolved to avoid bitter foods, which are often associated with toxins. High-level answers will evaluate this explanation by recognising its strong theoretical basis in evolution and its ability to explain universal food preferences. However, evaluation should be conclusive and critical, noting that evolutionary explanations are often post hoc, difficult to test empirically, and may lack relevance in modern environments where food abundance contributes to maladaptive outcomes such as obesity.

Neural explanations of obesity: Another predicted area is neural explanations of obesity. You should revise how eating behaviour is regulated by the brain, particularly the hypothalamus, which plays a central role in hunger and satiety. Dysfunction in neural mechanisms, such as damage to the lateral hypothalamus or ventromedial hypothalamus, can disrupt appetite control and lead to overeating. You should also be prepared to refer to the reward system, including dopamine pathways, which reinforce eating behaviour by making high-fat and high-sugar foods especially rewarding. Evaluation should consider strengths such as strong support from brain imaging and animal research, while also addressing limitations. These include biological reductionism, ethical issues with extrapolating from animal studies to humans, and the failure of neural explanations alone to account for social, cultural and cognitive influences on eating behaviour.

Stress:

Sources of stress: A likely focus is sources of stress. You should be prepared to explain how stress can arise from life changes, daily hassles, and chronic stressors. Daily hassles, such as work pressures, minor arguments or time constraints, are particularly important as research suggests they may have a greater cumulative impact on health and wellbeing than major life events. Strong responses will demonstrate understanding that stress is subjective and influenced by individual differences, such as coping styles and perceived control. 

Hassles and Uplifts Scale: Another highly predictable focus is the Hassles and Uplifts Scale. You should revise how this self-report scale measures stress by asking individuals to record the frequency and severity of everyday hassles (e.g. misplacing things, work deadlines) and uplifts (e.g. social support, small achievements). High-level answers will explain why this measure is valuable, particularly its sensitivity to day-to-day fluctuations in stress and its strong predictive validity for physical and psychological health.Evaluation is essential and should be balanced. Strengths include high ecological validity and usefulness in identifying specific stressors that may be targeted through intervention. However, limitations include reliance on self-report data, which is vulnerable to social desirability and mood at the time of completion, as well as the issue that retrospective reporting of hassles may reduce accuracy.

Section D: Aggression OR Forensic Psychology OR Addiction (Students complete one option)

Aggression: 

Hormonal mechanisms: A likely focus is hormonal mechanisms in aggression, particularly the role of testosterone. You should be prepared to explain how higher levels of testosterone are associated with increased aggression, dominance and competitive behaviour. This relationship is often described as bidirectional, meaning that aggression can also increase testosterone levels. High-level answers will evaluate this explanation by recognising supporting evidence from correlational and experimental research, while also acknowledging clear limitations. These include the difficulty in establishing cause-and-effect relationships and the fact that hormonal explanations are biologically reductionist, ignoring social and situational influences on aggression.

Deindividuation: Another predicted topic is deindividuation as a social explanation of aggression. You should revise how deindividuation occurs when individuals lose their sense of personal identity and responsibility, often in groups or anonymous situations, leading to reduced self-awareness and increased impulsive behaviour. This explanation is commonly linked to crowd behaviour and online aggression. You may be expected to refer to research by Philip Zimbardo, which suggests that anonymity and altered appearance increase aggressive behaviour. Evaluation should be conclusive, recognising the usefulness of deindividuation in explaining group-based aggression, while also considering contradictory evidence showing that deindividuation does not always lead to aggression and may instead amplify existing social norms.

Ethological explanations: There is also a strong likelihood of questions on ethological explanations of aggression, particularly those proposed by Konrad Lorenz. You should be prepared to explain how aggression is viewed as an innate, evolutionary behaviour that has survival value, for example in territory defence or mate competition. Lorenz suggested that aggression builds up as a form of instinctive energy and must be released. Evaluation is essential here. While this explanation highlights the evolutionary roots of aggression and is supported by animal research, it is criticised for extrapolating too readily from animals to humans and for failing to explain large cultural differences in human aggression.

Forensic Psychology:

Genetic explanations of offending behaviour: A likely focus is genetic explanations of offending behaviour. You should be prepared to explain how genetic factors may increase an individual’s predisposition to criminality, often through inherited personality traits such as impulsivity, aggression or low emotional control. This explanation is commonly supported by twin and adoption studies, which compare concordance rates for criminal behaviour between genetically related and unrelated individuals. Evaluation should be explicit and conclusive, recognising that genetic explanations are supported by higher concordance rates among monozygotic twins, but are limited by issues such as genetic determinism, difficulty separating genetic influences from environmental factors, and the inability of genes alone to explain why most individuals with a genetic predisposition do not offend.

Bottom-up offender profiling: Another strong prediction is bottom-up offender profiling, associated with the work of David Canter. You should revise how bottom-up profiling is data-driven and based on statistical analysis of crime scene details rather than intuition. This approach focuses on behavioural consistency and interpersonal coherence, using patterns in offending behaviour to infer characteristics of the offender. Evaluation should consider strengths such as its scientific basis, objectivity and real-world application in police investigations. However, limitations include the reliance on accurate and detailed crime scene data and the fact that profiling is more effective for certain crimes, such as serial offences, than for one-off crimes.

Differential association theory: There is also a strong likelihood of questions on differential association theory, proposed by Edwin Sutherland. You should be prepared to explain how criminal behaviour is learned through social interaction, particularly within intimate groups. According to this theory, individuals learn attitudes, values and techniques for crime, and offending is more likely when pro-criminal attitudes outweigh anti-criminal ones. Evaluation should be well developed, recognising the theory’s strength in explaining how crime patterns vary across social groups and environments. However, it is criticised for being difficult to test empirically, failing to explain the origin of the first criminal act, and underestimating the role of biological or individual differences.

Addiction: 

Genetic vulnerability: A likely focus is genetic vulnerability as an explanation for addiction. You should be prepared to explain how genetic factors may increase an individual’s susceptibility to developing addictions, for example through inherited differences in dopamine functioning, reward sensitivity or impulsivity. Research using twin and adoption studies is often used to support this explanation, showing higher concordance rates for addiction in biologically related individuals. Evaluation should be explicit and conclusive, recognising that genetic vulnerability helps explain why some individuals develop addictions while others do not, even when exposed to similar environments. However, strong answers will also highlight limitations, including genetic determinism, the difficulty of separating genetic influences from environmental factors, and the fact that genetic vulnerability alone cannot account for the onset or maintenance of addiction.

Cognitive theory of addiction: Another predicted area is the cognitive theory of addiction. You should revise how this explanation focuses on maladaptive thought processes, such as irrational beliefs, attentional bias and expectancies about substances or behaviours. According to the cognitive approach, individuals may overestimate the positive effects of addictive behaviours and underestimate the risks, leading to continued use. High-level evaluation should consider supporting evidence from the effectiveness of cognitive-based treatments, such as CBT, in reducing addictive behaviours. However, limitations include the assumption of conscious awareness of cognitive processes and the criticism that cognitive explanations may overlook emotional, biological and social influences.

Learning theory of addiction: There is also a strong likelihood of questions on the learning theory explanation of addiction. You should be able to explain how addiction develops through classical conditioning, where environmental cues become associated with pleasure or relief, and operant conditioning, where addictive behaviours are maintained through positive and negative reinforcement. Social learning theory may also be relevant, as individuals may model addictive behaviours observed in family members or peers. Evaluation should be balanced and conclusive, recognising the strength of learning theory in explaining how addictions are acquired and maintained, as well as its practical applications in behaviour modification programmes. However, it is criticised for being environmentally reductionist and for failing to explain why not everyone exposed to the same reinforcements becomes addicted.