Component 3: Bullying behaviours — Eduqas A-Level Psychology

Component 3 Bullying Behaviours requires students to investigate the nature, origins, and solutions to repetitive interpersonal aggression within social contexts. Learners analyse a diverse range of explanations, ranging from biological and evolutionary factors to social-cognitive mechanisms like Dodge's hostile attribution bias and social learning.

This option synthesises knowledge from developmental, social, and biological psychology, demanding that students critically assess real-world interventions such as restorative justice and Olweus whole-school programmes. Mastering this topic equips students to evaluate how theoretical constructs translate directly into contemporary school and workplace social policies.

• →Hostile Attribution Bias (Dodge): An information-processing bias where ambiguous peer intentions are perceived as deliberately hostile.
• →Evolutionary Adaptiveness (Volk et al.): Bullying conceptualised as an evolved strategy to gain status, deter rivals, and secure resources.
• →Callous-Unemotional (CU) Traits: Emotional deficits characterised by low empathy and guilt, often predicting persistent proactive bullying.
• →Moral Disengagement (Bandura): Cognitive reframing (e.g. dehumanisation, diffusion of responsibility) enabling perpetrators to bypass self-censure.
• →Multi-level Interventions: Strategies ranging from targeted individual counselling and restorative justice to systemic whole-school prevention frameworks.

• Explains a genetic account in which inherited variation in aggression or dominance predisposes an individual towards bullying behaviour.
• Explains a hormonal account linking testosterone or cortisol reactivity to dominance striving and threat responses that underlie bullying.
• Explains an evolved gender-difference account in which sexual selection and intrasexual competition shape patterns of physical or relational aggression.
• Evaluates an explanation by identifying a limitation such as correlational evidence, direction-of-effect ambiguity or environmental confounding.
• Distinguishes the explanations by their proposed mechanism so a stem about genes, hormones or evolution is matched correctly.
• Identifies at least two distinct individual differences explanations, such as cognitive biases, narcissistic personality and theory of mind
• Explains the mechanism of a chosen explanation, for example that hostile attribution bias leads a learner to interpret an ambiguous remark as an attack and respond aggressively
• Links the explanation to a predicted bullying behaviour, such as dominance-seeking or manipulation of peers
• Supplies an evaluation point, for example that personality explanations describe bullies but struggle to explain why bullying varies across settings
• Identifies at least two distinct social psychological explanations, such as cultural differences, in-group/out-group dynamics and moral disengagement
• Explains the mechanism of a chosen explanation, for example that moral disengagement lets a learner justify cruelty by blaming the victim
• Links the explanation to a predicted bullying pattern, such as favouring the in-group and targeting an out-group member
• Supplies an evaluation point, for example that group-level explanations account for bystander behaviour as well as the bully's actions
• Identifies CAPSLE as a whole-school programme that targets the social climate and power relationships among pupils and staff.
• Identifies the Olweus Bullying Prevention Programme as a whole-school programme using clear rules, pupil surveys, supervision of hotspots and follow-up with individuals.
• States at least two named programmes, meeting the specification's minimum of two methods.
• Explains a mechanism by which a named programme is intended to reduce bullying, such as encouraging bystanders to intervene.
• Describes how the effectiveness of a programme could be evaluated, for example by comparing pupil self-report survey data before and after implementation.

• 💡Learn each explanation as mechanism, supporting evidence and one limitation so stems about evidence or critique can be answered.
• 💡Use the named mechanism in the stem to eliminate distractors, for example heritability versus hormonal reactivity versus selection pressures.
• 💡Watch for stems that ask for a limitation rather than a description, because the correct option then concerns evidence quality.
• 💡Read the stem for the number of explanations required and count them before answering
• 💡Anchor each option to a named mechanism rather than a vague label such as 'bad personality'
• 💡Reject options that describe situational or group-level causes when the question asks about individual differences
• 💡Check the stem for how many explanations are needed and match each option to a named social mechanism
• 💡Distinguish in-group favouritism from out-group hostility, since they are related but not identical
• 💡Reject options that locate the cause solely inside the individual when the question asks about social explanations
• 💡Learn the full name behind each acronym so you can expand CAPSLE accurately.
• 💡For each programme, prepare a one-line description of its core mechanism and one way to measure its effect.
• 💡Link each method back to the bullying behaviour it targets rather than describing it in isolation.
• 💡Integrate psychological debates, particularly nature versus nurture and determinism versus free will, when comparing biological models to social learning models.
• 💡Cite specific developmental research (e.g. Crick and Dodge, Volk, Ttofi and Farrington) to substantiate points rather than relying on common-sense assertions.
• 💡Distinguish clearly between direct bullying (physical, verbal) and relational/indirect bullying (social exclusion, rumour spreading) when discussing sex differences.

• Treats a genetic explanation as proof that bullying is inherited; present genes as a predisposition supported by indirect evidence.
• Assumes a hormone correlation shows that testosterone causes bullying; note that direction of effect and confounds remain unresolved.
• Presents evolved gender differences as fixed stereotypes; frame them as selection-based tendencies open to cultural and measurement critique.
• Confuses individual differences explanations with social explanations; keep the cause inside the person for this question
• Describes only one explanation when the statement requires at least two; name and explain a second
• Treats theory of mind as always impaired in bullies; note that some bullies read others' minds well and use that skill to manipulate
• Confuses social psychological explanations with individual differences; keep the cause in groups, norms and relationships for this question
• Describes only one explanation when the statement requires at least two; name and explain a second
• Treats moral disengagement as a personality trait; present it as a set of justifications a learner uses in a group context
• Confuses CAPSLE with a purely individual counselling approach; recognise it as a whole-school climate programme.
• Treats the Olweus programme as only a set of classroom rules; include its survey, supervision and follow-up elements.
• Names only one programme when the specification requires at least two; supply a second named method.
• Assuming all bullying is proactive/instrumental: In reality, psychological research distinguishes between proactive (goal-directed, unprovoked) and reactive (emotionally driven, hostile response to perceived threat) bullying.
• Believing evolutionary explanations excuse bullying: Evolutionary psychology explains the distal ultimate functions of behaviour (survival/reproduction) rather than providing a moral justification or implying immutability.
• Viewing restorative justice as an easy apology session: Restorative justice requires intensive pre-conferencing and trained mediation; improper execution risks re-traumatising the victim through power imbalances.

1. 1Day 1-2: Review biological and evolutionary explanations (genetics, hormones, status acquisition, Volk et al.).
2. 2Day 3-4: Master cognitive and social explanations (hostile attribution bias, Bandura's moral disengagement, SLT).
3. 3Day 5-6: Evaluate interventions (restorative justice, Olweus whole-school programme, KiVa, bystander training).
4. 4Day 7: Practise timed Eduqas 8-mark and 10-mark Component 3 essays focusing on balanced evaluation.

• 📋Short knowledge and application questions (2-4 marks): Defining terms like 'reactive bullying' or applying hostile attribution bias to a brief vignette.
• 📋Comparative explanations (6-8 marks): Comparing two explanations of bullying, such as biological versus social-cognitive perspectives.
• 📋Evaluative essay questions (10-15 marks): Assessing the effectiveness of interventions or evaluating a theoretical approach with methodological and ethical issues.