Evaluate one or more sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence.

Refer to the paper 2 assessment criteria when awarding marks.

The command term “evaluate” requires candidates to make an appraisal by weighing up the strengths and limitations of one or more sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence. Although a discussion of both strengths and limitations is required, it does not have to be evenly balanced to gain high marks.

Explanations may include, but are not limited to:
• social identity theory (for example, Maass, 2003)
• social learning theory (for example, Bandura, 1961)
• negative social schemas (for example, Bradshaw, 2004)
• deindividuation (for example, Festinger, Pepitone and Newcomb, 1952)
• social interaction approach (for example, Tedeschi and Felson, 1994)
• subculture of violence theory/Culture of Honour (for example, Nisbett and Cohen,1996).

Evaluation of the sociocultural explanation(s) may include, but is not limited to:
• cultural and/or gender considerations
• application of the explanations
• empirical findings that support or refute the explanation
• comparison/contrast to other explanations.

Although the main focus of the response should be on sociocultural explanations, cognitive and biological explanations are acceptable in order to emphasize a strength or limitation of the explanation.

If a candidate discusses only strengths or only limitations, the response should be awarded up to a maximum of [5] for criterion B, critical thinking, and up to a maximum of [2] for criterion C, organization. Up to full marks may be awarded for criterion A, knowledge and comprehension.

Candidates may evaluate one sociocultural explanation of the origins of violence in order to demonstrate depth of knowledge, or may examine a larger number of sociocultural explanations of the origins of violence in order to demonstrate breadth of knowledge. Both approaches are equally acceptable.