Describe and evaluate one or more psychodynamic explanations of personality development.

Review of essay

Rating: 4 star(s)

Response to the question

Response to Question
The candidate is instructed to "describe and evaluate" and this essay fulfils both of these instructions with detailed exploration of both aspects of the question. The use of alternative evidence to assess the psychodynamic approach shows some understanding of the context of Freud's theories in psychology as a whole. The failure to include a conclusion to his/her essay suggests a lack of care or appropriate timing taken by the candidate.

Level of analysis

Level of Analysis
The candidate's explanation of the tripartite theory of personality development and the conflicts inherent in this is of a very high standard. They clearly set out the three different parts of the mind, their roles and the way in which they develop. The inclusion of the defence mechanisms of the ego does not seem wholly relevant to the question, and as the link between personality development and the mind's defence mechanisms is not made clear, I feel that it may be ignored by an examiner.

The evaluation of the psychodynamic approach takes into account a number of issues in psychology (ethics, reliability, bias) and shows a good standard of knowledge of psychology. However, the candidate often fails to expand on the arguments made. For example, (s)he writes "also this research is unethical", but fails to explain why the research is so, and it seems that this point comes as an afterthought. There is also a brief inclusion of criticisms made by other approaches in psychology, which places the psychodynamic approach within wider psychological thought, but the fact that this extends to a single sentence is poor.

Quality of writing

Quality of Writing
The candidate expresses his/her ideas clearly and the quality of written communication is generally of a good standard. Some of the syntax feels clunky ("For instance, the oral personalities don’t manifest themselves until childhood. So their findings are meaningless.") and I feel that the candidate could have paid more attention to making the essay flow better, as this would give a better impression to examiners. There are some errors (referring to Freud's patients as "Venetian" as opposed to "Viennese"), but they are generally of a minor nature and I feel that candidates would be given some leeway at GCSE.