Psychology 9990/12 February/March 2019: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping): 1 Name one of the tools a chimpanzee needed to be given to complete a task. 1 mark for correct answer. Straw Stick. 1(b) The chimpanzee’s helping behaviour was measured by which tool was 2 offered. Outline how an ‘offer’ of a tool was operationalised in the study. 1 mark for each correct statement. When a chimpanzee held out a tool (towards the recipient); Did not matter if recipient received the tool (or not); Only the first offer counted; Upon-request if the receiving chimpanzee requested a tool; Voluntary if the chimpanzee-giver offered a tool with no request.

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 2 Outline what the model was supposed to do in the ‘Adjacent area – early’ condition. 1 mark for each correct statement. Model stood in middle of adjacent car; Waited until passing the fourth station/waited for approximately 70s; Then began to help the victim. 2(b)(i) Four victims were used. 2 Identify two similarities between the victims. 1 mark per correct similarity. (All) males Eisenhower jackets (were the same); Old slacks (worn); No tie. 2(b)(ii) Identify one difference between the victims. 1 1 mark for correct difference. Different ages Different races Cane (ill) versus drunk Item ‘carried’ (e.g. cane/bottle).

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia): 3 Describe the Disgust/Fear Hierarchy. 1 mark for each correct statement He was asked to rate (11) different scenarios that included buttons Each was rated on Distress scale of 0–8 0 was the lowest distress/8 was the highest distress The (subjective) ratings used a Feelings Thermometer. 3(b) Identify one weakness of the Disgust/Fear Hierarchy. 1 1 mark for identification only (must be about the Hierarchy and not methods in general). e.g. They are subjective He may have given desirable ratings He may have lied about the ratings 0–8 quite restrictive.

Mark scheme

4(a) The original ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test had two problems. It 2 used 25 pairs of eyes and two response options for each pair. State how the study by Baron-Cohen et al. resolved each of these problems with their revised ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test. 1 mark per correct ‘resolution’. There were 36 pairs of eyes used; There were four response options (to choose from). 4(b) Explain one real world application of the ‘Reading the Mind in the 2 Eyes’ test. 1 mark for brief application but linked to study; 2 marks for application that clearly shows who would benefit/linked to study. e.g. The Eyes Test can be used to help diagnose autism (1 mark) The Eyes Test can be used to help diagnose autism. If a child/adult scores low on the Test it might indicate a lack of Theory of Mind so that person can receive help (2 marks) The Eyes Test can be used to help autistic adults (1 mark) The Eyes Test can be used to help autistic adults by teaching them how to read emotions in eyes/faces by using the test with a therapist/helper (2 marks).

Mark scheme

5(a) Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) collected quantitative and 2 qualitative data. Outline one quantitative result from the ‘dream-duration estimates’. You must use data in your answer. 1 mark for the result 1 mark for using correct data e.g. Participants were more accurate at estimating 5 mins compared to 15 mins (1 mark) On 88% of trials (45/51) the participants estimated 5 mins correctly (1 mark: data); On 78% of trials (47/60) the participants estimated 15 mins correctly (1 mark: data). 5(b) Outline one qualitative result from the dream content reports. 2 1 mark brief answer; 2 marks detailed answer e.g. One P reported a dream of standing at the bottom of a cliff (1 mark) One P reported a dream of standing at the bottom of a cliff operating a hoist and looking a climbers on the cliff (2 marks) One P reported climbing up a ladder (1 mark) One P reported climbing up a ladder and looking up and down as he climbed (2 marks) There are other reported dreams, e.g. basketball, throwing tomatoes.

Mark scheme

6(a) Describe two assumptions of the biological approach. 4 1 mark for a brief assumption; 2 marks for detailed assumption or brief assumption with an example as elaboration. e.g. Behaviour can be explained via the brain (1 mark) Behaviour, cognitions and emotions can be explained via the brain and hormones (2 marks) – listing here is providing detail Behaviour can be explained via the brain, for example the hippocampus is involved in memory (2 marks). 6(b) Explain how one finding from the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and 2 emotions) supports one of the assumptions of the biological approach that you have described in part (a). 1 mark for the result (no data necessary) 1 mark for relating it back to an assumption in (a) e.g. Left amygdala activation was related to the scene being classed as ‘remembered’ (1st mark); Left amygdala activation was correlated to the emotional intensity of a memory (alternative 1st mark); Therefore the emotional intensity felt about a scene/degree it was remembered was explained via the amygdala activation (2nd mark).

Mark scheme

7(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 1 State the first prod the experimenter used when a participant refused to continue. 1 mark for correct answer. Please continue/please go on. 7(b) Describe what the experimenter said if a participant asked whether the 3 learner was suffering permanent injury. 1 mark per correct statement. Although the shocks may be painful; There is no real permanent (tissue) damage; So please go on Then prods 2/3 given if still refused. 7(c) Explain why Milgram ensured the participant met the learner at the end 2 of the study. 1 mark per correct point. To make the study ethical; So that the participant would leave in a state of well-being; Reduce any tensions between participant and stooge/Milgram.

Mark scheme

8(a) Two friends, Aarav and Kyra, are discussing the Andrade study 2 (doodling) in terms of the debate about individual and situational explanations. Outline the debate about individual and situational explanations in psychology. 1 mark for the individual side of argument 1 mark for the situational side of argument e.g. The individual side refers to behaviours from factors within the person (dispositional) (e.g. personality) The situational side refers to behaviour from factors in the external environment (e.g. home life). 8(b) Aarav believes the Andrade study supports the individual side of the 4 debate but Kyra believes it supports the situational side of the debate. Outline why you think either Aarav or Kyra is correct, using evidence from the study. e.g. Aarav It supports the individual side of the debate as everyone doodled in different ways, maybe based on their personality type (1 mark)/wide variety in the amount of doodles (someone doodled 100 items) (alternative 1 mark); for example, people who are labelled as extraverts may require to do more than one thing at once to help stimulate themselves and concentrate better (1 mark) e.g. Kyra Andrade had made sure that everyone was bored so that the situation caused them to doodle/concentrate more when doodling (1 mark); the task itself may be have brought about an improvement in concentration as doodling help them focus more – the doodling group did recall more correct names than the control (1 mark).

Mark scheme

9(a) A finding from some research was that false memories for negative 4 experiences can be created during childhood. Describe two ways in which the study by Laney et al. (false memory) differs from this finding. 1 mark for identifying a difference; 1 mark for describing the element of the study supporting the difference. e.g. This study examines positive memories/experiences (1 mark), of trying different foods when younger and liking them (1 mark) The participants were not children (1 mark). The study examined undergraduates, looking at their childhood memories when tested as adults rather than when children (1 mark). 9(b) Explain what psychologists have learned about false memories using 8 two results from the study by Laney et al. Level Criteria Marks 4 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and 4 the candidate clearly explains what we have learned about false memories 3 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and 3 there is a brief attempt at explaining what we have learned about false memories; The result presented has no meaningful comparison but the candidate clearly explains what we have learned about false memories 2 The result presented has a meaningful comparison but 2 there is no attempt at explanation; The result presented is not clear but there is an implicit attempt at explaining what we have learned about false memories 1 The result presented has no meaningful comparison or 1 there is a basic attempt at explaining 0 No creditworthy answer 0

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) in terms of two 10 strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about ethics. Strengths include: quantitative data, reliability , standardisation, application Weaknesses include: observations, ecological validity, generalisability, ethics. Original AOs Level 4 (8–10 marks) • Evaluation is comprehensive. • Answer demonstrates evidence of careful planning, organisation and selection of material. • Analysis (valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and arguments) is evident throughout. • Answer demonstrates an excellent understanding of the material. Level 3 (6–7 marks) • Evaluation is good. • Answer demonstrates some planning and is well organised. • Analysis is often evident but may not be consistently applied. • Answer demonstrates a good understanding of the material. Level 2 (4–5 marks) • Evaluation is mostly appropriate but limited. • Answer demonstrates limited organisation or lacks clarity. • Analysis is limited. • Answer lacks consistent levels of detail and demonstrates a limited understanding of the material. Level 1 (1–3 marks) • Evaluation is basic. • Answer demonstrates little organisation. • There is little or no evidence of analysis. • Answer does not demonstrate understanding of the material. Level 0 (0 marks) No response worthy of credit.