Psychology 9990/12 February/March 2022: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams): 1 Participants were woken at two different time intervals during REM sleep and asked to estimate their dream-duration. One of the time intervals was five minutes. State the other time interval. 1 mark for correct answer. 15 (minutes). 1(b) Name the apparatus used to measure brain activity in this study. 1 1 mark for correct answer. EEG/Electroencephalogram 1(c) Outline one dream reported by a participant that had horizontal eye 2 movements. 2 marks full outline 1 mark partial/brief outline 0 marks vertical dream e.g. Watching two people throwing tomatoes at each other (2 marks) Driving a car and at an intersection a car sped from left (2 marks) Driving a car and looking ahead then a man appeared on left/stood on pavement (2 marks) Throwing tomatoes (1 mark) Tomato fight (1 mark) Driving a car (1 mark)

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning): 2 Name two items that Alex the parrot had to verbally request when he wanted them. 1 mark per correct item named. (Fresh) fruit; Vegetables; Nuts (cashews/almonds/pecans/walnuts); Keys; (pieces of) wood; Paper; Rawhide. 2(b) Outline one strength of this study in relation to reliability. 2 1 mark for standardised procedure (training or tests) 1 mark for an example from Pepperberg e.g. The procedure during the training phase was standardised (1 mark). For example, during the training phase all objects were red, green, or blue (1 mark) The procedure during the testing phase was standardised (1 mark) For example, the principal trainer was always present during a test, but she sat with her back to Alex (1 mark)

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): 3 Describe the sample used in this study. 1 mark per correct point made 72 in total; Split evenly across gender/36 male and 36 female; Enrolled at Stanford University Nursery School; Age range of 37–69 months; Mean age of 52 months; Split into eight experimental groups (and one control). 3(b) Describe one result about aggressive gun play in this study. 2 2 marks full result (with meaningful comparison) 1 mark partial/brief result (no meaningful comparison) e.g. Males showed more aggressive gun play than females (across all conditions) (2 marks); Males showed more aggressive gun play when the model was male and aggressive than females (2 males); There was little difference in aggressive gun play in male participants when the model was aggressive or non-aggressive (2 marks); Male participants showed more gun play (1 mark); Female participants showed less gun play (1 mark)

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 4 Describe the shock generator used in this study. It consisted of 30 lever switches/buttons; Each switch was clearly labelled with a voltage; The volts ranged from 15 V to 450 V; Each button went up by 15 V levels; Verbal designations for groups of four voltage levels; Last two were labelled (simply) XXX; Upon depressing a switch a red light appeared; An electric buzzing was emitted; A blue light labelled voltage energizer would light up; Labelled Slight Shock to Danger Severe Shock (any two of these can be credited for max 1 mark) 4(b) Suggest one real-world application based on this study. Your suggestion must be ethical. 1 mark for what the real-world application is 1 mark for stating how it would be done based on the procedure of Milgram e.g. A teacher could get students to be more obedient in the classroom (1 mark: what) by wearing clothes that show authority like a technician’s coat (1 mark: how) Soldiers could be encouraged to be more obedient (1 mark: what) as an authority figure can give out commands in a firm tone/stern voice (1 mark: how)

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 2 Outline the aim of this study. 2 marks full aim 1 mark partial aim e.g. To investigate whether doodling affects concentration by enabling people to attend more effectively/by enhancing their memory (2 marks) To investigate whether performing a concurrent task (doodling) would help memory recall (primary task) (2 marks) To investigate whether doodling aids concentration (or not) (1 mark) To investigate if doodling affects the recall of places/names (1 mark) 5(b) Explain one reason why the procedure was standardised in this study. 3 1 mark for identifying a reason 1 mark for explaining why it is a reason 1 mark for linking it to the study It would allow the study to be more easily replicated (1 mark) Therefore, it could be tested for reliability (1 mark) For example, knowing what was contained in the mock telephone message means that the study can be replicated exactly. (1 mark) It would increase the (internal) validity of the study (1 mark) Therefore, cause and effect are (more) likely to be seen (1 mark) For example, knowing it was whether doodling affected concentration/memory (1 mark) It can help to reduce extraneous/uncontrolled variables (1 mark) So that we know it is probably doodling – the IV (1 mark) causing the change doodling/concentration – the DV (1 mark)

Mark scheme

6 The debate about individual and situational explanations relates to the 4 study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion). Outline what is meant by this debate. Include one example from the individual explanation and one example from the situational explanation from the study by Schachter and Singer. 1 mark for the individual side of argument; 1 mark for example from study 1 mark for the situational side of argument; 1 mark for example from study e.g. definitions The individual side refers to behaviours from factors within the person (dispositional); The situational side refers to behaviour from factors in the external environment. e.g. examples Some participants may have joined in the activities because of their personality type, e.g. being more extraverted (individual); Some participants may have joined in the activities because of the environment of having the stooge act in a certain way (situational)

Mark scheme

7 From the study by Laney et al. (false memory): 4 Describe the procedure from the point when participants had to view slides in Experiment 2. The (20) slides were photographs of (common) food items For example spinach, strawberries, pizza, asparagus (need 2 to gain the mark) Each slide was shown for 30s They had to rate each photograph on four scales How appetizing/disgusting they found the photograph (1 mark for either of these) Whether the photographer was novice, amateur or professional (2 needed for mark) Artistic quality of the photo was rated/photography rated They were rated on an 8 point scale/from 1–8 1 = not at all, to 8 = very much (need both to gain this mark) They then completed the RQ, FPQ, FHI, Memory of Belief? Questionnaires (any 2 to gain mark) They were then debriefed about the study.

Mark scheme

8(a) From the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and emotions): 2 Outline how participants were asked to respond to pictures during the recognition test in this study. 1 mark per correct point made They were asked if they had seen the picture before There were three response categories ‘Remembered’ – if they were certain they had seen it ‘Know’ – if they were familiar with it/may have seen it before ‘Forgotten’ – if they do not remember seeing it. 8(b) Two friends, Govinda and Ansh, are discussing this study in terms of 4 validity Govinda believes the study does have validity but Ansh believes the study does not have validity. Outline why you think either Govinda or Ansh is correct, using evidence from the study. 1 mark per point made, with: Up to 2 marks for any relevant finding(s)/aspect of the study linked to validity Up to 3 marks for explanation(s) e.g. Govinda There were strict controls in the study meaning cause-effect could be established (1 mark). Pictures were chosen within a range of valence scores to help conclude if the intensity rating was affecting remembering (1 mark). They used an fMRI scan to collect information about brain activity (1 mark). This was an objective measure of activity so it could be compared across pictures/participants (1 mark) e.g. Ansh The task given to the participants lacked mundane realism (and validity) (1 mark). This is because they had to rate pictures whilst having a brain scan which is not a typical everyday activity (1 mark). The sample has low population validity/generalisability (1 mark). This is because the sample was only right-handed females (1 mark). It had low ecological validity as it was in a laboratory (1 mark).

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe the psychology being investigated in the study by Yamamoto 4 et al. (chimpanzee helping). 1 mark for each correct statement Example from the study by Yamamoto et al. can gain credit (max 1) e.g. Altruism was investigated which is helping another chimpanzee out without any benefit to themselves; For example, one chimp gave another chimp a straw to drink the juice even though the chimp giving the straw never got the juice (example mark); The study was about prosocial behaviour which is about helping others who may need it; Empathy was looked into which is understanding the emotional state of another organism (by imagining themselves in ‘their shoes’); Looked into targeting helping which is the ability to help someone else in a situation; Looked at targeting helping and seeing if organisms would use altruism to help/help without expecting a reward; Can an organism comprehend the specific needs of another organism; 9(b) Explain whether each ethical guideline below was broken in the study by 8 Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping): • housing • numbers • reward • species Use the following Levels marking for each guideline separately Level Descriptor Marks 2 The answer explicitly describes the ethical guideline 2 and the example is contextualised from the named study OR The ethical guideline is implicit from the use of a well argued example contextualised from the named study 1 The answer explicitly describes the ethical without 1 correct contextualisation/no contextualisation OR The ethical guideline is implicit from the use of a brief example contextualised from the named study OR The ethical guideline is incorrectly described but the contextualised example from the named study is correct 0 The description of the ethical guideline is incorrect 0 and/or the contextualised example is incorrect OR no answer given Housing Housing should take into account the social behaviour of species (e.g. caging); The chimpanzees were socially housed at Kyoto University (not broken). Numbers Psychologists should use the least number of animals (as possible to accomplish goals); Only five pairs of chimpanzees were used in the study (not broken). Rewards Behaviours cannot be controlled by the use of rewards only; In this case it could be argued that one chimpanzee did get a reward at the expense of the other (broken). Species Researchers should choose an appropriate species for their study; All chimpanzees were in captivity and had taken part in studies before/they are social animals and still lived in a group in captivity (not broken).

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) in terms 10 of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about self-reports. Suitable strengths include: quantitative data, application to real world, reliability, self-reports Suitable weaknesses include: social desirability, generalisability, self-reports 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.