Psychology 9990/11 May/June 2019: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 2 Describe one aim of this study. 1 mark brief aim 2 marks detailed aim e.g. To investigate how obedient people are to an authority figure (1 mark) To investigate how obedient people are to an authority figure asking them to physically harm another person (2 marks) To test out the ‘are Germans different’ hypothesis (1 mark) 1(b) Describe one strength of this study. 2 1 mark for identifying strength 1 mark for relating it directly to the study e.g. The procedure was standardised so replication would be easier (1 mark) The procedure was standardised so replication would be easier (e.g. the prods given), another research team could conduct it again to test for reliability (2 marks) The measure of obedience was quantitative and objective (1 mark) The measure of obedience was quantitative and objective (e.g. the maximum voltage that a P would give) so comparisons between Ps is meaningful/valid (2 marks) The actual aim of the study about obedience was hidden (from Ps) (1 mark) The actual aim of the study about obedience was hidden (from Ps) so there would be low demand characteristic/increased ‘real’ behaviour (2 marks)

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning): 1 Identify the concept that was being tested in this study. 1 mark for correct answer. Same/different. 2(b) Alex the parrot remained in his cage during ‘sleep hours’. 4 Describe what Alex was allowed to do during non-sleeping hours, when he was not being used in a trial. 1 mark per correct statement He was allowed free access to all parts of the laboratory; These had to be contingent in a correct vocalisation (e.g. wanna go gym)/he could ask to go anywhere; He was allowed to eat any standard food/drink as much water as he wanted/were always available/not deprived of this/has access too/was fed regularly; He could request fresh fruit/vegetable/nuts; He could request toys.

Mark scheme

3(a)(i) In the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia), the boy 1 completed a disgust/fear hierarchy by giving a distress rating to different stimuli on a scale from 0–8. Name one stimulus which was given a rating of 8. 1 mark for correct name. If more than 1, take the first answer. Clear small (buttons); Coloured small (buttons); Small plastic (buttons). 3(a)(ii) Name the stimulus that was given a rating of 2. 1 1 mark for correct name. If more than 1, take the first answer. Large denim/jean (buttons). 3(b) Outline the results from the post-treatment assessment session. 3 1 mark per correct statement. The boy reported minimal distress/there was a reduction in the distress/disgust ratings; He no longer met the DSM-IV/diagnostic criteria for a (specific) phobia; He could now wear (clear) buttons/his school uniform shirt.

Mark scheme

4 Describe the procedure during the brain scanning phase of the study 5 by Canli et al. (brain scans and emotions). 1 mark for each correct statement They entered an fMRI scanner; Ps viewed 96 scenes via a screen; Viewed them through a mirror directed at the screen; Movement was minimised by using a bite-bar; These were already rated for valence/arousal; The order of the scenes was randomised; Each picture/scene was shown for around 3s; There was a gap of c.13s in between pictures/scenes being shown; A fixation cross appeared on the screen; They were told to look at each picture/screen for the time it was on the screen; When fixation cross appeared they had to rate their emotional arousal; This was done by pressing a button/using a clicker The ratings were from 0 (not intense) to 3 (extremely intense).

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 2 Identify two of the characteristics of the sample in Group 3. 1 mark per characteristic Students/adults/average age of 20.8 (years) (Nearly) equal males/females; Studying undergraduate degree; From the University of Cambridge; Predominantly studying science; Assumed to have a high IQ; (Assumed to be) non-autistic. 5(b) Explain one problem with the original version of the ‘Reading the Mind 2 in the Eyes’ test. 1 mark for identifying problem 1 mark for explaining problem e.g. It contained basic and complex mental states (1 mark) This reduces validity as some items were too easy/lead to a ceiling effect (1 mark) It contained only two responses choices per pair of eyes (1 mark) This means that the probability of getting it correct is 50% which reduced validity/easy to guess/not a good discriminator (1 mark) There were only 25 questions in the original (1 mark) This means that it had low validity due to a high ceiling effect (1 mark) There are other creditworthy problems.

Mark scheme

6 A teacher, Jayne, has a new class of students. Her students are not 4 concentrating during films (movies) in class. She is thinking of ways to help them and asks you for advice. Outline the advice you would give to Jayne, using your knowledge of the study by Andrade (doodling). 1 mark per piece of evidence clearly based on the study by Andrade. e.g. Jayne could give each student a piece of paper; She could tell them that whilst watching the film they can doodle; They can doodle whenever they want/about whatever they want; Or the paper can already have shapes on it so they can colour them in; She could ask them to focus on specific pieces of information; She must tell them that there will be a test after the film.

Mark scheme

7 From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams): 5 Describe one result about dream recall in REM sleep and one result about the estimations of dream-duration time in REM sleep. You must use data for one of these results. 2 marks per result (must have some meaningful comparison to gain the 2) 1 mark for correct data in one of the answers e.g. dream recall in REM sleep There were many more instances of dream recall in REM (1 mark) compared to instance of no recall/recall in NREM (1 mark); There were 152 instances of dream recall in REM across all participants/39 instances of no recall (1 mark: data)/There were 11 instances of dream recall in NREM/149 instances of no recall (alternative 1 mark: data). DN was more accurate with his estimations of 5 minutes in REM compared to estimations of 15 minutes in REM (2 marks: comparison). He was 80% correct for 5 minutes (1 mark: data)/He was 50% correct for 15 minutes (alternative 1 mark: data). e.g. estimations of dream-duration time in REM sleep Participants were more accurate at estimating 5 mins (1 mark) compared to 15 mins (1 mark); On 88% of trial (45/51) the participants estimated 5 mins correctly (1 mark: data); On 78% of trials (47/60) the participants estimated 15 mins correctly (alternative 1 mark: data).

Mark scheme

8(a) Mandy has learned about the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). 2 She believes that the results support the nurture side of the nature- nurture debate. Outline what is meant by the ‘nature-nurture debate’. 1 mark for the nature side of argument 1 mark for the nurture side of argument e.g. The nature side of the debate is about what behaviours etc. we are born with (1 mark) whereas the nurture side of the debate is about what we learn in our lives (1 mark). 8(b) Outline why Mandy is correct, using evidence in your answer. 4 1 mark per point made e.g. The children copied the aggression they had seen so it was learnt; For example they shouted things like sock him/kick him; Bandura stated that it was Social Learning Theory causing the aggressive behaviour; They observed and then imitated what they had seen showing learning; Children had been matched on levels of aggression so any increased aggression levels they showed in the study had to be learnt; Children with an aggressive model were more likely to display aggression compared to a non-aggressive model (2 marks: evidence with comparison); Boys were more likely to be physically aggressive (compared to girls) (1 mark evidence as not stated condition) Girls were more likely to be verbally aggressive (compared to boys) (1 mark evidence as not stated condition) Boys were more aggressive (0 marks evidence as no comparison and not stated condition)

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe two aims of the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors 4 in emotion). 1 mark for brief aim 2 marks for detailed aim 2 marks available per aim e.g. 1 mark To test out the two factor theory of emotion To test out the role of cognitive labels in emotions To test out the role of physiology in emotions To investigate the effect of a stooge on behaviour e.g. 2 marks To test out the two factor theory of emotion which is that an emotional experience comes from a cognitive label and some physiological arousal To test out how cognitive labels like anger and euphoria affect how we perceive our own emotions To test that when physiologically aroused and there is no immediate explanation for it; do we describe feelings based on available cognitions? To test that when physiologically aroused and there is an immediate explanation for it, we do not use available cognitions to explain it To test given the same cognitive circumstances, will an individual describe their feelings as emotions only when they experience physiological arousal? To investigate the effect of a stooge on behaviour who would be angry or euphoric 9(b) Explain whether each guideline below was broken in the study by 8 Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion): • confidentiality • debriefing • deception • protection Use the following Levels marking for each guideline separately Level Descriptor Marks 2 The answer explicitly describes the ethical guideline and 2 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 Confidentiality e.g. Any data should not be identifiable as a single participants’ responses/participants’ data must not be named as theirs All we know is that there were male students from the University of Minnesota/only the doctors had access to their medical records Debriefing e.g. After a study has been completed, participants should be told about the true aim of the study/what deception/occurred This guideline was not broken as after the self-report, the researchers explained the deception of the injection/stooge/answered any questions Deception e.g. A participant should not be deceived without a strong justification/only if revealing the deception would not cause discomfort This guideline was broken as they were told the wrong information whilst getting the injection 9(b) Protection Note: can be answered for or against here – go with intentions of the candidate e.g. Participants should leave the study in the same psychological/physical state as they entered/Participants should not be potentially harmed by the procedure of a study The guideline was broken as the participants did receive an injection which may have caused physical/psychological pain The guideline was not broken as the injection was given by a professional doctor to ensure minimal pain They all had to be health screened prior to the study

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Piliavin et al. in terms of two strengths and two 10 weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of independent measures. Additional guidance – to be deleted for publication Level 4 (8–10 marks) 10 marks is reserved for: The • Evaluation is comprehensive. candidate has given four evaluation • Answer demonstrates points (two strengths and two evidence of careful planning, weakness) that are in depth, in the organisation and selection of context of the study, and include the material. named evaluation point. • Analysis (valid conclusions that effectively summarise Max 8 if: The candidate has given issues and arguments) is three evaluation points (at least one evident throughout. strength and one weakness) and • Answer demonstrates an they are in the context of the excellent understanding of the Piliavin study and it includes the material. named evaluation point, in depth. Level 3 (6–7 marks) Max 6: if the answer does not • Evaluation is good. include the named evaluation point. • Answer demonstrates some planning and is well organised. Max 6: if The candidate has given • Analysis is often evident but one strength and one weakness may not be consistently and they are in the context of the applied. Piliavin study and indepth. • Answer demonstrates a good understanding of the material. Level 2 (4–5 marks) Max 5: The candidate has given • Evaluation is mostly either two strengths or two appropriate but limited. weaknesses (contextualised). • Answer demonstrates limited organisation or lacks clarity. Max 4: if The candidate has given • Analysis is limited. one strength or weakness that is in • Answer lacks consistent levels the context of the Piliavin study of detail and demonstrates a which is indepth limited understanding of the material. Level 1 (1–3 marks) Max 3: The candidate has given two • Evaluation is basic. evaluation points that are • Answer demonstrates little generic/brief. organisation. • There is little or no evidence of Max 2: The candidate has given analysis. one evaluation point that is • Answer does not demonstrate generic/brief. understanding of the material. 10 Level 0 (0 marks) If the answer is a description of the No response worthy of credit. study