Psychology 9990/12 May/June 2019: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a)(i) In his study, Milgram used a fake shock generator to measure levels of 1 obedience. What was the voltage increment from one switch to the next on the generator? 1 mark for correct answer If more than one answer given, credit the first one 15 (volts) 1(a)(ii) What label was underneath the switches from 375–420 volts on the 1 generator? 1 mark for correct answer If more than one answer given, credit the first one Danger/Severe (Shock) 1(a)(iii) How many participants pressed the maximum voltage switch, labelled 1 450 volts? 1 mark for correct answer If more than one answer given, credit the first one 26 1(b) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 1 mark brief conclusion 2 marks detailed conclusion e.g. People will be obedient to an authority figure (1 mark); Individuals appear to be much more obedient to an authority figure than we might expect (2 marks); When people are given orders to act destructively they will be experience high levels of stress/anxiety (2 marks); People will follow/listen to an authority figure even if it means harming another person (2 marks); People are willing to harm someone if responsibility is taken away/passed on to someone else (2 marks)

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion): 2 Outline what the participants in the ‘Epinephrine Ignorant (EPI IGN)’ were told during their injection. 1 mark per correct point made They were told that the injection/drug was mild/harmless; They were told that there were no side effects. 2(b) Describe the results from the Activity Index measure in the Euphoria 3 condition for ‘Epinephrine Ignorant (EPI IGN)’ group compared to the Epinephrine Misinformed (EPI MIS) group. You must use data in your answer 1 mark for stating which group scored highest/lowest 1 mark for describing what the result meant 1 mark for using data (can be just the data for one group) e.g. The score on the Activity Index was higher for the Epi Mis/lower for the Epi Ign (1 mark) which meant the Epi Mis joined in more with the stooge or were more euphoric/Epi Ign joined in less or were less euphoric (1 mark). The average score was 22.56 (Epi Mis) and 18.28 (Epi Ign) (1 mark for either)

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia): 2 Outline one aim of this study. 1 mark for brief aim. 1 mark for detailed aim. e.g. To report on the treatment of a button phobia (1 mark); To investigate the cause of a boy’s button phobia (1 mark); To investigate the cause of a boy’s button phobia to see if disgust is involved (2 marks); To treat the button phobia of a boy by targeting fear and disgust (2 marks); To test the effectiveness of exposure (based) treatment of a button phobic (2 marks); To examine the role of evaluative learning/classical conditioning in (button) phobias (2 marks); 3(b) Describe one strength of this study. 2 1 mark for identifying strength 1 mark for relating it directly to the study including why it is a strength e.g. The study had a follow up of 12-months (1 mark). Therefore, the treatment could be tested for effectiveness in the long term (1 mark) The study was on only one boy so a lot of data could be collected (1 mark). Therefore, the best treatment method could be designed/chosen to ensure it helped to get rid of his button phobia (1 mark)

Mark scheme

4 Describe the ‘Aggression Arousal’ procedure in the study by Bandura 5 et al. 1 mark per correct point The child was brought to an anteroom/a room; It contained toys (for the children)/shown toys; These included a fire engine, locomotive, a fighter jet, cable, spinning top, doll, doll carriage, crib, car, wardrobe (two need to be named to gain 1 mark); They were told they could play with them; As soon as they did begin to play/get involved (usually 2 mins), the experimenter stopped them; The experimenter explained that she did not let just anyone play with the toys; She then said that she decided they were reserved for some other children; The children were told that they were her very best toys; The experimenter sat away from the child (during this phase)/completed some paperwork

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Laney et al. (false memory): 2 Identify two characteristics of the sample used in Experiment 1. 1 mark per correct characteristic Undergraduates/students; (from) University of California; Mostly female; Mean age around 21 years 5(b) The Restaurant Questionnaire measures the likelihood of eating 2 certain foods. Explain one reason why it may not measure this accurately. 1 mark for a reason/problem 1 mark for linking it to the study e.g. What people say they will do on a questionnaire may not ‘mirror’ their behaviour (1 mark); therefore just because they said they would be more likely eat asparagus we don’t know if they actually would (1 mark) 0–8 ratings are subjective/restrictive (1 mark)

Mark scheme

6 A teacher, Rachael, has a new class of children aged six years. She 4 wants the children to help each other more often in the classroom and asks you for advice. Outline the advice you would give to Rachael, using your knowledge of the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee learning). 1 mark per correct piece of advice given based on any element of the study (does not have to be explicit). e.g. Rachael could set up a game where two children have to work together to solve a task; One child could have tools necessary to solve the whole task; The other child needs to request the correct tool to solve the task/only one tool will help solve it; The children need to work together to use the correct tools to solve the task; Rachael should give a reward to the children when they solve it; She could give a reward to the child who solved it then swap the children over; She can encourage children to ask for help; She could allow the children to get familiar with the classroom/equipment to use;

Mark scheme

7 From the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and emotions): 5 Describe one result about the ratings of emotional intensity of the scenes and one result about the percentage of participants who ‘remembered’ the scene across intensity ratings. 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. emotional intensity They were similar across the scenes (1 mark); there were slightly more scenes rated as 0 (not emotionally intense) (1 mark); 29% of scenes were rated as not emotionally intense (1 mark: data) There was a negative correlation between emotional intensity and valence (2 marks; 1 if just ‘correlation’). The r value was –0.66 (1 mark: data) There was a positive correlation between emotional intensity and arousal (2 marks; 1 if just ‘correlation). The r value was +0.68 (1 mark: data) There was a positive correlation between emotional intensity and (left) amygdala activation (2 marks; 1 if just ‘correlation’ OR amygdala activation was higher for scenes rated higher (2 or 3) compared to those rated lower (0 or 1) (2 marks) e.g. ‘remembered’ scenes More of the scenes rated as 3 (extremely emotionally intense) were remembered (1 mark); Those rated 0–2 had similar levels of % remembered/less than those rated 3 (1 mark); 42% of scenes rated 3 were ‘remembered’ (1 mark: data) The scenes which had higher emotional/intensity ratings were remembered more (1 mark) than those with a low emotional/intensity rating (2 marks total: comparison)

Mark scheme

8(a) Duncan has learned about the Pepperberg (parrot learning) study. He 2 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 you think Duncan is correct, using evidence in your 4 answer. 1 mark per point made e.g. Alex was taught/trained how to use same/different so this was learnt; Alex got rewarded for his efforts and got better at the skill of same/different showing this was learnt; He was taught to label colours and materials so this was learnt; He learnt skills through operant conditioning/social learning/Model-Rival Technique; He could transfer his ‘knowledge’ to novel objects which could have only happened if he had learnt labels; These skills are not common among wild parrots; This shows that Alex was not born with the ability to use labels/eq. Alex had already learned some vocabulary in a previous study.

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe two of the independent variables in the study by Piliavin et al. 4 (subway Samaritans). 1 mark for identifying an IV 1 mark for operationalising the IV e.g. Type/responsibility/condition/behaviour of victim (1 mark); ill versus drunk (1 mark) Race of victim/stooge (1 mark); black versus white (1 mark) The size of the group of bystanders (1 mark); how many people were present (1 mark) Early or late model/The behaviour of the model (1 mark); (help) 70 seconds or 150 seconds after collapse (1 mark) 9(b) Explain whether each guideline below was broken in the study by 8 Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): • debriefing • deception • confidentiality • protection 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 guideline 1 without 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 9(b) 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 broken people could easily leave the subway carriage at the end of their trip and not be told about the study/participants were not systematically stopped and told that it was in fact a study about bystander behaviour 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 the participants were unaware that the victim was ‘faking it’ Confidentiality e.g. Any data should not be identifiable as a single participants’ responses/participants’ data must not be named as theirs know is that there were people on a New York subway train 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 had to witness a person collapsing and then maybe not helping them out The guideline was not broken as a participant could literally turn their back on the incident and take no notice of it Other people did help so most passengers may have felt guilty.

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Andrade (doodling) in terms of two strengths 10 and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of quantitative data. Original AOs Setter version/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 evidence of points (two strengths and two careful planning, organisation and weakness) that are in depth, in the selection of material. context of the study, and include Analysis (valid conclusions that the named evaluation point. effectively summarise issues and arguments) is evident throughout. Max 8 if: The candidate has given Answer demonstrates an excellent three evaluation points (at least understanding of the material. one strength and one weakness) and they are in the context of the Andrade study and it includes the 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 may one strength and one weakness not be consistently applied. and they are in the context of Answer demonstrates a good Andrade study and indepth. understanding of the material. Level 2 (4–5 marks) Max 5: The candidate has given Evaluation is mostly appropriate either two strengths or two 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 of the context of the Andrade study detail and demonstrates a limited understanding of the material. Level 1 (1–3 marks) Max 3: The candidate has given Evaluation is basic. two 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. Level 0 (0 marks) If the answer is a description of the No response worthy of credit. study