Psychology 9990/13 May/June 2019: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion): 2 Outline one aim of the study. 2 marks detailed aim; 1 mark partial / brief aim. e.g. To test out the two factor theory of emotion (1 mark); To test out the two factor theory of emotion which is that an emotional experience comes from a cognitive label and some physiological arousal (2 marks); To test out the role of cognitive labels in emotions (1 mark). 1(b) Describe what the participants in the epinephrine-misinformed (Epi- 3 Mis) condition were told immediately after agreeing to the injection. 1 mark per correct point. They were told to expect some side effects (from Suproxin); The side effects would be short-lived / transitory; The side effect would last for 15–20 minutes; Your feet will probably go numb; You will get an itching sensation over your body; You may get a headache.

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping): 2 Identify two characteristics of the sample used, other than that they were chimpanzees. 1 mark per correct point. Do not accept chimpanzees. e.g. Five pairs; Each paired with kin / mother; Three were juveniles; Socially housed at a Primate Research Institute; Had participated in previous research that was similar; Had demonstrated sharing behaviour before. 2(b) Describe the results from the second ‘Can See’ condition. You must 3 use data in your answer. 1 mark per correct point. Maximum of 2 if no data is used in answer. e.g. There was an object offered in 97.9% of cases (1 mark: data); The three chimpanzees offered potential tools more frequently than nontool objects (2 marks) with Ai doing this 81.3% of the time (1 mark: data); They offered a relevant tool more frequently than a irrelevant tool for both the stick and straw tasks (2 marks).

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams): 2 Outline one conclusion about eye movement during REM sleep. 2 marks detailed conclusion. 1 mark partial / brief. No credit for any actual results. Must be generic. e.g. 2 marks Eye movements during REM tend to fit with what the dreamer is looking at suggesting eye movements are not ‘random’ at all. e.g. 1 mark Eye movements during REM tend to fit with what the dreamer is looking at. 3(b) Describe one strength of this study. 2 1 mark identifying strength. 1 mark contextualising with study. e.g. There was a standardised procedure (which increases reliability) (1 mark); For example, the participant was always in a quiet dark room which makes replication easier to test for reliability (2 marks). There are other creditworthy answers including objectivity, scientific, controls etc.

Mark scheme

4 Describe the Restaurant Questionnaire completed by participants in 5 the study by Laney et al. (false memory). 1 mark per correct point. Assessed desire to eat 32 dishes; There was a critical item of ‘sautéed asparagus (spears)’; Formatted to look like a menu; Five categories (e.g. appetisers, desserts – need to name 2); They had to imagine they were out for a special dinner; Then decide how likely they would order each item; Each choice was rated from 1–8; 1 = definitely no and 8 = definitely yes (require both to gain this available mark).

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 2 Identify two examples where a response would be recorded as a ‘false alarm’ for the recall of names 1 mark per correct point. Names mentioned on the tape as lures; Any new name. 5(b) Suggest one problem with the sample used in this study. 2 1 mark suggesting problem. 1 mark for contextualising with study. e.g. Might not be a representative sample (1 mark: problem); All were members of a Psychology Unit participant panel so might be more motivated (1 mark: context). The sample was gender biased (1 mark: problem); There were many more females so the results may not generalise to males doodling and remembering (1 mark: context)

Mark scheme

6 Simone is a student who never uses a spoon to eat with at lunchtime 4 because he has a phobia of spoons. Outline how Simone could be helped to overcome his phobia of spoons, using your knowledge of the study by Saavedra and Silverman. 1 mark per correct piece of advice given based on any element of the study (does not have to be explicit). e.g. Simone might ask the child if he can remember any negative experiences with spoons; This will enable Simone to identify a potential cause to help the student reverse the experience; Simone could get the student to rate different spoons on a Fear / Disgust Hierarchy; Whichever has the lowest fear / disgust rating can be presented to the student; They can be rewarded for being able to touch or use the spoon; The feelings of the student can be measured using a Feelings Thermometer.

Mark scheme

7 Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) studied spontaneous helping of 5 victims on a subway. Describe one result about the spontaneous helping of white victims and one result about the spontaneous helping of black victims. You must use data for one of these results. Max. 4 for answers without data presented. Max. 1 mark for correct data in one of the answers. e.g. white victims: The highest incidence of help was for white victims being helped by white helpers in the cane condition (1 mark). This happened 34 times during the study (1 mark: data). Also, there was only one instance of a black participant helping a white drunk victim (1 mark: data). 68% of helpers were white (1 mark: data); There were the same levels of helping when the victim was drunk or ill (2 marks: comparison). This was 100% of the time (1 mark: data). e.g. black victims: More drunk black victims were helped by black helpers than white helpers (2 marks: comparison). Only two white helpers helped a black victim with a cane (1 mark: data). Overall, half of helpers were white though (1 mark: data); Black ill victims were helped more often than black drunk victims (2 marks: comparison). The latter was for 73% of trials (1 mark: data).

Mark scheme

8(a) Patty has learned about the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and 2 emotions). She believes that the results support the nature 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. Do not credit tautological outlines. 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 Patty is correct, using evidence in your answer. 4 1 mark per point made. 1 mark available for any result / example from the study itself. Max. 2 if no evidence from study presented. e.g. The study was about brain function which is a biological mechanism; The amygdala is a part of the brain hence it is biological / we are born with it; Blood-oxygen levels were measured which is biological in nature; Females were used in the study as they are likely to show emotional reactions which are a biological difference from men.

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe the psychology being investigated in the study by 4 Pepperberg (parrot learning). 1 mark per correct point. e.g. She was testing cognitive skills (of a parrot); To see we can teach an organism to distinguish between same and different; The study also examined Social Learning Theory as a mechanism for learning; This is when an organism pays attention to a role model; The organism retains the information for later use; The organism then reproduces the observed behaviour; They organism must feel motivated to replicate / via vicarious reinforcement; Operant conditioning is when you learn by the consequences of your behaviour. 9(b) Studies in psychology can be assessed on ethical issues: whether 8 they follow ethical guidelines or not. Four ethical guidelines relating to animals are listed below. Explain whether each guideline was followed in the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning): • Deprivation • Housing • Numbers • Species 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 correct 1 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 and/or 0 the contextualised example is incorrect OR no answer given 9(b) e.g. Deprivation Animals should not have any food / water withheld in a study unless it is absolutely necessary; Alex would be given extra food if he asked / was not stopped from having food if he got an answer incorrect (not broken). e.g. Housing Housing should take into account the social behaviour of species (e.g. caging); Alex was housed alone which might be stressful as parrots are social (broken). e.g. Numbers Psychologists should use the least number of animals as possible to accomplish goals; Alex was the only participant (not broken). e.g. Species Researchers should choose an appropriate species for their study; Alex had been used for over 10 years in different studies about cognitive abilities so was an ideal participant (not broken).

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) in terms of two 10 strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of quantitative data. 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.