Psychology 9990/11 May/June 2020: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia): 1 Identify the main research method of this study. 1 mark for the correct answer. Case study. 1(b) Describe the incident that the boy recalls that started his phobia of 3 buttons. 1 mark per correct point. There was an art project using buttons (in kindergarten); He had run out of buttons (for his project); He was asked to go to the front of the class to get more (buttons); They were in a large bowl (on the teacher’s desk); His hand slipped as he reached for the bowl; All of the buttons fell down on him. 1(c) Outline the results from the 6-month follow up. 2 1 mark per correct point. He reported minimal distress (about buttons); He was in remission according to DSM (criteria); He (continued) to wear clear plastic buttons; He wore them daily/on his school uniform.

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Yamamoto et al. that used chimpanzees as 2 participants: Outline one psychological concept that was investigated in this study 1 mark for identifying 1 mark for outlining Altruism The willingness to do certain things/doing certain things for someone else even if it disadvantages yourself. Empathy The ability to understand the emotional state of someone else by imagining what it would be like to be in that situation. 2(b) Outline one result from the ‘First “Can See” Condition’. 2 2 marks = full result (with a meaningful comparison) 1 mark = partial result e.g. All chimpanzees, except Pan, first offered potential tools significantly more often than nontools (2 marks) Pan offered a brush on 80% of trials (1 mark)

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 2 Outline one result about helping a victim with no model present. 2 marks = full result (compares two relevant conditions) 1 mark = partial result (e.g. one condition) e.g. When the victim was black and drunk, help was only given on 73% of trials whereas when the victim was white and drunk this was 100% (2 marks). When the victim was white with a cane the rate of help was 100% (1 mark) 3(b) Outline one methodological strength of this study. 2 1 mark = an appropriate methodological strength 1 mark = applied to Piliavin e.g. The study was in a natural setting so has increased levels of ecological validity (1 mark). People were travelling on a subway car which is a normal everyday event (1 mark). The sample size was large meaning results could be generalisable (1 mark). Over 4,400 people ‘participated’ from a wide range of backgrounds meaning that the behaviours probably represent a wide range of people/society (1 mark). 3(c) Outline one ethical weakness of this study. 2 1 mark = an appropriate/possible ethical issue 1 mark = applied to Piliavin e.g. The participants were deceived by the whole set up (1 mark). The victim was acting ill/drunk but the participants never knew this (1 mark). As there were so many participants, debriefing never happened so not everyone knew it was a fake set up/had taken part in a study (1 mark). Debriefing after the event happened would have ensured people knew it was fake (1 mark).

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams): 4 Describe the procedure of this study from when the participant arrived at the laboratory until the participant fell asleep for the first time. 1 mark per correct procedural point. They were told to eat normally (that day); But refrain from alcohol/caffeine (on that day); Each participant had 2+ electrodes placed near their eyes; Two or three electrodes were placed on the scalp; The participant then went to bed in a dark/quiet room; All electrode wires were (further) attached to top of the head; 4(b) Outline how dream recall was recorded in this study. 2 1 mark per correct point. Participants were woken up (to record their dreams); Participants spoke into a recording device (near to their bed); They were asked to state whether or not they had been dreaming; If they could, they were asked to recall the dream; When they had finished the experimenter sometimes entered the room to question them more;

Mark scheme

5 Mark wants to replicate the Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf) condition 5 from the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion) and needs your help. You must produce clear instructions for Mark, from when the participant arrives until they are given the injection. Suggest instructions that Mark could use to replicate this part of the study. 1 mark per correct instruction. Max 3 for instructions given that are not specific to the Epi Inf condition. General: You must tell the participant that the study is about vision; You must tell them that it is about how vitamins affect vision; You must tell them that a vitamin compound/Suproxin is being assessed; You must then gain their permission to be injected (with Suproxin); You must tell them that the injection is mild/harmless; Epi Inf specific: You must also tell them/reveal that there may be side effects; Tell them that they are short-lived; Tell them they will last about 15 minutes or so; Tell them that their hand will begin to shake/heart will pound/face may get warm;

Mark scheme

6(a) From the study by Laney et al. (false memory): 3 Identify three characteristics of the sample used in Experiment 1. 1 mark per characteristic. Undergraduates; (studying at the) University of California; Mostly female (77%)/Minority male (23%); Mean age approx. 20–21 years; 6(b) Describe how the participants were recruited for Experiment 1. 2 1 mark per correct point made. Participants were studying at a university (California); They chose to take part to receive course credits; 6(c) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 2 marks = full conclusion 1 mark = partial conclusion 0 marks = purely results e.g. It is possible to implant false beliefs/false memories for a positive childhood experience of loving asparagus (2 marks) It is possible to implant false beliefs/false memories (1 mark) About one-quarter of participants in the Love group reported a memory of trying asparagus (0 marks)

Mark scheme

7(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 2 Outline one aim of this study. 2 marks = full aim 1 mark = partial aim e.g. To test whether doodling aided concentration/improved memory (2 marks) To test what could improve concentration/memory (1 mark) To test the effects of doodling (1 mark) 7(b) Suggest one real-world application of this study. 2 1 mark for application (clearly based on Andrade) 1 mark for who it would benefit/elaboration e.g. Let workers draw/doodle/colour-in whilst working on a job that is boring/tiring as this will improve their concentration (2 marks); Let school children doodle in class to help them (1 mark)

Mark scheme

8(a) The study by Milgram study (obedience) is from the social approach. 4 Outline two assumptions of the social approach, using any example for each. 1 mark = appropriate assumption (x2) 1 mark = any relevant example (x2) e.g. Behaviour/cognitions/emotions can be influenced by other individuals (1 mark). For example, in Milgram’s study, the experimenter in the lab coat used prods to get them to continue to give electric shocks (1 mark) Behaviour/cognitions/emotions can be influenced by groups (1 mark). For example, in emergency situations people may believe other people are giving/calling for help so just walk on by when they usually help (1 mark). 8(b) Explain how one result from the study by Milgram supports the situational 8 explanation of obedience and how one result does not support the situational explanation of obedience. Level Criteria Marks 4 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and 4 the candidate clearly explains how the result supports/does not support the situational explanation. 3 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and 3 there is a brief attempt at explaining how the result supports/does not support the situational explanation; The result presented has no meaningful comparison but the candidate clearly explains how the result supports/does not support the situational explanation. 2 The result presented has a meaningful comparison but 2 there is no attempt at explanation or explanation is not about the situational explanation; The result presented is not clear but there is an implicit attempt at explaining how the result supports/does not support the situational explanation. 1 The result presented has no meaningful comparison or 1 there is a basic attempt at explaining. 0 No creditworthy answer. 0

Mark scheme

9 Evaluate the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning) in terms of two 10 strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about 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.