Psychology 9990/12 May/June 2020: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 1 Identify the sampling technique used in this study. 1 mark for correct answer. Volunteer/self-selecting 1(b) Identify two examples of ‘signs of extreme tension’ shown by 2 participants in this study. 1 mark for ‘sign’ – if more than one written in either scaffolded slot then take the first answer for each. Signs of extreme tension: Sweat; Tremble; Stutter; Bit lip; Groan; Dig fingernails into flesh; Nervous laughing (fits); Smiling; Full-blown seizures; 1(c) Describe the ‘preliminary run’ that participants had to complete before 3 the ‘regular run’ in this study. 1 mark per correct point. The participant/teacher was given 10 words to read (to the learner); Three of these were neutral/ones the learner would get correct; Seven of these were ‘incorrect’ answers; So a voltage of 105v was administered;

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Laney et al. who investigated whether new 2 information about liking asparagus can change old information: Outline one psychological concept that was investigated in this study. 1 mark for identifying 1 mark for outlining e.g. (Positive) false memories (1 mark). These are memories that are an apparent recollection of an event/behaviour/situation that never actually happened (1 mark). 2(b) Outline one result from the Food History Inventory in Experiment 2 of 2 this study. 2 marks = full result (with a meaningful comparison) 1 mark = partial result e.g. The mean confidence of the Love Group increased more than the Control Group (2 marks) The mean confidence of the Love Group increased (1 mark).

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 2 Outline one result from the memory scores for names (monitored information) in this study. 2 marks = full result (compares the two conditions correctly) 1 mark = partial result (e.g. one condition) e.g. The doodling condition scored (on average) higher than the control condition (2 marks) The average score for the doodling group was 5.1 (1 mark) 3(b) Outline one methodological strength of this study. 2 1 mark = an appropriate methodological strength 1 mark = applied to Andrade e.g. The study had controls so we could establish cause and effect (1 mark); The study controlled things like the length of the script/the time the participant was spoken to before recall, meaning that Andrade could be confident it was doodling causing changes in recall rate(s) (2 marks) There was a standardised procedure meaning reliability could be assessed (1 mark) 3(c) Outline one ethical weakness of this study. 2 1 mark = an appropriate/possible ethical issue 1 mark = applied to Andrade e.g. Participants were deceived (1 mark); They did not know that they would have to remember the names/places in telephone message (1 mark) Participants might have experienced some psychological distress (1 mark) because they were not expecting a memory test/could not remember the names/places (1 mark)

Mark scheme

4(a) In the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning), a principal trainer and 4 secondary trainers were used during the ‘test procedures’. Describe what the principal trainer would do during the ‘test procedures’. 1 mark per correct point. She was sat in the room with her back to Alex/the parrot; She did not look at Alex/the parrot during the presentation of (test) objects; She did not know what object was being presented; She repeated out loud what Alex/the parrot said; It was then decided if the response was correct/incorrect/indistinct. 4(b) Outline how the overall test score was calculated in this study. 2 Dividing the total number of correct identifications (1 mark) by the total number of presentations required (1 mark).

Mark scheme

5 Adelia wants to replicate the Epinephrine Misinformed (Epi Mis) 5 condition from the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion) and needs your help. You must produce clear instructions for Adelia, from when the participant arrives until they are given the injection. Suggest instructions that Adelia 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 Mis 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 Mis 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 feet will feel numb/itching sensation/might get a slight headache;

Mark scheme

6(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 2 Identify two characteristics of the sample used in Group 3. 1 mark per characteristic. (normal) adults; Students; Males and females (even split); Studying at Cambridge University; 6(b) Describe how the participants were recruited for Groups 2 and 3. 3 1 mark per correct point Max 2 for Group 2; Max 2 for Group 3 Group 2: Opportunity/volunteer sampling; From adult community/education classes in Exeter; From public libraries in Cambridge; Group 3: Opportunity/volunteer sampling; From students studying degrees at Cambridge University; All students had performed well in Advanced Level qualifications; 6(c) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 2 marks = full conclusion 1 mark = partial conclusion 0 marks = purely results e.g. The Revised ‘Eyes Test’ overcame the problems of the original version (1 mark) The Revised ‘Eyes Test’ overcame the problems of the original version making it a valid test of social intelligence (in adults) (2 marks) The Revised test could discriminate AS and non-AS participants (1 mark) AS/HFA participants scored lower on the Eyes Test than all other groups (0 marks)

Mark scheme

7(a) From the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and emotion): 2 Outline one aim of this study. 2 marks = full aim 1 mark = partial aim e.g. To investigate whether the amygdala is sensitive to different levels of experienced emotional intensities (2 marks) To investigate whether the degree of emotional intensity affects the role of the amygdala in enhancing memory (2 marks) To investigate the role of the amygdala in memories (1 mark) 7(b) Suggest one real-world application of this study. 2 1 mark for application (clearly based on Canli) 1 mark for who it would benefit/elaboration e.g. People in advertising may want to use emotionally intense imagery (1 mark). The images in this study that were rated emotionally intense were remembered better so products linked to this type of imagery may also be well remembered (1 mark) Psychologists may want to use the same procedure with people who have memory difficulties (1 mark). If a patient does not remember emotionally intense imagery then they may have a problem with/may have a damaged amygdala (1 mark)

Mark scheme

8(a) The study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping) is from the social 4 approach. Outline two assumptions of the social approach, using any example for each. 1 mark = appropriate assumption (×2) 1 mark = any relevant example (×2) e.g. Behaviour/cognitions/emotions can be influenced by other individuals (1 mark). For example, in the study by Milgram, 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 Yamamoto et al. supports the 8 individual explanation of prosocial behaviour and how one result does not support the individual explanation of prosocial behaviour. 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 individual 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 individual explanation; The result presented has no meaningful comparison but the candidate clearly explains how the result supports/does not support the individual explanation. 2 The result presented has a meaningful comparison but 2 there is no attempt at explanation or explanation is not about the individual explanation; The result presented is not clear but there is an implicit attempt at explaining how the result supports/does not support the individual 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 Bandura et al. (aggression) in terms of two 10 strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about observations. 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.