Psychology 9990/11 May/June 2021: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) State the lowest voltage shock that was labelled on the shock 1 generator. 1 mark for correct answer 15 (volts) 1(b) Describe the shock instructions the participant (teacher) was told to 3 follow when the victim (learner) gave an incorrect answer. 1 mark per correct point made They were told to give a shock to learner each time they gave an incorrect response; This was done by pressing a switch/button They were told to move one switch higher each time/increase by 15 V each time; They were told to say the voltage level; Before giving that shock level; 1(c) Milgram suggested one reason for obedience was the payment to the 1 participant (teacher). Suggest one reason for obedience in this study, other than the payment. 1 mark for a suggestion based on the study e.g. Being in a university; The experimenter’s prods; The way the experimenter was dressed; The authority figure;

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 2 Outline one aim of the study, other than to test the effect of race on helping behaviour. 2 marks full aim 1 mark brief/partial aim e.g. To investigate bystander behaviour in a realistic setting/where there is a clear view of victim (2 marks); To investigate if a person is more likely to help an ill or drunk victim (2 marks); To investigate bystander behaviour (1 mark); To investigate diffusion of responsibility (1 mark) which states that the more people present in an emergency the less likely they are to help (1 mark); To test the idea of a Good Samaritan (1 mark); 2(b) Describe one result about same-race helping in the cane (ill) condition. 2 2 marks meaningful comparison 1 mark no comparison e.g. There was a slight tendency for same-race helping in this condition, but it was not a significant result (2 marks) Overall, people were more likely to help an ill victim of their own race compared to a different race (2 marks) White helpers were more likely to help a white victim compared to black helpers (2 marks) Black helpers were less likely to help a black victim compared to white helpers (2 marks) Overall, people helped out same race more often (1 mark) 2(c) Outline two comments made by participants who did not help the 2 victim. 1 mark per comment ‘It is for men to help him’; ‘I wish I could help him’; ‘I am not strong enough’; ‘I never saw this kind of thing before’; ‘I don’t know where to look’; ‘You feel so bad when you don’t know what to do’;

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Laney et al. (false memory): 3 Identify three features of the sample used in Experiment 2 1 mark per correct point made n = 103; Undergraduates; University of Washington; Received course credit (for participation); Majority female; Mean age 20 years; Volunteers; 3(b) Suggest one real-world application based on the results of the study. 2 1 mark for what the application is about 1 mark for how it will be implemented/used e.g. The false memory procedure could be used with children who are fussy eaters (1 mark: what); they could be led to believe that they actually like healthy food to improve their diets (1 mark: how); Can help children who are obese/have a poor diet (1 mark: what) by letting parents alter their child’s diet via a false memory (1 mark: how);

Mark scheme

4(a) Describe one assumption of the learning approach, using an example 2 other than the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning). 1 mark assumption with no example 2 marks assumption with an example e.g. We learn through conditioning (1 mark). For operant we can get rewarded for being good so we are likely to be good again (1 mark: example); Social Learning helps to explain changes in behaviour (1 mark). We observe and imitate behaviours of aggressive role models and copy that aggression (1 mark: example); We learn through classical conditioning (1 mark); We learn from reinforcement/punishment (1 mark); 4(b)(i) Explain how one finding from the study by Pepperberg supports the 2 assumption of the learning approach that you have described in (a). 1 mark for finding 1 mark for linking it to an assumption highlighted in 4(a). If it does not match assumption can still gain 1 mark for a correct result. e.g. Alex scored well above chance on tests for same/different with familiar objects (76.6%) (1 mark: finding). This maybe because he was rewarded (conditioned) during training/testing (1 mark: link); Alex was able to comprehend same/different (1 mark: finding) after observing a teacher and competing using the model/rival technique (1 mark: link); He could imitate words for colour/shape (1 mark: finding); He was taught using the model/rival technique that uses positive reinforcement to motivate (1 mark: link); 4(b)(ii) Explain how one finding from the study by Pepperberg does not 2 support the assumption of the learning approach that you have described in (a). 1 mark for finding 1 mark for explaining why there is no link to an assumption highlighted in 4(a). If it does not match assumption can still gain 1 mark for a correct result. e.g. Alex scored well above chance on tests of same/different with novel objects (82.3%) (1 mark: finding). He had not been conditioned/rewarded to know these differences/was only rewarded after he got the answer correct (so this cannot explain why he was good at these) (1 mark: explain)

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia): 1 During diagnosis, the boy did not meet the DSM-IV criteria for one disorder. Name this disorder. 1 mark for correct answer OCD/Obsessive Compulsive Disorder 5(b) Describe the Feelings Thermometer. 2 1 mark per correct point made A hierarchy of disgust/fear; Nine point scale/0–8; 0 = no distress/8 = very distressed; Used to rate his level of disgust/fear/distress/anxiety; 5(c) Outline one strength of this study. 2 1 mark for identifying the strength 1 mark for relating it to the Saavedra and Silverman study e.g. There was a standardised procedure to the study to aid replicability/ reliability (1 mark); for example, the treatment session lengths were 20 mins for the boy (1 mark); The study could be said to have high ecological validity (1 mark); This is because the therapy sessions were ‘real’, and the activities would happen in real life (1 mark); The study followed the ethical guideline of informed consent (1 mark); as both the mum and boy gave this and knew exactly what the therapy was about (1 mark);

Mark scheme

6 Describe the procedure from the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) 5 from when a participant entered the experimental room until the model began to assemble tinker toys. 1 mark per correct procedural point The participant was taken to one corner of the room; It was a structured play area; The child was seated (at a table); The experimenter demonstrated to the child how to make pictures/potato prints/use stickers; Once the child began ‘playing’, the experimenter took the model to the opposite corner; A variety of objects were located there (e.g. mallet, Bobo etc.); The experimenter explained that these were for the model to play with; The model was seated at their own table; The experimenter then left the room;

Mark scheme

7(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 3 Describe the procedure used to select the target words and foils before the main study. 1 mark per correct statement made Piloted on a group of eight judges; At least five from the eight had to agree that the target word was most suitable; No more than two judges had to pick a single foil; Items that failed had new target words generated/was re-piloted with new words; 7(b) Group 1 consisted of 15 adults recruited using adverts in a specialist 3 magazine. Identify three other characteristics of Group 1. 1 mark per characteristic (all) male; (diagnosed) with AS/HFA; Mean age of 29.7 (years); Normal range IQ/mean IQ = 115; Same socioeconomic classes as Group 2; Same educational levels as Group 2;

Mark scheme

8(a) Research has shown that males’ brains respond to positive imagery 4 more than females’ brains. Explain two ways the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and emotions) differs from this research. 1 mark for identifying a difference 1 mark for describing the element of the study supporting the difference e.g. The participants in the Canli study were not male (1 mark: identifying) as they were all female (1 mark: describing) The Canli study did not investigate positive imagery (1 mark: identifying) as the images ranged from negative to neutral (1 mark: describing) The sample was different (1 mark: identifying) Canli only used females in their study (1 mark: describing) 8(b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Canli et 8 al. (brain scans and emotions) and one other core study from the biological approach. 4 marks available for the similarity 4 marks available for the difference Creditworthy points include: sample/sampling, ethics, quantitative data, brain measurement techniques. There are others. e.g. difference 4 marks Canli used an FMRI scan to be able to see brain activity whilst the participants watched the different emotional scenes. Dement and Kleitman used a different technique called an EEG that could only monitor brain wave activity/patterns during sleep/dreaming. 3 marks Canli used an FMRI scan to be able to see brain activity whilst the participants watched the different emotional scenes. Dement and Kleitman used a different technique called an EEG. 2 marks Canli used an FMRI scan measure brain activity whilst Dement and Kleitman used an EEG. 1 marks Both studies used different techniques to measure brain activity. The similarity/difference is well explained using both studies 4 marks as examples. The similarity/difference is well explained but only one study 3 marks is used as an example OR both studies used briefly. The similarity/difference is brief with an attempt at using at 2 marks least one study as an example OR The difference is well explained but there is no study evidence. The similarity/difference is brief with no attempt at using 1 mark studies as examples. No creditworthy material. 0 marks

Mark scheme

9 Evaluate the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping) in terms 10 of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of quantitative data. Suitable strengths include: quantitative data, internal validity, reliability, ethics Suitable weaknesses include: quantitative data, external validity, generalisability, ethics 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.