Psychology 9990/12 May/June 2021: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 1 State how many participants took part in the study. 1 mark for correct answer 40 1(b) State the highest voltage shock that was labelled on the shock 1 generator. 1 mark for correct answer 450 (volts) 1(c) The participant (teacher) was given a ‘sample shock’. 3 Describe this procedure. 1 mark per correct point made This was always given before the teacher began their role; It was always 45 v; This was done by pressing (third) switch on generator; It was applied to the wrist; Its source was a battery wired to the generator;

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): 2 Outline what Bandura et al. meant by ‘imitative verbal aggression’. 1 mark for the imitative part 1 mark for the verbal aggression part e.g. This is when the children/participant copied/imitated/repeated (1 mark) The things that were said by the model/model’s verbal aggression (1 mark) 2(b) Identify two examples that were recorded as imitative verbal 2 aggression. 1 mark per example ‘Sock him’; ‘Hit him (down)’; ‘Kick him’; ‘Throw him (in the air)’; ‘Pow’; 2(c) Describe one result about aggressive gun play in the aggressive 2 experimental groups. 2 marks comparison/full result 1 mark no meaningful comparison/brief result e.g. Males showed more aggressive (gun) play compared to females (2 marks) Males showed the most aggressive (gun) play in the aggressive male model condition (2 marks) Girls showed the least aggressive (gun) play when the model was an aggressive female (2 marks) Males showed more aggressive (gun) play (1 mark) Females showed the least amount of aggressive (gun) play (1 mark) More boys than girls showed (gun) play (0 marks as data is about the average and not number of participants).

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 3 Identify three features of the sample used for Group 4. 1 mark per correct point made Random sample; General population; N = 14; Not diagnosed with AS/HFA; IQ matched with Group 1/mean IQ = 116; Same age distribution as Group 1/mean age = 28 years; 3(b) Suggest one real-world application based on the results of this study. 2 1 mark for what the application is about 1 mark for how it will be implemented/used e.g. The eyes test could be used as a diagnostic tool for AS/HFA (1 mark: what) Those who score low on the test may show a lack of theory of mind (1 mark: how) Teachers can use the eyes test to see which students struggle with social interactions (1 mark: how) by giving these students extra lessons to help improve (1 mark: what)

Mark scheme

4(a) Describe two assumptions of the learning approach, using examples 4 other than the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia). 2 marks assumption with an example (not from Saavedra and Silverman): 1 mark for assumption + 1 mark for the examples 1 mark assumption with no 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 an 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) Explain how one finding from the study by Saavedra and Silverman 2 (button phobia) supports one of the assumptions 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. The ratings of distress declined over session time (1 mark: finding) and during these the mother gave positive reinforcement to help shape his behaviour (1 mark: link) by the end of the study the boy could handle buttons (1 mark: finding)

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams): 1 From the dream-duration estimate part of the study: State how Dement and Kleitman chose whether to wake a participant after 5 minutes or after 15 minutes of REM sleep. 1 mark for correct answer At random/randomly/equal chance of being either. 5(b) Describe the dream-duration estimates for the participant DN whose 2 responses did not follow the same pattern as others. 1 mark per correct statement made e.g. DN was equally likely to get the 15 minute estimation right or wrong; He got estimation of 15 minutes correct 50% of the time/5 times; ORA He got estimation of 5 minutes correct 80% of the time/8 times; ORA He often underestimated how long they were dreaming; 5(c) Outline one strength of this study. 2 1 mark for identifying the strength 1 mark for relating it to Dement & Kleitman e.g. There were controls on some participant/situational variables to aid cause and effect conclusions (1 mark) For example participants were not allowed to drink alcohol/consume caffeine prior to the study (1 mark) There was a standardised procedure to the study to aid replicability/ reliability (1 mark) For example participants were not allowed to drink alcohol/consume caffeine prior to the study (1 mark) It was conducted in a laboratory so had good controls that increase (internal) validity (1 mark)

Mark scheme

6 From the study by Laney et al. (false memory): 5 Describe the procedure for Experiment 1 from when the participants returned for Session 2 (approximately one week after Session 1) until they completed the Food History Inventory. 1 mark per correct procedural point made They were given false feedback about Session 1; They were told that their responses had been entered into a computer; It had generated a food profile of early childhood; These were presented as if ‘tailored to them’; One part was the same for all participants (don’t need to name any to gain the mark)(e.g. you disliked spinach); A critical item about asparagus was given (for Love group); Control group had three filler questions; All had to respond about a ‘sweets at school’ item; Asked to imagine a setting where this experience might have happened/who were you with?; Then they had to rate how much they felt it affected their adult personality; The experimenter then collected the profiles;

Mark scheme

7(a) From the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning): 3 The ‘model/rival technique’ was used where one human acted as a trainer. Describe this technique. 1 mark per correct point made The trainer presents objects to a second human/learner; They ask questions about the objects; The model/rival is praised/rewarded the correct answers; They show disapproval for incorrect answers by the model/rival; The second human acts as model for Alex/the bird; And as a rival for the trainer’s attention; The role of model and rival were reversed; 7(b) Describe what the secondary trainer did during the ‘test procedures’. 3 1 mark per correct point made This trainer would present Alex with an object; These were varied but in a predetermined order; Asked a series of questions like ‘What colour?’ ‘What’s same?’ etc.; (need example question); Alex got rewarded for correct/scolded for incorrect answer; Alex had to vocalise in English; Secondary questions were used to clarify answers (if necessary);

Mark scheme

8(a) Research in the laboratory has shown that people are more likely to 4 help someone of a different race to themselves. Explain two ways the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) differs from this research. 1 mark for identifying a difference 1 mark for describing the element of the study supporting the difference e.g. Piliavin’s study was not in a laboratory/controlled setting (1 mark: identify) as it took place in a subway car in New York (1 mark: describe) The different race helping was not seen as much in Piliavin (1 mark: identify) as people were more likely to help same race victim when drunk (1 mark: describe) 68% of spontaneous helpers of a white victim were white which is higher than racial distribution in the car (1 mark: describe) 8(b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Piliavin 8 et al. (subway Samaritans) and the study by Milgram (obedience). 4 marks available for the similarity, e.g. ethics, situational, controls, quantitative data 4 marks available for the difference, e.g. setting, participants, use of a stooge. Creditworthy points include ethics, situational, controls, quantitative data, setting, participants, use of a stooge. Similarity e.g. 4 marks Both the Piliavin and Milgram studies have ethical issues of deception. In the Milgram study, participants believed they were giving real electric shocks to a stranger who could not remember word pairs. In the Piliavin study, the participants were led to believe that the drunk or ill victim was actually in need of help. e.g. 3 marks Both the Piliavin and Milgram studies have ethical issues of deception. In the Milgram study, participants believed they were giving real electric shocks to a complete stranger who could not remember word pairs. e.g. 2 marks Both the Piliavin and Milgram studies have ethical issues of deception, as in both, participants never knew that the scenarios were fake. e.g. 1 mark Both the Piliavin and Milgram studies had ethical issues. 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 similarity/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 Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion) in 10 terms 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 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.