Psychology 9990/13 May/June 2021: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Saavedra and Silverman about a boy with button 1 phobia: State the age at which the boy’s button phobia began. 1 mark for correct answer 5 (years) 1(b) State what happened to the boy’s ratings of distress from session 2 to 1 session 4. 1 mark for correct answer They increased/went up/got larger etc. 1(c) Describe the disgust-related exposure sessions. 3 1 mark per correct point made They explored reasons why he felt buttons were disgusting; Used self-control/cognitive strategies; He had to imagine buttons falling on to him; He had to imagine hugging his mother with buttons on her shirt; He was asked how they looked/felt/smelled; He then was asked to elaborate on how he felt; It progressed from larger to smaller buttons; Cognitive re-structuring was used when necessary;

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning): 2 Outline one aim of the study. 2 marks full aim 1 mark partial/brief aim e.g. To test if an avian species can understand the concept of same and different (2 marks); To see if a bird knew same/different (1 mark); To test same and different in a bird (0 marks); 2(b) Describe one result from the tests on familiar objects. You must use 2 data in your answer. 1 mark for the result 1 mark for the use of data Alex’s score was 76.6% (99/129) for all trials (2 marks); Alex’s score was 69.7% (69/99) on first-trial-only (2 marks); Alex performed well above chance in this test (1 mark); Alex performed worse for familiar than for novel objects (1 mark); 2(c) Outline one ethical guideline that was important for Pepperberg to 2 consider when designing this study. 1 mark for identifying a guideline for the use of animals in research 1 mark for linking it to the study e.g. Housing (1 mark) Pepperberg had to ensure that Alex’s cage had enough space for him (1 mark) Numbers (1 mark) Pepperberg only used one parrot/only planned to use one parrot (1 mark)

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams): 3 Identify three features of the sample used in this study. 1 mark per correct statement made N = 9; Adults; Predominantly male; Five were studied intensely; Four were used to confirm results of main participants; 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 EEG readings could be used to help people with sleep disorders (1 mark: what); Readings could be analysed to see how much time people are in REM/NREM (1 mark: how) Could help with the study of sleep disorders/insomnia (1 mark: what)

Mark scheme

4(a) Describe two assumptions of the cognitive approach. 4 2 marks full assumption 1 mark brief assumption e.g. Behaviour and emotions can be explained in terms of the role of thinking (cognitive) processes like attention, memory and language (2 marks) Behaviour can be explained in terms of processes like memory/language (1 mark) Similarities and differences between people can be understood via cognitions. These can be the way we process information/the way we store information (2 marks) Similarities/differences between people can be understood via cognitions (1 mark) 4(b) Explain how one finding from the study by Andrade (doodling) 2 supports one of the assumptions of the cognitive 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 doodling group performed better on the monitoring task (compared to the control) (1 mark: finding). This shows that differences between the groups can be explained by cognitions/thinking processes, in this case, they were dual processing information (1 mark: link); doodling allowed access to optimal levels of cognitive processing/reduced daydreaming (alternative 1 mark: link)

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping): 1 Identify one object that a chimpanzee could have chosen, other than the stick or straw. 1 mark for the correct answer Hose; Chain; Rope; (Paint) Brush; Belt; 5(b) Describe the result from the chimpanzee Pan in the first ‘Can See’ 2 condition. You must data in your answer. 1 mark for the result 1 mark for using correct data e.g. Pan did not offer a potential tool significantly more than a nontool (1 mark: result); she offered the brush 79.5% on first trial attempts (1 mark: data) 5(c) Outline one strength of this study. 2 1 mark for identifying the strength 1 mark for relating it to Yamamoto e.g. The procedure was standardised so could be replicated/tested for reliability (1 mark strength). For example, the same seven tools were always used in every trial (1 mark relating) All of the trials were video recorded so could be replayed to check for accuracy (1 mark relating). Therefore, the results should be valid and free from any bias (1 mark strength)

Mark scheme

6 Describe the procedure of Experiment 2 in the study by Laney et al. 5 (false memory) from when the participants began viewing slides of food until the end of the study. 1 mark per correct procedural point They completed four ratings for each slide; These were of common foods (don’t need to mention any to gain credit); Each slide was displayed for 30s; They rated how appetizing/disgusting they felt the food was; They also rated experience of photographer/artistic quality of photo; Ratings were on an 8 point scale/rated from 1-8; They then completed RQ/FPQ/FHI (for a second time); They also completed a Memory or Belief? Questionnaire; They were then debriefed about the study;

Mark scheme

7(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 3 Identify three features of the experimenter in this study. 1 mark per correct point made Male; High school teacher (of Biology); Early thirties; Manner was impassive; Appearance was stern; Dressed in (Grey) technician’s coat; Provided prods to continue the study (if the participant wanted to stop); 7(b) At the start of the study, participants were told that ‘we know very little 3 about the effect of punishment on learning’. Describe what else each participant was told before they were assigned to the role of teacher. 1 mark per correct point made. This is because almost no scientific studies have been conducted (on human beings); We don’t know how much punishment is best for learning; We also don’t know how much difference it makes as to who is giving the punishment; So in this study we are bringing together people from different occupations (to test this out); Some of them will be teachers and some will be learners; We want to know what effect different people have on each other as teachers and learners; And also what effect punishment will have on learning in this situation;

Mark scheme

8(a) Research has shown that children who watch violent television 4 programmes are less likely to be aggressive. Explain two ways the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) 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 children did not watch a violent television programme (1 mark: identify) as they watched a live model being aggressive in a room (1 mark: describe) The children did not become less aggressive in Bandura (1 mark: identify) they became more aggressive especially with a same sex aggressive model (1 mark: describe) 8(b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by 8 Bandura et al. (aggression) and one other core study from the learning approach. 4 marks available for the similarity 4 marks available for the difference Creditworthy points include: modelling, quantitative data, case study, ethics, species, sample size, type of conditioning. Difference: e.g. 4 marks The study of Pepperberg and Bandura used different species as the participant(s). The Pepperberg study used one African Grey Parrot (Alex). However, the Bandura study used (72) nursery children from a university nursery. e.g. 3 marks The study of Pepperberg and Bandura used different species as the participant(s). The Pepperberg study used one African Grey Parrot (Alex). e.g. 2 marks The study of Pepperberg and Bandura used different species as the participant(s) namely a bird and children. e.g. 1 mark The studies of Pepperberg and Bandura used different species. 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 ethics. 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.