Psychology 9990/13 May/June 2023: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion): 1 Identify which one of the following groups scored the lowest on the Activity Index in the Euphoria condition. Epinephrine Ignorant (Epi Ign) Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf) Epinephrine Misinformed (Epi Mis) Placebo 1 mark for correct answer. Epinephrine informed (Epi Inf) 1(b) In the Anger condition, an observer recorded the participant’s response 2 to the stooge using several categories. Outline how the category of ‘Neutral’ was operationalised in this study. 1 mark per correct point. A non-committed response; An irrelevant response; To any of the stooge’s remarks;

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 2 Name two measures observed for every participant who helped a victim. 1 mark per correct measure. Race; Sex; Location; Latency time for helping; 2(b) Identify one methodological strength of this study. 1 1 mark for correct strength identified. Ecological validity; Mundane realism; Replicable; Generalisable;

Mark scheme

3(a) In the final part of the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), each 3 participant spent 20 minutes in the experimental room and their behaviour was observed through a one-way mirror. Outline the procedure for this final part of the study. The room contained a range of toys / had Bobo doll and other toys in it; Behaviour was rated on (predetermined) response categories; E.g. imitation of physical aggression, imitative verbal aggression, imitative nonaggressive responses (2 named for 1 mark); The session was divided into 5 second intervals; Using an electric interval timer; A total of 240 response units were recorded per participant; The male model completed all observations; Half were then rated by a second observer (for inter-rater reliability); 3(b) Explain one weakness of this final part of the study. 2 1 mark for identifying an appropriate weakness. 1 mark for linking to study. e.g. There may have been issues with validity of recording behaviours (1 mark) as the observer could distinguish which group a participant was in as nearly all children replicated novel aggressive responses shown by the model (1 mark). There may have been some issues surrounding reliability of observations (1 mark) as the inter-rater reliability score was 0.9 rather than a perfect 1 so not all behaviours were agreed upon (1 mark).

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 4 Describe the feedback from the learner (victim) that was given to the teacher (participant) during this study. 1 mark per correct point. These were predetermined responses; There tended to be three wrong answers to one correct; No vocal response is heard up until Shock Level 300; When 300v given, the learner pounds on the wall; From this point on there are no answers from the learner; The learner pounds again at 315v; After that there is no pounding or answers given; 4(b) One conclusion was that people find it stressful to follow destructive 2 orders from a person in authority. Outline one other conclusion from this study. 2 marks full conclusion. 1 mark brief/partial conclusion. Individuals appear to be much more obedient to an authority figure than we might expect (2 marks); People will follow / listen to an authority figure even if it means harming another person (2 marks); People are willing to harm someone if responsibility is taken away / passed on to someone else (2 marks); People will be obedient to an authority figure (1 mark); All participants gave 300v (0 marks: result);

Mark scheme

5 In Experiment 2 of the study by Laney et al. (false memory), participants 5 completed both the Food History Inventory and photograph ratings of food items. Describe one result from the Food History Inventory and one result from the photograph ratings of food items. You must use data for one of these results. For result: 2 marks for result with a meaningful comparison. 1 mark for partial result / no meaningful comparison. For data: 1 mark for correct data in one of the results. e.g. Food History Inventory The mean confidence of the Love Group increased more than the Control Group (2 marks). This was 2.5 points for the Love Group (1 mark: data); The mean confidence of the Love Group increased (1 mark). e.g. Photograph Ratings Believers rated the asparagus photo as being more appetising compared to controls (2 marks). The score for the believers was 5.1 (1 mark: data); Believers scored lowest on the disgusting rating for asparagus (1 mark).

Mark scheme

6 Outline two assumptions of the learning approach. 6 You must use an example from a core study for each assumption. For assumptions: 2 mark for full assumption 1 mark for partial assumption. For example: 1 mark per correct example per assumption. Examples have to come from a core study. E.g., assumptions Operant Conditioning can explain changes in behaviour (2 marks); Classical Conditioning can explain changes in behaviour (2 marks); Social Learning can explain changes in behaviour (2 marks); Conditioning can explain behaviour (1 mark); E.g., examples In the Bandura study, children observed and imitated (modelled) aggressive behaviours; In the Pepperberg study, Alex the parrot got rewarded for a correct response to a question; In the Saavedra and Silverman study, classical conditioning (evaluative learning) was used to help understand the causes of his button phobia;

Mark scheme

7 Suggest two real-world applications based on the study by Baron- 4 Cohen et al. (eyes test). Your suggestions must be ethical. 1 mark for what the application is (clearly based on Baron-Cohen et al.). 1 mark for how it will be achieved. 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). The eyes test can be used to improve social intelligence in people diagnosed with AS/HFA (1 mark: what). A therapist can run through the test with them explaining why each emotion is being shown (1 mark: how).

Mark scheme

8 Two friends, Maria and Oscar, are discussing the ethics of the study by 6 Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia). Maria thinks the study is ethical but Oscar thinks the study is not ethical. Explain one reason why Maria is correct and one reason why Oscar is correct, using evidence from this study. 3 marks for Maria. 1 mark per correct point made. 1 mark available for naming guideline. 3 marks for Oscar. 1 mark per correct point made. 1 mark available for naming guideline. E.g., Maria The study did gain informed consent (1 mark). This was taken from the boy and his mother before the therapy started (1 mark). Therefore, both the boy and mother knew exactly what the therapy was going to entail (1 mark); the boy/mother agreed to wanting to take part in the study / having results Also, they started the therapy with his least distressing scenario (1 mark). The mother used positive reinforcement during the therapy so the boy would not get too distressed (1 mark). Therefore, the boy was protected from any harm throughout the therapy (1 mark). E.g., Oscar The study could have easily caused psychological stress (1 mark). The boy was having to confront his button phobia throughout the therapy (1 mark). He also had to discuss potential causes/effects of the phobia (e.g., buttons falling on him in art class) which would be stressful (1 mark).

Mark scheme

9(a) From the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping): 2 Outline what is meant by altruism. 1 mark per correct point. e.g. The willingness to help / doing certain things for someone else (1 mark) even if it disadvantages yourself / gain no benefit (1 mark). 9(b) Outline what is meant by targeted helping. 2 1 mark per correct point. e.g. To select an appropriate tool / offer appropriate advice; To help someone else / a chimpanzee solve a task; As the person/chimpanzee giving the help understands the demands of the situation; 9(c) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by 8 Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping) and the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning). 4 marks available for the similarity. 4 marks available for the difference. Creditworthy points include: sample/sampling, ethics, quantitative data, species used. Level Descriptor Mark 4 The similarity/difference is well explained using both 4 marks studies as examples. 3 The similarity/difference is well explained/described 3 marks but only one study is used as an example OR both studies used briefly. 2 The similarity/difference is brief with an attempt at 2 marks using at least one study as an example OR The similarity/difference is well explained but there is no study evidence. 1 The similarity/difference is brief with no attempt at 1 mark using studies as examples. 0 No creditworthy material. 0 marks e.g. similarity 4 marks Both of the studies used animals/non-humans as participants. Yamamoto used a group of chimpanzees in a Primate Research Laboratory whilst Pepperberg used a solitary African Grey parrot. Therefore, they would have to adhere to the same ethical guidelines of housing etc. 3 marks Both of the studies used animals/non-humans as participants. Yamamoto used a group of chimps to test helping and Pepperberg used a parrot to test his comprehension. 2 marks Both of the studies used animals/non-humans as participants. Yamamoto used a group of chimps.1 mark Both studies used animals/non-humans as participants.

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) in terms 10 of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about reliability. Suitable strengths are: internal validity, reliability, quantitative data. Suitable weaknesses are: external validity, ethics, 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.