Psychology 9990/11 May/June 2024: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) In the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups), cartoon 1 Take the first answer only. character targets were used. Identify one of the cartoon characters used. 1 mark for correct answer Dora (The Explorer) (Go) Diego (Go). 1(b) Identify two features of the participants in the ‘young 2 List is definitive. children’ group. n tolerance is 58–60. 1 mark per correct feature Accept any age range from within 4–7 years (e.g., accept 4– n=59. 6 but do not accept 3–7) Aged 4–7 years/average age c.5 years. Majority male/38 males + 21 females Do not accept ‘Canadian’ as we do not know. In pre-kindergarten/kindergarten. Living in Canada/Eastern Ontario. Accept ‘likely to be of higher socio-economic status’. Familiar with the cartoon characters. Accept from (3) private schools. 1(c) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 Ignore pure results or anything comparing children and adults on performance of choosing cartoon or human faces. 2 marks for detailed conclusion. 1 mark for partial/brief conclusion. e.g., Children make errors in (target-absent) identification because of social demands rather than faulty cognitive processing (2 marks). Children make errors in (target-absent) identification because of social demands (1 mark). Children are not very good at saying that the person they saw is not in a line-up (1 mark). Adults had a correct identification rate of 0.95 for cartoon faces (0 marks: a result). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 2 Ignore ‘to investigate obedience’ by itself as this in the question. Outline one aim of this study. 2 marks detailed aim. 1 mark partial/brief aim. e.g., To investigate how obedient people are to an authority figure asking them to physically harm another person (2 marks) To investigate how obedient people are to an authority figure (1 mark) To test out the ‘are Germans different’ hypothesis (1 mark) There are other creditworthy responses. 2(b) Outline one way in which the participants were 2 For two marks there must be a reason given for the deceived. deception. 2 marks for clear/detailed way deception happened. If the candidate states that the confederate was 1 mark for brief/unclear way deception happened. shouting/screaming then max 1. e.g., They were deceived into thinking that when they pressed a button, the other ‘participant’ got an electric shock when this did not happen (2 marks) They thought that the person pounding on the other side of the wall was real when it was a recording (2 marks) They thought that they had a 50/50 chance of being the teacher/learner but this was fixed as each slip had teacher on it (2 marks) They were told the wrong aim that it was about punishment and memory (2 marks) They thought they were giving real electric shocks (1 mark) They thought that they had a 50/50 chance of being the teacher/learner (1 mark) They were told the wrong aim (1 mark) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy 2 Accept responses based around the standard deviation. preferences): Comparisons can be male vs female, monkey vs child, or Outline one result in relation to the duration of play by wheeled vs plush the monkeys with the ‘wheeled’ toys. Do not accept ‘played more’ as the Q is about duration of 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison play and not frequency of play. 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison Do not accept responses about ‘toy preference’ as the e.g., (sex differences) question is about the duration of play. Males, on average, played (with wheeled toys) for longer compared to females (2 marks) Males, on average, played (with wheeled toys) for longer (1 mark) e.g., (species differences) Both male monkeys and male children played with wheeled/masculine toy for the longest time (2 marks) e.g., (toy type differences) Males, on average, played with wheeled toys for longer compared to plush toys (2 marks) Males, on average, played with wheeled toys for longer (1 mark) 3(b) Outline one result in relation to the rank of female 2 1 mark maximum if the type of toy is not explicitly monkeys and the duration of play. mentioned. 2 marks for the result with a meaningful Do accept if presented as high ranked played for longer with correlation/comparison plush toys than low ranked. 1 mark for result with no meaningful correlation/comparison Similar to Q3(a) do not credit ‘played more’ or ‘preferred’. e.g., There was a positive correlation between rank and total duration of play for plush toys (2 marks: correlation) There was no (significant) correlation between rank and total duration of play for wheeled toys (2 marks: correlation) There was a relationship between duration of play and rank for plush toys but not for wheeled toys (2 marks: comparison) There was a correlation between the two (1 mark) 3(c) Explain one weakness of this study. 2 Do not accept ‘cruel as not in the wild’ type answers. 1 mark for the identification of weakness Do not accept ‘monkeys cannot communicate to tell us.’ 1 mark for explaining the weakness via example from the Do not accept broke the ethical guideline of numbers. study. Do not accept does not generalise to humans as an explanation e.g. (but do credit ID). (Lacks) generalisability (1 mark: identification) as the troop were captive so may not represent wild (rhesus) monkey If identification and explanation do not match, can still award the behaviour (1 mark: explained in context). identification mark. (Lacks) mundane realism (1 mark: identification) as in the Do not accept opportunity sampling. wild (rhesus) monkeys would not play with wheeled/plush toys (1 mark: explained in context). (Difficult to) control (extraneous) variables (1 mark: identification) There are other creditworthy responses, including ethics and observer bias.

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): 2 List is definitive. Outline how ‘mallet aggression’ was defined in this study. 1 mark per point listed below: Strikes/hits object with mallet The object was not the Bobo doll. 4(b) Outline one feature of social learning theory, using an 3 Ignore responses about positive reinforcement or example from this study. punishment. 1 mark for identification of a feature If more than one feature is covered, mark all and credit the 1 mark for outlining the feature (must be generic) best. 1 mark for example from Bandura et al. e.g., Replication (1 mark: identification). This is when the person feels they can replicate an observed behaviour (1 mark: outline). In Bandura, the children replicated hitting the Bobo doll (1 mark: example) Attention/observation (1 mark: identification). This is when a person observes a role model engaged in some behaviour (1 mark: outline). In Bandura, some children observed the adult hitting the Bobo doll (1 mark: example) Imitation/reproduction (1 mark: identification). This is when a person copies the behaviour of a model (1 mark: outline). In Bandura, some children imitated hitting a Bobo doll (1 mark: example) There are other creditworthy responses, include modelling and retention.

Mark scheme

5 Suggest at least one application to everyday life of the 5 Annotate in the following way: study by Andrade (doodling). Do not refer to more than three applications in your answer. Your suggestion(s) tick = what must be ethical. plus = how I = what/how implicit (see below) Use the banded marking grid below. If more than three applications given, mark all and credit the Ignore responses about explaining everyday behaviours best three. with examples. They must be proactive/prospective applications to everyday life, not explanations/retrospective. e.g., Teachers in classrooms to help students concentrate/pay Do not credit the same how more than once (e.g., doodle on attention. paper) – annotate with REP. People in offices/meetings etc. where they need to concentrate. Implicit what = can be used by teachers/in school/in Students revising for an examination to help workplace (not suggest as to what it is being used for). concentrate/with memory. Therapeutic settings to get clients to concentrate/pay Implicit how = allow people to doodle. attention. See accompanying Question 5 grid. If the secondary task is not doodling but makes sense (e.g., music, fidget toy) then award L2 maximum. 5 Marks Description 5 One application suggested in depth and it is clear what the application is and how it will be achieved; OR More than one application suggested in less depth but still clearly showing what the application is and how it will be achieved 3–4 One application suggested which has some detail with the application identifiable and how it will be achieved; OR More than one application suggested that are brief but the application is identifiable with how it will be achieved. 1–2 One or more application suggested that are/is brief but may lack clarity as to what the application is and/or how it will be achieved 0 No creditworthy real-world application or description of study only

Mark scheme

6 In the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans), on 5 List is definitive. each trial a team of four students boarded the train. 1 mark maximum available for the description of one of the Describe the procedure from this point until the victim victims. collapsed. 1 mark available for an example of the data that was 1 mark per correct point. recorded covertly. The team was always made up of 2 males and 2 females. If 2 females plus one male model and one male victim = 1 The team boarded the train using different doors. mark (award in the same way as 2 males 2 females using The location of the ‘experimental’ car was always varied. the highlighter). Females took seats outside critical area/in adjacent area. Recorded data as covertly as possible during ride. ‘The victim was standing next to the pole’ = 2 marks Male victim/model always stood up. Victim was always next to pole (in critical area)/centre of the critical area. The model would go to adjacent/critical area (depending on the condition). The victim waited 70s before collapsing.

Mark scheme

7 Suggest two problems that could arise if children were 4 Go with the intention of the candidate. used as participants in the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test). Do not credit generalise to adults. For each problem (max 2 per problem) 1 mark for identification/outline of the problem (generic) 1 mark for linking it to Baron-Cohen et al. e.g., There are ethical issues with using children (1 mark: identification/outline This could be protection from psychological harm (1 mark alternative: identification/outline). In this study, children may have found the procedure stressful as it could have felt like a test or examination (1 mark: link). Children may not understand what is being asked of them (1 mark: identification/outline). Therefore, the children may not understand how the eyes test works (1 mark alternative: identification/outline). As a result, the children may have seen it as a game and therefore theory of mind might not have been measured (1 mark: link). Children do not have fully developed brains (1 mark: identification), therefore it would be difficult for them to recognise emotional expressions from eyes (1 mark: link). Children have a lack of experience with human interactions (compared to adults) (1 mark: identification), therefore they would have limited ideas/experiences of judging emotions) (1 mark link). 7 The linguistic skills of children are limited (compared to adults), therefore (even with a glossary) children would probably not understand the words used in the eyes test (1 mark link). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

8 Two friends, Jack and Daphne, are discussing the 4 If both Jack and Daphne feature in the answer, mark them ethics of the study by Perry et al. (personal space). Jack independently and credit the highest score. says the study is ethical, but Daphne says the study is not ethical. Go with the intention of the candidate. Explain why you think either Jack or Daphne is correct, For Daphne, do not credit deception linked to the using evidence from this study in your answer. administration of OT/placebo as this level of deception is justifiable (therefore, can be credited for Jack). 1 mark can be awarded for the identification of a relevant ethical guideline. Relevant guidelines: 1 mark per point explaining why ethical/not ethical via Jack: consent, limited stress as simulation, debriefed, evidence from the study. confidentiality. Daphne: deception (but see above), distress/harm. e.g., Jack Written consent was taken from the participants (1 mark). Do not credit anything about the right to withdraw as not The ethical committee at the Medical Centre/University reported in the paper. approved the study as being ethical (1 mark). The task of watching someone get closer is not particularly stressful as it was not real (1 mark). Also, they could press the spacebar to stop the figure approaching more, protecting them from psychological stress (1 mark). 8 e.g., Daphne In experiment 2 they were deceived into thinking they would be chatting with another participant (1 mark). They were told that the computer would calculate an average distance for seating, but this did not happen (1 mark). The act of intruding into someone’s personal space (even if it was an animation) can still be psychologically stressful (1 mark). There was also no way of knowing if any participant would react to oxytocin so there was risk involved (1 mark).

Mark scheme

9(a) Outline two dreams reported by participants in the 4 List is definitive. study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams). 2 marks detailed outline. 1 mark brief outline e.g., 2 marks Watching two people throwing tomatoes at each other. Standing at the bottom of a cliff operating some sort of hoist machine. Climbing a set of ladders looking up and down as they did. Throwing basketballs (at a hoop) then looking up at net/down to pick up another ball. (The P reported) driving a car and staring at the road ahead. At an intersection a car appeared speeding at them. (The P reported) driving a car and staring at the road ahead. They saw a man on the road asking for a lift. e.g., 1 mark Standing at the bottom of a cliff. (The P reported) driving a car and staring at the road ahead. At an intersection a car appeared speeding at them They saw a man on the road asking for a lift. Throwing tomatoes. Climbing a set of ladders. Throwing basketballs (at a hoop). 9(b) Explain two differences between the study by Dement 8 The other biological studies are: and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) and one other study from the biological approach. One of the differences Hassett must be about the sample of participants. Hölzel Use the marking grid below. One must be about the Award L1-L4 for each difference. sample. For Level 4 there must be some attempt at explaining the 4 marks for the difference (twice), e.g., brain measurement, difference. research techniques used, type of data collected (quantitative/qualitative), experimental design. Different species/assumptions/aims = L1 (if they simply write what both studies did, this is still e.g. difference different aims). e.g. 4 marks Hölzel used an MRI scan to be able to see brain density For description of the sample (e.g., n=….) from the two changes after a mindfulness stress reduction course. studies with no explicit note about size differences or effect Dement and Kleitman used a different technique called an on generalisability = L2 EEG that could only monitor brain wave activity/patterns. Therefore, Hölzel’s method looked at structure whereas Only accept opportunity sampling for Dement and Kleitman. Dement and Kleitman looked at (real-time) function (explanation). For D&K vs Hassett, different ethical guidelines = L1. e.g. 3 marks Place a tick next to the difference that is about the sample. If Different techniques were used to measure the brain. Hölzel no tick can be placed then mark both differences used an MRI scan to be able to see brain density changes independently but only credit the best. after a mindfulness stress reduction course/Dement and Kleitman used a different technique called an EEG that could only monitor brain wave activity/patterns. e.g. 2 marks Hölzel used an MRI scan measure brain density whilst Dement and Kleitman used an EEG. e.g. 1 mark Both studies used different techniques to measure the brain. 9(b) Level Description 4 The difference is well explained using both studies as examples. 3 The difference is well explained but only one study is used as an example OR both studies are used briefly. 2 The difference is brief with an attempt at using at least one study as an example OR The difference is well explained but there is no study evidence. 1 The difference is brief with no attempt at using the studies as examples. 0 No creditable response.

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning) in 10 Do not credit demand characteristics low as used elephants. terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about Do accept arguments about using elephants for this type of quantitative data. research is more practical than using humans. Strengths include: reliability, standardisation, validity (internal), quantitative data, ethics Weaknesses include: sample, ethics. Example: in detail The study collected quantitative data which makes it easier to make meaningful comparisons between groups/conditions. They counted the number of trials it took to pass the trunk wash and the degree of difficulty for each task. As a result, they could compare performance across the five elephant participants to see any trends/differences etc. Example: brief but in context The sample only had 5 elephants as part of it. This could make generalisations difficult as they might not represent other elephants including adult ones. Example: no context The study followed a standardised procedure making it easier to replicate. 10 Level Description Mark 5 Very good evaluation including the 9–10 named issue. Thoroughly addresses both strengths and both weaknesses in detail. Selection of evidence is very thorough and effective. 4 Good evaluation including the 7–8 named issue. Addresses strengths and weaknesses but may include three or four points. The majority of the points are in depth. Selection of evidence is thorough and effective. 3 Mostly appropriate evaluation but 5–6 may not include the named issue. Addresses either two strengths or two weaknesses in detail or one of each in detail or all four briefly. Selection of evidence is mostly effective. 10 Level Description Mark 2 Weak evaluation and may not 3–4 include the named issue. Addresses either a strength or a weakness. Evaluation points are brief. Some points may have no context. Selection of evidence is sometimes appropriate. 1 Little or no evaluation. 1–2 Discussion of strengths and weaknesses is absent or superficial. Selection of evidence is limited. 0 No creditable response.