Psychology 9990/12 May/June 2024: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) The first stage of the study by Bandura et al. 1 Take the first answer only. (aggression) was when the children were rated on four scales by the experimenter and a nursery school List is definitive. teacher. One of these scales was ‘aggressive inhibition’. Identify one of the other scales used in this first stage. 1 mark for correct answer. Physical aggression. Verbal aggression. Aggression towards inanimate objects. 1(b) Outline how the children were assigned to one of the 2 List is definitive. conditions in this study. Ignore reference to being divided by gender/type of model. 1 mark per correct point. The scores on the four scales were added together. Participants were arranged ‘in triplets’/matched on their (initial aggressive) ratings. Assigned at random to one of the conditions. 1(c) Identify two features of the final experimental room 2 Allow ‘no model/experimenter in the room’. used in the ‘test for delayed imitation’. Do not accept 2-way mirror. 1 mark per correct feature Variety of toys. Some were ‘aggressive toys’/Bobo doll (any aggressive toy can be awarded mark). Some were ‘nonaggressive toys’/tea set (any nonaggressive toy can be awarded mark). Arranged in a fixed order/always in the same place. One way mirror.

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 2 List is definitive. Outline the experimental design used in this study. …as there was a doodling group and a control group = 1 mark. 1 mark for correct identification of experimental design. 1 mark for the correct outline (generic or by example). Independent groups (1 mark: identification) Participants only took part in one condition/level of IV/two separate groups (1 mark: outline generic) Participants were either in the doodling group or non- doodling/control group (1 mark: example). 2(b) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 Ignore pure results. 2 marks full conclusion Do credit a conclusion presented after the results in a 1 mark partial/brief conclusion response e.g., People concentrate better/their memory is better when allowed to doodle as it focuses their attention/stops them getting distracted (2 marks). People can pay attention to information even when engaged in dual-processing (tasks) (2 marks). Doodling aids concentration/memory as it increases arousal/alertness/attention/reduces daydreaming (2 marks). Doodling aids concentration/memory (1 mark). Participants recalled more names in the doodling condition (0 marks: result). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and 2 Dreams are more vivid in REM (than NREM) = 1 mark. dreams): Most dreams occur in REM (than NREM) = 1 mark. Outline one result in relation to REM sleep and dream recall. Dreams are more detailed in REM (than NREM) = 1 mark. 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison. Do not credit dreams only occur in REM. 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison. e.g., There were more dreams recalled in REM compared to NREM sleep (2 marks). There were more dreams recalled in REM (1 mark). There was a positive correlation between the number of words used to recall dream (in RME) and length of time in REM. WD had the highest recall level in REM compared to the other participants/KC/DN etc. (2 marks). There are other creditworthy responses 3(b) Outline one result in relation to dream duration 2 Accept on 78% of trials, Ps could estimate 15 minutes estimates when participants were woken up 15 minutes correctly = 1 mark. after the onset of REM sleep. Accept ‘most’ estimations of length were correct = 1 mark. 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison. 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison. However, 78% of Ps could estimate correctly is incorrect = 0 marks. e.g., Participants were less likely to estimate 15 mins correctly compared to 5 mins correctly (2 marks). There were 47 instances of correct estimation compared to 13 instances of incorrect estimation (2 marks). DN only got the estimate correct 50% of the time (1 mark). There are other creditworthy responses. 3(c) Explain one weakness of this study. 2 1 mark for the identification of weakness. 1 mark for explaining the weakness via example from the study. e.g. (Lacks) generalisability (1 mark: identification) as the sample size was only 5 for those studied intensively and these people may be unique (1 mark: explanation in context). (Lacks) mundane realism (1 mark: identification) as being asked to guess how long you have been asleep for is not a typical daily behaviour (1 mark: explanation in context. (Lacks) ecological validity (1 mark: identification). There are other creditworthy responses, including ethics.

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 2 Ignore tautological responses with the word obedience in the definition (obey is fine though). Outline what is meant by the term ‘obedience’. Do not accept conformity. 1 mark for aspect of following orders. 1 mark for aspect of it being an authority figure. e.g., The act of following order (1 mark) given by a figure in authority (1 mark). 4(b) Outline how one ethical guideline was broken in this 3 Candidates can also get 3 marks for identifying an ethical study. guideline and then the other two marks for two different ways that guideline was broken. 1 mark for identification of an appropriate ethical guideline. 1 mark for outlining the ethical guideline. ‘He did not tell the true aim’ is not enough for an example 1 mark for example from Milgram. mark here. e.g., Deception (1 mark) is when you are given false information about the study (1 mark). In Milgram, the participants thought that the shock was real (1 mark). Right to withdraw (1 mark) is when participants are able to leave a study without consequence (1 mark). In Milgram, the prods given by the experimenter stopped the participants from leaving (1 mark). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

5 Suggest at least one application to everyday life of the 5 Annotate in the following way: study by Hölzel et al (mindfulness and brain scans). Do not refer to more than three applications in your answer. tick = what [explicit] Your suggestion(s) must be ethical. plus = how [explicit] I = what/how implicit (see below) e.g., Employers with employees who are feeling stressed. Ignore responses about explaining everyday behaviours (Counsellors in) schools can use them to help reduce stress with examples. They must be proactive/prospective in students (around exam time). applications to everyday life, not explanations/retrospective. Using brain scans to examine grey matter concentration in therapy/people with problems/head injuries. Implicit what = can be used by teachers/in school/in Yoga instructors can introduce elements of mindfulness into workplace (not suggest as to what it is being used for). their classes to decrease stress. Implicit how = get people to ‘do mindfulness’. 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 From the study by Pozzulo et al (line-ups): 5 The list is definitive. Describe the ‘line-up presentation’ for the target-absent For the annotations use ticks are per usual but use tick-b condition. for the point in bold to know that the response can access all available marks. 1 mark per correct point made up to 4 marks. 1 mark for the marking point in bold as it is unique to the 3 foils in the line-up plus a silhouette = 2 marks [4 foils and target-absent condition. the silhouette mark are added together]. The target was replaced with a similar foil/foil had Do not credit how the photographs were chosen. similar features to the target. All of the pictures were shown simultaneously. Do not credit what a participant was expected to do. The target and target replacement were always in the same position. Do credit target was not in the line-up. The target’s line-up position was randomised. There were four photographs/foils in the line-up. 4 foils and a silhouette = 1 mark for the 4 foils only. A silhouette was in the line-up (to represent the possibly of an absent target) Each participant watched four videos. These were presented on a laptop/computer/on a screen. These were in a random order. The photo array/line-up was shown after each video. The position of the replacement was counterbalanced across photo arrays/line-ups. None of the (four) photographs had been in the video.

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 Perry et al. (personal space). Do not credit cannot generalise to adults. For each problem (max 2 per problem): Do not accept anything about injecting oxytocin into children 1 mark for identification/outline of the problem (generic). as a link as this did not happen in the study. 1 mark for linking it to Perry 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 situation about invading personal space 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 figures approaching task worked (1 mark alternative: identification/outline). As a result, the children may have seen it as a game and therefore it might not be invasion of personal space that is being measured (1 mark: link). Children might not be able to use a computer (1 mark: identification/outline). There are other creditworthy responses, including parents might get distressed with child receiving oxytocin, potential side effects of oxytocin for children, likely to drop out due to high number of trials.

Mark scheme

8 Two friends, Sabtu and Joyah, are discussing the 4 If both Sabtu and Joyah feature in the answer, mark them validity of the study by Piliavin et al. (subway independently and credit the highest score Samaritans). Sabtu says the study has validity, but Joyah says the study does not have validity. Acceptable types of validity/concepts include: Ecological validity Explain why either Sabtu or Joyah is correct, using Mundane realism evidence from this study in your answer. Internal validity Population validity (must be labelled this and not 1 mark can be awarded for the identification of a relevant generalisability). example of validity/concept linked to validity. Role of extraneous and participant variables. 1 mark per point explaining why valid/not valid via evidence Qualitative data. from the study. Do not credit reliability, quantitative data, standardisation, e.g., Sabtu field experiment, generalisability. The study did have some controls like the model dressing with similarity (1 mark). This means that this variable was If they write which friend has been chosen but they write less likely to affect the DV of helping (1 mark). This also nothing else, this is 0 and not NR. meant that it was more likely that the type of victim affected helping (1 mark). As the subway car was a real-world No ID mark for demand characteristics. setting, it can be argued that the study had ecological validity (1 mark + 1 mark: identification) e.g., Joyah There were so many variables that could not be controlled like participant variables of experience in situations (1 mark: identification). This means that it would have been difficult to know if the type of victim was directly affecting helping (1 mark). Also, there were no black models which reduces the ecological validity of the study as it does not represent real life (1 mark). In addition, there was also wide variation in the victims across the two conditions which may have affected the dependent variable of helping behaviour more than just whether they were ill or drunk (1 mark) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe the psychology being investigated in the study 4 No identification mark. by Fagen et al. (elephant learning). Ignore reference to classical conditioning. 1 mark per correct point. 1 mark available for example from the study by Fagen et al. e.g., Operant conditioning is learning by consequence. If you are rewarded you are more likely to repeat a behaviour The elephants got chopped banana if they were successful at any task (example) If you are punished you are less likely to repeat a behaviour A primary reinforcer is one that fulfils a biological need. A secondary reinforcer can be used as an exchange for a primary reinforcer. Secondary positive reinforcement can use a sound as a secondary reinforcer that is consistently followed by a primary reinforcer/food. There are other creditworthy responses, including shaping and behavioural chaining. 9(b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the 8 Award L1–L4 for similarity. study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning) and one other Award L1–L4 for difference. study from the learning approach. For Level 4 there must be some attempt at explaining the Use the marking grid below. similarity or difference. 4 marks for the similarity, e.g., observational, lack mundane The other studies from the learning approach are: realism, quantitative data collection, use of rewards/operant conditioning, standardisation, lacking generalisability. Bandura 4 marks for the difference, e.g., qualitative data collection, Saavedra and Silverman sample, level of controls. Different species = L1. e.g., similarity Different aims = L1. e.g. 4 marks Different ethical guidelines = L1 Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. This Both opportunity sampling (for Bandura and S&S means that specific behaviours could be operationalised to comparison) = L2 improve validity (explanation). For example, in Fagen there was trunk down which meant the trunk was hanging loose For description of the sample (e.g., n=….) from the two and in Bandura gun play was pretending to shoot at an studies with no explicit note about size differences or effect object in the room. on generalisability = L2 e.g. 3 marks Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. For example, in Fagen there was trunk down which meant the trunk was hanging loose/Bandura gun play was pretending to shoot at an object in the room. e.g. 2 marks Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. For example, in Fagen there was trunk down. e.g. 1 mark Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. 9(b) Mark/ Description Level 4 The similarity/difference is well explained using both studies as examples. 3 The similarity/difference is well explained but only one study is used as an example OR both studies are used briefly. 2 The similarity/difference is brief with an attempt at 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 using the studies as examples. 0 No creditable response.

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) in 10 Ignore if candidate calls it a laboratory experiment but do terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least credit controls and standardisation if argued correctly. one of your evaluation points must be about ethics. Please note that the only ethical guidelines that are covered Strengths include: reliability, standardisation, validity in the journal paper are: (internal), quantitative data, ethics. Weaknesses include, validity (external), sample, lack of Adhere: minimising harm (weak), informed consent, random allocation confidentiality. Example: in detail (named) Break: minimising harm only. The study was unethical as the process of attempting to identify emotions from eyes for the AS/HFA was going to be The remainder: right to withdraw, deception, privacy and stressful as it predicted that they would find it difficult debriefing are not mentioned in the journal paper. therefore it could have been psychologically stressful for those participants. Also, not understanding the words to choose from even with the glossary may have caused unnecessary stress. Example: brief but in context The sample only had 15 AS/HFA participants and they were all male. This could make generalisations difficult as they might not represent females with AS/HFA. 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.