Psychology 9990/13 May/June 2024: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Perry et al. (personal space): 1 Take the first answer only. State the number of participants used in this study. There is no tolerance. 1 mark for correct answer 40 or 54. 1(b) Outline what is meant by the term ‘interpersonal 2 1 mark maximum for an example from Perry. distance (personal space)’. 1 mark per correct point e.g., It is an invisible ‘bubble’/boundary around us. We choose who can enter this. This depends on the situation we find ourselves. It is used to regulate how we interact with other people. There are other creditworthy responses 1(c) Outline how a participant was allocated to the ‘high 2 List is definitive. empathy’ group in this study Do not credit ‘empathy test’ 1 mark per correct point They completed the IRI/Interpersonal Reactivity Index. Those half a standard deviation away from the mean formed this group/with a score of 40 (or above).

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): 2 Accept sex difference aim. Outline one aim of this study. 2 marks detailed aim 1 mark brief/partial aim e.g., To investigate whether children imitate the aggressive behaviour of an aggressive model (2 marks). To investigate whether children are more likely to imitate the behaviour of a same-sex model (2 marks). To investigate whether children would imitate aggression of a model in the absence of the model (2 marks). To investigate how children learn aggression (1 mark). To see if aggression was nature or nurture (1 mark). To investigate social learning theory (1 mark). There are other creditworthy responses. 2(b) Outline how the response measure of ‘aggressive gun 2 List is definitive. play’ was defined in this study. 1 mark for each point listed below: Shoots darts Aims gun at object in room. Fires imaginary shots.

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 2 Ignore reference to time taken to help = 0. Outline one result in relation to the race of helper when the victim was ‘drunk’. 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison e.g., There was more same race helping irrespective of the race of victim (2 marks) The victim in the drunk condition was helped more by their own race (2 marks) There was the same pattern of same race helping for ill and drunk victim when victim was white (2 marks) There was more same race helping when victim was black and drunk compared to black and ill (2 marks) There was more same race helping (1 mark) The race of the helper was more likely to be white (1 mark) There are other creditworthy responses. 3(b) Outline one result in relation to the number of males in 2 Do accept the group size of 7 vs group size of 3 comparison. the critical area and the time taken for the victim to receive help. Do not credit male vs female comparisons. 2 marks for the result with a meaningful Ignore frequency of help. comparison/relationship 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison e.g., The more males there were in the critical area the faster the latency time for help to be given (2 marks). When the group size was small, people helped faster when the victim was ill compared to when victim was drunk (2 marks). Small groups were slow at helping (1 mark). Large groups were fast at helping (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) this is because it was in New York City only and people in other countries may show different prosocial behaviour/bystander apathy (1 mark: explanation in context). Broke ethical guideline(s) (1 mark: identification) as the participants were deceived into thinking that a real person needed help, but it was fake (1 mark: explanation in context). Difficult to replicate (1 mark: identification). (Difficult to) control of (extraneous) variables (1 mark: identification). There are other creditworthy responses, including observer bias.

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 3 Credit any example for 1 mark max (including from Andrade). Describe what is meant by the term ‘attention’. Ignore tautological responses using the word attention. 1 mark per correct point Focus on one specific stimulus/object/person etc. = 2 marks. It refers to our ability to concentrate/focus. When we exclude other stimuli (to focus on one thing). Focus on a specific thing = 1 mark. Cognitive resources are focused on certain aspects of the environment. We can select to focus on one stimulus (over another). We can divide it between two or more tasks. We can be prepared to focus on a specific stimuli if we are primed to. For example, participants in the Andrade study had to pay attention to a (boring) telephone message. There are other creditworthy responses 4(b) The sample consisted of 40 participants from a 2 List is definitive. participant panel. Accept ‘adults’. Identify two other features of this sample. Do not accept ‘males + females’. 1 mark per correct feature It was an opportunity sample. They had just finished a different study (before being asked to participate in this one) General population. Aged 18−55 years. Paid for participation. Majority female/35 female 5 male/control: 18F 2M/doodle: 17F 3M.

Mark scheme

5 Suggest at least one application to everyday life of the 5 Annotate in the following way: study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences). Do not refer to more than three applications in your answer. tick = what Your suggestion(s) 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 e.g., applications to everyday life, not explanations/retrospective. Useful for advertising to focus content. Useful for product development for toy manufacturers. Do not credit the same how more than once- annotate with Rehabilitation of monkeys/primates. REP. Implicit what = used for toy manufacturing Marks Description 5 One application suggested in depth and it is Implicit how = make toys sex-specific clear what the application is and how it will be achieved; OR See accompanying Question 5 grid. More than one application suggested in less depth but still clearly showing what the Do not credit anything about gender issues and mental application is and how it will be achieved health. 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 Fagen et al. (elephant learning): 5 List is definitive. Describe how the elephants were trained to perform the ‘trunk up’ behavioural task. 1 mark for identifying either the primary (banana) or secondary (whistle) reinforcer. 1 mark per correct point The response gets credit if they use reward or banana Used the lure and shaping techniques. throughout. This is when the elephant is tempted to perform a behaviour/trunk up. Raising trunk into the air correctly, obtained a reward = 1 As a reward is placed strategically to help perform the behaviour/trunk up. In this case it was banana pieces a few inches from their (fore)head. The elephant could only reach the banana by lifting the trunk up. If the elephant was adult/too big, the lure was at the end of trainer’s arm. The position of the trunk was shaped. The shaping used increasing height until trunk up was achieved.

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 Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans). For each problem (max 2 per problem): 1 mark for identification/outline of the problem (generic) 1 mark for linking it to Hölzel et al. e.g. It can be difficult for children to keep still (1 mark: identification/outline). For an MRI scan to work, the person has to remain still for a period of time (1 mark alternative: identification/outline). Therefore, there may be no valid way of measuring brain density as the scans may never be correct/never happen (1 mark: link) Children may not understand what is being asked of them (1 mark: identification/outline). Therefore, the children may not understand how yoga/mindfulness works (1 mark alternative: identification/outline). As a result, the children may have seen yoga as a game and therefore effectiveness might not have been measured (1 mark: link). There are other creditworthy responses, including children can lie about participation in homework, brain developing so grey matter could increase for different reason(s).

Mark scheme

8 Two friends, Luis and Ava, are discussing the 4 If both Luis and Ava feature in the answer, mark them application to everyday life of the study by Milgram independently and credit the highest score (obedience). Luis says the study does have application to everyday life, but Ava says the study does not have For Luis application to everyday life. If the response is all about how military/teachers can wear uniform/dress professionally to get soldiers/students to be Explain why either Luis or Ava is correct, using more obedient = 2 marks max [ can still get the feature evidence from this study in your answer. mark]. 1 mark for a feature of Milgram linked to someone being If just a ‘generic’ chat about everyday obedience = 1 mark obedient (e.g., prods, lab coat). [can still get the feature mark]. 1 mark per correct point made that is explicit to Milgram. The idea presented needs to be more retrospective than e.g., Luis prospective due to AOs being tested. One of the aims of the study was to test whether Germans were different (1 mark). Therefore, it can be used to help us Go with the intention of the candidate. understand why people do bad things such as some behaviours during the Holocaust (1 mark). As people in uniform/in authority have the power to get people to do things they would never typically do (1 mark) as in this study 65% of participants administered what would have been a lethal electric shock to a stranger (1 mark). e.g., Ava The study took place in a controlled environment with a set procedure which does not represent everyday life (1 mark). Giving an electric shock to someone for not learning a word- pair has no real-world application (1 mark). There have been no real-life accounts of people having to meet a stranger, make them learn a task that is about word-pairs and then punish them for incorrect answers (1 mark) so there is no way a task like this can then help explain a real-world event like genocide (1 mark) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

9(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 4 Lists are definitive. Describe the sample used in either Group 1 or Group 2. Accept opportunity sample for Group 2 1 mark per correct point Group 1 mean age tolerance is 29−30y Group 1 If both groups covered, mark independently and credit the best, placing the annotation REP at the end of the response. Adults/mean age c.30y. Males. n=15. Diagnosed with AS/HFA. Volunteer sample/Responded to an advert in a National Autism Society magazine. Same socioeconomic class as Group 2. Same educational levels as Group 2. Typical range IQ/average IQ = 115/matched IQ with Group 4. Group 2 Adults/mean age 28y. n=122. From adult community/education classes (in Exeter). Public library users (in Cambridge). Broad range of occupations. Same socioeconomic class as Group 1. Same educational levels as Group 1/broad range of educational levels. 9(b) Explain two similarities between the study by Baron- 8 Do not credit any answer about the sample. Cohen et al. (eyes test) and one other study from the cognitive approach. Do not refer to the sample in your Award L1−L4 for similarity answer. For Level 4 there must be some attempt at explaining the Use the marking grid below. similarity. 4 marks for the similarity, e.g., experimental, lack mundane The other studies from the cognitive approach are: realism, quantitative data collection Andrade e.g., similarity Pozzulo et al e.g. 4 marks Both Andrade and Baron-Cohen studies were experimental Both had hypotheses that were supported = L2 max. in nature. For example, both studies had IVs. In the Andrade study there were two conditions of doodling and non- If they state that Baron-Cohen was a laboratory doodling. In the Baron-Cohen study the IV was natural and experiment then no credit for it but you can credit features based around if a person had been diagnosed with AS/HFA of the experimental method. or not. Therefore, both were trying to establish cause and effect (explanation) Anything linked to the sample or sampling technique = L0, placing a X next to the response. e.g. 3 marks Both Andrade and Baron-Cohen studies were experimental in nature. For example, both studies had IVs. In the Andrade study there were two conditions of doodling and non- doodling/in the Baron-Cohen study the IV was natural and based around if a person had been diagnosed with AS/HFA or not. e.g. 2 marks Both Andrade and Baron-Cohen studies were experimental in nature. For example, both studies had IVs and measured DVs. e.g. 1 mark Both Andrade and Baron-Cohen were experimental in nature. 9(b) Level Description 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 Saavedra and Silverman (button 10 phobia) in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about quantitative data. Strengths include: reliability, standardisation, quantitative data, follow-up Weaknesses include: validity (external), sample, ethics Example: in detail (named) The study collected quantitative data which makes it easier to make meaningful comparisons over time. They looked at the change in distress ratings across different scenarios and different time points in the therapeutic process. As a result, they could compare the changes in distress ratings to make more valid conclusions about the progression of his phobia. Example: brief but in context The sample was only one boy with a button phobia which may make generalisation difficult. A person with a different childhood experience or a female phobic may not respond to therapy in the same way. Example: no context The sample was only one person making generalisations difficult. 10 Level guidance for Question 10 Level Description Mark 5 Very good evaluation including 9−10 the 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.