Psychology 9990/11 May/June 2025: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning): 1 If more than one response given, take first one only. State the number of elephants that successfully passed the trunk-wash test. 1 mark for correct number. 4. 1(b)(i) Identify the primary reinforcer used in this study. 1 If more than one response given, take first one only. 1 mark for correct answer. Do not accept ‘food’. Banana. 1(b)(ii) Identify the secondary reinforcer used in this study. 1 If more than one response given, take first one only. 1 mark for correct answer. Do not accept ‘sound’ by itself. Whistle (sound). 1(c) Outline the trained behaviour of ‘steady’ as used in this study. 2 List is definitive. 1 mark per correct point. Do not accept ‘holds the trunk steady’. e.g., ‘Had to hold still’ = 0 marks The elephant holds the trunk still. The previously requested (trunk behaviour) was held in the position. The elephant can move her head/ears/feet.

Mark scheme

2(a) In the study by Perry et al. (personal space), in Experiment 1 each 2 List is definitive. participant took a computerised test of comfortable interpersonal distance. ‘When the participant stops the figure’ = 0 marks. Outline the two possible ways that this computerised test could end for a participant. Accept ‘hit the button’ to mean spacebar. 1 mark per correct way. When the two figures collided/after 3 seconds/reached the centre/reached maximum distance (Before collision) the participant pressed the spacebar. 2(b) Explain one weakness of this study in relation to ethics. 2 Do accept deception for the 1 mark for guideline, but to get the example the 1 mark for explaining the weakness (generic or by guideline). candidate must link it to feeling stressed 1 mark for example from the study. as the deception was justifiable, and participants were debriefed. e.g., The study could have broken the ethical guideline of minimising ‘Deceived’ as they did not know if they harm/stress/distress (1 mark: guideline). This is because the participant may were taking oxytocin or placebo = 0 have become stressed as the figure approached them (if they needed a large marks (and in this instance no ID mark personal space)/they thought they were going to discuss personal topics (1 can be awarded). mark: example). Not debriefed = 0 marks The study could have broken the ethical guideline of deception (1 mark: No informed consent = 0 marks guideline). This is because the participants might have felt stressed thinking that they had to speak with someone at a later date (as they were deceived into thinking this) (1 mark: example).

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia): 2 Do not credit any aim about the role of disgust in phobias. One aim was to investigate the role of disgust in a childhood phobia. Do accept cognitive-behavioural therapy. Outline one other aim of this study. The role of operant conditioning = 1 mark 2 marks for full/detailed aim. max. 1 mark for brief/partial aim. If disgust is mentioned as an aim about e.g., treatment = 1 mark max. To investigate the role of classical conditioning/evaluative learning in the (button) phobia of a boy (2 marks). To investigate whether behavioural/imagery exposure to buttons would help to treat his phobia (2 marks). To investigate if positive reinforcement helped treat a boy with a phobia (of buttons) (2 marks). To investigate what caused the phobia of buttons in a boy (1 mark). To help treat his phobia of buttons (1 mark). To investigate the origin of the phobia (1 mark). To investigate the role of disgust in phobias (0 marks = already given in the question). 3(b) The sample in the study was a boy with a phobia of buttons. 2 List is definitive. Identify two other features of the sample. Do not accept boy or phobia of buttons. 1 mark per correct feature. Do credit ‘got his phobia at 5 years of age/4 years prior to study.’ 9-year-old. Hispanic/American. Presented by his mum to a Child Anxiety and Phobic Program. Did not meet the criteria for OCD. Did meet the criteria (DSM–IV) for a phobia. He had experienced a bowl of buttons falling on him (at school). 3(c) Suggest one application to everyday life using evidence from this study. 2 Annotate with a tick for what the Your suggestion must be ethical. application is and a + for how it will be achieved. 1 mark for what the application is (clearly based on Saavedra and Silverman) or an element of the study that is useful to know for an application (due to the In this instance the ‘what’ can be a nature of this study). finding. 1 mark for how it will be achieved (explicit). Anything linked to a therapeutic process e.g. used in the study is ethical for this The boy revealed that during an art class a bowl of buttons fell on him as he question. tried to get some (1 mark: what). Therefore, a therapist may need to investigate/discover a situation when the person first came into contact with Only accept that imagery expose their phobic stimulus to (potentially) unearth the cause (1 mark: how). therapy should be used (as behavioural increased his severity ratings). After just four sessions of the mother providing positive reinforcement, the boy could cope with his worst button fears (1 mark: what). Therefore, for children with phobias, having a parent involved in the therapy might bring about faster positive outcomes (1 mark: how). Therapists can use imagery exposure therapy with people who are diagnosed with a phobia (1 mark: what). There are other creditworthy suggestions.

Mark scheme

4 From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams). 3 Do not credit answers about no dream recall. Outline one result about dream recall and stages of sleep. You must use data in your answer. Use tick–d for the data mark. 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison Credit can be given for results from any 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison of the 9 individuals. 1 mark for correct data More vivid dreams in REM compared to e.g., 3 marks NREM = max 1. There was more dream recall during REM sleep (152 in total) compared to NREM sleep. If data presented is incorrect but it shows KK had more dream recall in REM than NREM where they recalled zero the correct direction of results then can dreams. be awarded up to 2 marks. e.g., 2 marks Dreams reported: There was more dream recall during REM sleep compared to NREM sleep. REM – 79.6% of awakenings KK had more dream recall in REM than NREM. NREM – 6.8% of awakenings (tolerance of 1%) e.g., 1 mark There was more dream recall during REM sleep. Overall dream recall: KK had more dream recall in REM. 93% of dreams reported in REM 7% of dreams reported in NREM e.g., 0 marks (tolerance of 1%) 80% of participants recalled a dream in REM. Dream recall only happens in REM and not NREM. No tolerance for total number of dreams Most participants could recall dreams during REM. recalled in REM/NREM. Do credit if the response reads like a conclusion (e.g., Dreams are recalled more often in REM).

Mark scheme

5(a) Outline one assumption of the biological approach. 2 Do accept neurotransmitters, evolution. 2 marks: full/detailed assumption 2 marks can be awarded if the similarities 1 mark: partial/brief assumption and differences assumption names a biological concept instead of stating e.g., 2 marks ‘biological factors’. Human behaviour/cognitions can be explained in terms of brain function and the effect of hormones/genes (any two of the three terms required: brain– hormone–gene). The similarities and differences seen in human behaviour can be understood in terms of internal (biological) factors and how they interact (with internal/external factors). e.g., 1 mark Behaviour can be explained via brain function. Behaviour can be explained because of genes. Behaviour can be explained via hormones. The similarities and differences seen in human behaviour can be understood in terms of internal (biological) factors. 5(b) Explain how the study by Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) 2 If the link is not with an assumption from supports the assumption you outlined in part (a). 5a, it can only be awarded the result/conclusion mark. 1 mark for result/conclusion/biological example. 1 mark for linking it to an assumption explicitly. 1 mark maximum if linked to the aim of the study, rather than a finding including e.g., they measured GMC. Those who practised mindfulness showed an increase in grey matter (1 mark: result) so this shows that there was an interaction between mindfulness (external factor) and brain density (internal factor) (1 mark: assumption link); scores on the FFMQ change showing that brain structure can affect behaviour (1 mark: alternative assumption link). There are other creditworthy explanations.

Mark scheme

6(a) Describe the psychology being investigated in the study by Pozzulo et al. 3 (line-ups). use this when you award the 1 mark for each correct statement. ‘example mark’. Examples from the study Pozzulo can gain credit (max 1). Anything that is about what Pozzulo did e.g., (e.g., aim, finding, conclusion) is the Some eyewitnesses can produce false positive responses which is when a example mark. person in a line–up is chosen by an eyewitness that is not accurate, but the eyewitness believes it is (2 marks: detailed). 1 mark maximum for computer analogy Eyewitness testimony is when a person attempts to recall what they have seen or input–process–output. in relation to a crime. The information can be anything from what the person looked like/what they Do not credit any response in relation to were wearing. children being good at identifying cartoon The information obtained from an eyewitness may be used in a court of law. characters for the example mark. Social demands are when people/children feel pressured to make a choice. Children were asked to choose a cartoon face from a line–up (1 mark: example) Do credit a generic description of a line– up for 1 mark. There are other creditworthy responses, including the use of line–ups to help recall. 6(b) Two friends, Eric and Quinn are discussing the validity of the study by 4 If both Eric and Quinn feature in the Pozzulo et al. (line-ups). answer, mark them independently and credit the highest score. Eric says the study has validity, but Quinn says it does not have validity. If the candidate mixes up Eric and Quinn Outline why you think either Eric or Quinn is correct, using evidence from (e.g., says Quinn but gives a ‘it is valid’ this study. based answer) then max 2 and annotate with? 1 mark per point made, with: 1 identification mark for a relevant type of validity. Up to 3 marks for examples in relation to why/why not valid. = identification mark e.g., Eric Standardisation, reliability, replicability = It can be argued that the study had ecological validity (1 mark: identification) as 0 marks children are used to watching cartoons and identifying characters, (1 mark). The study did have some controls like the cartoon foils were rated by three judges to Identification mark from: ensure they were similar to the cartoon target faces (1 mark). This means that Ecological validity/external this variable was less likely to affect the DV of identification/rejection (1 mark). Mundane realism This also meant that it was more likely that the social pressures of target-absent Internal validity/IV affects DV/causal line-ups affected identification/rejection rates (1 mark). relationship Population validity e.g., Quinn Control extraneous variables The act of having to look at a line-up and choose/reject cartoon faces is not an everyday activity, even for children (1 mark). This means that the study lacks ecological validity/mundane realism (1 mark: identification) and has limited relevance to eyewitness line-up identification (1 mark). Also, there were no participant variables controlled for, like exposure to the cartoon foils/personality of the child being tested (1 mark) so it could be that a child ‘went along’ with the situation not because of social factors/pressures but because they are a more obedient child (1 mark) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

7 In the study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences), each trial used a 5 List is definitive. ‘plush’ toy and a ‘wheeled’ toy. Do not credit anything that was recorded Describe the procedure for one trial. (e.g., duration or frequency of play) as these were post-trial. 1 mark per point made. 1 mark available for identification of one of the toys. Do not credit that the observers recorded behaviours as this is incorrect Initially, the monkeys were kept indoors. (everything was videotaped). All of this One plush toy and one wheeled toy were already in the outdoor area. happened post-trial. They were separated by 10 metres. Left or right placement was counterbalanced per trial. Monkeys were allowed/released into the outdoor area/let out/let into outdoor area. Any interaction was videotaped/the monkeys’ behaviours were recorded. Using separate cameras for each toy (in the area)/used 2 cameras/observed through cameras. Each trial lasted 25 minutes. One mark for any of these (only award once): Plush = Winnie-the-Pooh/Raggedy-Ann/koala/armadillo/bear/Scooby-Doo/turtle. Wheeled = wagon/truck/car/construction vehicle/shopping cart/dump truck.

Mark scheme

8 Your friend, Imelda, tells you about a problem with her child’s behaviour. 4 No credit for justifying advice as this is Her child keeps taking all of his toys from where they are stored in a box not what the question is about. and throwing them aggressively around the room. When she asks him to tidy the toys his only response is to shout. Imelda wants your advice on Do not credit positive reinforcement how to improve her child’s behaviour. directly to the children as this is operant conditioning. Outline the advice you would give to Imelda, using your knowledge of the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). Your advice must be ethical. Any part of the study (e.g., frustration) can gain credit. Go with intentions of the 1 mark per piece of evidence clearly based on the study by Bandura et al. candidate. e.g. Do not credit trying to explain why he Imelda could use a model that shows calm/peaceful/positive behaviour (generic might be aggressive. The question is mark). about advising Imelda on improving The child could be asked to watch the model as they tidy up the toys/play with behaviour. the toys. Imelda could reward the model for their good behaviour. The generic examples of non-aggressive Imelda could make sure that she does not display negative behaviour in front of behaviours (e.g., calm/peaceful) can only her child. be credited once. Imelda could make sure the child does not get annoyed/frustrated before opening the toy box. Imelda could make sure that any model is male/her husband/an uncle (as her child is male). Imelda could try to make sure her child is not exposed to aggressive behaviours (at home). Imelda could try to find out who the child might be imitating and stop them from observing. Imelda could stop her child from watching aggressive TV shows/cartoons. Imelda could encourage her child to watch TV shows/cartoons with friendly behaviour/less aggression in them. There are other creditworthy pieces of advice.

Mark scheme

9(a) In the study by Andrade (doodling), the sample size was 40 participants. 4 List is definitive. Describe the sample of participants used in this study, other than the Do not accept members of the Medical sample size of 40. Research Council or that they were students. 1 mark for correct point. Do accept psychology panel, research Recruited via opportunity sampling. panel, research unit etc. They had just finished a different study (before being asked to participate in this one). Members of a university participant panel/Applied Psychology Unit. General population. Aged 18–55 years. Paid for participation. Majority female/35 females/5 males. Doodling group = Female 17/Male 3 or Control group = Female 18/Male 2. 9(b) Explain two differences between the study by Andrade (doodling) and one 8 The other cognitive approach studies are other study from the cognitive approach. Do not refer to the sample of Baron–Cohen and Pozzulo. participants. Do not credit any answer about the Use the marking grid below. sample but do credit sampling technique. 4 marks for each difference, e.g., qualitative data collection, experimental design used, cognitive skills be assessed, individual-situation arguments, Award L1–L4 for each difference sampling techniques, use of a control group, levels of mundane realism. For Level 4 there must be some attempt Each difference must be based on psychological principles. at explaining the difference. e.g., 4 marks All of the following are L1 max: The studies by Andrade and Pozzulo used different experimental designs within Different aims/psychology them. Andrade was only independent groups with participants being placed in Andrade using deception or is unethical. the doodling or control group. Part of the Pozzulo study was repeated measures Audio vs. visual as all participants saw target absent and target present line-ups. Therefore, in The procedures were different Andrade Ps only participated in one level of the IV whilst in Pozzulo Ps participated in multiple levels of the IV (explanation). All of the following are L0: Standardisation comparisons e.g., 3 marks Different conclusions The studies by Andrade and Pozzulo used different experimental designs within Different number of groups them. Andrade was only independent groups with participants being placed in the doodling or control group. Part of the Pozzulo study was repeated If response is about Baron–Cohen being measures. Matched Pairs = L2 max. e.g., 2 marks Andrade used only independent measures whilst Pozzulo used repeated measures for part of the study. e.g., 1 mark Andrade and Pozzulo used different experimental designs. 9(b) Mark/ Description Level 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 Milgram (obedience) in terms of two strengths and 10 two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the sampling technique used to recruit participants. Strengths include reliability/replicability (standardisation), quantitative data, validity. Weaknesses include sample, ethics, generalisability, quantitative data, sampling technique. Example: in detail Reading out word pairs is not an everyday task so lacks mundane realism. Ps had to judge accuracy and give what they thought was an electric shock. However, this is not what happens in reality. We do not think we are giving people an electric shock as punishment to a stranger in the real world. Example: brief but in context In the study all were males from one geographical area of the United States. This could make it difficult to generalise to a wider population of other males/females. Example: no context There was a standardised procedure meaning it could be replicated/tested for reliability. Level Description Marks 5 • Very good evaluation including the named issue. 9–10 • Thoroughly addresses both strengths and both weaknesses in detail. • Selection of evidence is very thorough and effective. 10 Level Description Marks 4 • Good evaluation including the named issue. 7–8 • 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 may not include 5–6 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. 2 • Weak evaluation and may not include the named 3–4 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. 0