Psychology 9990/12 May/June 2025: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) In the study by Perry et al. (personal space), Experiment 1 If more than one response given, take first one only. 2 used four coloured pictures of a room. In these pictures there were several objects including a lamp Accept ‘cupboard’. and a clock. Accept ‘chairs’. Name one other object that was always in the pictures. 1 mark for correct object. Chair/table/plant/closet. 1(b) Outline how the participants were deceived in 2 List is definitive. Experiment 2 of this study. Not knowing if given OT or PL = 0 marks. 1 mark per correct point. At the end of the experiment, they would discuss personal topics with another participant. This would happen in an ‘average’ room that has been calculated by a computer. However, this was not true (for both of the above)/actually about preferred distance. 1(c) Outline one result from Experiment 2 of this study in 2 Do accept the opposite trend for low empathy Ps even relation to the hormone oxytocin. though it did not reach significance. 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison Must mention empathy grouping to gain credit. 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison No significant result for tables = 1 mark max. Participants in the high empathy group who had oxytocin chose closer distances compared to placebo/low empathy group (2 marks). Oxytocin did not affect the average angle between objects across empathy status/treatment/condition (2 marks). Participants in the high empathy group who had oxytocin chose closer distances (1 mark). Participants with oxytocin chose closer distance (0 marks: incorrect).

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups). 2 List is definitive. Identify two features of the female used as a ‘human Accept ‘white’. face target’. Accept ‘combing hair’. 1 mark per correct point. Caucasian. Student. 22 years old. (she was) brushing her hair (in bathroom). 2(b) Explain one strength of this study in relation to 2 Ignore reference to controls only. reliability. 1 mark for standardisation and replication (identification of the strength) 1 mark for example from the study e.g. The procedure was standardised so could be replicated (1 mark). For example, every participant saw all four videos in a random order (1 mark link). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 2 List is definitive. Identify two features of the sample used in this study. Do not accept ‘adults’. 1 mark per correct feature. Volunteers/from newspaper advert/direct mail. n=40. All males. Age 20–50 New Haven area. Wide range of occupations. Wide range of educational levels. 3(b) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 Ignore responses that are simply results. 2 marks full/detailed conclusion ‘Comply’ = max 1 mark. 1 mark partial/brief conclusion ‘Conform’ = 0 marks. Individuals appear to be much more obedient to an authority Did not support Germans are different hypothesis = max 1 figure than we might expect (2 marks). mark. 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 find it stressful to follow destructive orders from a person in authority (2 marks). People will be obedient to an authority figure (1 mark). People find it stressful to follow destructive orders (1 mark). 100% of participants pressed the 300 V switch (0 marks: result). There are other creditworthy responses. 3(c) Suggest one application to everyday life using evidence 2 Annotate with a tick for what the application is and a + for from this study. Your suggestion must be ethical. how it will be achieved. 1 mark for what the application is (clearly based on Milgram) Military examples e.g., soldiers being made more obedient 1 mark for how it will be achieved. to protect a country may be ethical (the question is about the process). e.g., A teacher could get students to be more obedient in the Link to explaining named/specific historical events is classroom (1 mark: what) by wearing clothes that show creditworthy. authority like a technician’s coat (1 mark: how). ‘Help us to understand obedience’ = 0 marks. Soldiers could be encouraged to be more obedient (1 mark: what) as an authority figure can give out commands in a firm Examples must be specific for dress code and prods to be tone/stern voice (1 mark: how). awarded credit. There are other creditworthy suggestions, including whistleblowing policies in the workplace.

Mark scheme

4 From the study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy 3 Result can be about frequency or duration. preferences): Use tick-d for the data mark. Describe one result for toy preferences of the male monkeys. You must use data in your answer. Male vs. female preference = 0 marks, but if correct direction for males given and “compared to females” written 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison at the end, then can still be credited. 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison 1 mark for correct data Data tolerance is 0.5 or 1% e.g., 3 marks Accept masculine and feminine toys. Males played with the wheeled toys (average 10 times) more often than the plush toys. Males played with plush toys for less time than wheeled toys (4.76 minutes on average). 73% of males preferred wheeled toys over plush toys. e.g., 2 marks Males played with the wheeled toys more often than the plush toys. Males played with plush toys for less time than wheeled toys. Males preferred wheeled toys over plush toys. e.g., 1 mark Males played with the wheeled toys more often. Males played with plush toys for less time. Males preferred wheeled toys. e.g., 0 marks Females played with wheeled toys for less time than males. Females played with plush toys more often than males.

Mark scheme

5(a) Outline one assumption of the learning approach. 2 Do not credit learn from environment, surroundings or conditioning by itself. 2 marks: full/detailed assumption. 1 mark: partial/brief assumption. Max 1 if the assumption is about naming/outlining one mechanism e.g., 2 marks (e.g., we learn from models). We all begin life as a blank slate. The experiences and interactions we have then shape our behaviour(s). We learn through the mechanisms of classical conditioning/operant conditioning/social learning/stimulus- response model (any 2 mechanisms = 2 marks) e.g., 1 mark We all begin life as a blank slate. We learn through the mechanisms of classical conditioning/operant conditioning/social learning (1 mechanism named = 1 mark). 5(b) Explain how the study by Saavedra and Silverman 2 If the link is not with an assumption from 5(a), it can only be (button phobia), supports the assumption you outlined awarded the result/conclusion mark. in part (a). For a link back to an assumption about a mechanism, a 1 mark for result/conclusion/concept. named component must be covered, e.g., positive 1 mark for linking it to an assumption explicitly. reinforcement. e.g., 1 mark maximum if linked to the aim/procedure of the study, Part of this therapy was based on positive reinforcement (1 rather than a finding. mark). He was rewarded for being able to handle buttons on the Feeling Thermometer (1 mark). Accept ‘he was not born with the phobia’. He had an experience of the bowl of buttons falling on to him (1 mark). He never had this phobia before/not born with it, so it developed after this incident (1 mark). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

6(a) Outline what is meant by the term ‘positive 3 Only credit examples from the study by Fagen. reinforcement’. Include an example from the study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning) in your answer. Do credit ‘encourage/strengthen/enhances behaviour’ as meaning increasing probability. 1 mark per correct point. 1 mark for an example from the study by Fagen. Do not credit ‘rewarded with food’. e.g., Do not credit ‘rewarded with banana’ by itself. Positive reinforcement is when a reward is given after the completion of a desired behaviour. This increases the probability that the desired behaviour will be repeated. In the study by Fagen, the elephants were rewarded with banana when a specific behaviour was shown (1 mark: example). There are other creditworthy responses 6(b) Two friends, Roksana and Tien are discussing the study 4 If both Roksana and Tien feature in the answer, mark them by Fagen et al. (elephant learning) in terms of the independently and credit the highest score. individual and situational explanations for behaviour. If the candidate mixes up Roksana and Tien (e.g. says Tien Roksana says the study supports the individual but gives an individual explanation answer) then max 2 and explanation, but Tien says it supports the situational annotate with a ? explanation. Do not credit definitions that are tautological, for example, Outline why you think either Roksana or Tien is correct, the situational explanation is based on the situation. using evidence from the study. Do not credit why it is not individual or situational. 1 mark per point made, with 1 mark available for definition of individual/situational Do not credit individual differences as a definition mark. explanation. Up to 4 marks for examples/explanations that support Do credit statements like ‘elephant 2 as the fastest’ etc. individual/situational. For Roksana: e.g., Roksana If the elephants are not correctly ‘numbered’ then generic The individual side refers to behaviours from factors within statements like ‘one elephant was faster’ or ‘one failed to the person (dispositional) (1 mark: definition). There were complete the trunk wash’ can only be credited once. individual differences in the amount of time it took the elephants to be trained on the trunk wash (1 mark: example). Elephant 2 only needed 25 sessions/Elephant 1 needed 30 etc. (1 mark: example). Elephant 5 did not successfully complete the training (1 mark: example). This could have been because she was older than the rest of the elephants/had vision problems/abscess on foot/trunk weakness (1 mark: explanation). 6(b) e.g., Tien The situational side refers to behaviour from factors in the external environment (1 mark). The reason the elephants could complete the trunk wash was because of the training/operant conditioning (1 mark: explanation). Their behaviour was shaped by the researchers who rewarded a series of different behaviours like trunk here (1 mark: example). The elephants received banana pieces every time they performed a certain behaviour correctly, so this encouraged them to repeat the behaviours (1 mark: example/explanation). There were distractions like tourists which slowed training (1 mark: example). There are other creditworthy examples/explanations.

Mark scheme

7 From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): 5 List is definitive. Describe the procedure for the ‘Aggression Arousal’ If the description follows the definitive list presented here but part of this study. they say ‘model’ then award credit. 1 mark per correct point Do not credit ‘they were not allowed to play with the toys’ as they were. The child was brought to an anteroom/a room. It contained toys (for the children)/shown toys. These included a fire engine, locomotive, a fighter jet, cable, spinning top, doll, doll carriage, crib, car, wardrobe (two need to be named to gain 1 mark). They were told they could play with them. As soon as they did begin to play/get involved (usually 2 mins), the experimenter stopped them/took the toys away. The experimenter explained that she did not let just anyone play with the toys. She then said that she decided they were reserved for some other children. The children were told that they were her very best toys. The experimenter sat away from the child (during this phase)/completed some paperwork.

Mark scheme

8 Your friend, Rosalia, tells you that she has recently 4 No credit for justifying advice as this is not what the question begun to feel stressed, even though nothing in her life is about. has changed. Rosalia wants your advice on how to help reduce her level of stress. Do not credit ‘mindfulness’ by itself. Outline the advice you would give to Rosalia, using your 1 mark max can be awarded for identification of a relevant knowledge of the study by Hölzel et al. (mindfulness task, e.g., yoga, meditation, body scan etc. and brain scans). Only credit any timeframe once, e.g., 8-weeks, 45 mins, 1 mark per piece of advice clearly based on the study by long-term, daily etc. Hölzel et al. e.g., she should attend an 8-week MBSR course = 2 marks Rosalia should engage in mindful yoga with some stretching total (1 for MBSR and 1 from the timeframe). exercises. These are slow movements in conjunction with breathing. Credit descriptions of what would happen in body scanning, She can be taught to become “fully aware” of her body yoga, meditation etc. sensations. And use the deep breathing exercise to help control feelings Doing it in her ‘daily life’ as a statement by itself = 0 marks. of stress. She can also use meditation to become aware of different sounds/feelings/emotions. She can be encouraged to practise this for 45-minutes per day/daily. She can join an (8 week) MBSR course. She can practice mindfulness when eating/walking/at home. There are other creditworthy pieces of advice.

Mark scheme

9(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 4 List is definitive. Describe the two victims used in this study. 1 mark max for: 1 mark for identifying a victim plus 1 mark for a correct What they were wearing feature of that victim ×2. Male Aged 26–35 e.g., White/black The first victim was drunk (1 mark). They smelled of n=4 liquor/alcohol (1 mark). The liquor/alcohol bottle was wrapped in brown paper bag (1 mark: alternative). Only award above if not been awarded 4 marks with drunk/ill statements. The second victim was ill (1 mark). They had a (black) cane (1 mark). They acted sober (1 mark: alternative). Accept ‘sick’ to mean ‘ill’. Do not accept ‘cane’ as the identifying mark for the ‘ill’ victim. 9(b) Explain two differences between the study by Piliavin et 8 Award L1–L4 for each difference al. (subway Samaritans) and the study by Perry et al. (personal space). One of your differences must be about For Level 4 there must be some attempt at explaining the the sample of participants. difference. Use the marking grid below. If both differences do not focus on the sample, then mark 4 marks for each difference (twice), e.g., sample, stooges, both but only credit the best, and place an X next to the Q. ethics, data collection techniques, generalisability, (ecological) validity. Place a tick next to the difference that is about the sample. Note: sampling technique does not count as the sample. Each difference must be based on psychological principles. At least one feature of each sample must be correct to get above L2. e.g., 4 marks If the sample information about one of the studies is The studies used stooges in different ways (explanation). incorrect (e.g., give it from a different study to Piliavin or Piliavin used a human stooge that the participant did not Perry) = L0. know as acting ill/drunk/was a model. In the Perry study the participants ‘met’ the animated stooge in various Different aims = L1 rooms/scenarios until they felt the stooge was invading Sample information from only Piliavin or Perry = L1 max. personal space. Description of two samples only = L2 Example: 3 marks To get L4, the candidate needs to explicitly state what the The studies used stooges. Piliavin used a human stooge difference is. that the participant did not know as acting ill/drunk/was a model and in the Perry study the participants ‘met’ the animated stooge in various rooms/scenarios until they felt the stooge was invading personal space. Example: 2 marks The studies used stooges. Piliavin used a human stooge that the acted ill or drunk/Perry used an animated stooge. Example: 1 mark The stooges were different/one was human/one was animated. 9(b) Mark/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 Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test) in 10 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, validity. Weaknesses include: ecological validity, ethics, generalisability, quantitative data. Example: in detail (named issue) The study collected quantitative data which makes it easier to make meaningful comparisons between groups/conditions (as you compare like with like). They counted the number of correct emotions identified from looking at the eyes. As a result, they could compare performance across the four groups of participants to see any trends/differences between the AS/HFA groups and the other three groups. Example: brief but in context The sample for the AS/HFA group was 15 males which may make generalisation difficult and may not represent females with AS/HFA. Example: no context There was a standardised procedure meaning it could be replicated/tested for reliability. 10 Level Description Marks 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 Marks 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. 0