Psychology 9990/12 October/November 2020: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1 From the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping): 1(a) Name one of the objects on the tray for the chimpanzees, other than 1 the stick or the straw. 1 mark for a correct answer Hose; Chain; Rope, (Paint) Brush; Belt. 1(b) Outline the difference between an ‘upon-request’ offer and a 2 ‘voluntary’ offer in this study. 1 mark for correct definition used in study Upon-request: The helper gave a tool to the chimp who had requested it. Voluntary offer: The helper gave a tool to the chimp without any request (from the recipient). 1(c) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 2 marks = full conclusion 1 mark = partial conclusion 0 marks = purely results The study suggests that chimpanzees can target help; when they understand the needs of another chimpanzee (2 marks); Chimpanzees do show altruistic behaviour but they need to see the situation (2 marks); Chimpanzees can understand what other chimpanzees want (1 mark); Chimpanzees help other chimpanzees / show altruism towards other chimpanzees (1 mark); Ayumu was the only chimpanzee to look through the window in the Can’t See Condition hence he was better at this task (0 marks).

Mark scheme

2 In the euphoria condition in the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion), a stooge performed a series of standardised behaviours. An observer categorised any behaviours shown by the participant. One category was ‘initiates new activity’. 2(a)(i) Outline how the category of ‘initiates new activity’ was operationalised 2 in this study. 1 mark per correct point If the participant gave creative euphoria; That is, they initiated euphoric behaviour outside of the stooge’s routine; Therefore, the behaviour had to be one that had never been seen by the participant (from the stooge). 2(a)(ii) Name one behaviour shown by a participant in this study that was 1 categorised as ‘initiates new activity’. 1 mark for correct answer. (Threw) open the window; Laughing; Throwing paper basketballs; Hula hooped (on neck and leg). 2(b) Describe the results from the Activity Index in the euphoria condition 3 for the Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf) group compared to the Epinephrine Misinformed (Epi Mis) group. You must use data in your answer. 3 marks = comparison result with correct data 2 marks = comparison result with incorrect data/no data 1 mark = one result (e.g. for just for EPI-INF) e.g. 3 marks: The EPI-INF scored lower with a score of 12 compared to the EPI-MIS with a score of 22. e.g. 2 marks: The EPI-INF scored lower on the index compared to the EPI-MIS; The EPI-MIS scored higher on the index compared to the EPI-INF. e.g. 1 mark: The EPI-MIS scored the higher/The EPI-INF scored lower.

Mark scheme

3 Explain one or more real-world applications of the study by Laney et 5 al. (false memory). Do not refer to more than three applications in your answer. Examples include: Healthier diets; Helping cancer patients improve their diets / likelihood of eating; Treating PTSD. This will be band marked as follows: 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

4 From the study by Milgram (obedience): 4(a) Identify two characteristics of the learner in this study. 2 1 mark per correct characteristic 47 year old; Male; Accountant; Irish-American (stock); Mild-mannered; Likeable. 4(b) Describe the sample of participants used in this study. 3 1 mark per correct point N=40; (all) male; Aged 20–50 years; From New Haven area; Wide range of occupations; Postal clerks, teachers, salesman, engineers, laborers (1 mark for any 2); Range of educational levels; Readers of a local newspaper; Recruited via volunteer sampling. 4(c) Explain why this study is from the social approach. 2 2 marks = clearly linked to social approach (either through example or assumption) 1 mark = partially linked to social approach/assumption of social approach only e.g.: The study was looking at how an individual affects people’s ability to be obedient (1 mark). The experimenter would give prods to participants when they refused to stop to try to keep them giving larger and larger shocks (1 mark).

Mark scheme

5 Describe the procedure of the study by Andrade (doodling) from the 4 point when the tape had finished playing. 1 mark per correct procedural point made The experimenter collected in the response sheets; They engaged participants (for 1 minute) in conversation; The experimenter apologised for misleading them about the memory test / they were given a surprise recall test; Half the participants were asked to recall names/party-goers first; Half the participants were asked to recall the places mentioned first; Debriefing then happened; Participants were asked if they suspected a memory test.

Mark scheme

6 Describe the psychology that is being investigated in the study by 5 Bandura et al. (aggression). 1 mark per ‘psychology’ point made 1 identification mark is available 1 mark available for an explicit example from the study Creditworthy ‘psychology’ includes Social Learning Theory, frustration- aggression, delayed imitation. e.g.: Social Learning theory was being investigated which centres around observing and imitating behaviours; People pay attention to a role model; They retain this information in their memory; They must feel like they are capable of imitating the behaviour; They must feel motivated to want to imitate the behaviour / feel will get rewarded for imitation. Aggression can be physical (hitting) and verbal (shouting). Delayed imitation is when someone witnesses a behaviour at one time point, but only reproduces that behaviour at a different time point.

Mark scheme

7 From the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning): 7(a) Outline one aim of this study. 2 2 marks = full aim 1 mark = partial aim e.g.: To investigate whether a parrot could learn the concepts of same/different (2 marks); To investigate whether a parrot could comprehend symbolic understanding of same/different (2 marks); To see if a parrot can differentiate between objects (1 mark); To test animal cognition in a parrot (1 mark). 7(b) Outline one methodological weakness of this study. 2 1 mark = appropriate methodological weakness 1 mark = applying it to Pepperberg e.g.: The sample size was one, making generalisability difficult (1 mark). Alex may have been ‘qualitatively’ different to other parrots so he may not represent a large population of them / wild parrots (1 mark); The study lacked ecological validity (1 mark). 7(c) Suggest one real-world application based on the procedure of this 2 study. 1 mark for what the application is (clearly based on Pepperberg) 1 mark for how it will be achieved e.g.: Teaching animals using the Model/Rival Technique can be used in other settings / therapy settings (1 mark: how); Service dogs may be taught which tablets are same/different for people who need help identifying the correct medication (1 mark: what); Teaching children using the Model/Rival Technique can be used in the classroom (1 mark: how).

Mark scheme

8(a) Outline what is meant by individual and situational explanations of 4 behaviour, using any examples. Do not refer to the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) in your answer. 1 mark = defining individual + 1 mark example (non-Piliavin) 1 mark = defining situational + 1 mark example (non-Piliavin) e.g.: The individual explanation states that we behave because of our personality (1 mark). For example, a person wants to go snowboarding because they are an extravert (1 mark); The situational explanation states that we behaviour because of the environment we find ourselves in / our surroundings / other people around us (1 mark). For example, in the Bandura study the children imitated the model later on because they had already witnessed/observed the model acting aggressively (so they did). 8(b) Explain how one result from the study by Piliavin et al. supports the 8 individual explanation of helping behaviour and how one result supports the situational explanation of helping behaviour. For each result: Level Criteria Marks 4 The result presented has a meaningful comparison 4 and the candidate clearly explains how the result supports individual/situational. 3 The result presented has a meaningful comparison 3 and there is a brief attempt at explaining how the result supports individual/situational; The result presented has no meaningful comparison but the candidate clearly explains how the result supports individual/situational. 2 The result presented has a meaningful comparison, 2 but there is no attempt at explanation or explanation is not about individual/situational; The result presented is not clear but there is an attempt at explaining how the result supports individual/situational. 1 The result presented has no meaningful comparison 1 or there is a basic attempt at explaining. 0 No creditworthy answer. 0 e.g. individual: The observers recorded comments from people about their helping or non- helping behaviour. Examples of these were ‘I wish I could help him but I am not strong enough’ or ‘It’s for men to help’. These are individual beliefs about the incident and can help to explain helping/non-helping behaviour. Each person had a different ‘take’ on the incident and decided what to do based on that. e.g. situational: Only on 73% of trials did people help a black drunk victim whereas for the other three conditions (e.g. white drunk victim), on 100% of trials was help given when no model as present. Clearly, the situation that involved an interaction between a particular race and condition of victim stopped some people from helping. This situation had decreased helping behaviour in people in those trials.

Mark scheme

9 Evaluate the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) in 10 terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about generalisations. Strengths include: reliability, qualitative data, quantitative data Weaknesses include: ethics, validity (external), generalisability Level 4 (8–10 marks) • Evaluation is comprehensive; • Answer demonstrates evidence of careful planning, organisation and selection of material; • Analysis (valid conclusions that effectively summarise issues and arguments) is evident throughout; • Answer demonstrates an excellent understanding of the material. Level 3 (6–7 marks) • Evaluation is good; • Answer demonstrates some planning and is well organised; • Analysis is often evident but may not be consistently applied; • Answer demonstrates a good understanding of the material. Level 2 (4–5 marks) • Evaluation is mostly appropriate but limited; • Answer demonstrates limited organisation or lacks clarity; • Analysis is limited; • Answer lacks consistent levels of detail and demonstrates a limited understanding of the material. Level 1 (1–3 marks) • Evaluation is basic; • Answer demonstrates little organisation; • There is little or no evidence of analysis; • Answer does not demonstrate understanding of the material. Level 0 (0 marks) No response worthy of credit.