Psychology 9990/13 October/November 2021: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study Andrade (doodling): 1 State the number of participants used in this study. 1 mark for correct answer 40 1(b) Identify two features of the mock telephone message that was played 2 to the participants. 1 mark per correct answer Recorded on (audio) cassette; Monotone voice / monotonous/boring/dull; 227 words per minute; Lasted for 2.5 minutes; Comfortable listening volume / different volume for each participant; It contained eight names of people attending party; It contained three names (and cat) not attending the party; It contained eight place names. 1(c) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 2 marks full conclusion 1 mark partial/brief conclusion 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 (1 mark); Participants recalled more names in the doodling condition (0 marks: result); There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping): 3 Describe the psychology being investigated in this study. 1 mark per correct point. An example from the study can gain 1 mark. e.g. Altruism (1 mark) was investigated which is helping another organism out without any benefit to themselves (1 mark); For example, one chimp gave another chimp a straw to drink the juice even though the chimp giving the straw never got the juice (1 example mark); The study was about prosocial behaviour which is about helping others who may need it (1 mark); Empathy (1 mark) was looked into which is understanding the emotional state of another organism (by imagining themselves in ‘their shoes’) (1 mark); 2(b) Outline one strength of this study in relation to validity. 2 1 mark for identifying a strength 1 mark for linking it to Yamamoto e.g. There were many controls so they could be confident it was the IV affecting the DV (1 mark); controls included same tools, so it was type of condition affecting helping behaviour (1 mark: link); There were many controls that helped reduce the effects of extraneous variables (1 mark); Repeated measures design was used to limit the effect of participant variables (1 mark); There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 2 Outline the sampling technique used in this study. 1 mark available for identifying the sampling technique 1 mark per correct description e.g. Volunteer (1 mark) This is when the participants choose to be part of a study (1 mark). They may respond to an advertisement (1 mark) 3(b) State two characteristics of the victim (learner) used in this study. 2 1 mark per correct characteristic Male; 47 years old / in his 40s; Accountant; Irish/American; Mild-mannered/friendly; Likeable; White. 3(c) When the participant (teacher) pressed a switch on the shock 2 generator, there were several changes. Describe two changes on the shock generator after the participant pressed a switch, other than a bright red light illuminating. 1 mark per correct point made An electric buzzing sound happened; An (electric) blue light labelled energizer lit up; The dial on generator swung to the right; Various relay clicks were heard.

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Canli et al (brain scans and emotions): 5 Describe the procedure of the study when the participants were having their brain scans. 1 mark per correct procedural point made They viewed 96 scenes; Through a mirror / back-projection screen; Each picture had a rating for arousal / valence; The order of the scenes was randomised; Each picture was presented for a 2.88 s / a few seconds; In between each scene the participants fixated on a cross/interstimulus interval of 12.96 s; They were told to view the picture the entire time it was projected / on screen; When fixation cross appeared they had to rate their arousal / emotional intensity; On a 4-point scale / from 0–3 They did this by pressing a button (with their right hand). 4(b) Identify one methodological weakness of this study. 1 1 mark for the identification e.g. Lacks ecological validity (1 mark) Ecological validity (0 marks) Lacks generalisability (1 mark) Generalisability (0 marks) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 2 Group 3 included both males and females. Identify two other characteristics of Group 3. 1 mark per correct characteristic Undergraduates/students; Predominantly science degrees; Assumed to have high IQ / A grade A-Levels; Not AS/HFA. 5(b) Each participant’s attribution of mental state was tested by their 2 selection of a word to describe the pair of eyes in a photograph. Explain one reason why this test may not accurately measure attribution of mental state. 1 mark for a problem 1 mark for linking it to the study e.g. The pictures were of static eyes (1 mark); When we are attributing mental states, we see moving eyes / facial expressions (1 mark); we use body language to help us gauge mental states in the real world (1 mark alternative); People could have guessed all of the answers correctly (1 mark). There are other creditworthy responses, including emotive words are subjective, emotions can be culturally specific.

Mark scheme

6(a) The study by Schachter and Singer is based on the two-factor theory 4 of emotion. Describe what is meant by the two-factor theory of emotion. 1 mark per correct point made: e.g. One factor is the physiological arousal of a person; The other factor is the cognition that allows a person to make sense of a situation; So, when someone becomes aroused, they look to the environment for cues to help explain how they are feeling; Therefore, emotional experiences are a combination of physiology and cognition; This is true for when a person has no immediate explanation of their emotional arousal; There are other creditworthy responses. 6(b) Outline how one result from this study supports the two-factor theory 2 of emotion. 1 mark for appropriate result, then 1 mark for explaining how it links to the two-factor theory of emotion. e.g. The Epi Ign/Epi Mis groups scored higher on their emotional states compared to the Epi Inf (1 mark); This showed that they were more susceptible to the stooge’s mood as they had no explanation of their emotions (compared to Epi Inf who did) (1 mark).

Mark scheme

7(a) Lizzie has learned about the study by Laney et al. (false memory). She 2 believes that the study is unethical. Outline what is meant by the ethical guideline of informed consent. 2 marks for a full answer 1 mark for brief/partial answer e.g. This is when a participant is given enough information before a study begins so they can decide whether they would like to participate (or not) (2 marks) This is when a person decides if they want to take part in a study (1 mark) Telling participants information about the study before it starts (1 mark) 7(b) Outline why Lizzie is correct that the study is unethical, using 4 evidence in your answer. Up to 1 mark for outlining one ethical guideline directly relevant to Laney et al. Up to 4 marks for using evidence to show that Laney et al. was unethical e.g. The participants were deceived (1 marks). They had been told that they were completing the questionnaires to look into the relationship between personality and food preference (1 mark); The study was actually about implanting false memories about asparagus (1 mark); They were also deceived that the feedback given to them on return was factual (1 mark); Laney did not get informed consent as the participants were not told it was about false memories (1 mark); Participants may have been psychologically stressed by the idea of being ‘tricked’ (1 mark); There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

8(a) Outline the nature versus nurture debate in psychology, using an 4 example other than the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) as an example. 1 mark = defining nature + 1 mark example 1 mark = defining nurture + 1 mark example e.g. Nature means a behaviour that we are born with / genetic / hard-wired (1 mark). For example, intelligence has a genetic component that is passed on through generations (1 mark example). Nurture means a behaviour that has been learned by an organism after birth (1 mark); For example, in the study by Pepperberg Alex learned same/ different through observing a model/rival (1 mark example). 8(b) Explain what psychologists have learned about aggression using two 8 results from the study by Bandura et al. e.g. Children do learn aggression through social learning; Children learn more from observing then imitating a same-sex model; Aggression is more likely to be about nurture rather than nature; Models are powerful influencers of aggressive behaviour; Boys more likely to be aggressive compared to girls; Level Criteria Marks 4 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and 4 the candidate clearly explains what we have learned about the named concept 3 The result presented has a meaningful comparison and 3 there is a brief attempt at explaining what we have learned about the named concept; The result presented has no meaningful comparison but the candidate clearly explains what we have learned about the named concept 2 The result presented has a meaningful comparison but 2 there is no attempt at explanation; The result presented is not clear or no result but there is an attempt at explaining what we have learned about the named concept 1 The result presented has no meaningful comparison or 1 there is a basic attempt at explaining 0 No creditworthy answer 0 e.g., Level 4: Children were more likely to learn/replicate aggression from a model of the same-sex. Boys were more likely to replicate the verbal aggression from a male model than a female model. Children will replicate aggressive behaviours observed from a model. Participants in the aggressive condition were significantly more likely to replicate physical/verbal aggression compared to those in the nonaggressive condition / control group. Level 3: Children were more likely to learn/replicate aggression from a model of the same-sex. Boys were more likely to replicate the verbal aggression from a male model. Children will replicate aggressive behaviours observed from a model. Participants in the aggressive condition were significantly more likely to replicate physical/verbal aggression 8(b) Level 2: Children were more likely to learn/replicate aggression from a model of the same-sex OR boys were more likely to replicate the verbal aggression from a male model than a female model. Children will replicate aggressive behaviours observed from a model OR Participants in the aggressive condition were significantly more likely to replicate physical/verbal aggression compared to those in the nonaggressive condition / control group Level 1: Children will replicate aggressive behaviours; models influence aggressive behaviour;

Mark scheme

9 Evaluate the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) in terms of 10 two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the use of qualitative data. Suitable strengths include: Qualitative data, quantitative data, reliability, validity (ecological) Suitable weaknesses include: Ethics, field experiments, validity, generalisations Level Criteria Marks 4 • Evaluation is comprehensive. 8–10 • 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. 3 • Evaluation is good. 6–7 • 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. 2 • Evaluation is mostly appropriate but limited. 4–5 • Answer demonstrates limited organisation or lacks clarity. • Analysis is limited. • Answer lacks consistent levels of detail and demonstrates a limited understanding of the material. 1 • Evaluation is basic. 1–3 • Answer demonstrates little organisation. • There is little or no evidence of analysis. • Answer does not demonstrate understanding of the material. 0 No response worthy of credit. 0