Psychology 9990/12 October/November 2022: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) In the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning), Alex the parrot could 1 choose from three labels when asked ‘What’s same?’ about two objects. Two of these labels were colour and shape. Name the label that Alex could use to answer the ‘What’s same?’ question in this study, other than colour and shape. 1 mark for the correct answer Matter/mah-mah 1(b) Describe the ‘model/rival’ procedure used in this study. 3 1 mark per correct point made There is a trainer and a model; The trainer presents objects to a second human (model); They ask questions about the objects; They praise/reward the correct answers; They show disapproval for incorrect answers; The second human acts as a model for Alex/the bird; And as a rival for the trainer’s attention/rival Alex for attention; The role of model and rival were reversed;

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams): 2 Outline one aim of this study. 2 marks = full aim 1 mark = partial aim e.g. To investigate if dream recall differs between REM and nREM stages of sleep (2 marks); To investigate dream recall and stages of sleep (1 mark); To investigate if there was a (positive) correlation between estimates of dream duration and length of REM sleep (2 marks); To investigate estimates of dream duration (1 mark); To investigate if eye movement patterns were related to dream content (2 marks); To investigate eye movement and dreams (1 mark); 2(b) Outline one of the dreams reported where a participant was driving a 2 car. 2 marks detailed outline; 1 mark brief outline e.g. 2 marks Driving a car and staring at the road ahead. At an intersection, a car appeared speeding at them. (2) Driving a car and staring at the road ahead. They saw a man on the road asking for a lift/on left. (2) e.g. 1 mark Driving a car and staring at the road ahead. (1) At an intersection, a car appeared speeding at them. (1) They saw a man on the road asking for a lift. (1)

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 3 Describe the sample for Group 2 in this study. Adults; From adult community classes (Exeter); From public library users (Cambridge); N = 122; Opportunity sample; Similar socioeconomic class to Group 1 / wide range of occupations; Similar education background to Group 1 / broad range of education levels; Data on age only available from 88 participants; Neurotypical/not diagnosed with AS/HFA. 3(b) The original ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test had several problems. 2 Two of these problems were: • the test only had two response options for each pair of eyes • some words in the test were difficult to understand State how this study solved each of these problems with the revised ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test. 1 mark per correct ‘solution’ Problem 1: two response options = increased it to four response options / added two more options. Problem 2: some words were difficult to comprehend = a glossary (of definitions) was available.

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Laney et al. (false memory): 4 Describe the Food Costs Questionnaire used in this study. 1 mark per correct point made Participants had to indicate how much they were willing to pay; For 21 food items in a grocery store; Several of these foods (including asparagus) had featured on earlier questionnaires; They did this by circling the price; From seven priced given options / eight options in total; There was a ‘would never buy it’ option too; Prices were $1.90 / $2.50 / $3.20 / $3.80 / $4.40 / $5.00 / $5.70 (2 correct = 1 mark maximum). 4(b) Outline one weakness of the Food Costs Questionnaire used in this 2 study. 1 mark for a weakness 1 mark for linking it to the study e.g. What people say they will do on a questionnaire may not ‘mirror’ their behaviour (1 mark); therefore, just because they would spend a certain amount of money does not mean that actually will (1 mark). It is a subjective measure (1 mark) Only a transient measure / less valid (1 mark) Other creditworthy examples include: social desirability, lack of qualitative data, not used to groceries.

Mark scheme

5(a) The study by Schachter and Singer investigated two factors in 3 emotion. An Activity Index was used to collect results in the Euphoria condition. Describe the results from the Activity Index for the Epinephrine Informed (Epi Inf) group compared to the placebo group. You must use data in your answer. 1 mark for stating which group scored highest/lowest 1 mark for describing what the result meant 1 mark for using data (can be just the data for one group) e.g. The score on the Activity Index was higher for the Placebo / lower for the Epi Inf (1 mark) which meant the Placebo joined in more with the stooge or were more euphoric / Epi Inf joined in less or were less euphoric (1 mark). The average score was 12.72 (Epi Inf) and 16 (Placebo) (1 mark for either). 5(b) Outline one methodological strength of this study. 2 1 mark for identifying a strength 1 mark for linking it to the study e.g. There was a high level of standardisation, so replicability is high (1 mark). The stooges were given instructions on how to act so the study can be tested for reliability (1 mark). Quantitative data were collected so it was objective / easy to compare (1 mark). The activity index generated a score to show how euphoric a participant was so all (four) conditions could be directly compared (1 mark). Other creditworthy strengths include: (internal) validity.

Mark scheme

6 The debate about individual and situational explanations relates to the 4 study by Milgram (obedience). Outline what is meant by this debate. Include one example from the individual explanation and one example from the situational explanation from the study by Milgram. 1 mark for the individual side of argument; 1 mark for example from study 1 mark for the situational side of argument; 1 mark for example from study e.g. definitions The individual side refers to behaviours from factors within the person (dispositional); The situational side refers to behaviour from factors in the external environment. e.g. examples Some participants may have been more obedient because of their ‘personality’ type, e.g. being more submissive (individual); Some participants refused to continue whilst others went to 450 v (individual); Some participants may have been more obedient because of the experiment or prods given to make them continue shocking (situational); Some participants may have been more obedient due to the presence of an authority figure (situational). There are other creditworthy examples.

Mark scheme

7 Omar organises a football team for children but they are sometimes 4 too aggressive during games. He wants to reduce this aggressive behaviour and asks you for advice. Outline the advice you would give to Omar, using your knowledge of the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). 1 mark per piece of evidence clearly based on the study by Bandura et al. e.g. Omar could bring in a trainer/model that is non-aggressive; The children could be asked to watch the model as they play football (non- aggressively); Omar can monitor physical aggression in boys as they are more likely to display it; Omar could reward the model for their non-aggressive behaviour; Ask the parents to make the children watch non-aggressive TV / play non- aggressive video games; Omar could make sure the children are not annoyed/frustrated before a game (of football).

Mark scheme

8(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 2 Name two features of the sample in this study. 1 mark per correct feature: About 4450 participants; New York City; Subway passengers; 45% black / 55% white; Opportunity sampled; Mean number of people per car was 43. 8(b) Two friends, Saad and Amina, are discussing this study in terms of 4 generalisability. Saad believes the study does have generalisability but Amina believes the study does not have generalisability. Outline why you think either Saad or Amina is correct, using evidence from the study. 1 mark per point made, with: Up to 2 marks for any relevant information from the study / facts about the sample. Up to 3 marks for explanation(s), including who can/cannot be generalised to. e.g. Saad There was a very large amount of people who were participants / 4450 participants (1 mark: information) representing a potential wide range of occupations/cultures/background (1 mark: information) so they could easily represent the helping behaviour of many other different people (1 mark: explanation). The sample was large with both genders represented (1 mark: information). e.g. Amina They were all from one location on a subway (1 mark: information) which is restrictive in terms of the type of people used in the sample (1 mark: explanation). It might be that the results only apply to subway passengers and not rural-living people (1 mark: explanation) and it is possible that the same people were ‘regulars’ on this route (1 mark: explanation). They only used a sample from New York/Bronx (1 mark: information) so this may not represent the helping behaviour of people with different cultural customs (1 mark: explanation). They only used victims that were black or white (1 mark: information). The victims were only males (1 mark: information).

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe the psychology being investigated in the study by Andrade 4 (doodling). 1 mark for each correct statement 1 mark available for a general assumption of the cognitive approach 1 mark available for a specific example from Andrade e.g. Looking at whether doodling aides (cognitive) concentration (example mark); Arousal levels need to be maintained to be able to concentrate; Cognitive processing of dual tasks; That compete for the same levels of performance; Boredom plays a role in paying attention to information; Information processing when asked to do ‘two things at once’; The cognitive approach is about input-process-output (mark for assumption); There are other creditworthy responses. 9(b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by 8 Andrade (doodling) and one other study from the cognitive approach. 4 marks available for the similarity, e.g. laboratory based, quantitative data; experimental design 4 marks available for the difference, e.g. participants (sample or demographics); ethics Similarity e.g. 4 marks Both Andrade and Laney studies were experimental in nature. For example, both studies had manipulated IVs. In the Andrade study there were two conditions of doodling and non-doodling. In Laney study there was also two conditions of love asparagus and a control. e.g. 3 marks Both Andrade and Laney studies were experimental in nature. For example, both studies had manipulated IVs. In the Andrade study there were two conditions of doodling and non-doodling. e.g. 2 marks Both Andrade and Laney studies were experimental in nature. For example, both studies had manipulated IVs. e.g. 1 mark Both Andrade and Laney were experimental in nature. Level Descriptor Marks 4 The similarity/difference is well explained using 4 both studies as examples. 3 The similarity/difference is well explained but only 3 one study is used as an example OR both studies used briefly. 2 The similarity/difference is brief with an attempt at 2 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 1 using studies as examples. 0 No creditworthy material. 0

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and emotions) in terms 10 of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about validity. Strengths include: validity (internal), reliability, quantitative data Weaknesses include: generalisability, validity (external), ethics 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.