Psychology 9990/13 October/November 2022: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 1 State the number of participants that were in the doodling group in this study. 1 mark for the correct answer 20 1(b) Describe the mock telephone message used in this study. 3 1 mark per correct point made Recorded on (audio) cassette; Monotone or calm voice / monotonous/dull/boring; 227 words per minute; Lasted for 2.5 minutes; Comfortable listening volume / different volume for each participant; It contained the names of eight people attending the party; There were also the names of three people and a cat, who were not attending; Eight place names were mentioned; Other irrelevant material was contained in the message;

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams): 2 Outline the relationship between the duration of time spent in REM sleep and the length of dream narrative in this study. 2 marks for full outline 1 mark for partial outline e.g. The longer a participant was in REM sleep, the longer their dream narratives were (2 marks) Positive correlation (1 mark) 2(b) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 2 marks for full answer 1 mark for partial/brief answer e.g. People can judge the duration of their time in REM with accuracy (2 marks) Dreams are not instant events but are reported/experienced in real time (2 marks) Eye movements during sleep do correspond with the content of a dream (2 marks) Eye movements match dreams (1 mark) Dreaming happens more in REM (1 mark) People can judge REM length (1 mark)

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 3 Describe the sample for Group 3 in this study. 1 mark per correct point Adults/students; Studying for undergraduate degrees / at Cambridge University; Majority studying science; N = 103; Equal male/female; Assumed to have high IQ; Not diagnosed with AS/HFA; Mean age = 20.8 years. 3(b) The original ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test had several problems. 2 Two of these problems were: • the test only used 25 pairs of eyes • the two response options in the test were semantic opposites. 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: 25 pairs of eyes = there were 36 pairs of eyes used Problem 2: the two response options were semantic opposites = three foils had similar ‘valence’ (emotion)

Mark scheme

4(a) Prior to the experimental part of the study by Bandura et al. 1 (aggression), the children were observed and rated for their baseline aggressive behaviour. State where the children were observed in this part of the study. 1 mark for correct answer (Stanford University) Nursery (School). 4(b) State one person who observed the children in this part of the study. 1 1 mark for correct answer Experimenter; (Nursery School) Teacher. 4(c) Outline how the children were rated for their baseline aggressive 2 behaviour in this part of the study. 1 mark per correct point 1 mark available for naming one of the scales used Rated on four different scales about aggression; All five point ratings; Scales = physical aggression / verbal aggression / aggression towards inanimate objects / aggression inhibition (name 2 for 1 mark) They were rated independently; A composite score was given to all children / scores for scales were added up for each child; 4(d) Outline one weakness of how the children were rated for their baseline 2 aggressive behaviour in this part of the study. 1 mark for identifying a weakness 1 mark for relating it to this part of the study e.g. It is a subjective measure of aggression (1 mark); the teacher may already have an incorrect idea about how aggressive a child is making it less valid / may have a bias against one of the children making their score more ‘aggressive’ (1 mark); It is a subjective measure (1 mark); Only a transient measure (1 mark). Other creditworthy weaknesses include: acting nicely at school, extraneous variables, validity.

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 Misinformed (Epi Mis) 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 Epi Mis / lower for the Placebo (1 mark) which meant the Epi Mis joined in more with the stooge or were more euphoric / Placebo joined in less or were less euphoric (1 mark). The average score was 22.56 (Epi Mis) and 16 (Placebo) (1 mark for either). 5(b) Outline one methodological weakness of this study. 2 1 mark for identifying a weakness 1 mark for linking it to the study e.g. There was low mundane realism for this study (1 mark: identification), as the act of being injected and then being in a room with a stranger does not happen in the real world (1 mark: relating); The study had low ecological validity (1 mark: identification); The study could have caused psychological harm (0 marks: not methodological). Other creditworthy weaknesses include: sample/generalisability, difficult to standardise stooge, use of independent groups.

Mark scheme

6 Outline what is meant by the ‘social approach’ in psychology. Include 4 examples from the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping) in your answer. Up to two marks for outlining the social approach (through an assumption or description) Up to two marks for examples from Yamamoto only e.g. social approach We are affected by the people/individuals around us; Groups / social context can affect our behaviour; We identify with certain social groups / people. e.g. examples Some chimpanzees may have solved the problem because of the scenario of being able to see what the other chimpanzee needed to complete the task; Influenced by the behaviour of another chimpanzee who requested a tool to be given to them.

Mark scheme

7 A teacher, Nina, has some students who are having difficulty learning 4 a new skill. She wants to help these students to learn this new skill and asks you for advice. Outline the advice you would give to Nina, using your knowledge of the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning). 1 mark per piece of evidence clearly based on the study by Pepperberg e.g. One teacher can act as a trainer/teacher to another adult; They present objects and ask questions about the skill; They are given praise / rewarded for correct skill acquisition (e.g. keep item); They show disapproval of incorrect skill acquisition (e.g. item taken away); The children should be allowed to participate in any verbal exchanges / ask questions; The teacher and the model can swap roles; Model can show/demonstrate new skill to students; Model can compete with students / be a rival to the students.

Mark scheme

8(a) Outline what is meant by the ethical guideline of ‘confidentiality’. 2 2 mark for full definition 1 mark for partial/brief definition All data needs to be stored separately from personal data like the participants’ names (2 marks); Do not take personal details (1 mark); Revealing more than they would usually (0 marks: this is privacy). 8(b) From the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and emotions): 4 Two friends, Willow and Leo, are discussing this study in terms of ethics. Willow believes the study is ethical but Leo believes the study is not ethical. Outline why you think either Willow or Leo is correct, using evidence from the study. 1 mark per point made, with: Up to 2 marks for any relevant finding(s)/knowledge of ethical guidelines Up to 3 marks for explanation(s) or consequence(s) of breaking guideline e.g. Willow It can be argued that the study followed the confidentiality guideline (1 mark: guideline). All we know is that the participants were right-handed females (1 mark: explanation). This means that it would be impossible to identify any of the participants who took part in the study (1 mark: explanation). Informed consent implied as volunteers (1 mark: guideline). e.g. Leo It can be argued that the study broke the ethical guideline of protection from psychological harm. (1 mark: guideline). The participants had to look at some imagery that could have been disturbing (1 mark: explanation) so did not leave the study in the same psychological state as they entered (1 mark: explanation). Participants were deceived at certain points in the study (1 mark: guideline).

Mark scheme

9(a) In Experiment 2 of the study by Laney et al. (false memory), 4 participants had to view twenty slides of common food. Describe what participants were asked to do immediately after viewing each slide. 1 mark for each correct point made They had to rate each photograph on four scales; How appetising/disgusting they found the photograph (1 mark for either of these); Whether the photographer was novice, amateur or professional (2 needed for mark); Artistic quality of the photo was rated / photography rated; They were rated on an 8 point scale / from 1–8; 1 = not at all, to 8 = very much (need both to gain this mark); 9(b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Laney 8 et al. (false memory) and one other study from the cognitive approach. 4 marks available for the similarity, e.g. laboratory based, quantitative data 4 marks available for the difference, e.g. participants (sample or demographics) 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 were 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 Milgram (obedience) in terms of two strengths 10 and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about generalisability. Strengths include: reliability, quantitative data Weaknesses include: validity (external), ethics, 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.