Psychology 9990/12 October/November 2023: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) The study by Baron-Cohen et al. used the eyes test as a 1 Reject IQ. measure of theory of mind. Reject Autism Spectrum Test. The eyes test results were negatively (inversely) correlated with the results of another measure. Name this measure. 1 mark for correct answer. Take the first answer only. Autism [Spectrum] Quotient/AQ. 1(b) Outline the Group 4 sample from this study. 2 List is definitive. 1 mark per correct point. No tolerance on n or IQ. Random sample. Age tolerance 27–29 years. General population. n=14. Ignore reference to ‘normal people’. IQ matched with Group 1 / similar to Group 1/AS-HFA group. Do not credit do not suffer from AS/HFA Same age distribution as Group 1. Mean IQ = 116. Mean age = 28 years Not diagnosed with AS/HFA.

Mark scheme

2 The study by Saavedra and Silverman investigated a 4 List is definitive. boy with a phobia of buttons. The boy reported an experience that he thought was the cause of his button phobia. Describe the experience the boy reported. 1 mark per correct point. The incident happened when he was five years old / happened four years before study. There was an art project / during art class (using buttons). He had run out of buttons (for his project). He was asked to go to the front of the class to get more (buttons). They were in a large bowl (on the teacher’s desk). His hand slipped as he reached for the bowl / accidentally knocked over the bowl. All of the buttons fell down on him.

Mark scheme

3 Explain one problem that could arise if children were 3 Go with the intention of the candidate. used as participants in the study by Canli et al. (brain scans and emotions). If more than one problem presented, mark all and credit the best. 1 mark for identification of the problem. 1 mark for elaboration of the problem (can be linked to study Cannot be awarded 1 mark for simply stating it reduces / or not) affects validity. 1 mark for linking it to Canli et al. Unethical/ethical issues can be the identification of the e.g. problem. fMRI/MRI scans were used in the study to measure brain structure/activity (1 mark: elaboration). This requires participants to be still which might be difficult for children (1 mark: identification). This could mean that none of the scans would be useful / be completed successfully (1 mark: link) Children may lack understanding of emotions (1 mark: identification) and this study was dealing with complex emotions like tranquil (1 mark: elaboration) so it would not be a valid test of brain function and emotion (1 mark: link) e.g., identification of other creditworthy problems include: Children would need to keep still during the brain scans (1 mark). Children may be scared to enter the machine so refuse to go in (1 mark). The children may find images distressing / scared of pictures (1 mark).

Mark scheme

4(a) In the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning), a principal 4 The list is definitive. trainer was used during the ‘test procedures’. Describe the procedure that the principal trainer followed during the ‘test procedures’. 1 mark per correct point. She was sat in the room with her back to Alex / the parrot. She did not look at Alex / the parrot during the presentation of (test) objects. She did not know what object was being presented. She repeated out loud what Alex / the parrot said. It was then decided if the response was correct/incorrect /indistinct. 4(b) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 If the same/different does not mention symbolic but does explain a mechanism as to why, for example, SLT or 2 marks detailed conclusion. Model/Rival, then award 2 marks. 1 mark partial/brief. No credit for any actual results. Must be generic. e.g. That an avian subject, an African Grey parrot, showed symbolic comprehension / cognitive ability of the concept same/different. (2 marks) It would therefore appear that symbolic representation, in this case of same/different, is not exclusive to primates (2 marks) The study showed that he could comprehend same/different (1 mark) Not only primates can understand same/different (1 mark) Alex’s accuracy rate was 70% for novel objects (0 marks = result).

Mark scheme

5(a) The study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) used 2 Accept any age answer in the range. models and victims. List is definitive. Name two features of the models used in this study. 1 mark per correct feature White. Males. Aged 24–29 years. Informally clothed / not the same attire / casual clothing. Students from Columbia University. 5(b) Outline one result in relation to the time taken to help 2 Ignore reference to any results about early versus late as the victims. the participants never knew this would happen. 2 marks for result with a meaningful comparison. 1 mark for partial result / no meaningful comparison. e.g., The average time it took people to help the ill victim was significantly faster than the average time taken to help the drunk victim (2 marks). People were consistently faster to help in groups of 7 compared to groups of 3 (2 marks). People helped the ill victim faster (on average) (1 mark). People were slower to help in groups of 3 (1 mark). 5(c) Outline one result in relation to participants leaving the 2 critical area. 2 marks for result with a meaningful comparison. 1 mark for partial result / no meaningful comparison. e.g., People were more likely to leave the critical area when the victim was black compared to when the victim was white (2 marks). People were more likely to leave the critical area when the victim was drunk compared to when the victim was ill (2 marks). People were more likely to leave the critical area when help had not been offered within 70s (of collapse) compared to when help had been given (2 marks). 34 people left the critical area (1 mark) on 21 (20%) of trials (1 mark). People left the critical area less when the victim was white (1 mark).

Mark scheme

6(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 4 No credit for providing results from the Andrade study, but 1 mark available for the aim of Andrade’s study. Describe the background to this study. 1 mark per correct point made. e.g., Daydreaming had been linked to moments of boredom in people. In these situations, people may resort to doodling to help concentration. Dual task designs are used to pinpoint our cognitive resources. Arousal levels need to be maintained to be able to concentrate. Boredom plays a role in paying attention to information. Information processing can be difficult when asked to do ‘two things at once’. It has been assumed that doing concurrent tasks (e.g., doodling) impairs concentration / distracts from primary task. The effects of boredom on processing have been overlooked. 6(b) Explain why this study is from the cognitive approach. 2 2 marks = clearly linked to cognitive approach (either through example or assumption) 1 mark = partially linked to cognitive approach e.g., One assumption of the cognitive approach is that behaviour can be explained using cognitive systems like attention (1 mark) and this study examined the role of split attention in recall (1 mark). Differences between people can be attributed to individual patterns of cognition (1 mark) and in this study not all people recalled the same amount of correct information (1 mark).

Mark scheme

7 Suggest two real-world applications based on the study 4 Annotate with a tick for what the application is and a + for by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping). how it will be achieved. Your suggestions must be ethical. Do not credit the same ‘what’ twice (e.g., teachers in classroom), but do credit different ‘hows’. 1 mark for what the application is (clearly based on Yamamoto et al.). Suggestions based on the use of rewards are creditworthy 1 mark for how it will be achieved. here. e.g. The procedure could be used in schools to teach about helping behaviour (1 mark: what); teachers could set up a similar scenario so that children have to interact / understand the needs of others to be able to complete the task of helping someone else (1 mark: how) Parents can use these ideas to promote helping behaviour in their children (1 mark: what). Parents can reward their children when specific helping behaviours are seen (to increase the likelihood they continue) (1 mark: how) A teacher can use rewards in the classroom to motivate children (1 mark: what).

Mark scheme

8 Two friends, Zayn and Danna, are discussing the nature 6 For Zayn, do not credit ‘naturally’ for a definition. versus nurture debate in relation to the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). Zayn thinks the study For Danna, do not credit ‘nurtured’ for a definition. supports the nature side of the debate but Danna thinks the study supports the nurture side of the debate. For Danna, definition of nurture + they observed/imitated = 2 marks. Explain one reason why Zayn is correct and one reason why Danna is correct using evidence from this study. For Danna, accept arguments about being exposed to aggression at home etc. for 1 mark max. 1 mark per correct point. If there is no explicit evidence presented from Bandura then 3 marks for Zayn. 1 mark for defining nature. max 2. 3 marks for Danna. 1 mark for defining nurture. An explicit explanation must be present for max 3. e.g., Zayn Nature is about behaviours being genetically encoded and with us from birth (1 mark: definition). Boys were more physically aggressive than girls across a range of the conditions irrespective of the sex of the model (1 mark). This could be due to them having higher levels of testosterone which is biological (1 mark). e.g., Danna Nurture is about the learning of behaviours through experiences / after birth (1 mark: definition). Participants in all conditions had already been matching on (pre-existing) aggression levels yet, for instance, male participants we much more likely to imitate a physically aggressive male role model (1 mark). Therefore, this imitated behaviour must have been learned (1 mark). 8 Participants had been matched on levels of aggression (1 mark) and there were differences in levels of imitated behaviour depending if a model was aggressive or not so learned (1 mark). They learned to be aggressive by observing/imitating a model (1 mark).

Mark scheme

9(a) From the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in 4 List is definitive. emotion): Sample size tolerance 180–190. Describe the sample. Do not credit ‘given course credit’. 1 mark per correct point. Accept alternative spellings of Minnesota. (predominantly) volunteers/90% volunteers. n=184/185. 1 refused to participate. Males. (College) students / undergraduates. Taking introductory psychology class / studying psychology. University of Minnesota. All cleared with Student Health Service. Two extra points on final examination (for every hour). 9(b) Explain whether each ethical guideline below was 8 Annotate with L2, L1 or SEEN. broken in the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion). Do not credit tautological answers: • Confidentiality e.g., they kept their names confidential etc. • Lack of Deception • Privacy Accept arguments about a deceptive aim here. • Protection from physical harm For each guideline, use the following banded mark scheme: Level Descriptor Marks 2 The answer explicitly describes the 2 ethical guideline, and the example is contextualised from the named study. 1 The answer explicitly describes the 1 ethical guideline without correct contextualisation / no contextualisation, OR The ethical guideline is identified from the use of a brief example contextualised from the named study, OR The ethical guideline is incorrectly described but the contextualised example from the named study is correct. 0 The description of the ethical guideline 0 is incorrect and/or the contextualised example is incorrect, OR no answer given 9(b) Confidentiality e.g., Any data should not be identifiable as a single participants’ responses / participants’ data must not be named as theirs. All we know is that there were male students from the University of Minnesota / only the doctors had access to their medical records. Lack of Deception e.g., A participant should not be deceived without a strong justification / only if revealing the deception would not cause discomfort. This guideline was broken as they were told the wrong information whilst getting the injection. Privacy e.g., Researchers should always attempt to refrain from making participants reveal personal details (that they would not reveal in everyday life). The questionnaire in the anger condition made participants rate various traits about family members which were sensitive matters. Protection from physical harm e.g., Participants should leave the study in the same physical state as they entered. The guideline was broken as the participants did receive an injection which may have caused physical pain. The guideline was not broken as the injection was given by a professional doctor to ensure minimal pain.

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Milgram (obedience) in terms of 10 Use tick-d for detailed (so the candidate clearly explains why two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your it is a strength or a weakness). evaluation points must be about validity. Use tick-b for brief (tends to not explain why). Suitable strengths include: reliability, use of controls (linked to elements of internal validity), quantitative data Rules (points in context) Suitable weaknesses include: ethics, external validity, If all tick-b then Level 2 max quantitative data If mixture of tick-b and tick-d then likely Level 3 If three tick-d and one tick-b then Level 4 8 marks max All have to be tick-d and in context to gain Level 4 Additional guidance Level 4 (8–10 marks) 10 marks is reserved for: If no points are in context then Level 1 max, unless well The candidate has given four explained then Level 2 • Evaluation is comprehensive. evaluation points (two • Answer demonstrates strengths and two evidence of careful weakness) that are in depth, planning, organisation in the context of the study, and selection of and include the named material. evaluation point. • Analysis (valid Max 8 if: The candidate has conclusions that given three evaluation points effectively summarise (at least one strength and issues and one weakness) and they are arguments) is evident in the context of the Milgram throughout. study and it includes the • Answer demonstrates named evaluation point, in an excellent depth. understanding of the material. 10 Level 3 (6–7 marks) Max 6: if the answer does • Evaluation is good. not include the named • Answer demonstrates evaluation point. some planning and is well organised. Max 6: if The candidate has given one strength and one • Analysis is often weakness and they are in evident but may not the context of the Milgram be consistently study and in-depth. applied. • Answer demonstrates a good understanding of the material. Level 2 (4–5 marks) Max 5: The candidate has • Evaluation is mostly given either two strengths or appropriate but two weaknesses limited. (contextualised). • Answer demonstrates limited organisation or Max 4: if The candidate has lacks clarity. given one strength or weakness that is in the • Analysis is limited. context of the Milgram study • Answer lacks which is in-depth consistent levels of detail and demonstrates a limited understanding of the material. 10 Level 1 (1–3 marks) Max 3: The candidate has • Evaluation is basic. given two evaluation points • Answer demonstrates that are generic/brief. little organisation. Max 2: The candidate has • There is little or no given one evaluation point evidence of analysis. that is generic/brief. • Answer does not demonstrate understanding of the material. Level 0 (0 marks) If the answer is a description No response worthy of of the study credit.