Psychology 9990/13 October/November 2023: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 1 No tolerance. State the percentage of participants who pressed the 300–volt level switch. 1 mark for the correct answer. Take the first answer only. 100(%) 1(b) Outline the payment given to participants. 2 List is definitive. 1 mark per correct point. Tolerance is $4–$5 They were paid $4.50. Credit 50c for taxi ride. Told it was simply for coming to the laboratory. They were told they could keep it no matter what happened.

Mark scheme

2 From the study by Pepperberg (parrot learning): 4 List is definitive. Describe the procedure of the ‘Transfer Tests with Novel Objects’. If a candidate has not been awarded 4 marks, they can gain one mark for 1 mark per correct point. one of the following: At least 1 must come from the following: Principal trainer sat with back to Alex. Principal trainer did not know what Alex was presented with (pairs of) objects never used in training. objects were being presented. They also had not been used in any previous tests asking same/different. Principal trainer repeated what Alex The objects may also have been ‘totally’ novel/never encountered before. said. 1 mark per correct point (maximum 3): Do not credit ‘given novel objects’ as it is in the Q. These objects were kept on a shelf in view of Alex. Therefore, at least one of the pair of objects was unfamiliar to Alex. Accept ‘unfamiliar’ as novel. These could be colours/shapes he had no label for. He was then asked, ‘What’s Same?’/’What’s Different?’ If he answered correctly he was praised or rewarded (kept object)/if incorrect the experimenter said ‘no’.

Mark scheme

3 Explain one problem that could arise if children were used as participants in the 3 Go with the intention of the candidate. study by Laney et al. (false memory). Do not accept anything about 1 mark for identification of the problem. generalisations. 1 mark for elaboration of the problem (can be linked to study or not) 1 mark for linking it to Laney et al. One mark must be from an example from Laney. e.g. Children’s linguistic ability/experiences of food are not the same as adult (1 mark: Unethical enough for ID. identification). The questionnaires used (potentially had) terminology on that a child may find difficult to comprehend (1 mark: elaboration) for example would a child know what sautéed asparagus is? (1 mark: link). Children would be an inappropriate sample to use (1 mark: identification). The aim of the study was about a childhood memory before the age of 10 (1 mark: link) so this would not be possible if children under 10 were used (1 mark: elaboration). There are other creditworthy problems including ethical issues.

Mark scheme

4(a) From the study by Schachter and Singer (two factors in emotion). 4 List is definitive. Describe the procedure from immediately after the injection to immediately Ignore any reference to the content of before the stooge began his standardised behaviours. the questionnaires or any of the stooge’s standardised behaviours. 1 mark per correct point. The experimenter brought a stooge into the room. The experimenter introduced the stooge to the participant. The experimenter explained that there would be a 20-minute delay. This was to ensure that the Suproxin was in the bloodstream. (Anger) The experimenter then asked the P and stooge to use the 20 minutes to complete some questionnaires. (Anger) The experimenter then handed out the questionnaires (to the P and stooge). (Anger)The experimenter then said he will be back in 20 minutes to collect questionnaires/begin vision test. (Euphoria) The experimenter apologised for the disarray in room/taken to a room that was in disarray. (Euphoria) The experimenter told them that they could use anything in the room. The experimenter then left the room. 4(b) Outline one conclusion from this study. 2 Do not credit results. 2 marks detailed conclusion. 1 mark partial/brief. e.g. There are two factors involved when we experience emotions: a physiological/biological one and a psychological/cognitive one (2 marks). The findings supported the two-factor theory of emotion (1 mark). The highest pulse rate change was in the Anger condition with EPI-IGN (0 marks).

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 2 Ignore aim based on correlation between eyes test and AQ. One aim was to investigate whether there would be a correlation between scores on the revised ‘Reading the Mind in the Eyes’ test and the Autism Ignore reference to scoring ‘better’ = Spectrum Quotient (AQ). 0. Outline one other aim. 2 marks full aim 1 mark partial/brief aim e.g., To test people on a revised Eyes Test to see if some of the original deficits were no longer seen (2 marks). To see if people with AS/HFA lack/have a Theory of Mind (2 marks). To investigate sex differences in performance on the revised Eyes Test (2 marks). To investigate if females will score higher on the revised Eyes Test (2 marks). To improve the Eyes test (1 mark). To test for Theory of Mind (1 mark). 5(b) Outline one result in relation to the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ). 2 Ignore reference to scoring ‘better’ = 0. 2 marks for result with a meaningful comparison. 1 mark for partial result/no meaningful comparison. If the response is about an inverse/negative correlation between e.g., AQ and Eyes Test then max 1. The AS/HFA group scored (significantly) higher than Group 3 / Group 4 (2 marks). Males in Group 3 scores higher than females in Group 3 (2 marks). Group 2 did not complete the AQ. Participants in Groups 3 and Groups 4 scored roughly the same (2 marks). The AS/HFA group scored the highest (1 mark). Females in Group 3 scored the lowest (1 mark). Group 4 scored better on the AQ test (0 marks = value judgement). 5(c) Outline one result comparing the participants of Group 1 to the participants of 2 The answer can only be about the Group 2. You must use data in your answer. eyes test result as Group 2 did not complete the AQ or have their IQ 1 mark for result with a meaningful comparison between two groups given in the measured. question. 1 mark for correct data. Data only needs to be provided for one group. e.g. The AS/HFA group / Group 1 scored (significantly) lower on the Eyes Test than Group Tolerance: 2 / General population (1 mark) with a mean of 21.9 (2 marks) Group 1: 21–22 The AS/HFA scored the lowest (1 mark). Group 2: 26–27 Ignore reference to scoring ‘better’ = 0. Use tick-d for data mark.

Mark scheme

6(a) From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): 4 If in doubt, refer to the introduction of the original paper. Describe the background to this study. Do not credit results from Bandura as e.g., NAQ. Previous studies had shown that children readily imitate behaviour in the presence of an adult model. 1 mark is available for a term linked Social Learning theory was being investigated, which centres around observing and to SLT (annotate with tick-e). 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. This study looked into delayed imitation. This when someone witnesses a behaviour at one time point but only reproduces that behaviour at a different time point. 6(b) Explain why this study is from the learning approach. 2 Do not credit rewards/reinforcement. 2 marks = clearly linked to learning approach (either through example or assumption) Do credit vicarious reinforcement / 1 mark = partially linked to learning approach learning and effect of environment and experiences. e.g. One assumption of the learning approach is that we learn through Social Learning (1 mark). In this study, participants observed and imitated a model’s aggressive behaviours (1 mark).

Mark scheme

7 Suggest two real-world applications based on the study by Saavedra and 4 Annotate with a tick for what the Silverman (button phobia). application is and a + for how it will be achieved. Your suggestions must be ethical. In this instance the ‘what’ can be a 1 mark for what the application is (clearly based on Saavedra and Silverman) or an finding. element of the study that is useful to know for an application (due to the nature of the study). Anything linked to a therapeutic 1 mark for how it will be achieved. process used in the study is ethical for this question. e.g. The boy revealed that during an art class a bowl of buttons fell on him as he tried to If any suggestion is about using get some (1 mark: what). Therefore, a therapist may need to investigate / discover a therapy then a specific one needs to situation when the person first came into contact with their phobic stimulus to be named (e.g., imagery exposure or (potentially) unearth the cause (1 mark: how) behavioural exposure). After just four sessions of the mother providing positive reinforcement the boy could cope with his worst button fears (1 mark: what). Therefore, for children with phobias, having a parent involved in the therapy might bring about faster positive outcomes (1 mark: how) Therapists could use imagery exposure to help treat for other phobias (1 mark: what). Clients can be asked to imagine their phobia in different scenarios (1 mark: how) Therapists can use a Feelings Thermometer to measure level of fear/disgust (1 mark: what). Clients can be asked to rate different elements of their phobia so then the therapist can begin with the least traumatic (1 mark: how). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

8 Two friends, Xander and Silvia, are discussing the individual and situational 6 For Xander, do not credit ‘individual’ explanations for behaviour in relation to the study by Andrade (doodling). for a definition. Xander thinks the study supports the individual explanation but Silvia thinks the study supports the situational explanation. For Xander, having a better memory is creditworthy. Explain one reason why Xander is correct and one reason why Silvia is correct using evidence from this study. For Silvia, do not credit ‘situation’ for a definition. 1 mark per correct point If there is no explicit evidence 3 marks for Xander. 1 mark available for defining the individual explanation. presented from Andrade then max 2. 3 marks for Silvia. 1 mark available for defining the situational explanation. e.g., Xander The individual explanation states that we behave because of our personality (1 mark). Different personalities will doodle in many different ways (1 mark). There were individual differences in the amount of doodling that each participant engaged in. (1 mark) It supports the individual side of the debate as everyone doodled in different ways, may be based on their personality type (1 mark) / wide variety in the amount of doodles (someone doodled 100 items) (1 mark); for example, people who are labelled as extraverts may require doing more than one thing at once to help stimulate themselves and concentrate better (1 mark) e.g., Silvia The situational explanation states that we behaviour because of the environment we find ourselves in / our surroundings / other people around us (1 mark). 8 The situation of a boring/monotonous telephone message made the participants doodle (1 mark) and some of these participants may be used to doodling in boring situations (1 mark) Andrade had made sure that everyone was bored so that the situation caused them to doodle / concentrate more when doodling (1 mark); the task itself may have brought about an improvement in concentration as doodling helped them focus more (1 mark) as the doodling group did recall more correct names than the control (1 mark)

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe the sample in the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping). 4 List is definitive. 1 mark per correct point Accept n=6 Five pairs/five chimpanzees. Do not accept opportunity sample. Each paired with kin/mother. Three were juveniles. Do not accept ‘been well trained’. Socially housed. Primate Research Institute at Kyoto University. Had participated in previous research (about perceptual/cognitive mechanisms /sharing behaviour). Had demonstrated sharing behaviour before. 9(b) Explain whether each ethical guideline below, relating to animals, was broken 8 Do not credit tautological answers: in the study by Yamamoto et al. (chimpanzee helping). e.g., housing is about where they • deprivation and aversive stimuli house the chimpanzees. • housing • pain and distress Go with the intentions of the • reward candidate. For each guideline, use the following banded mark scheme: Annotate with L2, L1 or SEEN. Level Descriptor Marks Accept not deprived of food/water. Accept familiar with tools. 2 The answer explicitly describes the ethical guideline, and the 2 example is contextualised from the named study. Do not accept anything about the experimental booths. 1 The answer explicitly describes the ethical guideline without correct 1 contextualisation / no contextualisation. Do accept placed in a cage for trials OR the ethical guideline is identified from the use of a brief example may be distressing. contextualised from the named study. OR the ethical guideline is incorrectly described but the Do accept being given a reward of contextualised example from the named study is correct juice as an example. 0 The description of the ethical guideline is incorrect and/or the 0 contextualised example is incorrect. OR no answer given 9(b) e.g., deprivation and aversive stimuli Deprivation needs to be avoided / justified based on the needs of the species. The chimpanzees were only deprived of social contact for a limited time during trials / were socially housed outside of trials (not broken) e.g., housing Housing should take into account the social behaviour of species (e.g., caging). The chimpanzees were socially housed at Kyoto University (not broken). e.g., pain and distress Researchers should always attempt to minimise pain and distress that might arise in a study. There were no invasive procedures carried out on the chimpanzees, it as just tool selection (not broken) e.g., reward Behaviours cannot be controlled by the use of rewards only / Rewards should be tailored to the animal and based on preferred food choices / object choice. In this case it could be argued that one chimpanzee did get a reward at the expense of the other (broken).

Mark scheme

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