Psychology 9990/12 October/November 2024: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) In the study by Saavedra and Silverman, a boy was 1 Take the first answer only. treated for a specific phobia. Identify the specific phobia the boy was being treated for. 1 mark for correct answer Button/Koumpounophobia. 1(b) Describe the ‘Feelings Thermometer’ used in the study. 2 List is definitive. 1 mark per correct point Accept ‘researchers wanted to know his distress levels/used 1 mark can be awarded for a correct stimuli rated it to assess his distress’ = 1 mark. This was a hierarchy of distress/fear/disgust. Do not credit ‘measured how he felt’ by itself (needs to It measured the subjective feelings of distress of the mention distress/buttons). boy/about types of buttons. On a 9-point scale/scale of 0–8/0=no distress or 8=highest level of distress. There were 11 different buttons to rate. Small denim jean buttons were rated a 3 (example mark). 1(c) Identify two findings from the post-treatment session. 2 List is definitive. 1 mark per correct point Do not credit improvement in boy or that fear decreased. Reported minimal distress about buttons. ‘Could wear plastic buttons on his school uniform’ = 2 No longer met (DSM) criteria for phobia/no longer feared marks. buttons. He could now wear (clear) plastic buttons. On his school uniform shirt (on a daily basis).

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al (eyes test): 2 Do not credit judgement responses like ‘better’ or ‘worse’. Outline one result in relation to sex of participant and Do not credit ‘normal’ group or ‘control’ group by itself. scores on the Reading the Mind in the Eyes test. Credit any combination across Groups 2 (general 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison population) and 3 (students). 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison Do not credit responses about Groups 1 (AS/HFA as all e.g., 2 marks male) and 4 (IQ controls) as these were never analysed by Males from the general population scored lower than male sex. students/female students Females from the general population scored lower than Accept no significant difference between males and females female students/male students in Group 2/3 = 2 marks. e.g., 1 mark Males scored lower than females Males scored the lowest There are other creditworthy comparisons. 2(b) Explain one weakness of this study. 2 Accept any reasonable weakness. It can be practical, methodological, or ethical. 1 mark for the identification of weakness 1 mark for explaining the weaknesses via an example from the study e.g. (Lacks) generalisability (1 mark: identification) as the sample size for AS/HFA was small and they may be unique (1 mark: explained in context)/all males so difficult to generalise to females (1 mark: alternative) (Lacks) mundane realism (1 mark: identification) as looking at pairs of (static) eyes and guessing an emotion is not a typical everyday task (1 mark: explained in context). It was unethical (at times)/might cause psychological distress (1 mark: identification) as the AS/HFA group may have become distressed by not being able to identify emotion/knowing they are expected to score low (1 mark: explained in context) Difficult to control (participant) variables (1 mark). There are other creditworthy weaknesses.

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 2 Accept arguments based on diffusion of responsibility. Outline what is meant by the term ‘bystander apathy’. Ignore more likely to help. 1 mark for general component of bystanders Accept examples from Piliavin that illustrate either 1 mark for general component of apathy component. e.g., Accept ‘no help’ as meaning ‘less likely to help’. This is when people witness an event (like a crime) (1 mark: bystander) they are less likely to intervene/give help (1 mark: apathy). There are other creditworthy responses. 3(b) Explain one reason why this study supports a 2 Ignore tautological responses like situational explanations is situational explanation of behaviour. about the situation. 1 mark for explaining what is meant by situational explanation 1 mark for example from the study by Piliavin et al. e.g., The situational explanation states that the environment we find ourselves in affects our behaviour (1 mark: meaning). In this study, the situation of seeing an ill or drunk victim affected the likelihood that someone might help (1 mark: example). In this study the amount of people in the subway carriage did affect how quickly help was given (1 mark: example). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

4 In the study by Hölzel et al (mindfulness and brain 5 List is definitive. scans), one of the groups participated in a ‘Mindfulness- Based Stress Reduction course’. There were ‘inclusion Be careful with points made about medication and criteria’ for this group. meditation. Describe these inclusion criteria. Ignore anything about what the participants actually did in the MBSR course. 1 mark per correct point Accept MBSR as ‘meditation class’. Doctor or self-enrolled on MBSR course/seeking stress reduction. Handedness was not an inclusion criterion. Self-report of physically/psychologically healthy (in last six months)/no health issues. Accept had to be ‘healthy’ or had no psychological Not taking any medication(s). disorders. No meditation class participation in the last six months. No more than four meditation classes in the past five years/ten in lifetime. Aged 25–55. No issues with an MRI scan e.g., claustrophobia/metal implants Commitment to attend all eight classes/do all homework. Taken from four MBSR classes/MBSR classes in New England.

Mark scheme

5(a) Outline two assumptions of the social approach in 4 Ignore ‘affected by social factors’ as too generic psychology. Do accept ‘social demands’ or any explicitly named social 2 marks for full assumption factor. 1 mark for partial/brief assumption e.g., 2 marks Behaviour, cognitions and emotions are influenced by social contexts, social environments and groups (any two of these). Behaviour, cognitions and emotions are influenced by the actual, implied or imagined presence of others (any two of these). e.g., 1 mark Behaviour, cognitions and emotions are influenced by social contexts. Behaviour, cognitions and emotions are influenced by the imagined presence of others. 5(b) Explain how one finding from the study by Perry et al. 2 If the link is not with an assumption from 5a, can only be (personal space) supports one of the assumptions you awarded the result/conclusion mark. outlined in part (a). 1 mark for result/conclusion. 1 mark for linking it to an assumption explicitly (not by name only: a relevant concept needs to be mentioned). e.g., Overall friends were allowed to be closer into a person’s personal space compared to a stranger (1 mark: result). Therefore, people were having their personal space size influenced by the imagined presence of different types of people approaching (1 mark: link). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

6(a) In the study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences), 4 List is definitive. each trial lasted for 25 minutes within the monkey enclosure. Do not credit behavioural checklist, two observers, or time recorded interacting as this happened after the trial. Describe the procedure for a trial. Accept ‘enclosed area’ to mean either indoor or outdoor 1 mark per correct point when used by a candidate. Monkeys/subjects/the social group was placed indoors. One wheeled and one plush toy was placed in outdoor area. These were 10m apart. Location of toy was counterbalanced (left/right). The monkeys were then allowed into the outdoor area. Each interaction with a toy was recorded/videotaped/each trial recorded on camera. There was a separate camera focused on each toy. 6(b) Explain one strength of this study in relation to 2 Credit any strength that is feasible using observational observations. techniques as used in this study. 1 mark for identifying a strength of observations Arguments about inter-observer reliability is max 1 as it was 1 mark for example from the study never measured in the study. e.g. Do not credit ethics. As the interactions were videotaped it was easy to quantify measures/be objective in analyses (1 mark). For example, the amount of time the monkey played with the toy/total number of interactions was objective, so comparisons were meaningful (1 mark example). Covert observations used cameras away from the play area to increase validity/decrease demand characteristics (1 mark). The interaction of monkeys with the toys was therefore not influenced by the presence of the observers (1 mark example). Two observers analysed the videotapes using the same checklist (1 mark), so this ensured that the behaviour was coded correctly/time interacting measured accurately (1 mark example) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

7 Children can be eyewitnesses to a crime. However, 4 Go with the intention of the candidate as long as it is based children’s identification of the criminal can be on Pozzulo et al. inaccurate. Do credit have the line-up drawn as cartoon characters = Suggest how child eyewitnesses can be helped to max 1. accurately identify the criminal they have seen, using your knowledge of the study by Pozzulo et al (line-ups). Accept ask non-leading questions as this is mentioned in the implications part of the original paper. 1 mark per piece of evidence clearly based on the study by Pozzulo et al. Accept do not use jargon words. e.g., Accept suggestions about reducing social pressure/stress Dress of the investigator can be more casual/less (go with the logic of the candidate with the example). formal/less authoritative. Investigator can engage in child friendly play beforehand. Accept that the tone of voice needs to be calm/should not be Anything authoritative needs to be kept at a minimum. stern. Make sure the child is comfortable before questioning. When questioning a child, always ensure there is a correct answer. Do not have line-ups where the ‘target’ is absent. Increase trust for decisions by children where the ‘target’ is known to them (e.g., family member). In a line-up ensure that the proposed ‘target’ is in there. Do not question a decision to make a child doubt what they have chosen/said. Do ask open-ended questions to try to get more detail about the crime. Monitor children for signs of stress/distress/anxiety and stop questioning until feeling better. There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

8 Tejas is talking about the study by Bandura et al 4 Go with the intention of the candidate. (aggression). He says that the study is not ethical. Acceptable guidelines: Explain why Tejas is correct that the study is not Minimising harm ethical, using evidence from this study in your answer. Valid consent not taken Right to withdraw Up to 1 mark available for identifying one ethical guideline Deception that was broken Debriefing Up to 1 mark available for explaining one ethical guideline that was broken (generic) Non-acceptable guidelines: Up to 3 marks available per correct point made based on Confidentiality evidence Privacy (unless well argued about the final room) e.g., The children were put under psychological stress/psychological harm (1 mark: identifying ethical guideline). Some were having to witness an adult being aggressive towards a Bobo doll (and this may have scared them). All children had to go through the ‘Aggression Arousal’ phase where they were stopped from playing with toys that were for ‘better children’. The children did not know they were being observed in the final test for delayed imitation. The children could have hurt themselves during the final session, playing with aggressive toys/aggressively with toys. There was no attempt to reduce any aggressive behaviour before exiting the study. They were stopped from leaving one of the rooms so no right to withdraw (at times). No (valid) consent was taken from children/parents. They were exposed to physical/verbal aggression. They could have been aggressive after the study as learned to imitate it. There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe the sample used in the study by Milgram 4 Do credit any data about percentage total for different (obedience). occupational groups and age ranges (see Table 1 of original paper) 1 mark per correct point n=40. Males. Volunteer sample/responded to a newspaper advertisement. Aged 20–50 years. From New Haven (and surrounding areas). Wide range of occupations. Wide range of educational level. Paid for participation. 9(b) Explain two differences between the study by Milgram 8 Award L1–L4 for each difference (obedience) and the study by Perry et al. (personal space). One of the differences must be about ethics. For Level 4 there must be some attempt at explaining the difference. Use the marking grid below. 4 marks for the difference (twice), e.g., stooges, ethics, data If both differences do not focus on ethics, then mark both but collection techniques, generalisability, (ecological) validity. only credit the best. e.g., difference Use a tick annotation to indicate that one of the differences 4 marks is about ethics. The studies used stooges in different ways/they were different ‘types’ (explanation). Milgram used a human stooge Description of studies with no explicit difference = L1 that the participant met beforehand but did not see during Different aims = L1 the duration of the procedure. In the Perry study the Different experimental designs used = 0 participants ‘met’ the animated stooge in various Both volunteer samples so = 0 rooms/scenarios until they felt the stooge was invading personal space. Ethical differences are: Consent, harm, right to withdraw, deception. Example: 3 marks Confidentiality/Debriefing = 0 Milgram used a human stooge that the participant met beforehand but did not see during the duration of the Rule for ethics: procedure/ in the Perry study the participants ‘met’ the Explanation = Milgram less ethical and Perry more ethical. animated stooge in various rooms/scenarios until they felt the stooge was invading personal space L4: explaining why Milgram less ethical etc. via a named guideline with explicit examples from both studies. Example: 2 marks The studies used stooges in different ways. Milgram used a L3: Describing a difference based on one guideline with human stooge that the participant met/ Perry used an examples but no explanation OR explanation given but animated stooge. comparison is on different guideline. Example: 1 mark L2: Describing a difference with only one example or The studies used stooges in different ways. compare studies on different guidelines Overall, Milgram was less ethical/Perry more ethical. 9(b) Mark/ Description Level 4 The similarity/difference is well explained using both studies as examples. 3 The similarity/difference is well explained but only one study is used as an example OR both studies are used briefly. 2 The similarity/difference is brief with an attempt at 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 using the studies as examples. 0 No creditable response.

Mark scheme

10 Evaluate the study by Andrade (doodling) in terms of 10 two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about the sampling technique used. Strengths include: reliability, standardisation, validity (internal), sampling technique Weaknesses include: validity (external), sample, ethics, sampling technique Example: in detail One control was the participants in the doodling group being encouraged to doodle (in the hope of it affecting concentration), so Andrade could be more confident it was the IV (doodling or not) affecting the DV (memory recall/concentration/level of attention). Example: brief but in context There was a standardised procedure. For example, the telephone message was the same for all participants. This increases the reliability of the study. Example: no context There were controls in place so they could establish cause and effect/has internal validity. 10 Level Description Mark 5 • Very good evaluation including the 9–10 named issue. • Thoroughly addresses both strengths and both weaknesses in detail. • Selection of evidence is very thorough and effective. 4 • Good evaluation including the named 7–8 issue. • Addresses strengths and weaknesses but may include three or four points. The majority of the points are in depth. • Selection of evidence is thorough and effective. 3 • Mostly appropriate evaluation but may 5–6 not include the named issue. • Addresses either two strengths or two weaknesses in detail or one of each in detail or all four briefly. • Selection of evidence is mostly effective. 2 • Weak evaluation and may not include 3–4 the named issue. • Addresses either a strength or a weakness. Evaluation points are brief. • Some points may have no context. • Selection of evidence is sometimes appropriate. 10 1 • Little or no evaluation. 1–2 • Discussion of strengths and weaknesses is absent or superficial. • Selection of evidence is limited. 0 No creditable response.