Psychology 9990/13 October/November 2024: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) In the study by Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams), five 1 Take the first answer only. participants were studied intensively. There were also a number of participants who had minimal data collected from them. State the number of participants who had minimal data collected from them. 1 mark for the correct answer 4 1(b) Before the study began, participants were given two instructions about 2 List is definitive. what they must not do: • do not consume alcohol • do not consume caffeine Participants were also given instructions about what they must do. States these two instructions. 1 mark per correct answer Arrive a little bit before usual bedtime/at their usual bedtime Eat ‘normally’ 1(c) Outline one conclusion from this study in relation to dreaming. 2 Ignore answers that are just results. These include things like named correlations, 2 marks for detailed conclusion comparisons of behaviour during 1 mark for partial/brief conclusion REM/nREM etc. e.g. However, ‘correlation’ used in an answer Dreams are not instant events but are reported/experienced in real time about eye movement and content of dream (2 marks) is creditworthy (as this is linguistic). Eye movements during sleep do correspond with the content of a dream (2 marks) Dreaming happens more in REM (1 mark) Eye movements match dreams (1 mark) Ps recall more dreams in REM compared to NREM (0 marks: a result) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Hassett et al (monkey toy preferences): 2 Do not credit duration or preference. Outline one result in relation to sex differences in frequency of play with Reject ‘more of the females.’ ‘plush’ toys. Do credit any response based on the 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison standard deviation. 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison If response compares males plush with e.g. wheeled then female plush with wheeled = Female (monkeys) played with plush toys, on average, with a higher 1 mark. frequency compared to males (monkeys). (2 marks) Females played with a higher frequency. (1 mark) Response must be male versus female otherwise 0 marks. Accept ‘more’ as frequency. 2(b) Explain one weakness of this study. 2 Do not credit ecological validity/unethical as use captive monkeys. 1 mark for the identification of a weakness 1 mark for explaining the weaknesses via an example from the study Do not credit comparisons with children. e.g. (Lacks) generalisability (1 mark: identification) as the sample was captive (rhesus) monkeys so wild monkeys may respond differently (1 mark: explained in context) (Lacks) mundane realism (1 mark) as choosing (human) toys is not a typical everyday activity for (rhesus) monkeys (1 mark: explained in context). Difficult to control (participant) variables (1 mark) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

3(a) From the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia): 2 List is definitive. Outline how positive reinforcement was used in the treatment of the boy’s phobia. 1 mark per correct point This was provided by the boy’s mother It was contingent on him successfully completing a gradual exposure to buttons. 3(b) Explain one reason why this study supports the nurture side of the 2 Ignore tautological responses like nurture nature versus nurture debate. is about the being nurtured. 1 mark for explaining what is meant by nurture Do accept arguments that it is ‘not 1 mark for example from the study by Saavedra and Silverman inherited’. e.g., ‘An experience’ by itself cannot get the Nurture is about learning/developing a behaviour after birth/through example mark. experiences (1 mark: meaning) In this study the boy had a bad experience in the classroom with a bowl of buttons and this probably caused his phobia (1 mark: example) By gradually making him think about buttons, the level of distress/anxiety decreased meaning it changed through the experience of therapy (1 mark: example) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

4 From the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups): 5 The list is definitive. Describe the ‘line-up presentation’ for the target-present condition. For the annotations use ticks as per usual but use tick-b for the point in bold to 1 mark per correct point made, up to 4 marks know that the response can access all 1 mark for the marking point in bold as it is unique to the target-present available marks. condition Do not credit how the photographs were The target was in the line-up with three other photographs/foils. chosen. All of the pictures were shown simultaneously. The target’s line-up position was randomised. Do not credit what a participant was Each participant watched four videos. expected to do. These were presented on a laptop/computer/on a screen. These were in a random order. The photo array/line-up was shown after each video. The position of the target was counterbalanced across photo arrays/line-ups. A silhouette was also included in the line-up.

Mark scheme

5(a) Outline two assumptions of the learning approach in psychology. 4 Do not credit environment by itself. 2 marks for full assumption 1 mark for partial/brief assumption e.g., 2 marks We all begin life as a blank slate. Experiences and interactions with the environment shape our behaviour/these changes are directly observable. We learn through the processes of operant conditioning, classical conditioning and social learning (at least 2 need to be named). (This can be understood using the stimulus-response model). e.g., 1 mark We all begin life as a blank slate. We learn through the processes of operant conditioning/classical conditioning/social learning. 5(b) Explain how one finding from the study by Bandura et al. (aggression) 2 If the link is not with an assumption from supports one of the assumptions you outlined in part (a). 5(a), can only be awarded the result/conclusion mark. 1 mark for result/conclusion. 1 mark for linking it to an assumption explicitly (not by name only: a relevant Ensure SLT is mentioned in 5(a), concept needs to be mentioned and it does not have to be one mentioned in otherwise only result/conclusion mark is 5(a)) available. e.g., Children were more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour if they had seen an aggressive model compared to a non-aggressive model (1 mark: result). Therefore, this supports the idea of Social Learning as they observed and imitated the behaviour(s) (1 mark: link) There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

6(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 4 There are no ID marks available. Describe the psychology being investigated in this study. 1 mark is available for an example from Andrade. 1 mark per correct point Do credit definitions of terms like attention, e.g. memory etc. Looking at whether doodling aids (cognitive) concentration/memory/attention. Arousal levels need to be maintained to be able to concentrate. Cognitive processing of dual tasks compete for the same levels of performance. This may slow down our overall cognitive processing speed. Boredom plays a role in paying attention to information. Information processing when asked to do ‘two things at once’/multitasking. Removes attention/takes away concentration/acts as a distraction (a second task). There are other creditworthy responses. 6(b) Explain one strength of this study in relation to reliability. 2 Ignore reference to controls. 1 mark for standardisation and replication (identification of the strength) 1 mark for example from the study e.g. The procedure was standardised so could be replicated (1 mark). For example, the telephone message was the same length/contained the same information for all participants (1 mark link). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

7 Your friend Ruru has read a story in a newspaper about a nurse who 4 Go with the intention of the candidate. gave incorrect medicine to a patient because a doctor told her. Ruru says that he cannot understand why the nurse would do that. 1 mark available for a relevant finding from Milgram (result or conclusion). Suggest to Ruru why the nurse gave the incorrect medicine, using your knowledge of the study by Milgram (obedience). 1 mark available for general commentary about why she gave the medicine, e.g., 1 mark per piece of evidence clearly based on the study by Milgram she was simply following orders. The doctor was seen as a person in authority The uniform would have shown that the doctor was in authority In Milgram, the participants did give an electric shock without really questioning The doctor may have had a stern appearance The doctor may have said ‘you must give that dose of medication’ The doctor may have told the nurse that it was the doctor’s responsibility as an authority figure The nurse may have just got a job at the prestigious hospital so did not want to question The consequence of giving the medicine will not be hers, but the doctors There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

8 Betsy is talking about the study by Hölzel et al (mindfulness and brain 4 Marks can only be awarded for evidence scans). She says that the study has validity. (except one definition mark). Explain why Betsy is correct that the study has validity, using evidence Accept ‘control group’. from this study in your answer. Go with the logic/intention of the candidate Up to 1 mark available for explaining what one type of validity is to assess if about validity. Up to 4 marks available per correct point made based on evidence FFMQ is a valid measure of mindfulness e.g., (progress). Validity is about whether a measure is truly measuring what it should be (1 mark: explaining)/Internal validity is about whether the IV is directly affecting the DV due to strong controls (1 mark: alternative explaining). The study used MRI scans which are objective measures of brain matter. The study did have some controls like the inclusion criteria for participation meaning that this variable was less likely to affect the DV of grey matter density. As the MBSR program was a conducted in the real-world setting, it can be argued that the study had ecological validity. There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

9(a) Describe the sample used in the study by Fagen et al. (elephant 4 List is definitive. learning). Accept ‘in captivity’. 1 mark per correct point n=5 All females Same elephant stable in Nepal Four were juveniles/aged 5–7 years One was an adult/aged in her 50s Elderly elephant had foot abscess/impaired vision Selected for docility Not pregnant/no calf Mahout was willing to participate too All had been trained using traditional methods No experience of secondary positive reinforcement training. 9(b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the study by Fagen et 8 Award L1–L4 for similarity al. (elephant learning) and the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). Do Award L1–L4 for difference not refer to the sample in your answer. For Level 4 there must be some attempt at Use the marking grid below. explaining the similarity or difference. 4 marks for the similarity, e.g., observational, lack mundane realism, quantitative data collection Different aim = L1 4 marks for the difference, e.g., qualitative data collection, experimental Different species = L0 (sample) design used Experimental designs = 0 Sample/sampling = 0 e.g., similarity Both from the learning approach = L2 e.g. 4 marks Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their Fagen is not a field experiment so = 0 data collection techniques. This means that specific behaviours could be operationalised to improve validity (explanation). For example, in Fagen there was trunk down which meant the trunk was hanging loose and in Bandura gun play was pretending to shoot at an object in the room. 9(b) 3 marks Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. For example, in Fagen there was trunk down which meant the trunk was hanging loose/Bandura gun play was pretending to shoot at an object in the room. 2 marks Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques. For example, in Fagen there was trunk down. 1 mark Both the Fagen study and the Bandura study used observation as part of their data collection techniques Mark/Level Description 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 Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans) in terms of two 10 strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about ethics. Strengths include: Qualitative data, quantitative data, reliability, validity (ecological) Weaknesses include: Ethics, field experiments, validity, generalisations Example: in detail The study was unethical as one ethical guideline they broke was informed consent as no passenger had any information about the study/agreed to take part in the study. Also, the event of watching someone stagger and fall to ground could have been psychologically stressful for the passengers. Example: brief but in context The data collected was rich in detail and directly from the P. The data could be used to help explain why the Ps were helped or did not help. For example, one participant said, ‘it’s for men to help’. Example: no context The sample was only from one place making generalisability difficult. 10 Level Description Mark 5 • Very good evaluation including the named issue. 9–10 • Thoroughly addresses both strengths and both weaknesses in detail. • Selection of evidence is very thorough and effective. 4 • Good evaluation including the named issue. 7–8 • 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 not 5–6 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 the 3–4 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. 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.