Psychology 9990/12 October/November 2025: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Milgram (obedience): 1 If more than one response given, take first one only. State the number of participants who pressed the maximum shock level switch (450 volts). 1 mark for correct number. 26. 1(b) One example of a sign of tension shown by the 2 List is definitive. participants in this study was nervous laughter. Accept ‘verbal comments’/they asked to stop. Identify two other signs of tension shown by participants. Do not accept shouting or nervous laughter. 1 mark per correct identification. Sweat(ing). Tremble/trembling/shaking/shivering. Stuttering. Biting lip. Groaning. Dig nails into flesh. Smiling. Violent convulsion/seizure. 1(c) Before the study, fourteen psychology students from 2 List is definitive. Yale University were told about the procedure of the study. Do credit ‘asked at which voltage they would stop’ for marking point 2. Outline what these students were asked to predict about the study. Do credit answers like ‘asked to predict if people would harm another to obey authority’ etc. for 1 mark. 1 mark per correct point. Do not credit any findings of these predictions They were asked to reflect carefully/predict the behaviour of 100 (hypothetical) people. They had to plot the distribution of obedience based on the characteristics of the sample. They were asked what percentage of participants/how many participants would press the 450-volt switch.

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Bandura et al. (aggression): 2 Do not credit the conclusion already presented in the question. One conclusion was that boys are more likely to imitate aggressive behaviour than girls. No mention of aggression = 1 mark max. Outline one other conclusion from this study. For sex differences conclusions based on type of aggression, the only creditworthy response is about girls and 2 marks full/detailed conclusion. verbal aggression for 1 mark max. 1 mark partial/brief conclusion Comparisons to no-model or non-aggressive model = 1 Witnessing an aggressive act is enough to produce mark max as part result. aggression in the person who observed it (2 marks). Children will reproduce aggressive behaviours in the Mention of ‘group’ or ‘condition’ = 0 marks (result). absence of an observed model/adult (2 marks) Children are more likely to imitate the aggression of a same sex model (2 marks) Girls are more likely to imitate verbal aggression (1 mark) Children will imitate aggression (1 mark) Boys showed more gun aggression (0 marks: result). There are other creditworthy conclusions. 2(b) Outline one weakness of this study in relation to the 2 Accept arguments linked to the ethics of using children for 1 sample of participants. mark max. 1 mark for identifying the weakness related to the sample. Do not credit ‘cannot generalise to adults’. 1 mark for outlining the weakness with an example from the study. Do award the identification of ‘low generalisability’ even if the example is incorrect. e.g., Difficult to generalise from the sample (1 mark: Accept ‘cannot be applied’ and ‘not representative’ as ID identification). The sample was only from one nursery so this marks. could make it difficult to generalise as the sample may not fully represent children in other parts of the world/different nurseries as it was a university nursery (1 mark: outlining). There are other creditworthy sample-related weaknesses.

Mark scheme

3(a) In the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans), there 2 List is definitive. were: • models Ignore reference to the victims. • victims (acting drunk or acting ill) Do credit n=4 Identify two features of the models used in this study. Do accept ‘boys’, ‘students’ and ‘Caucasian’ 1 mark per correct feature. Do not accept ‘adults’ White. Male. Age 24-29. Wore informal/casual clothes. 3(b) Outline one result in relation to the victim acting drunk 2 If candidate compares drunk and ill victims = 1 mark max. before any model gave help. “Drunk received (spontaneous) help on 19 out of 38 trials = 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison. 2 marks. 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison. Responses do not need to mention ‘drunk’ to get credit as e.g., 2 marks this is implied from the question. A white drunk victim was helped more than a black drunk victim. Ignore references to speed of helping. More people left the critical area when the drunk victim was white compared to when the drunk victim was black. More comments were made when the drunk victim was white compared to when the drunk victim was black. Same-race helping was seen more than other-race helping. e.g., 1 mark On a higher percentage of trials, a white drunk victim was helped. More people left the critical area when the drunk victim was white. More likely to help same-race (drunk) victim.

Mark scheme

4 Describe how Hassett et al. followed ethical guidelines 4 Ignore reference to ethical guidelines for human participants. in relation to animals in their study about monkey toy preferences. Go with the intention of the candidate. 1 mark per correct point up to 4 marks Relevant guidelines are: 1 mark available for identifying a relevant ethical guideline. Harm/distress e.g., Species They followed the ethical guideline of housing (1 mark: Number identification) as the monkeys were socially housed in Housing accordance with them being a social species (1 mark). Reward/deprivation (There was no deprivation of) the monkeys as water was continuously available/fed regularly on appropriate Tick-e = relevant guideline identified diet/given access to food and water. The monkeys had a 25 m x 25 m outdoor enclosure (to roam The candidate can score 4 marks even if a guideline is not around in). explicitly named. The indoor enclosure was temperature-controlled (for comfort). They followed the guideline stipulated by NIH with environmental enrichment so again no deprivation. There was minimum harm as the toys chosen were not dangerous. They followed the guideline for species, and the purpose of the study was to study organisms close to humans on the evolutionary scale (used rhesus monkeys). No direct observations/observed via cameras to reduce distress. The monkeys were kept/tested in an area they were familiar with (to reduce stress). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain 2 For 2 marks there needs to be mention of: scans): Conscious focus ‘Acting with awareness’ was a factor measured by the (opposed) to unconscious. ‘Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire’. Do not credit ‘being aware of….’ Outline what is meant by ‘acting with awareness’ in this study. ‘Know what are doing’/thinking or equivalent = 1 mark (take as conscious/current). 2 marks for full outline. 1 mark for partial outline. This is focusing on current behaviour/actions instead of behaving automatically (2 marks). Focusing on current behaviour (1 mark). 5(b) Outline one strength of the Five Facet Mindfulness 2 Do not credit general strengths about the study by Hölzel. It Questionnaire as used in this study. must be about the FFMQ. 1 mark for identifying the strength. Do not credit anything being ‘easier’ 1 mark for outlining the strength via example from the study. e.g., The FFMQ generated quantitative data which allowed for statistical comparisons (1 mark: identifying), therefore, the scores could be compared before and after MBSR training to see any changes/effects of the programme (1 mark: example). The FFMQ is a standardised test for mindfulness (1 mark: identifying). There are other creditworthy strengths, including used as a baseline measure, used in other studies (reliable).

Mark scheme

6(a) In the background to their study, Perry et al. outlined 3 Do not credit procedure or findings from the study by Perry. how biological factors affect interpersonal distance (personal space) preferences. There is no identification mark available. Outline how biological factors affect interpersonal Do accept ‘healthy amygdala may prefer further distance (personal space) preferences. interpersonal distance’ 1 mark per correct point. Oxytocin (may) plays a role in personal space/empathy/social bonding/social salience etc. Lesions in the amygdala appear to reduce the need for personal space. Amygdala activity in healthy individuals is correlated with feeling uncomfortable at close distances. Amygdala activation is affected by levels of oxytocin. In some contexts, oxytocin promotes any aversion to risk/envy/lack of cooperation. Oxytocin can also affect the personal space needed between self and someone perceived as attractive. There are other creditworthy responses. 6(b) Two friends, Alexandre and Derek are discussing the 4 If the candidate mixes up Alexandre and Derek (e.g. says ethics of the study by Perry et al. (personal space). Derek but gives an ethical based answer) then max 1 per person and annotate with a ? Alexandre says the study is ethical, but Derek says it is not ethical. Do not credit deception (including ID mark) for the following arguments: Outline one reason why Alexandre is correct and one reason why Derek is correct. 1. Not knowing whether they were being given OT or placebo For each reason: 2. The idea that they never had the conversation in Exp2 1 mark for evidence/relevant ethical guideline and 1 mark without reference to this being distressing for explanation. 6(b) e.g., Alexandre So, only award the deception ID mark if the argument is Written consent was taken from the participants (1 mark: linked to feeling stressed, otherwise = 0 guideline). They knew the study would be about personal space/knew they would have oxytocin (1 mark: explanation). If ethical guideline is the same for Alexandre and Derek, The ethical committee at the Medical Centre/University then can only award the ID mark once. However, physical approved the study as being ethical/required it (1 mark: and psychological harm can be awarded separately. alternative explanation). The task of watching someone get closer is minimising risk (1 mark: guideline). They could press the spacebar to stop the figure approaching more, protecting them from psychological stress (1 mark: explanation). e.g., Derek In experiment 2 they were told they would be chatting with another participant/ a computer would calculate an average room for them and this might have been distressing (1 mark: explanation). This never happened, so the Ps were deceived (1 mark: guideline) The act of intruding into someone’s personal space (even if it was an animation) can still be stressful/harmful (1 mark: guideline). There was also no way of knowing if any participant would react to oxytocin (1 mark: explanation) so there was risk/potential physical harm involved (1 mark: guideline). There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

7 The debate about individual and situational 4 Ignore tautological definitions, including “individual explanations relates to the study by Dement and differences or individual factors” Kleitman (sleep and dreams). Example marks can only be awarded for Dement and Outline what is meant by this debate, including one Kleitman’s study or related to sleep and dreaming in example from the individual explanation and one general. example from the situational explanation from the study by Dement and Kleitman. Tick-e = example mark (go with the logic/intention of the candidate). 1 mark for outlining individual explanation plus 1 mark for example from Dement. Do not credit ‘different people have different dreams’ for the 1 mark for outlining situational explanation plus 1 mark for example mark for the individual explanation. example from Dement. e.g., individual The individual side refers to behaviours from factors within the person (dispositional) (1 mark). All the dreams reported were unique, like throwing tomatoes at each other, showing that a person’s individual personality is seen in their dreams (1 mark). e.g., situational The situational side refers to behaviour from factors in the external environment (1 mark). The participants were sleeping in a laboratory with an EEG attached to them so this scenario may have affected their ability to recall dreams/estimated time in REM (1 mark). There are other creditworthy examples.

Mark scheme

8(a) Carole, a language teacher, has noticed that her 4 No credit for justifying advice as this is not what the question students have difficulty concentrating when listening to is about. a recording of people talking in a second language. Her students have difficulty recalling the information from Do not credit the following: this recording. Carole needs to help her students and has come to you for advice. ‘Doodling’, ‘doodle’ or ‘secondary task’ by itself. Scribbling. Using your knowledge of the study by Andrade Give them a monotonous recording. (doodling): Give them a surprise test. Allow them to draw their own doodles. Outline the advice you would give to Carole. Ask them to start shading in the shapes = 2 marks 1 mark per piece of advice clearly based on the study by Andrade. A different explicitly named secondary task can be awarded 1 mark (e.g., fidget toy). e.g. Carole could give each student a piece of paper. That has shapes on it They can colour/shade them in. There should be a margin to write notes/target information. Tell the students not to worry about being neat/their neatness (at shading). She could ask them to focus on specific pieces of information in the listening task. She must tell them that there will be a test after the listening tasks. She needs to tell them not to engage in free doodling/drawing their own doodles. Let them listen in a (dull) quiet room There are other creditworthy pieces of advice. 8(b) Explain one reason for one piece of advice you outlined 2 The response must be linked to something mentioned in in part (a). Q8(a). 2 marks for full/detailed reason Only credit advice chosen by the candidate that is based on 1 mark for partial/brief reason the study by Andrade. e.g., 2 marks One result from the study showed that the group who doodled whilst listening to a dull telephone recording, could recall more (monitored) information/(incidental) information, showing that doodling is good for concentration/recall. Doodling could avoid/avoids daydreaming to help concentration/aiding memory recall. A dull quiet room will not have other sounds so concentration should be better. Doodling can improve concentration/attention which helps improve memory recall. e.g., 1 mark In the study by Andrade, doodling aided memory recall. Doodling could avoid/avoids daydreaming. Doodling can aid concentration/information processing/attention A dull/quiet room will allow for better concentration.

Mark scheme

9(a) From the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button 4 List is definitive. phobia): Do not credit he had a phobia of buttons as this is in the Describe the participant used in this study. question. 1 mark per correct point made. (one) boy/male. 9-year-old. Hispanic/American. He was presented (by his mum) to a Child Anxiety and Phobic Program. He did not meet the criteria for OCD. He did meet the criteria (DSM-IV) for a phobia. He had experienced a bowl of buttons falling on him (at school). Had his phobia at 5 years of age/4 years prior to study. 9(b) Explain one similarity and one difference between the 8 Award L1-L4 for the similarity study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia) and Award L1-L4 for the difference the study by Bandura et al. (aggression). Do not refer to sampling in your answer. For Level 4 there must be some attempt at explaining the similarity/difference. Use the marking grid below. 4 marks for the similarity, e.g., quantitative data collection, For similarity: both about learnt behaviours. 4 marks for the difference, e.g., experimental vs. non- Both used children = L1 experimental, sample, learning theory focused on. Both from the learning approach/follow learning assumptions = L1 9(b) e.g., difference For difference: e.g., 4 marks The two studies focus on a different theory from the learning Different aims = L1 approach. Bandura focused on social learning involving Quantitative vs qualitative = L2 max imitation and observation. Saavedra focused on operant conditioning/classical conditioning whereby the boy got If the candidate does not identify the similarity or difference rewarded by his mum during the treatment of his button explicitly so it reads like a description of both studies = L1 phobia. So, Bandura is about vicarious learning, but Saavedra is about direct ‘hands-on’ experiences (explanation). e.g., 3 marks The two studies focus on a different theory from the learning approach. Bandura focused on social learning involving imitation and observation. Saavedra focused on operant conditioning/classical conditioning. e.g., 2 marks The two studies focus on a different theory from the learning approach. Bandura focused on social learning involving imitation and observation. e.g., 1 mark The two studies focus on a different theory from the learning approach. 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 Pozzulo et al. (line-ups) in terms 10 of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about ecological validity. Strengths include reliability (standardisation), quantitative data, validity, ethics. Weaknesses include ecological validity, ethics, generalisability, quantitative data. 10 Example: in detail The procedure was standardised so could be replicated. For example, for every participant the instructions for the line-up identification process were the same, and we know that the cartoon targets were Dora and Diego. Therefore, the study can be tested for reliability. Example: brief but in context The sample came from a participant pool at Eastern Ontario University so they might not represent other people as they could be more motivated to participate Example: no context There were controls in place so they could establish cause and effect/has internal validity 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 7–8 named 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. 10 Level Description Mark 3 • Mostly appropriate evaluation but 5–6 may 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 3–4 include 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. 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.