Psychology 9990/13 October/November 2025: question paper and mark scheme

Mark scheme

1(a) From the study by Andrade (doodling): 2 List is definitive. Outline how the participants were recruited in this study. 1 mark per correct point. By opportunity sampling. The participants had just completed an unrelated experiment. They were asked if they would spend another 5 minutes helping out another study. They were members of a participant panel/volunteers. 1(b) Identify two features of the piece of paper given to the 2 List is definitive. participants in the doodling condition. Accept ‘same size shapes’ = 1 mark 1 mark per correct feature. Shapes were 1cm (in diameter). 10 shapes per row. (Alternating rows of) squares and circles. Margin down the side (to write target information). A4 size. 1(c) Identify how recall of incidental information was 1 Take the first answer only. measured. 1 mark for correct answer. (Correct) number of places (recalled).

Mark scheme

2(a) From the study by Piliavin et al. (subway Samaritans): 2 Do not credit conclusions about spontaneous help as this is in the question. One conclusion was that, in a natural setting, people do offer spontaneous help to a victim in need. Conclusions relating to diffusion of responsibility, the bystander effect or cost-reward are acceptable. Outline one other conclusion from this study. 2 marks full/detailed conclusion. 1 mark partial/brief conclusion. e.g., A person who is ‘ill’ is more likely to receive help than a person who is ‘drunk’ (2 marks). People help ill victims more often (1 mark). 2(b) Outline one ethical weakness of this study. 2 Do not credit a methodological weakness. 1 mark for identifying an appropriate/possible ethical issue. Guidelines are: 1 mark for outlining the weakness using an example from Piliavin. Deception Debriefing e.g., Harm/stress The participants were deceived by the whole set up (1 Consent mark). The victim was acting ill/drunk but the Ps never knew Right to withdraw this (1 mark). Privacy Confidentiality As there were so many participants debriefing never happened so not everyone knew it was a fake set up/had taken part in a study (1 mark). Debriefing after the event happened would have ensured people knew it was fake (1 mark). There are other creditworthy weaknesses.

Mark scheme

3(a) The study by Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences) 2 List is definitive. used a sample of male and female monkeys. No tolerance on numbers. Identify two features of the sample used in this study, other than sex and species. Do credit information about rank if presented. 1 mark per correct feature. Troop of 135 individuals. Lived together for more than 25 years. Lived at Yerkes Center. Matriline social structure/same natal group. 14 not used due to hormonal treatment. Age range 3 months to over 13 years. 82 potential participants. 34 monkeys used in data analysis. 39 infants not used (as interactions not coded). 53 monkeys were excluded in total. 3(b) Describe one result for the toy preferences of female 2 Accept results based on frequency or duration of play or % monkeys in this study. preference. 2 marks for the result with a meaningful comparison. No significant preference = 1 1 mark for result with no meaningful comparison. Any result compared to males = 1 mark max e.g., 2 marks There was only a slight increase in duration for play with a plush toy compared to a wheeled toy (for females). More female monkeys preferred wheeled toys compared to plush toys/no preference. Female monkeys played with plush toys with a longer frequency than wheeled toys. e.g., 1 mark There was only a slight increase in duration for play with a plush toy.

Mark scheme

4 From the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups): 4 List is definitive. Describe how the cartoon foils were selected. Do not credit what the pictures looked like (e.g., black and white; cropped) as the question is about selection. 1 mark per correct point. They were selected from readily available images on the internet. They were chosen as they had a similar appearance to Dora/Diego. Similarity was based on facial structure/hair length/hair colour (only 1 mark for any of these). Three judges conducted the ratings. On 10 photographs for each target. The four cartoon characters receiving the highest similarity scores were used.

Mark scheme

5(a) From the study by Perry et al. (personal space): 2 List is definitive. One feature of the sample was that it consisted of only Tolerance for average age is 25–26 male participants. Identify two other features of the sample used in the study. 1 mark per correct feature. n=54 Undergraduates/students. University of Haifa. Age 19–32/average age 25.29 Gained course credit/volunteer sample. Normal/corrected to normal vision. No history of psychiatric/neurological conditions. 5 were left-handed. 5(b) Explain one weakness of using animations in 2 Do not credit general weaknesses of the study by Perry. It Experiment 1 in this study. must be about animations. 1 mark for identifying a weakness of using animations. 1 mark for explaining the weakness via example from the study by Perry. e.g., The use of animations lacks ecological validity/mundane realism (1 mark). The situations of an animated person approaching to measure personal space is not an everyday occurrence (1 mark). The use of animations is not a valid measure of personal space (1 mark). A person may act differently when personal space is invaded in reality compared to an animation (1 mark). There are other creditworthy weaknesses.

Mark scheme

6(a) In the background to their study, Saavedra and 3 List is all that is covered in the original paper but do credit Silverman (button phobia) outlined the role of disgust in other examples. childhood phobias. Do credit ‘usually triggered by a traumatic event in Outline the role of disgust in childhood phobias. childhood’ 1 mark per correct point. Do not credit examples from the boy in the study. Disgust is a feeling of aversion towards something offensive/something we fear. Disgust when interacting with fear can result in avoidance behaviour(s). Children can negatively evaluate a specific phobic object. This evaluation happens without any anticipation of threat (from the phobic object). So, as there is no fear, it must be disgust that is causing a negative evaluation. A study that measured disgust in children with a spider phobia, showed it decreased as fear decreased/showed a link between disgust and fear. They can be repulsed by a (previously) neutral stimulus. 6(b) Two friends, Hannah and Josh, are discussing the 4 generalisability of the study by Saavedra and Silverman (button phobia). Hannah says the study is generalisable, but Josh says it is not generalisable. Outline why you think either Hannah or Josh is correct, using evidence from the study. 1 mark per point made linked to generalisability 6(b) e.g., Hannah If both Hannah and Josh feature in the answer, mark them The study used a fear/disgust hierarchy to rate the buttons. independently and credit the highest score. This could easily be used with other people who have different phobias. For Hannah, can give credit for arguments stating The use of positive reinforcement from his mum is useful to mechanisms of the therapy that could be used with many know. other people. As this could be used with other children who have different phobias to help them overcome them. If the candidate mixes up Hannah and Josh (e.g., says Hannah but gives a ‘is not generalisable’) or does not name e.g., Josh the friend then max 2 and annotate with a ? The sample was just one (Hispanic American) boy (with a button phobia). For Josh, 1 mark is available for stating who the study might This is rare/unique and would be difficult to generalise to not be generalisable to. other people with phobias. It might be that the results only apply to him and his personal experience in the classroom that caused the phobia. The experience of the bowl of buttons falling on him in a classroom is probably unique. Other children may react differently to certain buttons when they rate them on the Feelings Thermometer meaning it is subjective/less generalisable. The Imagery Exposure therapy may not generalise to people who have a more common phobia. There are other creditworthy responses.

Mark scheme

7 The nature versus nurture debate relates to the study by 4 Ignore examples that are not from Bandura. Bandura et al. (aggression) Do not accept tautological outlines, for example, nurture is Outline what is meant by this debate, including one about being nurtured. example from the nature side and one example from the nurture side from the study by Bandura et al. Tick-e = example. 1 mark for outlining nature plus 1 mark for example from Bandura. 1 mark for outlining nurture plus 1 mark for example from Bandura. e.g., Nature Nature is about behaviours being genetically encoded and with us from birth (1 mark). Boys were more physically aggressive than girls as this could be due to them having higher levels of testosterone/due to hormones (1 mark). e.g., Nurture Nurture is about the learning of behaviours through experiences/after birth (1 mark). Participants in all conditions had already been matched on (pre-existing) aggression levels yet, for instance, male Ps were much more likely to imitate a physically aggressive male role model (1 mark). Ps were matched on levels of aggression (1 mark) and there were differences in levels of imitated behaviour depending on whether a model was aggressive or not, so learned (1 mark). There are other creditworthy examples.

Mark scheme

8(a) Pauline, a teacher, is helping her class of younger 4 No credit for justifying advice as this is not what the question children to learn a new skill. The skill has a correct is about. sequence of tasks. However, many children are getting this sequence wrong. Pauline needs to help the children The main ideas are operant conditioning including positive and has come to you for advice. reinforcement, shaping, primary reinforcers, secondary reinforcers, capturing, luring, chaining. Using your knowledge of the study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning): Do not credit punishment but do credit do not punish the children. Outline the advice you would give to Pauline. If candidate names a task and uses that throughout answer, 1 mark per piece of advice clearly based on the study by then credit. Fagen et al. 1 mark available for identifying a relevant primary or Do not credit classical conditioning or social learning secondary reinforcer. examples. Pauline could use a rewards-based system to get the Responses such as ‘shape the behaviour, ‘using chaining’, children to learn the new skill. ‘capture the behaviour’ etc. cannot be awarded credit Every time the children get the task/part of the task correct, without telling how this would be achieved. they get rewarded with something they desire. This could be a primary reinforcer/reward like some fruit/candy/food. She could also use a secondary reinforcer where the children can earn tokens every time they get the task correct. They could exchange the tokens for something they desire, like some extra play time. Pauline could shape the sequence needed to complete the new task/skill. This can be done by rewarding behaviours that get closer to the correct sequence. For example, they could be rewarded when the first attempt is correct but then when the get it correct two times and so on. 8(a) Pauline could teach/instruct them each individual part of a sequence (and reward them). She could capture naturally occurring behaviours that the children show as part of the new skill. Pauline can reward the children for the correct sequence. 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. Credit can be given to findings or theoretical arguments. 1 mark for partial/brief reason. Do not credit ‘association’. e.g., 2 marks One result from the study showed that shaping the Encourages them to continue/repeat = 2 behaviour of elephants with a sequence of behaviours lead to a successful trunk wash through secondary positive reinforcement. Operant conditioning predicts that rewards will increase the probability/encourage/motivate the children to repeat the behaviours. e.g., 1 mark In the study by Fagen, shaping the elephant’s behaviour led to success. Rewards will motivate/encourage the children. There are other creditworthy reasons.

Mark scheme

9(a) From the study by Baron-Cohen et al. (eyes test): 4 Do credit descriptions of AS/HFA for 1 mark max. Describe the psychology being investigated. 1 mark per correct point. Creditworthy points include theory of mind, social sensitivity, reliability, validity. 1 mark available for an example from the study. e.g., Theory of Mind This refers to our ability to attribute mental states to ourselves and others. It is linked to empathy which is the ability to understand how other people are feeling/thinking. This can be done by imagining what the other person is feeling/thinking/putting ourselves in the shoes of others. It is also about how we use this knowledge to explain the actions of other people. It is also about how we use this knowledge to predict the actions of others. We use this knowledge to understand that people may have different ideas and hold different emotions to us. It can be tested using the Eyes Test where people have to judge the emotions of others’ by looking at eyes only (example mark). There are other creditworthy responses. 9(b) Explain two similarities between the study by Baron- 8 Award L1-L4 for each similarity Cohen et al. (eyes test) and the study by Andrade (doodling). For Level 4 there must be some attempt at explaining the similarity. Use the marking grid below. 4 marks for the similarity, e.g., experimental, lack mundane Both used humans = L1 realism, quantitative data collection, experimental design Both about cognitive psychology = L1 used. Both laboratory = L1 Both have good application = L3 max e.g., similarity e.g., 4 marks Both Andrade and Baron-Cohen studies were experimental in nature. For example, both studies had IVs. In the Andrade study there were two conditions of doodling and non- doodling. In the Baron-Cohen study the IV was natural and based around if a person had been diagnosed with AS/HFA or not. Therefore, both were trying to establish cause and effect (explanation). e.g. 3 marks Both Andrade and Baron-Cohen studies were experimental in nature. For example, both studies had IVs. In the Andrade study there were two conditions of doodling and non- doodling/in the Baron-Cohen study the IV was natural and based around if a person had been diagnosed with AS/HFA or not. e.g. 2 marks Both Andrade and Baron-Cohen studies were experimental in nature. For example, both studies had IVs and measured DVs. e.g. 1 mark Both Andrade and Baron-Cohen were experimental in nature. 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 Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and 10 brain scans) in terms of two strengths and two weaknesses. At least one of your evaluation points must be about self-reports. Strengths include: reliability (standardisation), quantitative data, validity, self-reports. Weaknesses include: ethics, generalisability, quantitative data, self-reports. 10 Example: in detail (named issue) The self-report collected quantitative data which makes it easier to have meaningful comparisons between groups/conditions. They Ps completed the FFMQ at two- time points (before and after MBSR or control). As a result, they could compare changes in all five measures of mindfulness for both groups of Ps to test longer-term effectiveness. Example: brief but in context The sample size was only 16 participants making it difficult to generalise beyond the sample. 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 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.