MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

The correct answer is C. Context-dependent memory (or context cues) suggests that memory recall is improved when the external environment (context) during retrieval matches the environment during encoding. Because Reya encoded the information with classical music playing but tried to retrieve it in silence, the lack of matching context cues hindered her recall.

Award 2 marks for selecting C (Context cues). Award 0 marks for selecting A, B, or D.

One weakness of Bartlett's 'War of the Ghosts' study is its lack of scientific rigour and control over variables. Identification of weakness (1 mark): The study lacked standardised instructions and precise control over the environment and timing of recall. Elaboration (1 mark): This means that other extraneous variables could have influenced their memory, making the results less reliable and reducing the internal validity of the study.

1 mark for a clearly identified weakness of Bartlett's 'War of the Ghosts' study (such as lack of standardisation, subjective analysis, or a biased sample). 1 mark for explaining why this is a weakness (for instance, explaining how it reduces reliability, internal validity, or generalisability of the findings).

Amara is experiencing proactive interference, which is when older memories disrupt the recall of newer information. In the scenario, her old locker code (3-9-7-5) from last year interferes with her ability to remember and retrieve her new locker code (4-8-2-1).

Ben is experiencing context-dependent memory (or context cues), which is when memory retrieval is improved if the physical environment at the time of retrieval matches the environment during encoding. In the scenario, Ben recalls Spanish words better in the quiet classroom where he studied them, compared to the noisy canteen where the environmental cues are different.

Award up to 6 marks for identification and application:

Amara (3 marks):
- 1 mark for identifying 'proactive interference'.
- 1 mark for explaining that proactive interference occurs when old memories disrupt the retrieval of new memories.
- 1 mark for applying to the scenario (old combination 3-9-7-5 interfering with the new combination 4-8-2-1).

Ben (3 marks):
- 1 mark for identifying 'context-dependent memory' (also accept 'context cues' or 'context-dependent forgetting').
- 1 mark for explaining that memory is enhanced when the environmental context at retrieval matches that of encoding (or impaired if they do not match).
- 1 mark for applying to the scenario (remembering Spanish words better in the quiet classroom where they were learned, rather than in the noisy canteen).

One limitation of using case studies of brain-damaged individuals is that the findings lack generalisability to the wider population. Brain injuries, such as the one suffered by Clive Wearing, are unique and often involve damage to multiple overlapping areas of the brain rather than one specific memory store. Because these cases are so rare and idiosyncratic, we cannot assume that the way their memory functions represents how memory works in healthy individuals. Additionally, researchers do not have pre-injury data to compare their memory performance against, which limits the ability to draw firm conclusions.

1 mark for identifying a valid limitation (e.g., lack of generalisability, lack of control, or difficulty establishing cause and effect). 2 marks for explaining this limitation in relation to case studies of brain damage (e.g., because brain damage is unique and varies from person to person). 3 marks for a fully developed explanation that links the limitation back to how it affects our understanding of memory (e.g., therefore, we cannot be certain that the memory deficits observed in these individuals are a true reflection of how normal, healthy memory functions in the general population).

One limitation of using case studies of brain-damaged individuals is that the findings lack generalisability to the wider population. Brain injuries, such as the one suffered by Clive Wearing, are unique and often involve damage to multiple overlapping areas of the brain rather than one specific memory store. Because these cases are so rare and idiosyncratic, we cannot assume that the way their memory functions represents how memory works in healthy individuals. Additionally, researchers do not have pre-injury data to compare their memory performance against, which limits the ability to draw firm conclusions.

1 mark for identifying a valid limitation (e.g., lack of generalisability, lack of control, or difficulty establishing cause and effect). 2 marks for explaining this limitation in relation to case studies of brain damage (e.g., because brain damage is unique and varies from person to person). 3 marks for a fully developed explanation that links the limitation back to how it affects our understanding of memory (e.g., therefore, we cannot be certain that the memory deficits observed in these individuals are a true reflection of how normal, healthy memory functions in the general population).

Example Design: 1. Variables: Independent Variable (IV): Whether the environmental context during learning and recall is matching (e.g., learning and recalling in a quiet classroom) or mismatching (e.g., learning in a quiet classroom but recalling in a noisy school hall). Dependent Variable (DV): The number of words correctly recalled from a standardized list of 20 words. 2. Procedure: Use an independent groups design with 20 participants randomly allocated to two groups (10 in each). Group 1 (matching context) learns a list of 20 nouns in a quiet classroom and is tested on recall in the same quiet classroom after a 5-minute delay. Group 2 (mismatching context) learns the same list of 20 nouns in the quiet classroom but is tested in a noisy, busy school canteen after a 5-minute delay. Participants are given 2 minutes to study the list and 2 minutes to write down as many words as they can remember. 3. Extraneous Variable and Control: Extraneous Variable: Individual differences in memory capacity (participant variables). Control: Participants are randomly allocated to Group 1 or Group 2 (e.g., pulling names out of a hat) to ensure any individual differences are spread evenly across the two conditions, preventing bias.

Marking Scheme (6 marks total): Level 3 (5-6 marks): Clear, coherent, and detailed design. The IV and DV are clearly identified and operationalised. The procedure is fully described and replication would be highly possible. A relevant extraneous variable is identified with a logical, specific control method. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Mostly clear design. Most components are present (variables, procedure, control) but one may lack detail or operationalisation. The procedure is outlined but might miss some practical steps. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic or disorganized design. Only one or two elements are present (e.g., just naming the IV/DV or a brief, vague procedure). There is a lack of detail, making replication difficult or impossible. Indicative content: Variables (2 marks): IV: Operationalised environments for learning and recall (matching vs. mismatching context) (1 mark). DV: Operationalised measure of memory (e.g., number of words correctly recalled from a list of 20) (1 mark). Procedure (3 marks): Details of the experimental design used (e.g., independent groups) (1 mark). Step-by-step description of the task (e.g., studying a word list, doing a distractor task, and recalling the words) (1 mark). Details of the materials or settings used (e.g., a list of 20 nouns, classroom vs. library) (1 mark). Control of extraneous variable (1 mark): Naming a relevant extraneous variable (e.g., participant variables, noise, list difficulty) and explaining how it will be controlled (e.g., random allocation, standardized word lists, same distractor task) (1 mark).

AO1 Description of Murdock's study: Aim: To see if the position of a word in a list affects how well it is remembered (the serial position effect). Method: Murdock presented participants with lists of words of varying lengths (between 10 and 40 words) at a rate of one word per second. Participants were then asked to freely recall as many words as they could in any order. Results: Words at the beginning of the list (primacy effect) and words at the end of the list (recency effect) were recalled much better than words in the middle. Conclusion: This supports the multi-store model of memory. Primacy words are recalled well because they have been rehearsed and transferred to long-term memory (LTM). Recency words are recalled well because they are still held in short-term memory (STM). AO3 Evaluation of Murdock's study: Strength (Scientific Rigour): The study was conducted in a highly controlled laboratory environment. Word presentation rates, word familiarity, and testing procedures were strictly standardised. This means the experiment is highly reliable and can be easily replicated to check for consistency. Weakness (Artificial Task): The study used lists of random, disconnected words. This is an artificial task that does not reflect how memory is used in everyday life, where we typically remember meaningful information, stories, or conversations. Therefore, the study lacks ecological validity.

Mark Allocation: AO1 (Description): 3 marks, AO3 (Evaluation): 3 marks. AO1 Marking Criteria (Description of study): 3 marks: Clear, accurate, and detailed description of Murdock's study, including the aim, method, results, and conclusion. 2 marks: Mostly accurate description of the study, but some key details are missing (e.g., omits either the results or conclusion, or lacks clarity in the method). 1 mark: Very basic or vague description, showing only a superficial understanding of the study. AO3 Marking Criteria (Evaluation of study): 3 marks: At least two evaluation points are well-developed, clear, and directly linked to the usefulness, validity, or limitations of Murdock's study. 2 marks: One evaluation point is fully developed, or two points are briefly outlined without complete explanation. 1 mark: Only a basic evaluation point is identified or mentioned (e.g., 'it was in a lab') without any explanation of why this is a strength or weakness.

Retinal disparity is a binocular depth cue because it requires both eyes. Since our eyes are positioned about 6cm apart, each retina receives a slightly different image of the world. The brain compares these two different images; a larger difference (disparity) between the images indicates that an object is closer, while a smaller difference indicates the object is further away.

Award 1.5 marks for selecting the correct option (c).
Award 0 marks for selecting option (a), (b), or (d).

Richard Gregory's constructivist theory proposes that perception is not direct. Instead, because sensory data can be incomplete or ambiguous, we must use our cognitive processes, past experiences, and expectations to actively construct a hypothesis about what we are looking at.

Award 1.5 marks for selecting the correct option (b).
Award 0 marks for selecting option (a), (c), or (d).

To calculate the percentage:
1. Find the proportion of participants who saw the duck: \(\frac{26}{32} = 0.8125\)
2. Convert the proportion to a percentage: \(0.8125 \times 100 = 81.25\%\)
3. Round to 1 decimal place: \(81.25\%\) rounds to \(81.3\%\).

• 1 mark for showing correct working/method: \(\frac{26}{32} \times 100\) (or equivalent).
• 1 mark for the correct unrounded percentage calculation (81.25%).
• 0.5 marks for correctly rounding to one decimal place (81.3%).
Accept 81.3% or 81.3.

To calculate the mean brightness rating:
1. Sum all the ratings: \(7.4 + 8.1 + 6.8 + 8.5 + 7.0 + 7.2 = 45.0\)
2. Divide the total sum by the number of participants: \(\frac{45.0}{6} = 7.5\).

• 1 mark for showing the correct working for summing the scores (e.g., \(7.4 + 8.1 + 6.8 + 8.5 + 7.0 + 7.2\) or reaching a total of 45.0).
• 1 mark for showing the method of dividing the sum by the number of participants (\(\frac{45.0}{6}\)).
• 0.5 marks for the correct final answer of 7.5.

AO1 (Outline - 2 marks):
- 1 mark for defining linear perspective as a cue where parallel lines appear to converge/get closer together.
- 1 mark for explaining that the closer the lines appear, the further away they are perceived to be.

AO2 (Application - 2 marks):
- 1 mark for identifying the parallel lines in the scenario (the two edges of the straight road).
- 1 mark for explaining that because these edges appear to get closer together as they head towards the horizon, the brain perceives the road as stretching far away into the distance.

AO1 Outline:
- 2 marks: A clear and detailed outline of linear perspective, explaining that parallel lines appear to converge and that this indicates distance.
- 1 mark: A basic or incomplete outline of linear perspective.

AO2 Application:
- 2 marks: A clear and detailed explanation of how the cue applies to the road scenario (identifying the road's edges as parallel lines that converge in the distance/towards the horizon).
- 1 mark: A basic or incomplete application to the road scenario.

Gregory's constructive theory of perception argues that sensation and perception are not the same thing.

Key points to include in the description:
1. Perception is an active process of construction: We do not just passively receive sensory information; we actively interpret it.
2. Role of prior knowledge/experience: We use our past learning, stored knowledge, and expectations to make sense of what we see.
3. Hypothesis testing: Sensory data can be ambiguous or incomplete, so the brain makes a 'hypothesis' (an educated guess) about what the object is.
4. Top-down processing: Perception is driven by cognitive processes (the brain) rather than just sensory input (the eyes). Supporting evidence includes visual illusions, which demonstrate the brain making incorrect hypotheses based on misapplied depth cues.

Apply the following criteria to award up to 4 marks:

- 1 mark: For identifying that perception is an active construction process (not just passive registration of sensory data).
- 1 mark: For explaining the role of prior knowledge, past experience, or expectation in interpreting sensory input.
- 1 mark: For explaining that sensory data is often ambiguous or incomplete, leading the brain to make hypotheses/guesses.
- 1 mark: For identifying this as 'top-down' processing, or explaining that visual illusions are evidence of the brain making incorrect hypotheses.

AO1 Description: Gilchrist and Nesberg aimed to investigate if hunger (motivation) affects how people perceive the brightness of food pictures. They used 26 student volunteers divided into two groups: a deprived group who went without food for 20 hours, and a control group who ate normally. Participants were shown slides of four food items for 15 seconds. The projector was then dimmed, and participants had to adjust the brightness control until the slide looked the same as it did originally. They did this at intervals of 6 hours and 20 hours. Results showed that the food-deprived participants adjusted the pictures to be significantly brighter than they actually were, and this effect increased as they became hungrier. The control group made no such adjustments. Conclusion: Motivation (hunger) creates a perceptual set, causing us to perceive what we need more intensely. AO3 Evaluation: A strength of the laboratory experiment method is high internal validity due to tight control of extraneous variables. Researchers standardized the lighting, slide duration (15 seconds), and deprivation times (20 hours), ensuring that hunger was the main variable affecting brightness adjustments. However, a weakness is the low ecological validity of the artificial task. Adjusting the brightness of food slides on a screen is very different from real-world food search and consumption. Another weakness is the ethical issue of food deprivation. Making participants go without food for 20 hours causes physical discomfort, which raises concerns about protection from harm. Lastly, using volunteer undergraduate students can lead to demand characteristics, as participants might guess the aim of the study and adjust the controls based on expectation rather than genuine visual perception.

AO1 (Description) = 4 marks. AO3 (Evaluation) = 5 marks. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Knowledge of Gilchrist and Nesberg's study is accurate, detailed, and fully described (aim, method, results, conclusion). Evaluation of the laboratory research method is highly effective, well-developed, and explicitly linked to the study. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Knowledge of the study is present but lacks some detail or has minor omissions. Evaluation of the method is offered but may be generic or lack development. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Description of the study is basic, fragmented, or inaccurate. Evaluation is weak, superficial, or absent. 0 marks: No creditworthy content. Acceptable evaluation points: Strengths: High control of extraneous variables (standardized environment, projection time). Weaknesses: Low ecological validity/artificial task; Ethical issues (protection from harm/hunger); Volunteer bias/demand characteristics.

Process praise focuses on the effort, strategies, and processes used to complete a task, rather than a person's innate intelligence or talent. Option C focuses on the effort ('Great effort') and the strategies used ('tried different methods'), which encourages a growth mindset. Options A, B, and D focus on innate characteristics ('brilliant student', 'so clever', 'naturally talented artist'), which is person praise and can lead to a fixed mindset.

1 mark for the correct answer: C.

Process praise focuses on the effort, strategies, and processes used to complete a task, rather than a person's innate intelligence or talent. Option C focuses on the effort ('Great effort') and the strategies used ('tried different methods'), which encourages a growth mindset. Options A, B, and D focus on innate characteristics ('brilliant student', 'so clever', 'naturally talented artist'), which is person praise and can lead to a fixed mindset.

1 mark for identifying the correct statement (c).

Epigenetics is the process by which environmental factors, such as stress, caregiving, or diet, cause changes in gene expression. This means genes can be switched on or off without any change to the actual DNA sequence itself, demonstrating how nurture can influence nature.

Award 1 mark for identifying that epigenetics involves environmental influences changing or affecting gene expression (or switching genes on/off). Award 1 mark for stating that this happens without altering the genetic code or DNA sequence itself.

To find the percentage of students who preferred auditory learning, follow these steps:

1. Identify the number of students who preferred auditory learning: \(20\)
2. Identify the total number of students: \(80\)
3. Divide the number of auditory learners by the total number of students and multiply by 100:

$$\left(\frac{20}{80}\right) \times 100 = 0.25 \times 100 = 25\%$$

Thus, the answer is \(25\%\).

Award 1 mark for the correct answer: 25 (or 25%).

Accept any correct working that leads to the final answer of 25%.

To find the percentage of students who preferred auditory learning, follow these steps:

1. Identify the number of students who preferred auditory learning: \(20\)
2. Identify the total number of students: \(80\)
3. Divide the number of auditory learners by the total number of students and multiply by 100:

$$\left(\frac{20}{80}\right) \times 100 = 0.25 \times 100 = 25\%$$

Thus, the answer is \(25\%\).

Award 1 mark for the correct answer: 25 (or 25%).

Accept any correct working that leads to the final answer of 25%.

According to Carol Dweck's mindset theory, there are two main mindsets that affect how people learn: a fixed mindset and a growth mindset.

**AO1: Knowledge and understanding of the theory:**
* **Person praise** involves praising a person's intelligence or talent (e.g., 'you are so smart/talented'). This promotes a **fixed mindset**, where individuals believe their abilities are predetermined and cannot be changed. When people with a fixed mindset face challenges or failure, they tend to give up easily because they believe they lack the necessary innate ability.
* **Process praise** involves praising the effort, practice, or strategy a person uses (e.g., 'you worked really hard on this'). This promotes a **growth mindset**, where individuals believe their abilities can be developed through effort and learning from mistakes. They are more resilient when facing challenges.

**AO2: Application to the scenario:**
* The teacher's comment, 'You are so naturally talented,' is an example of **person praise**. This has fostered a **fixed mindset** in Julian. When he struggles with a new piece, he interprets this difficulty as a lack of natural ability, which is why he wants to give up.
* To encourage a growth mindset, the teacher should switch to **process praise**. Instead of praising his talent, she should praise his effort and strategies. For example, she could say, 'You played that piece beautifully because you practiced the difficult parts repeatedly and didn't give up,' or 'I can see how much effort you put into learning the fingering for this song.'

**AO1: 3 marks** for knowledge and understanding of Dweck's mindset theory (person praise vs. process praise and fixed vs. growth mindsets).
**AO2: 3 marks** for application of the theory to the scenario (explaining Julian's reaction and suggesting appropriate alternative praise).

**Mark Band Breakdown:**

* **5-6 marks (Level 3):** Clear, accurate, and detailed explanation of Dweck's theory, distinguishing between person and process praise and their respective mindsets (AO1). Precise and coherent application to Julian, clearly explaining why he wants to give up and providing an appropriate, practical suggestion for how the teacher can alter her praise to focus on effort (AO2).
* **3-4 marks (Level 2):** Reasonable explanation of mindsets/praise, though there may be minor omissions (AO1). Some successful application to Julian's scenario, explaining his behavior or suggesting a change in praise, though the links may be slightly undeveloped (AO2).
* **1-2 marks (Level 1):** Basic knowledge of mindsets or praise is shown, possibly with some confusion between terms (AO1). Minimal or superficial application to the scenario (AO2).
* **0 marks:** No relevant psychological content.

### AO1 (Description - 3 marks)
- **Aim**: To see if children are able to take another person's perspective if the task is made socially meaningful to them, challenging Piaget's findings on egocentrism.
- **Method**: 30 children aged between 3.5 and 5 years from Edinburgh were tested. They were shown a model of two intersecting wooden walls. A policeman doll was placed at one location, and the child was asked to hide a boy doll so the policeman couldn't see him. If the child made a mistake, they were corrected and allowed to try again. Next, a second policeman doll was introduced, and the child was asked to hide the boy doll from both policemen at the same time.
- **Results**: 90% of the children aged between 3.5 and 5 were able to successfully hide the boy doll from both policemen.
- **Conclusion**: Children are not as egocentric as Piaget claimed. When a task is made realistic and has clear social meaning (such as hiding from a policeman), younger children are capable of seeing things from another person's point of view.

### AO3 (Evaluation - 3 marks)
- **Strength (Ecological Validity/Task Realism)**: The task of 'hiding' from someone makes far more sense to a young child than Piaget's Three Mountains task, which is abstract. This means Hughes' study is a more valid measure of egocentrism in real-world settings.
- **Strength (Control over understanding)**: The researcher made sure the children fully understood the task by using a trial run first. If the child got it wrong, the task was explained again, ensuring the final results reflected their actual perspective-taking ability and not just confusion.
- **Weakness (Sample limitations)**: The sample consisted of only 30 children from Edinburgh. This small and culturally specific sample means the findings may not generalize to children from other backgrounds or countries.

**Level 3 (5-6 marks)**:
- Detailed and accurate description of Hughes' study (aim, method, results/conclusion).
- Well-constructed evaluation with at least one clear strength and/or weakness explained in depth.
- Specialist terminology is used effectively throughout.

**Level 2 (3-4 marks)**:
- Good description of the study, though some details of the method or results may be missing.
- Evaluation is present, but may lack depth or be a simple list of points without explanation.
- Some specialist terminology is used appropriately.

**Level 1 (1-2 marks)**:
- Basic or fragmented description of the study.
- Evaluation is absent or extremely weak.
- Little or no use of specialist terminology.

**0 marks**:
- No relevant content.

To achieve full marks, a response must address all three assessment objectives:

1. **AO1 (3 marks): Describe Dweck's mindset theory.**
- Explain the distinction between a fixed mindset (belief that intelligence is innate and unchangeable) and a growth mindset (belief that ability can be developed through effort).
- Explain how praise affects these mindsets, specifically the difference between person praise (which fosters a fixed mindset) and process praise (which fosters a growth mindset).

2. **AO2 (3 marks): Apply the theory to the scenario.**
- Connect Leo's praise 'You are so smart!' to person/ability praise and a fixed mindset, explaining that this makes pupils avoid challenges and give up easily because they fear failure.
- Connect Leo's praise 'You worked really hard on this!' to process/effort praise and a growth mindset, explaining that this focuses on the journey/effort, motivating pupils to persist through difficulties.

3. **AO3 (3 marks): Evaluate Dweck's theory.**
- Discuss strengths, such as research evidence (e.g., Mueller and Dweck's study showing children praised for effort persevered more) and practical applications in educational settings.
- Discuss limitations, such as the theory's potential overemphasis on effort while ignoring other vital variables like genetic intelligence, teaching quality, and socioeconomic factors.

Marks are awarded using a levels-of-response grid:

**Level 3 (7-9 marks):**
- Knowledge of Dweck's mindset theory is accurate and detailed (AO1).
- Application to Leo's class is clear, consistent, and directly linked to specific forms of praise and student behaviors (AO2).
- Evaluation is well-developed, balanced, and coherent, highlighting both strengths and weaknesses/criticisms of the theory (AO3).
- The answer is structured logically with excellent use of psychological terminology.

**Level 2 (4-6 marks):**
- Knowledge of Dweck's mindset theory is mostly accurate but may lack some depth or detail (AO1).
- Application to Leo's class is present but may be inconsistent or lack detail (AO2).
- Evaluation is present but may be limited or one-sided (e.g., only giving one strength or weakness) (AO3).
- The answer has reasonable structure and some psychological terminology.

**Level 1 (1-3 marks):**
- Knowledge of Dweck's theory is basic or has significant inaccuracies (AO1).
- Application to Leo's class is weak, superficial, or absent (AO2).
- Evaluation is minimal or absent (AO3).
- The answer lacks structure and clarity, with minimal psychological terminology.

**0 marks:** No relevant content.

In an independent groups design, different participants are used in each condition. This means that individual differences (participant variables), such as natural reading ability, could affect the results rather than the independent variable (the teaching method). Options A and D are limitations of repeated measures designs.

1 mark for selecting the correct option (b).

A negative correlation occurs when one variable increases while the other variable decreases. In this case, as social media use increases, sleep quality decreases, indicating a negative relationship.

1 mark for selecting the correct option (b).

The range is a measure of dispersion. It represents the spread of data and is calculated by finding the mathematical difference between the maximum (highest) and minimum (lowest) values in a dataset.

1 mark for identifying 'Range' (or 'the range').

Reject: 'Mean', 'Median', 'Mode', 'Standard deviation'.

An extraneous variable is a variable that is not the independent variable but may still affect the outcome (dependent variable) of the experiment if it is not controlled. Examples include situational factors like temperature, or participant factors like intelligence.

1 mark: for identifying that it is a variable other than the independent variable. 1 mark: for explaining that it can affect the dependent variable or the results of the study if not controlled.

1. Independent Variable (IV): The variable that is manipulated by the researcher. In this scenario, it is whether the participants drank chamomile tea or warm water. 2. Dependent Variable (DV): The variable that is measured. In this study, it is the participant's sleep quality. 3. Operationalisation: How the variable is measured in a practical and observable way. Here, sleep quality is operationalised by having participants rate it on a scale of 1 to 10.

1 mark for identifying the IV (e.g., chamomile tea versus warm water/control). 1 mark for identifying the DV (e.g., sleep quality). 1 mark for identifying the operationalisation of the DV (e.g., rating scale from 1 to 10).

To find the range, subtract the lowest score from the highest score in each condition. For Condition A (Music): Highest score is 19 and lowest score is 8. Calculation: \(19 - 8 = 11\). For Condition B (Silence): Highest score is 18 and lowest score is 12. Calculation: \(18 - 12 = 6\). Therefore, the completed table values are 11 for Condition A and 6 for Condition B.

Award marks as follows: 1 mark for calculating the correct range for Condition A (11). 1 mark for calculating the correct range for Condition B (6).

To find the percentage, divide the number of participants who recalled the headlight by the total number of participants, then multiply by 100: \(12 / 40 = 0.3\) and \(0.3 \times 100 = 30\%\).

1 mark for correct working: \(12 / 40 \times 100\) (or equivalent). 1 mark for the correct answer: 30% (accept 30).

To interpret these results fully, you must explain what both descriptive statistics (the median and the range) tell us about the two study methods:

1. **The Median**: This is a measure of central tendency. The higher median for Group 2 (16) compared to Group 1 (11) indicates that spaced learning is generally more effective, leading to higher test scores than cramming.
2. **The Range**: This is a measure of dispersion (spread). The smaller range for Group 2 (3) compared to Group 1 (8) indicates that the test scores for those who used spaced learning were much more consistent and closely grouped, whereas cramming led to highly varied results among participants.

Apply the following marking criteria:
- **3 marks**: Clear and accurate explanation of what both the median and range show about the study methods, with explicit reference to the data (e.g., citing the specific numbers 16 vs 11, and 3 vs 8).
- **2 marks**: Accurate explanation of what both the median and range show, but with missing or incorrect numerical data support; OR a detailed explanation of only one statistic (median or range) with clear data support.
- **1 mark**: A basic explanation of what one statistic shows (e.g., 'spaced learning was better because the median was higher' or 'spaced learning was more consistent because the range was smaller') with no data support.
- **0 marks**: Insufficient or completely inaccurate response.

The correct experimental design is an independent groups design. This is because there are two distinct groups of participants, and each participant only takes part in one of the conditions of the independent variable (either the music condition or the silent condition), rather than doing both.

1 mark for identifying the correct design: Independent groups (design). 1 mark for explaining the choice: E.g., different/separate participants are used in each condition / participants only take part in one condition of the study. Do not award the explanation mark if the design is incorrectly identified.

One weakness of a repeated measures design is the potential for order effects. Because participants take part in both experimental conditions, they may perform differently in the second condition because they are tired or bored (fatigue effect) or have improved through practice (practice effect). This acts as a confounding variable, making it difficult to determine if the independent variable caused the change in the dependent variable. Another acceptable weakness is demand characteristics, as experiencing both conditions makes it easier for participants to guess the aim of the study and change their behaviour.

Apply the following marking criteria: 1 mark for identifying a valid weakness of a repeated measures design (such as order effects, practice or fatigue effects, or demand characteristics). 1 mark for explaining how or why this affects the experiment (such as explaining that participating in both conditions leads to boredom or practice, which can confound the results and lower validity). Example 2-mark response: One weakness is order effects (1 mark). Participants do both tasks, so they might do better on the second one because they have practiced, which reduces the validity of the results (1 mark). Accept: Reference to demand characteristics because participants complete both conditions. Reject: Participant variables (as this is a strength of repeated measures, not a weakness).

One weakness of a repeated measures design is the potential for order effects. Because participants take part in both experimental conditions, they may perform differently in the second condition because they are tired or bored (fatigue effect) or have improved through practice (practice effect). This acts as a confounding variable, making it difficult to determine if the independent variable caused the change in the dependent variable. Another acceptable weakness is demand characteristics, as experiencing both conditions makes it easier for participants to guess the aim of the study and change their behaviour.

Apply the following marking criteria: 1 mark for identifying a valid weakness of a repeated measures design (such as order effects, practice or fatigue effects, or demand characteristics). 1 mark for explaining how or why this affects the experiment (such as explaining that participating in both conditions leads to boredom or practice, which can confound the results and lower validity). Example 2-mark response: One weakness is order effects (1 mark). Participants do both tasks, so they might do better on the second one because they have practiced, which reduces the validity of the results (1 mark). Accept: Reference to demand characteristics because participants complete both conditions. Reject: Participant variables (as this is a strength of repeated measures, not a weakness).

Asch's variations showed that conformity rates increased when the number of confederates (the majority) increased from 1 to 3 (reaching about 31.8%). However, further increases in the size of the majority beyond three did not lead to any substantial further increase in conformity.

Award 1.5 marks for option B (correct answer). Award 0 marks for any other option selected.

Von Frisch found that the 'waggle dance' is performed when the food source is located at a distance greater than 100 metres. The dance involves a figure-of-eight movement where the speed/duration of the waggle indicates the distance, and the angle of the straight run indicates the direction in relation to the sun.

Award 1.5 marks for option C (correct answer). Award 0 marks for any other option selected.

The temporal lobe contains the auditory cortex (or primary auditory area), which receives and processes electrical signals from the ears to interpret sound. The frontal lobe is linked to motor functions and planning, the occipital lobe to visual processing, and the parietal lobe to somatosensory sensations.

Award 1.5 marks for option D (correct answer). Award 0 marks for any other option selected.

Wiles et al. (2013) investigated patients with treatment-resistant depression. They found that after 12 months, those who received CBT alongside their usual care (mostly antidepressant medication) were significantly more likely to show a 50% or greater reduction in depressive symptoms compared to those who received usual care alone.

Award 1.5 marks for option B (correct answer). Award 0 marks for any other option selected.

To find the ratio of participants who fully obeyed to those who refused:

1. Calculate the number of participants who refused to obey:
\(120 - 90 = 30\) participants.

2. Write the ratio of fully obeyed to refused:
\(90:30\)

3. Simplify the ratio by dividing both sides by their highest common factor, which is 30:
\(90 \div 30 = 3\)
\(30 \div 30 = 1\)

Therefore, the simplified ratio is \(3:1\).

• 1 mark for showing correct working (e.g. identifying 30 participants refused, or writing the initial ratio as 90:30).
• 1 mark for the correct simplified ratio: 3:1.

Note: If the final ratio is correct (3:1), award 2 marks even if no workings are shown.

To find the simplified ratio of CBT patients who improved to drug therapy patients who improved:

1. Identify the number of patients who improved in each group:
- CBT improved = 64
- Drug therapy improved = 36

2. Express this as a ratio:
\(64:36\)

3. Simplify the ratio by dividing both parts by their greatest common divisor (4):
- \(64 \div 4 = 16\)
- \(36 \div 4 = 9\)

Therefore, the simplified ratio is \(16:9\).

• 1 mark for identifying the correct counts of improved patients (64 and 36) or expressing the unsimplified ratio (64:36).
• 1 mark for attempting to simplify the ratio (e.g. 32:18).
• 1 mark for the final correct ratio in its simplest form (16:9).

Note: Award full 3 marks for the correct final answer of 16:9 even if no workings are shown.

In this scenario, Freya's low self-esteem is the dispositional (individual) factor that influences her conformity. People with low self-esteem are less confident in their own beliefs and decisions, making them more likely to go along with a group majority to avoid rejection and seek social approval.

1 mark for identifying low self-esteem as the dispositional factor.
1 mark for explaining that low self-esteem is linked to a lack of confidence and a high need for approval.
1 mark for applying this to Freya's behaviour (e.g., explaining why she agrees to watch the movie she dislikes to fit in with her friends).

Obedience is strongly affected by proximity. When physical proximity between the authority figure (the teacher) and the participants (the students) is close, obedience is highest. However, when the teacher leaves the area and gives instructions from a distance, the psychological distance increases, reducing the perceived power of the authority figure and allowing the students to disobey.

1 mark for identifying physical proximity as the situational factor.
1 mark for explaining that high proximity (teacher standing next to them) increases obedience.
1 mark for explaining that low proximity (teacher giving instructions from a distance) reduces obedience.
1 mark for linking these explanations back to the students' change in behaviour in the scenario.

The Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proposes that language determines or influences thought (linguistic relativity). In this scenario, because the grandmother's language does not distinguish between blue and green with separate words, her cognitive ability to perceive these as distinct colours is limited. Conversely, Amara has different words for these colours in English, which allows her to easily categorize and perceive them as distinct, demonstrating that language shapes perception.

1 mark for stating that the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis proposes language influences/determines thought and perception.
1 mark for explaining that the grandmother's difficulty in distinguishing blue and green is due to her language lacking distinct terms for them.
1 mark for explaining that Amara can easily distinguish them because her language provides separate labels, directly demonstrating how language shapes thought/perception.

Body language is an important form of non-verbal communication. Marcus's open posture (uncrossed arms and legs) signals to the interviewer that he is friendly, cooperative, and open to communication. Additionally, his leaning forward signals high interest, liking, and engagement in the conversation. Together, these postural cues create a positive impression of enthusiasm and cooperation.

1 mark for identifying the use of an open posture (uncrossed limbs).
1 mark for explaining that an open posture communicates cooperation, friendliness, or warmth.
1 mark for identifying leaning forward as a postural cue.
1 mark for explaining that leaning forward communicates interest, engagement, or enthusiasm.

Richard's injuries are consistent with damage to the frontal lobe of the cerebral cortex. The frontal lobe is responsible for higher-order cognitive functions (executive functions) including planning, decision-making, and emotional control/personality regulation. This is why Richard has difficulty organizing his daily routine, making rational decisions, and experiences emotional outbursts after his accident.

1 mark for correctly identifying the frontal lobe.
1 mark for explaining how the frontal lobe is responsible for cognitive planning and decision-making, linking to Richard's difficulty in planning his day.
1 mark for explaining how the frontal lobe regulates emotion/personality, linking to Richard's uncharacteristic emotional outbursts.

The main differences lie in their structure and function. The Central Nervous System (CNS) is composed of only the brain and spinal cord and serves as the main processing and control unit of the body. The Peripheral Nervous System (PNS) comprises all nerves extending from the CNS to the limbs and organs. Functionally, the CNS makes decisions and coordinates responses, while the PNS carries sensory messages to the CNS and motor commands from the CNS to the muscles and organs.

1-2 marks for describing the Central Nervous System (e.g., 1 mark for structure: brain and spinal cord; 1 mark for function: central processing and decision-making).
1-2 marks for describing the Peripheral Nervous System (e.g., 1 mark for structure: nerves outside CNS; 1 mark for function: connects CNS to body/transmits messages).
Maximum of 4 marks.

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) target the neurotransmitter serotonin. In patients with depression, serotonin levels are often abnormally low. SSRIs work by blocking the reabsorption (reuptake) of serotonin back into the pre-synaptic neuron after it has been released into the synapse. This leaves more serotonin available in the synaptic gap, allowing it to repeatedly stimulate the receptors on the post-synaptic neuron, enhancing mood signals and reducing depressive symptoms.

1 mark for identifying serotonin.
1 mark for explaining that SSRIs block the reuptake/reabsorption of serotonin into the pre-synaptic neuron.
1 mark for explaining that this increases serotonin levels in the synapse/cleft, leading to increased stimulation of post-synaptic receptors to alleviate depression.

Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) helps clients by identifying and altering negative thought patterns and behaviours. Firstly, the therapist helps Chloe identify her cognitive distortions, such as the catastrophizing thought 'Everything I do ends in failure'. Secondly, the therapist challenges these thoughts through disputing, asking for evidence to support or disprove them. Thirdly, behavioral activation is used; Chloe might be given a homework task to log successful daily activities. This provides concrete evidence that disproves her belief that she is 'completely useless', helping her adopt more balanced and positive thoughts.

1 mark for identifying the cognitive element (identifying negative/irrational thoughts like 'I am completely useless').
1 mark for explaining the process of challenging/disputing (asking for evidence to disprove these thoughts).
1 mark for explaining the behavioural element/homework (e.g., keeping a diary of positive tasks or achievements to act as evidence).
1 mark for explaining the outcome (replacing negative thoughts with realistic, positive ones to reduce symptoms of depression).

1. Group size: Research (such as Asch's) shows that conformity rates increase as the size of the opposing majority increases, but only up to a point (typically a majority of 3 or 4), after which conformity levels off.
2. Application: Arjun is faced with a group of four friends (a majority of four). This group size is large enough to exert near-maximum pressure to conform, leading him to choose History instead of Art to avoid standing out.

Up to 3 marks:
- 1 mark for outlining that conformity increases as group size increases up to a certain point (usually 3 or 4 people).
- 1 mark for outlining that further increases in group size do not significantly increase conformity.
- 1 mark for applying to the scenario: Arjun's group of 4 friends is a large enough majority to maximize conformity pressure, explaining why he conformed and chose History.

1. Definition of displacement: Displacement refers to the capacity of a communication system to convey information about things, events, or ideas that are not physically present, or that occur in the past or future.
2. Comparison: Human language features extensive and flexible displacement, allowing humans to discuss abstract concepts, historical events, or future plans. In contrast, animal communication is highly restricted to the 'here and now' (e.g., immediate threats or mating signals), meaning they generally cannot communicate about events outside their immediate environment, with limited exceptions (such as the honeybee's waggle dance).

Up to 4 marks:
- 2 marks for outlining displacement: 1 mark for defining it as communicating about things not present/in the past or future; 1 mark for explaining its role in human language (unlimited/highly flexible).
- 2 marks for explaining how animal communication differs: 1 mark for stating that animal communication is generally restricted to the immediate present/environment; 1 mark for providing a contrast or example (e.g., bees showing a limited form of displacement, but lacking the limitless displacement of human communication).

1. Identification: The lobe located at the back of the head is the occipital lobe.
2. Function: The occipital lobe contains the primary visual cortex, which is responsible for receiving and processing visual information (such as shape, colour, and movement) sent from the eyes.
3. Application: Even though Freya's eyes are undamaged and can detect light, she cannot 'see' or process visual information because the brain region responsible for decoding and making sense of these visual signals has been damaged.

Up to 3 marks:
- 1 mark for identifying the occipital lobe.
- 1 mark for explaining that the occipital lobe processes visual information.
- 1 mark for applying to Freya: explaining that because this lobe is damaged, her brain cannot interpret the signals sent from her undamaged eyes.

1. Principle of Aversion Therapy: It is based on classical conditioning, where an undesirable behavior (addiction) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus that produces an unpleasant response (like nausea).
2. Application to Marcus: Marcus would be given a drug (an emetic) that makes him feel sick, and then given alcohol to drink. The alcohol (neutral stimulus) is paired with the emetic (unconditioned stimulus) to produce vomiting (unconditioned response).
3. Result: After repeated pairings, alcohol becomes a conditioned stimulus, producing a conditioned response of nausea on its own. Marcus will now feel an aversion to alcohol and stop drinking.

Up to 4 marks:
- 1 mark for explaining the role of classical conditioning / pairing an addictive substance with an unpleasant stimulus.
- 1 mark for explaining how this is done in practice (e.g., using an emetic drug that causes vomiting/nausea).
- 1 mark for applying directly to Marcus (pairing alcohol with the emetic so he vomits).
- 1 mark for outlining the outcome (Marcus associates alcohol with vomiting/nausea, creating an aversion that stops him drinking).

AO1: Milgram's agency theory suggests that individuals operate in two distinct cognitive states: the autonomous state and the agentic state. In the autonomous state, a person acts of their own free will and feels responsible for their actions. Under the influence of an authority figure, they undergo an 'agentic shift' to the agentic state, where they see themselves as agents carrying out another person's orders and do not feel personally responsible. When ordered to act against their conscience, they experience 'moral strain' (anxiety), but 'binding factors' keep them in the obedient state.

AO3: A strength of the theory is that it has real-world validity; it explains how normal citizens can carry out atrocities (e.g., the Holocaust) under orders, claiming they were just following commands. Additionally, Milgram's lab experiments support this theory, as participants showed extreme moral strain (sweating, trembling) but continued to obey the experimenter. However, a weakness is that it fails to explain individual differences, such as why 35% of participants in Milgram's study refused to obey the final shock. Another weakness is that it ignores dispositional factors like the Authoritarian Personality, which can also explain why some people are more naturally obedient than others.

AO1 (4 marks): Accurate and detailed description of the agency theory, including key terms: autonomous state, agentic state, agentic shift, moral strain, and binding factors.

AO3 (5 marks): Well-structured evaluation of the theory, including strengths (supporting research from Milgram, real-world utility) and weaknesses (inability to explain individual differences/disobedience, neglect of personality factors).

AO1: Piaget's theory argues that language depends on thought; children can only use language to describe concepts that they have already understood through cognitive development. First, children develop cognitive schemas by interacting with the physical environment. Once a schema is established, the child can then learn the words to describe it. In the sensorimotor stage (0-2 years), language is minimal because cognitive schemas are undeveloped. In the pre-operational stage (2-7 years), children's language is highly egocentric, reflecting their self-centred thinking, which only changes as they enter concrete operations and learn to de-centre.

AO3: A strength of this theory is that it is supported by developmental observations; children do not typically use relational words like 'bigger' or 'smaller' until they understand the concept of seriation. However, a major weakness is that it is contradicted by the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis, which suggests that language actually shapes and determines thought, rather than the other way around. Another limitation is that the theory undervalues social interaction; Lev Vygotsky argued that language and thought develop independently at first, and that language is a social tool that drives cognitive development.

AO1 (4 marks): Detailed description of Piaget's theory, detailing how thought precedes language, the role of schemas, and examples linked to cognitive stages.

AO3 (5 marks): Robust evaluation, featuring supporting evidence, and counter-arguments such as Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory and the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis.

AO1: The aim of Penfield's study was to investigate the psychological effects of electrical stimulation on different areas of the temporal lobe (interpretive cortex). The sample consisted of clinical epilepsy patients who underwent brain surgery under local anaesthetic. Penfield used an electrode to deliver gentle electrical stimulation to specific areas of the temporal lobe and recorded the conscious patients' responses. He found two main types of responses: experiential responses (vivid flashbacks of past events, complete with sounds and feelings, which felt real and current) and interpretive responses (sudden changes in how patients perceived their current environment, such as experiences of deja vu, fear, or a sense that sounds were suddenly louder or softer). He concluded that the temporal lobe (interpretive cortex) plays a key role in retrieving memories and giving meaning to ongoing sensory experiences.

AO3: A strength of the study is its highly scientific and controlled methodology; by stimulating precise cortical areas in conscious patients, Penfield could directly map brain structures to conscious experiences. However, a weakness is the non-representative sample; all patients suffered from severe epilepsy, meaning their brain organization or function may have adapted differently compared to healthy individuals. Another limitation is the low consistency of results; only a small proportion of stimulated patients experienced these vivid flashbacks or interpretive feelings, suggesting the findings may not be easily generalisable.

AO1 (4 marks): Detailed description of Penfield's study, including aim, clinical method, experiential and interpretive results, and conclusion.

AO3 (5 marks): Critical evaluation of the study, pointing out strengths (scientific mapping, precision) and limitations (epilepsy sample bias, inconsistency of experiences).

AO1: Beck's cognitive theory suggests that depression is caused by vulnerability to negative, irrational patterns of thinking. The key component is the Negative Cognitive Triad, which consists of three automatic negative thinking patterns: negative views of the self, negative views of the world, and negative views of the future. Additionally, depressed individuals develop negative self-schemas (faulty internal templates about themselves, often formed in childhood) and exhibit cognitive biases (logical errors in processing information), such as overgeneralisation (making sweeping assumptions based on a single event) and catastrophising (exaggerating small setbacks into major disasters).

AO3: A major strength of the theory is its highly successful practical application; it led directly to the development of Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT), which is widely proven to be an effective treatment for depression by challenging these negative thoughts. There is also supportive research showing that depressed individuals do display higher levels of cognitive distortions. However, a weakness is that it is difficult to establish cause and effect; negative thoughts may be a symptom of depression rather than the root cause. Another limitation is that the theory is incomplete, as it ignores biological factors, such as low levels of serotonin or genetic predispositions, which also contribute significantly to depression.

AO1 (4 marks): Clear and accurate description of Beck's cognitive theory, highlighting the cognitive triad, negative self-schemas, and cognitive biases.

AO3 (5 marks): Evaluation of the theory, including strengths (successful application to CBT, research support) and limitations (correlation vs causation issue, neglect of biological factors).

AO1: The aim of Yuki's study was to investigate whether there are cultural differences in how people interpret facial expressions, specifically whether Japanese and American participants focus more on the eyes or the mouth. A cross-cultural study was conducted using an independent groups design with Japanese and American university students. Participants were shown six computer-generated emoticons with different combinations of happy, neutral, or sad eyes and mouths. They rated the emotional intensity of each emoticon on a 9-point scale. The results showed that Japanese participants gave higher happiness ratings to emoticons with happy eyes, whereas American participants gave higher ratings to emoticons with happy mouths. Yuki concluded that people from collectivistic cultures (like Japan) focus on the eyes to interpret emotion, as eyes are harder to control/hide, whereas those from individualistic cultures (like the USA) focus on the mouth, which is more overtly expressive.

AO3: A strength of this study is the high control over variables; using computer-generated emoticons ensured that facial structure, age, and gender of real people did not confound the results. However, a limitation is low ecological validity; emoticons are static and highly simplified compared to real-world human faces, which are dynamic and accompanied by body language. Another weakness is the student-only sample; university students may not represent the emotional decoding patterns of younger children or older generations within those cultures.

AO1 (4 marks): Detailed description of Yuki's emoticon study, covering the aim, cross-cultural method, eye vs mouth results, and conclusion regarding cultural differences (collectivism vs individualism).

AO3 (5 marks): Well-structured evaluation of the study, identifying strengths (standardisation, control of facial cues) and limitations (low ecological validity of emoticons, restricted sample of university students).