MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

(a) In the Model/Rival (M/R) technique, one human acts as the trainer while another acts as a model and a rival. The trainer presents an object (e.g., a green wooden triangle) and asks a question (e.g., "What's same?"). The model/rival responds with the correct answer and is rewarded with the object, which also acts as a plaything. If the model/rival gives an incorrect response, they are scolded and the object is temporarily hidden. The parrot, Alex, observes this interaction and competes with the model/rival to gain the trainer's attention and receive the object by giving the correct vocalization. The roles of the trainer and the model/rival are frequently reversed to show that the interaction is interactive and non-static.

(b) In standard operant conditioning, a single subject directly receives reinforcement (like food) for exhibiting a target behavior, with no social interaction or social modeling involved. In contrast, the M/R technique uses social modeling where the subject observes another individual being rewarded, and must actively compete with a peer/model to obtain the reward.

Part (a) [3.5 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying the roles (trainer, model/rival).
- 1 mark for describing the interaction/questioning process.
- 1 mark for describing the reward/consequence mechanism.
- 0.5 marks for mentioning that roles were reversed or that Alex had to compete.

Part (b) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for explaining standard operant conditioning (direct reinforcement of behavior, no observer/social aspect).
- 1 mark for contrasting it clearly with the social/competitive nature of the M/R technique.

(a) 'Novel' objects referred to physical items (shapes, colors, or materials) that Alex had never encountered before during any training sessions. Using these novel objects was essential to test whether Alex could abstractly apply the concepts of 'same' and 'different' to completely unfamiliar stimuli, rather than simply relying on rote associative learning or memory of previously paired stimuli.

(b) When Alex gave an incorrect response, or did not respond at all:
- The principal trainer immediately said "No!" in a stern voice.
- The trainer shook their head and removed the object from Alex's line of sight (a temporary "timeout").
- This correction procedure was repeated immediately with the same object and the same question.
- This process continued until Alex gave the correct answer.
- Only his very first response was recorded for the "first-trial" analysis, but the repeated presentation ensured he did not accumulate errors or learn to avoid responding.

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for defining 'novel' (items completely unseen/untested during training).
- 1 mark for explaining the psychological reason/validity (testing conceptual understanding vs. rote association).

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- 1 mark for "No!" correction/shaking head.
- 1 mark for immediate removal of the object (timeout).
- 1 mark for repeating the presentation of the same object/question.
- 0.5 marks for stating that only the first response counted towards the primary data/performance score.

(a) For familiar objects, Alex scored 99 out of 129 correct answers (76.7%) across all trials, and 69 out of 99 correct (69.7%) on first-trial-only tests. For novel objects, Alex performed even better, scoring 96 out of 113 correct overall (85%), and 79 out of 96 correct (82.3%) on first-trial-only tests. His higher performance on novel trials was statistically significant and suggested he was highly motivated by new stimuli.

(b) One conclusion is that an avian species (specifically the African Grey parrot) is capable of cognitive comprehension of abstract relationship concepts like 'same' and 'different'. Another conclusion is that this ability can be successfully generalized to completely novel stimuli, showing cognitive processing rather than simple conditioning.

Part (a) [3.5 marks]:
- 1.5 marks for familiar object statistics (76.7% overall or 99/129, and 69.7% or 69/99 on first-trial).
- 1.5 marks for novel object statistics (85% overall or 96/113, and 82.3% or 79/96 on first-trial).
- 0.5 marks for making a comparative point (e.g., performance on novel objects was higher/better than on familiar objects).

Part (b) [2 marks]:
- 2 marks for a fully developed, accurate conclusion about cognitive capabilities (abstract relations/same-different processing) or generalization abilities in parrots.

(a) Two questionnaires completed during Session 1 were:
1. The Food History Inventory (FHI): This questionnaire consisted of 24 food-related items. Participants rated their agreement with statements about their childhood food experiences before age 10 on a 1-to-8 scale. The critical item was "Loved asparagus the first time you tried it" at position 16.
2. The Restaurant Questionnaire (RQ): This questionnaire assessed participants' desire to eat 32 different dishes in a restaurant setting. It was formatted to look like a menu, and participants rated how likely they would be to order each dish on a scale of 1 (definitely no) to 8 (definitely yes).

(b) The purpose of the filler questionnaires (such as a personality questionnaire, social desirability scale, or general eating habits survey) was to act as distractors. This disguised the true aim of the experiment, preventing demand characteristics where participants might guess that the study was focusing on asparagus or memory manipulation.

Part (a) [3.5 marks]:
- 1.5 marks for describing the Food History Inventory (FHI) (24 items, rating scale 1-8, childhood experiences before age 10, key target item about loving asparagus).
- 1.5 marks for describing the Restaurant Questionnaire (RQ) (32 items, menu-style format, 1-8 rating scale of likelihood to order).
- 0.5 marks for details such as precise scale ranges (1-8) or naming both correctly.

Part (b) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying them as filler/distractor tasks.
- 1 mark for explaining the purpose (disguising the aim of the study, reducing demand characteristics).

(a) In Session 2, participants were given a computer-generated profile allegedly created from their Session 1 responses. It contained general assertions about their childhood food preferences (e.g., that they liked sweets/fruit). Crucially, for the 'love' group, the profile included the false critical feedback: "As a young child, you loved to eat cooked asparagus." The feedback was presented alongside other realistic statements to ensure believability.

(b) One key difference was that 'believers' (those who accepted the false feedback as true) showed a significant increase in their FHI scores from Session 1 to Session 2, indicating they now believed they loved asparagus as a child. In addition, 'believers' showed a significantly higher willingness to pay more for asparagus, a greater intention to eat it in the future, and a higher preference rating for it compared to 'non-believers' who did not adopt the false memory.

Part (a) [3.5 marks]:
- 1 mark for stating the profile was presented as computer-generated based on Session 1 data.
- 1 mark for describing the general/filler feedback (e.g., liking sweets/fruit).
- 1.5 marks for describing the critical false feedback item ("loved to eat cooked asparagus" as a young child).

Part (b) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying the behavioral/attitudinal divergence (e.g., increase in FHI rating, willingness to pay more, higher preference).
- 1 mark for contrasting 'believers' directly with 'non-believers' (e.g., non-believers did not show these shifts).

(a) The positive reinforcement therapy was a behavioral intervention based on operant conditioning. The boy's mother provided praise, physical affection, and encouragement whenever the boy successfully completed gradual exposure tasks with buttons. The exposure was structured around a 9-point distress hierarchy (from looking at small plastic buttons to hugging his mother while she wore clothes with buttons). Sessions lasted between 20 and 30 minutes, and the boy was rewarded for coping with the buttons.

(b) Although the positive reinforcement therapy was successful in changing the boy's behavior (he was able to touch and handle buttons more easily), it did not reduce his subjective feelings of fear, disgust, and physical discomfort. This is because behavioral conditioning alone does not address evaluative learning—the cognitive associations of disgust and distress linked to the buttons. To fully resolve the phobia, cognitive-based imagery exposure was required to target the subjective feelings of disgust.

Part (a) [3.5 marks]:
- 1 mark for mentioning behavioral/operant conditioning using mother's reinforcement (praise/affection).
- 1 mark for mentioning the gradual exposure based on the 9-point distress hierarchy.
- 1 mark for describing exposure activities (e.g., touching buttons, hugging mother).
- 0.5 marks for procedural details (e.g., sessions of 20-30 minutes).

Part (b) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that behavioral therapy failed to reduce subjective fear/disgust/distress.
- 1 mark for explaining that it did not target evaluative learning / cognitive associations, which required imagery exposure.

(a) Children were pre-rated on four 5-point scales by a nursery teacher who knew them well and an experimenter who observed them. The scales assessed physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition (self-control). The ratings were summed to create an overall aggression score. Children with similar scores were grouped into triplets, and one child from each triplet was randomly assigned to the aggressive model, non-aggressive model, or control group.

(b) Matching the children was essential to control for participant variables (individual differences in baseline aggression). If one group had randomly ended up with naturally highly aggressive children, any higher post-experiment aggression in that group could have been due to pre-existing personality traits rather than the independent variable (observing the aggressive model), which would have compromised the internal validity of the experiment.

Part (a) [3.5 marks]:
- 1 mark for stating they were rated on four 5-point scales by a teacher and experimenter.
- 1 mark for listing the specific aggressive behaviors assessed (physical, verbal, inanimate, inhibition).
- 1 mark for describing the allocation process (triplets with similar scores split across the three groups).
- 0.5 marks for noting the random distribution from the triplets.

Part (b) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying the need to control participant variables / individual differences.
- 1 mark for explaining how this preserves internal validity (preventing pre-existing aggression from confounding the effect of the IV).

(a) Strength: The study asked about realistic foods, menus, and shopping preferences (e.g., pricing, choosing items on a restaurant menu) that reflect genuine, everyday decisions and consumer behaviors.
Weakness: The setting was highly artificial; participants completed paper questionnaires in a classroom/laboratory rather than dining in a real restaurant or choosing food in a supermarket. They did not smell, taste, or see the actual food, which limits how well these responses generalize to real-world eating decisions.

(b) One major ethical issue was deception, as participants were falsely told that their questionnaire responses had been analyzed by a computer program to generate a profile of childhood experiences, and they were misled about the true aim of the study. The researchers addressed this issue by fully debriefing all participants at the end of the study. During this debriefing, they explained the true nature of the experiment and revealed that the critical profile item ("loved asparagus") was completely fabricated.

Part (a) [3.5 marks]:
- 1.5 marks for explaining a strength with direct reference to the study (e.g., realistic items like menus, common food products, pricing choices).
- 1.5 marks for explaining a weakness with direct reference to the study (e.g., lack of real sensory experience, laboratory/questionnaire setting instead of actual dining environments).
- 0.5 marks for clear comparative structure / overall evaluation quality.

Part (b) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying the ethical issue of deception (false feedback/aim).
- 1 mark for explaining the corrective action (full debriefing explaining the fabrication and true study aim).

(a) The Feelings Thermometer was a 9-point self-report scale (ranging from 0 to 8, with 8 representing the highest level of distress). It was used to measure the boy's subjective ratings of distress towards different types of buttons to create a hierarchy of fear, and was also used to assess his level of distress during the exposure sessions.

(b) One strength of using the Feelings Thermometer is that it provides quantitative data. This allows researchers to make an objective, direct comparison of the boy's anxiety levels before, during, and after the therapy sessions. For example, it showed a clear numerical reduction in distress (such as ratings for touching buttons decreasing from an 8 to lower scores), proving the effectiveness of the behavioral intervention.

(a)
- 1 mark for describing the scale (e.g., a 9-point/0-8 self-report scale, where 8 is most distressing).
- 1 mark for describing its application (e.g., to create a hierarchy of fear/distress for different buttons, or to monitor distress during exposure therapy).

(b)
- 1 mark for identifying a valid strength (e.g., produces quantitative data, allows for easy comparison over time, highly reliable).
- 1 mark for explaining the strength (e.g., allows researchers to track whether the exposure therapy was successfully reducing distress levels).
- 1 mark for applying it directly to the study's context (e.g., referring to the boy rating different types of buttons or his scores decreasing from 8 over time).

### Model Answer

**Strengths:**
1. **Use of Qualitative Data (Named Issue):**
- *Description:* Saavedra and Silverman collected highly detailed qualitative data, such as the boy's description of how buttons fell on him in school and his subjective feelings of disgust and fear (e.g., describing buttons as smelling bad or feeling unpleasant).
- *Evaluation:* This is a strength because it provides rich, in-depth insight into the origin and nature of the boy's phobia. It allowed the researchers to understand *why* the phobia persisted, revealing that cognitive disgust, rather than just fear, was the driving force behind his avoidance behaviour.
2. **Ethical Considerations (Therapeutic Benefit):**
- *Description:* Although the boy was exposed to distressing stimuli (buttons) during exposure therapy, the primary goal was therapeutic intervention.
- *Evaluation:* This is a strength because the study was highly ethical in terms of the outcome; the boy and his mother gave informed consent, and the treatment successfully eliminated his phobia, significantly improving his quality of life and long-term well-being.

**Weaknesses:**
1. **Lack of Generalisability (Case Study Design):**
- *Description:* The study focused on a single participant—a 9-year-old Hispanic-American boy with a specific phobia of buttons.
- *Evaluation:* This is a weakness because the findings may not generalise to other individuals. A phobia of buttons is highly unusual, and a single child's response to imagery exposure and positive reinforcement may not represent how adults, girls, or individuals with different phobias (e.g., animal phobias) would respond to the same treatment.
2. **Subjectivity and Researcher Bias:**
- *Description:* The study relied heavily on self-report measures (the Distress Feelings Thermometer) and qualitative feedback from the boy.
- *Evaluation:* This is a weakness because the boy's ratings and descriptions might have been influenced by demand characteristics (e.g., wanting to please the researchers by reporting lower distress). Additionally, because researchers worked closely with the child over several sessions, they may have lost objectivity, interpreting his responses more optimistically than warranted.

### Marking Scheme (10 Marks)

**Level 4 (8–10 marks):**
- Evaluation is comprehensive, balanced (two strengths and two weaknesses), and shows excellent psychological understanding.
- The named issue (use of qualitative data) is clearly integrated and thoroughly discussed.
- Points are explicitly linked to Saavedra and Silverman's study throughout.

**Level 3 (5–7 marks):**
- Evaluation is reasonably balanced (e.g., 2 strengths/1 weakness or vice versa, or less detailed across all four points).
- The named issue is discussed, though maybe with less depth.
- Links to the study are mostly clear but may be brief in some areas.

**Level 2 (3–4 marks):**
- Evaluation is limited (e.g., only two points discussed, or highly imbalanced).
- The named issue may be omitted or poorly understood.
- Description of the study is present, but evaluation/analysis is weak.
- Max 4 marks if the named issue is not included.

**Level 1 (1–2 marks):**
- Fragmented or very basic points.
- Shows minimal understanding of the study or evaluation concepts.

**Level 0 (0 marks):**
- No response worthy of credit.