MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

To measure rapid eye movement (REM) sleep, Dement and Kleitman attached two or more electrodes near the outer canthi (corners) of the participant's eyes. These electrodes recorded changes in electrical potential caused by eye movements, sending this data to an electroencephalograph (EEG) machine in the adjacent room.

1 mark for stating that electrodes were attached near the eyes/corners of the eyes. 1 mark for mentioning that these electrodes were connected to a recording machine/electroencephalograph (EEG/EOG) to capture eye movements.

Participants in Dement and Kleitman's study were instructed to eat normally during the day of the experiment. However, they were specifically requested to avoid drinking alcohol and to avoid drinking beverages containing caffeine (e.g., coffee, tea, cola) on the day of the study.

1 mark for avoiding alcohol. 1 mark for avoiding caffeine (or specific caffeinated drinks like coffee/tea/cola). Note: Do not accept 'eat normally' as a standalone instruction unless contrasted with avoiding substances.

In the final observation room (Room 3), the researchers placed both aggressive and non-aggressive toys. The aggressive toys included a 3-foot Bobo doll, a mallet, peg board, two dart guns, and a tether ball with a face painted on it.

1 mark for each aggressive toy identified, up to a maximum of 2 marks. Acceptable toys: Bobo doll (3 feet tall), mallet, dart guns (two), tether ball (with face painted on it). Reject: general non-aggressive toys (e.g., tea set, crayons, plastic farm animals).

Prior to the experiment, the children were rated on their physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition (self-control) using 5-point rating scales. These ratings were completed by a nursery teacher and one of the experimenters who knew the children. The scores were summed, and children were matched in triplets of similar aggression levels before being randomly assigned to the experimental and control groups.

1 mark for explaining that they were rated on 5-point scales measuring aggression types (or by a teacher/experimenter). 1 mark for explaining that they were grouped into triplets (or matched based on these scores) to ensure even distribution across groups.

Laboratory experiments allow for a high level of control over extraneous variables, which increases the internal validity of the study. For example, in Andrade's study on doodling, all participants were tested in a quiet room and listened to the exact same audio tape recorded at a standard volume. This controlled for external distractions and differences in message delivery, ensuring that differences in recall scores were due to the independent variable (doodling vs. not doodling).

1 mark for identifying a general advantage of lab experiments (e.g., control of extraneous variables, high standardization, replication ease). 1 mark for linking this advantage clearly to an example from a cognitive approach study (e.g., Andrade's doodling task or Baron-Cohen's eyes test conditions).

Quantitative data is numerical and allows for statistical analysis, such as counting the frequency or duration of behaviors. An example from Dement and Kleitman is the duration of REM sleep in minutes. Qualitative data is descriptive, subjective, and rich in detail. An example from Dement and Kleitman is the verbal descriptions and content of the dreams recalled by participants when awakened.

1 mark for explaining the difference between quantitative (numerical) and qualitative (descriptive/narrative) data. 1 mark for providing accurate examples of both types of data from a biological study (such as Dement and Kleitman's study).

The ethical guideline of protection from psychological harm states that researchers must ensure participants do not experience distress, embarrassment, or anxiety during a study. In Milgram's study on obedience, this guideline was violated because participants experienced extreme stress, tension, and physical manifestations of anxiety (such as sweating, trembling, and in some cases, seizures) because they believed they were administering painful and potentially lethal electric shocks to an innocent person.

1 mark for explaining the ethical guideline of protection from psychological harm. 1 mark for applying this to a social approach study (e.g., Milgram's participants experiencing severe anxiety/stress, or Piliavin's subway participants witnessing a collapse without immediate debriefing).

Demand characteristics occur when participants pick up on subtle cues (such as the instructions, setup, or researcher's behavior) that suggest the hypothesis or purpose of the study. This causes them to change their natural behavior to match what they believe is expected of them. Researchers can reduce demand characteristics by using a single-blind procedure (where participants are unaware of the condition they are in or the true hypothesis) or by using deception regarding the true purpose of the experiment.

1 mark for defining 'demand characteristics' (cues that reveal the aim of the study, causing participants to alter behavior). 1 mark for describing a method to reduce them (e.g., single-blind design, double-blind design, or using deception/filler tasks).

Prior to arriving at the laboratory: Participants were instructed to eat normally during the day of the experiment (to control for metabolic changes). They were also told to avoid drinking alcohol and caffeine-containing beverages (like coffee, tea, or cola) on the day of the study because these substances can alter normal sleep patterns and REM cycles. Before going to sleep: Electrodes were attached to the participant's scalp and near their eyes to measure brain waves and eye movements. The electrical wires were gathered into a single cord to prevent entanglement. Participants were told they would be awakened by a doorbell during the night and must state immediately into a recording device whether they had been dreaming, and if so, describe the content of the dream.

Award 1 mark for each relevant point described, up to a maximum of 4 marks. Points can include: Prior to arriving: - Avoid caffeine on the day of the study (1 mark) - Avoid alcohol on the day of the study (1 mark) - Eat normally (1 mark). Before going to sleep: - Have electrodes attached to scalp / near eyes (1 mark) - Sleep in a dark, quiet room (1 mark) - Speak into a recording device upon awakening (1 mark) - State whether they had been dreaming or not (1 mark).

Way 1: The model's behavior was scripted and uniform. In the aggressive condition, the model always spent 1 minute playing quietly with tinker toys, and then for 9 minutes performed a standardized sequence of physical and verbal aggression on the Bobo doll. This ensured that every child in that condition observed the exact same aggressive acts. Way 2: The layout and toys provided in the experimental rooms were identical. For example, in the observation room (Room 3), the same aggressive toys (e.g., Bobo doll, mallet, dart guns) and non-aggressive toys (e.g., tea set, crayons, plastic farm animals) were always arranged in the exact same positions to control for toy accessibility.

For each way explained: 1 mark for identifying/describing the standardization. 1 mark for explaining/detailing how it was applied in the study (linking it to the methodology of Bandura et al.). Maximum 2 marks per way, up to 4 marks total. Acceptable ways include: - Scripted model behavior (1 mark) + specific detail of physical or verbal aggression (1 mark). - Fixed duration of phases (1 mark) + detail of the 2-minute mild aggression arousal phase (1 mark). - Identical room layouts/toys (1 mark) + specific detail of aggressive and non-aggressive toy placement (1 mark).

If Structured observation is chosen: Strength: Using a predefined coding checklist (e.g., ticking boxes when a shopper helps carry bags or picks up dropped items) makes data collection highly objective and efficient. It also allows multiple observers to achieve high inter-rater reliability. Weakness: It is rigid. If a unique or unexpected helping behavior occurs (e.g., helping someone find a lost child), it may not fit the categories on the sheet and might be ignored or misclassified, reducing the validity of the study. If Unstructured observation is chosen: Strength: It provides rich, qualitative details about help-seeking and helping behaviors, capturing the full context and unexpected behaviors. Weakness: It is difficult to record everything happening in a busy shopping mall without a checklist, which can lead to observer bias as the researcher subjective decides what is worth recording.

1 mark for identifying the type of observation (structured or unstructured). 2 marks for explaining one strength (1 mark general strength, 1 mark applied to the shopping mall context). 2 marks for explaining one weakness (1 mark general weakness, 1 mark applied to the shopping mall context). Maximum 4 marks total. No marks can be awarded for strengths/weaknesses of a type of observation that was not identified.

Strength of quantitative data: It allows for objective statistical analysis and comparisons. In Dement and Kleitman, researchers collected numerical data on REM duration and dream estimation accuracy (5 or 15 minutes), which minimized researcher bias and made it easy to establish a correlation. Strength of qualitative data: It provides deep, descriptive insight into experiences. By asking participants to describe their dreams in detail upon waking, the researchers could map the qualitative content of the dream (e.g., climbing a ladder, throwing tomatoes) to physical eye movements recorded by the EOG, which numbers alone could not show.

For quantitative strength: 1 mark for a general strength of quantitative data (e.g., high objectivity, easy to compare). 1 mark for linking this strength directly to Dement and Kleitman (e.g., measuring REM sleep duration in minutes or counting words). For qualitative strength: 1 mark for a general strength of qualitative data (e.g., detailed, explains meaning). 1 mark for linking this strength directly to Dement and Kleitman (e.g., gathering detailed descriptions of dream narratives to match with EOG eye movements). Total: 4 marks.

Candidates should structure their evaluation around at least three of the specified points. First, regarding quantitative and qualitative data, a major strength is that collecting both types allows for a more complete understanding. Quantitative data, such as estimating dream duration of 5 or 15 minutes or EEG readings, provides objective, statistical evidence that is easy to compare. Qualitative data, like subjective descriptions of dream content (e.g., throwing tomatoes), helps explain the meaning behind the quantitative associations. However, qualitative data can be subjective and harder to compare. Second, regarding generalisability, the sample was extremely small (9 participants in total, with only 5 studied in detail), which makes it difficult to generalise the findings to the wider population. Also, sleep patterns in a laboratory setting might not represent those of the general population under normal conditions. Third, regarding scientific equipment and laboratory controls, the high level of control (e.g., avoiding alcohol and caffeine, sleep in a quiet room, waking by a doorbell) minimises extraneous variables and establishes a clear cause-and-effect relationship. Use of objective EEG and EOG measures eliminates demand characteristics. However, sleeping in a laboratory setting with electrodes attached is highly artificial, lowering ecological validity. Fourth, regarding ethical issues, confidentiality was maintained and informed consent was obtained, but participants were repeatedly woken up throughout the night (sleep deprivation), which could cause distress, potentially violating protection from harm.

Level 4 (11-14 marks): Evaluation is detailed and balanced, showing excellent understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the study. At least three of the specified issues are discussed in depth. Explicit and accurate examples from the Dement and Kleitman study are used throughout. Structure is logical and the argument is coherent. Level 3 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is reasonably detailed, showing good understanding. At least two of the specified issues are discussed in reasonable depth, or three are discussed shallowly. Appropriate examples from the study are used. Structure is mostly clear. Level 2 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is limited or basic, showing some understanding. One or two issues are discussed, or the discussion is superficial. Few or weak examples from the study are used. Lacks a balanced argument or a clear structure. Level 1 (1-4 marks): Description of the study rather than evaluation, or very basic evaluative comments. Minimal or no references to the specified issues. Very weak or absent examples. Poorly structured. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Candidates should structure their evaluation around at least three of the specified points. First, regarding validity, the study has high internal validity due to highly controlled laboratory environment with standardized procedures (e.g., identical toys, exact modeling actions of the aggressive model). This allowed researchers to be confident that the independent variable caused the change in the dependent variable. However, it has low ecological validity due to the artificial setting. Children were exposed to an adult behaving aggressively toward a plastic Bobo doll, which does not represent real-life interpersonal aggression. Second, regarding ethical issues involving children, protection from harm was violated as children were deliberately frustrated and exposed to aggressive models, potentially leading to psychological distress or long-term aggressive behavior. Also, young children (aged 3-6) cannot give informed consent themselves. Third, regarding quantitative and qualitative data, the study collected both. Quantitative data (tallies of aggressive acts in 5-second intervals over 20 minutes) allowed for easy statistical comparison between groups. Qualitative data (transcribed verbal comments from children, such as 'that is not the way for a lady to behave') provided insight into how children interpreted the gender roles of the models. Fourth, regarding nature versus nurture, the study strongly supports the nurture side by showing aggression can be acquired through social learning. However, it also highlights potential nature influences, such as boys being consistently more physically aggressive than girls across conditions, pointing to possible biological differences.

Level 4 (11-14 marks): Evaluation is detailed and balanced, showing excellent understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of the study. At least three of the specified issues are discussed in depth. Explicit and accurate examples from the Bandura et al. study are used throughout. Structure is logical and the argument is coherent. Level 3 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is reasonably detailed, showing good understanding. At least two of the specified issues are discussed in reasonable depth, or three are discussed shallowly. Appropriate examples from the study are used. Structure is mostly clear. Level 2 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is limited or basic, showing some understanding. One or two issues are discussed, or the discussion is superficial. Few or weak examples from the study are used. Lacks a balanced argument or a clear structure. Level 1 (1-4 marks): Description of the study rather than evaluation, or very basic evaluative comments. Minimal or no references to the specified issues. Very weak or absent examples. Poorly structured. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

1 mark: Definition of 'covert' (e.g., participants are unaware they are being observed). 1 mark: Definition of 'observation' (e.g., watching/recording behaviour). Example: An observation where participants do not know they are being watched or studied.

1 mark: basic definition of one component (either the 'covert' aspect or 'observation' aspect). 2 marks: full definition linking both components clearly. Accept: definitions mentioning hidden cameras or one-way mirrors as ways to hide the observer. Reject: definitions of 'overt' (where participants know they are being observed).

1 mark: understanding that participants identify clues/aims of the study. 1 mark: understanding that this leads to a change in participant behaviour. Example: These are cues in an experiment that lead participants to guess the hypothesis and then change their behaviour to match or oppose it.

1 mark: partial definition (e.g., when participants guess the aim). 2 marks: full definition showing the link between guessing the aim and altering behaviour. Accept: mentions of please-u or screw-you effects. Reject: definitions of social desirability bias on its own.

1 mark: explanation of what the instructions are (e.g., identical directions given to all participants). 1 mark: explanation of the purpose (e.g., to ensure consistency/standardisation of procedure). Example: Directions given to all participants that are written down and read out in exactly the same way to ensure consistency.

1 mark: partial definition (e.g., instructions that are the same for everyone). 2 marks: full definition highlighting both the nature (identical/same) and purpose (for consistency, control, or replication).

1 mark: refers to generalising/representing findings outside the study. 1 mark: refers specifically to real life / natural environments. Example: The degree to which the results of an investigation can be generalised to real-world, natural settings.

1 mark: partial definition (e.g., how realistic a study is). 2 marks: clear explanation linking generalisation of findings to real-world environments. Reject: definitions that only define mundane realism without mentioning validity or generalisation.

1 mark: identifies them as individual characteristics of the participants. 1 mark: explains that these can affect the DV / act as confounding/extraneous variables. Example: These are individual characteristics of participants (like personality or age) that can influence the results of the experiment if they are not controlled.

1 mark: partial definition or list of examples of participant characteristics. 2 marks: complete definition explaining that these characteristics can affect the performance/DV/results. Accept: specific examples (e.g., IQ, memory capacity, mood) as part of the description.

1 mark: refers to two or more researchers/observers/raters. 1 mark: refers to consistency/agreement in their measurements/scores. Example: This is the degree of agreement or consistency between two or more different observers when they are scoring the same behaviour.

1 mark: partial definition (e.g., how much two observers agree). 2 marks: full definition linking the presence of multiple observers with consistency/agreement in recording or scoring. Accept: references to checking reliability by correlating the scores of the raters.

(a) 1 mark for identifying the IV (caffeine vs no caffeine/placebo). 1 mark for operationalising it (e.g., specific amount/type of drink and timing). (b) 1 mark for identifying an ethical issue relevant to caffeine/sleep (e.g., protection from harm/discomfort, informed consent). 1 mark for applying it specifically to the context (e.g., caffeine causing sleep disruption, anxiety, or withdrawal, or needing to warn them about sleep disturbance). (c) 1 mark for explaining the use of a repeated measures design (each participant acts as their own control, reducing individual differences in sleep/dreaming patterns). 1 mark for explaining counterbalancing (AB/BA order) to prevent order/fatigue effects from overnight testing.

(a) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: The IV is whether caffeine is consumed or not. 2 marks: The IV is whether caffeine is consumed or not, operationalised as drinking either 250ml of a caffeinated energy drink or 250ml of water/decaffeinated drink 30 minutes before sleep. (b) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: Protection from harm is an issue because caffeine can cause health issues. 2 marks: Protection from harm is an issue because caffeine can disrupt normal sleep cycles, causing insomnia or fatigue the next day. Dr Aris must ensure participants are aware of this risk and pre-screen them for health issues. (c) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: Use counterbalancing to deal with order effects. 2 marks: Since every participant does both conditions, natural variations in dream recall are controlled. Dr Aris must counterbalance the order (e.g., half do caffeine first, half do placebo first) to control for order/boredom effects across the two nights.

(a) 1 mark for a directional hypothesis or an incomplete non-directional hypothesis. 2 marks for a fully operationalised non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis featuring both conditions of the IV and the DV. (b) 1 mark for stating a disadvantage (e.g., artificial environment, low ecological validity, demand characteristics). 1 mark for applying it directly to the context of children observing aggression and acting on it in a lab. (c) 1 mark for a generic definition of imitative physical aggression. 2 marks for operationalising it with specific, observable behaviours directly copied from the model (e.g., hitting a toy with a mallet or tossing it).

(a) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: There will be a difference in aggression between children watching live or filmed models. 2 marks: There will be a significant difference in the frequency of imitative physical aggressive acts shown by children when exposed to a live adult model compared to a filmed adult model on a tablet. (b) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: The laboratory setting has low ecological validity. 2 marks: The laboratory setting has low ecological validity because playing alone in a strange room with a toy doll is an artificial situation, meaning the child's aggressive behavior may not represent how they behave in a natural setting like a school playground. (c) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: Measuring how many times they copy the physical aggression of the model. 2 marks: Tallying the number of times a child performs specific acts that copy the model, such as hitting the Bobo doll on the nose with a mallet or sitting on it and punching it.

(a) 1 mark for training observers or defining categories. 1 mark for explaining the comparison/correlation of independent data sets (e.g., calculating a correlation coefficient or percentage agreement). (b) 1 mark for a valid strength of non-participant observation in this context. 1 mark for a valid weakness of non-participant observation in this context. (c) 1 mark for identifying a benefit of structured observations (e.g., consistency, quantitative data). 1 mark for contrasting it with unstructured observation in this context (e.g., reducing subjectivity, preventing overload of information).

(a) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: The observers should use the same coding sheet and compare their results. 2 marks: The observers must be trained using the same operationalised coding scheme. They should record the same play session independently, and their results should be correlated using a statistical test (seeking a correlation of 0.80 or higher) to ensure consistency. (b) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: A strength is that the observer won't bias the children's play. A weakness is they might not hear what they are saying. 2 marks: Strength: Non-participant observation means the researcher does not disrupt the play, increasing ecological validity as children behave naturally. Weakness: The observer may be too far away to understand the context of the play or hear specific verbal interactions, reducing the validity of the data. (c) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: It produces quantitative data which is easier to compare. 2 marks: A structured observation ensures observers record specific cooperative actions (like sharing a bucket), which reduces subjectivity and makes data analysis straightforward, whereas unstructured observations are qualitative and more prone to observer bias.

(a) 1 mark for identifying the DV (helping behaviour/speed). 1 mark for operationalising it quantitatively (e.g., measuring time in seconds using a stopwatch). (b) 1 mark for defining demand characteristics/how they occur in labs. 1 mark for explaining why they are reduced in a natural/covert field setting. (c) 1 mark for identifying a practical issue (e.g., crowd size, noise, ethical issues, inability to replicate conditions precisely). 1 mark for applying it specifically to the busy train station scenario.

(a) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: The DV is how fast someone helps. 2 marks: The DV is the speed of helping, measured quantitatively as the time in seconds (using a stopwatch) from when the papers drop until a bystander begins to help. (b) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: In a lab, people know they are being studied so they act differently. 2 marks: In a field experiment, commuters are in their natural environment and are unaware they are in an experiment. Therefore, they cannot guess the hypothesis or alter their behaviour to act more helper-like (reducing demand characteristics). (c) [2 marks total]: 1 mark: The station might get too crowded. 2 marks: A practical problem is the difficulty in controlling crowd density. During rush hour, the station will be much busier, making it hard for bystanders to physically stop and help, or even see the dropped papers, which confounds the results.

### Model Response

**Part (a): Design of the Laboratory Experiment**
* **Hypothesis and Design:** This study will use an independent measures design. The Independent Variable (IV) is whether the adult model is of the same gender as the child (Condition 1: Same-Gender Model) or the opposite gender (Condition 2: Opposite-Gender Model).
* **Sample:** A sample of 40 children (20 boys, 20 girls) aged 4 to 5 years will be recruited via volunteer sampling from local nurseries. Children will be randomly allocated to either the same-gender model condition or the opposite-gender model condition (20 children in each, balanced for participant gender).
* **Procedure:**
1. Each child is brought individually into a controlled lab playroom by the experimenter. The room contains a small table with a box of 10 shiny stickers and two boxes: one labeled 'My Box' and another labeled 'Other Children'.
2. An adult model (male or female, acting as the role model) enters and sits at the table. The model is given 10 stickers of their own and says, 'Look at these lovely stickers. I think I will share some with children who don't have any.'
3. Under a highly standardised script, the model counts out exactly 5 stickers and places them in the 'Other Children' box, and 5 in 'My Box'.
4. The model then leaves the room. The experimenter gives the child their own set of 10 stickers and says, 'Here are some stickers for you. I have to step out for a minute; you can do whatever you like with them.' The child is left alone for 3 minutes.
* **Controls:** The room layout, the exact toys/boxes, the verbal script used by the model, the duration of the observation (3 minutes), and the attractive qualities of the stickers are fully standardised across all conditions.
* **Data Collection:** A one-way mirror is used to observe the child's behaviour. The number of stickers the child places in the 'Other Children' box is recorded.

**Part (b): Operationalisation and Practical Issue**
* **Operationalisation:** The dependent variable 'pro-social sharing' is operationalised as the exact number of stickers (from 0 to 10) that the child voluntarily places into the designated 'Other Children' box during the 3-minute lone period.
* **Practical Issue:** One key practical issue is the high likelihood of individual differences in sharing tendencies, or the child's level of comprehension of the task. Children aged 4–5 have varying levels of social development and may not fully grasp that the box represents sharing with others, or they may simply be distracted by the physical properties of the stickers. This could mean we are measuring playfulness or distraction rather than genuine pro-social imitation, reducing the construct validity of the measure.

**Part (c): Ethical Issues and Solutions**
* **Informed Consent:** Young children cannot legally provide consent. To address this, full written informed consent must be obtained from the children's parents or legal guardians beforehand, detailing the nature of the observation. Additionally, the researcher must gain verbal assent from the child on the day of testing, ensuring they are happy to play the sticker game.
* **Protection from Harm:** Children may experience distress, anxiety, or guilt if they feel pressured to share or if they think they are being evaluated. To address this, the procedure will be presented purely as a fun game. Crucially, at the end of the session, children will be warmly praised and allowed to keep all 10 of their stickers regardless of whether they shared them or not, preventing any feelings of loss or negative self-evaluation. If a child shows any signs of distress or crying during the observation, the trial will be terminated immediately.

### Part (a) [10 marks]
* **9–10 marks:** Detailed, logical description. The IV and DV are clearly identified and operationalised. The design (e.g., independent measures) is appropriate. Control measures are explicit. The procedure is fully replication-ready.
* **6–8 marks:** Good description. Main features of the design are clear, but some minor procedural details or controls are missing.
* **3–5 marks:** Basic description. The study is recognisable as an experiment, but lacks essential controls, details of sampling, or operationalisation.
* **1–2 marks:** Weak/vague outline of a study with minimal experimental structure.

### Part (b) [6 marks]
* **3 marks (Operationalisation):** 1 mark for basic definition; 2–3 marks for a clear, measurable quantitative definition (e.g., number of stickers/tokens shared out of a set total).
* **3 marks (Practical Issue):** 1 mark for identifying a plausible issue (e.g., demand characteristics, attention span, pre-existing sharing habits); 2–3 marks for explaining how this impacts the study's validity or reliability.

### Part (c) [8 marks]
* **4 marks (Informed Consent):** 1–2 marks for identifying consent issues with minors; 3–4 marks for explaining parent/guardian written consent and child verbal assent protocols.
* **4 marks (Protection from Harm):** 1–2 marks for identifying potential distress/guilt; 3–4 marks for detailing mitigation strategies (e.g., standard play context, rewarding the child with stickers at the end regardless of sharing behavior, immediate withdrawal if distressed).