MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

Part A: Positive reinforcement was operationalized by providing highly preferred food rewards (specifically chopped bananas) to the juvenile Asian elephants immediately following a correct performance of a requested behavior (such as trunk-touching or foot lifting). A whistle was used as a secondary reinforcer (or bridge) to signal to the elephant that the behavior was correct and that a primary reward was coming. Part B: The findings are highly applicable to animal welfare and conservation. Specifically, using reward-based training allows zookeepers and mahouts to carry out essential medical procedures (such as taking blood samples or inspecting feet) with minimal stress to the elephants, eliminating the need for abusive traditional training practices.

Part A: 1 mark for identifying the primary reinforcer (chopped bananas/food reward) linked to correct behavior. 1 mark for identifying the secondary reinforcer/bridge (the whistle). Part B: 1 mark for identifying a practical real-world application (e.g., veterinary care, husbandry, or eliminating physical punishment). 1 mark for explaining how or why this application works (e.g., reduces stress, improves safety for both handlers and animals).

Part A: The learning criterion was set as the elephant successfully executing the requested target behavior in response to a verbal cue, without any physical guidance, on \(3\) consecutive trials. Part B: The target behaviors trained included: foot presentation (for foot care), trunk presentation (for trunk washes), ear presentation (for blood sampling), lay down, and turn around.

Part A: 1 mark for mentioning responding to verbal cues/no physical help. 1 mark for the specific accuracy standard (e.g., \(3\) consecutive successful trials). Part B: 1 mark for each correct target behavior listed (up to a maximum of \(2\) marks).

Part A: One problem was the forced-choice format of only two options (often opposites like sympathetic/unsympathetic), which led to a high chance of guessing correctly (a \(50\%\) guess rate). Another problem was the ceiling effect, where normal adults easily scored near-perfect because some items were too simple. Part B: In the original test, there were only \(2\) response options for each pair of eyes. In the revised test, this was increased to \(4\) response options (one target word and three foils).

Part A: 1 mark for explaining each problem identified with the original test (up to \(2\) marks). E.g., too few response choices/high guessing rate, ceiling effects, inclusion of basic emotions, or unequal gender ratio of photos. Part B: 1 mark for stating \(2\) options in the original test, 1 mark for stating \(4\) options in the revised test.

Part A: Group 1 consisted of \(15\) adult males diagnosed with either Asperger Syndrome (AS) or High-Functioning Autism (HFA). They had a mean age of \(29.7\) years and were recruited via advertisements in UK support groups or the National Autistic Society magazine. Part B: The AS/HFA group performed significantly worse than all other groups on the Eyes Test. Specifically, Group 1 scored an average of \(21.9\) out of \(36\), which was significantly lower than Group 2 (general population) who scored \(26.2\), and Group 3 (students) who scored \(28.0\).

Part A: 1 mark for specifying the clinical diagnosis (AS or HFA) and gender (all males). 1 mark for sample size (\(15\) participants) or recruitment detail. Part B: 1 mark for stating that Group 1 scored lower than control groups. 1 mark for providing supporting numerical data/means (e.g., \(21.9\) versus \(26.2\) or \(28.0\)).

Part A: Imagery exposure targeted the boy's cognitive disgust response. The boy was instructed to imagine buttons falling on him, and to imagine how they smelled and felt. Through this visualization, the therapist helped him perform cognitive restructuring, helping him substitute negative, disgust-related thoughts with pleasant or neutral thoughts. Part B: The qualitative improvement was shown by the dramatic decrease in his subjective distress ratings on the feelings thermometer. For instance, when imagining hundreds of buttons falling on him, his distress rating decreased from a peak of \(8\) down to \(5\), and finally to \(3\) by the end of the therapy.

Part A: 1 mark for mentioning visualization (imagining buttons falling/touching them). 1 mark for mentioning cognitive restructuring (replacing disgust thoughts with positive thoughts). Part B: 1 mark for indicating that his distress/fear levels went down. 1 mark for providing specific hierarchy ratings/numbers showing the decrease (e.g., from \(8\) to \(5\) or \(3\)).

Part A: The eye movement patterns recorded included: (1) mainly vertical eye movements, (2) mainly horizontal eye movements, (3) mixed (both vertical and horizontal) eye movements, and (4) little or no eye movement. Part B: Vertical movements were linked to dreams involving upward and downward physical actions (e.g., climbing a ladder, looking up at a cliff, or playing basketball). Horizontal movements were linked to dreams involving side-to-side actions (e.g., watching two people throwing tomatoes at each other).

Part A: 1 mark for each eye movement pattern identified (up to \(2\) marks). Part B: 1 mark for identifying a dream associated with a chosen pattern. 1 mark for describing the specific details of that dream (e.g., tomato fight for horizontal; ladder climbing/basketball for vertical).

Part A: Pre-rating was conducted to implement a matched-pairs design. By matching the children across the groups on baseline aggression, the researchers controlled for individual differences in personality, ensuring that one group did not naturally contain much more aggressive children than another, which would confound the results. Part B: A nursery school teacher and an experimenter, who both knew the children well, independently rated each child on four \(5-point\) rating scales. These scales measured: physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition.

Part A: 1 mark for matching groups/matched-pairs design. 1 mark for explaining that it controls for participant variables/individual differences in baseline aggression. Part B: 1 mark for identifying the raters (teacher and experimenter). 1 mark for describing the rating system (four \(5-point\) scales measuring physical/verbal aggression).

Part A: When the target was present, there was no significant difference in performance between the children and the adults. Both age groups were equally capable of making a correct identification of the target (whether it was a cartoon or human target). Part B: In target-absent trials, children had a significantly lower correct rejection rate than adults. Children felt more pressure to choose and thus made false positive selections (choosing a foil) rather than correctly identifying that the target was absent.

Part A: 1 mark for stating that children and adults performed similarly/no significant difference. 1 mark for specifying the context of identifying the target when present. Part B: 1 mark for stating that children were less successful/worse at correct rejections than adults. 1 mark for explaining that children tended to pick a foil/make a false positive choice.

To achieve 10 to 12 marks, candidates must provide a balanced evaluation showing excellent psychological knowledge and understanding.

- **Introduction**: Briefly outline the aim of Fagen et al.'s study (to test if positive reinforcement training could be used to train captive Asian elephants for veterinary care).
- **Ethics (Strength)**: Discuss the positive reinforcement training (PRT) vs. traditional methods. Note the avoidance of punishment, use of food rewards, and social housing.
- **Standardisation (Strength)**: Discuss how the use of secondary reinforcers (whistles), specific commands, and fixed session times (20 minutes) made the procedure highly replicable.
- **Sample size (Weakness)**: Detail how the sample of 5 young female Asian elephants limits generalisability to males or older elephants.
- **Ecological Validity (Weakness)**: Contrast the artificiality of the veterinary tasks with natural elephant behaviors.
- **Conclusion**: Provide a brief concluding thought on how the high ethical and internal validity of the study offsets its generalisability limitations.

**Marking Descriptors:**

- **Level 4 (10–12 marks):**
- Evaluation is comprehensive, balanced (two strengths and two weaknesses), and well-structured.
- Explicit, detailed, and accurate references are made to the Fagen et al. study.
- The mandatory issue (animal ethics) is discussed in detail with specific study details.
- The candidate demonstrates excellent understanding of methodological terms.

- **Level 3 (7–9 marks):**
- Evaluation is mostly balanced, but one point may lack depth.
- Good references are made to the Fagen et al. study, though some details may be missing.
- The mandatory issue is included and discussed appropriately.
- Demonstrates good psychological understanding.

- **Level 2 (4–6 marks):**
- Evaluation is limited; may only cover strengths or only weaknesses, or fail to address the mandatory issue (ethics) effectively.
- Descriptions of the study are basic or generalized.
- Understanding of methodological terms is weak or superficial.

- **Level 1 (1–3 marks):**
- Very little evaluation. Mostly descriptive of the study.
- Answer may be disorganized or contain major inaccuracies.
- Minimal or no reference to the mandatory issue.

Candidates are expected to structure their response around several evaluation points, with a mandatory focus on ecological validity. Point 1: Ecological validity (named issue). The training sessions occurred in a highly controlled, artificial setup within a sanctuary. While this represents a realistic scenario for captive husbandry training, it does not reflect how elephants learn or behave in their natural wild habitats. The tasks required (e.g., presenting feet, holding ears still) are not natural behaviours for survival, thus limiting ecological validity. Point 2: Reliability. The study utilised a highly standardised procedure with a clearly defined training manual, a whistle as a secondary reinforcer (bridge), and sliced bananas/tamarind as primary reinforcers. This strict standardisation ensures the study can be easily replicated to achieve consistent results. Point 3: Validity. The researchers used secondary observers to code video-recorded sessions, checking for inter-rater reliability. This helped reduce researcher bias and ensured that the recorded learning times and pass rates were highly objective and valid. Point 4: Ethics. Unlike traditional elephant training methods (which often rely on physical punishment and negative reinforcement), this study strictly used positive reinforcement (SPR). The elephants were kept chain-free and could choose to terminate the session at any time, protecting them from physical and psychological distress.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive, balanced, and demonstrates excellent understanding of Fagen et al. The candidate evaluates the study across multiple distinct areas, including a detailed and explicit discussion of ecological validity. Relevant examples from the study are used effectively to support points. Level 3 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is good, with some balanced strengths and weaknesses. Includes a discussion of ecological validity, though it may lack depth or specific detail. Psychological terminology is used appropriately. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Limited evaluation with basic points. The discussion of ecological validity is brief, superficial, or omitted. The candidate shows some knowledge of the study but struggles to apply it critically. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Superficial answer showing basic knowledge of the study but little to no coherent evaluation. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

To construct an appropriate directional hypothesis, the student must include both levels of the IV (trained vs untrained giraffes) and the direction of the effect on the DV (higher success rate of hoof-lifting). Operationalization of the IV requires defining the specific conditions: training with clicker/reinforcer vs a control group with standard husbandry. Animal ethics rules demand identifying a specific guideline (deprivation) and applying it to this scenario (not withholding normal feed).

(a) 1 mark for a correct directional hypothesis containing both levels of the IV and the DV.
(b) 1 mark for identifying the two levels of the IV (with training vs without/standard). 1 mark for operationalizing the training (positive reinforcement, clicker/apple).
(c) 1 mark for identifying an animal ethic (e.g., species-specific needs, food deprivation, housing). 1 mark for linking it directly to the giraffe study.

Test-retest reliability requires administering the same test twice to the same sample and correlating the results. Concurrent validity is established by comparing the results of the new test to a validated measure of the same construct (the Baron-Cohen et al. Revised Eyes Test) given at the same time. The recruitment method via an online flyer is a volunteer sample.

(a) 1 mark for administering the test twice to the same participants over an interval. 1 mark for mentioning correlating the two sets of scores.
(b) 1 mark for administering both the new and established tests to the same participants. 1 mark for stating that a high positive correlation between scores demonstrates concurrent validity.
(c) 1 mark for identifying volunteer/self-selected sampling.

Case studies are useful for clinical cases where detailed longitudinal insights are required. Qualitative data focuses on subjective experiences, descriptions, and words. Researcher bias occurs when the therapist becomes personally invested in the success of the treatment, losing objectivity.

(a) 1 mark for identifying a reason (e.g., detail, longitudinal tracking of a unique individual). 1 mark for applying it to the context of Leo/balloon phobia.
(b) 1 mark for identifying a qualitative method (e.g., interviews with open questions, diary entries). 1 mark for applying it to Leo's balloon phobia/feelings.
(c) 1 mark for explaining researcher bias in the context of the therapist-client relationship or subjective interpretation of progress.

The IV and DV must be clearly stated and measurable. Standardisation is based on the controls used in the original study by Dement and Kleitman (e.g., caffeine/alcohol ban, identical doorbell waking). Lab limitations focus on the artificiality of the setting affecting natural sleep behaviors.

(a) 1 mark for identifying the IV (REM duration, 5 vs 15 mins). 1 mark for identifying the DV (estimation of dream duration / choice of 5 vs 15 mins).
(b) 1 mark for stating a standard control (e.g., doorbell waking, avoiding caffeine/alcohol). 1 mark for explaining how this controls situational variables (e.g., standard sleep conditions, ensuring sleep onset is unaffected).
(c) 1 mark for a valid limitation linked to ecological validity, artificial setting, or disruption of normal sleep.

Structured observation requires behavior checklists/coding schemes to make observations systematic. Inter-rater reliability requires independent observers comparing their checklists and calculating a correlation coefficient. Naturalistic observation provides high ecological validity and realistic representations of behavior.

(a) 1 mark for defining structured observation (e.g., use of coding scheme/behavior checklist). 1 mark for applying it to aggressive playground behaviors (e.g., specifying behaviors like kicking/punching).
(b) 1 mark for having two observers code independently. 1 mark for correlating results / comparing checklists to check for consistency.
(c) 1 mark for a valid explanation of a practical benefit (e.g., high ecological validity, observing authentic social behavior).

A confederate is an accomplice of the experimenter. Addressing deception requires systematic debriefing to reveal the true purpose, correct any misconceptions, and return the participant to their baseline state. Obeying indicators include status/authority cues such as formal dress codes or institutional settings.

(a) 1 mark for defining a confederate (actor/stooge). 1 mark for applying to the study (delivering standard instructions as the senior consultant).
(b) 1 mark for identifying immediate debriefing. 1 mark for explaining what the debrief must contain (revealing the deception, explaining the true purpose, ensuring no actual harm occurred).
(c) 1 mark for a valid situational factor of authority (e.g., formal suit, clipboard, executive office setting).

The study design is repeated measures because participants are tested at two points in time. Its major advantage is controlling individual differences (participant variables). Extraneous variables in biological interventions often relate to baseline lifestyles or genetic differences that influence neuroplasticity.

(a) 1 mark for correctly identifying "repeated measures" (or "within-groups/within-subjects").
(b) 1 mark for identifying that it controls for participant variables/individual differences. 1 mark for applying to brain structure/baseline grey matter.
(c) 1 mark for identifying a relevant participant variable (prior meditation, stress, age, etc.). 1 mark for explaining how it could affect the DV (hippocampal gray matter change).

The independent variable is the age of the participants (a quasi-independent variable). Target-absent lineups are crucial controls to reveal bias toward choosing a suspect. Order effects from multiple trials are managed using counterbalancing.

(a) 1 mark for identifying the IV (participant age groups: children vs adults).
(b) 1 mark for defining a target-absent lineup (the target/culprit is not in the line-up). 1 mark for explaining its function as a control (measures the tendency to guess/falsely identify, isolating cognitive biases).
(c) 1 mark for identifying counterbalancing (ABBA design). 1 mark for describing how it works (half do A then B, half do B then A) to distribute practice/fatigue effects evenly.

(a) The independent variable (IV) is the variable manipulated by the researcher. In this scenario, Dr. Aris manipulates the type of reinforcement: positive reinforcement (food rewards) versus negative reinforcement (a loud buzzer). (b) Operationalising the dependent variable (DV) involves defining exactly how it is measured. Measuring the time in seconds taken to complete the maze is a highly objective and quantifiable way to operationalise learning speed. (c) Animal ethics guidelines dictate that researchers must minimise pain and distress. Since negative reinforcement uses an aversive stimulus (the loud buzzer), Dr. Aris must ensure this stimulus does not cause any permanent or severe distress to the goats, and that the sound is terminated as soon as possible.

(a) [1 mark total]: 1 mark for identifying the independent variable as the type of reinforcement (positive vs negative reinforcement). (b) [2 marks total]: 1 mark for identifying a relevant metric of learning (e.g., time or errors). 2 marks for a fully operationalised metric in context (e.g., measuring the exact time in seconds from when the goat is released until it exits the maze). (c) [2 marks total]: 1 mark for identifying a valid animal welfare guideline (e.g., avoiding pain and distress, species choice, food deprivation). 2 marks for applying this guideline directly to Dr. Aris's scenario (e.g., explaining that the loud buzzer used for negative reinforcement must not exceed safe decibel limits to avoid causing distress or acoustic harm to the goats).

Example Plan for a Laboratory Experiment:

1. **Aim**: To investigate whether the presence of a weapon in a video clip reduces the accuracy of suspect identification from a photo line-up.

2. **Variables**:
- **Independent Variable (IV)**: The object held by the suspect in a 1-minute video clip. This has two levels: a weapon condition (the suspect holds a visible silver handgun) and a control condition (the suspect holds a blue clipboard).
- **Dependent Variable (DV)**: The accuracy of identification from a simultaneous 6-photo line-up (recorded as 'Correct Identification', 'Incorrect Identification of a foil', or 'Incorrect False Positive/No-identification').

3. **Experimental Design**:
- **Independent measures design** is used. Participants are randomly allocated to either the weapon condition or the control condition. This avoids demand characteristics and practice/carry-over effects, as participants only view one video and perform one line-up task.

4. **Sample and Sampling Technique**:
- **Sampling Technique**: Volunteer sampling. Participants are recruited using flyers posted around a university campus and via social media advertisement.
- **Sample Details**: A sample of 80 adult participants (aged 18–45 years, with normal or corrected-to-normal vision) will be selected. They will be randomly divided into two equal groups of 40.

5. **Procedure & Controls**:
- Participants are tested individually in a quiet laboratory room.
- They watch a 1-minute video of a man entering a convenience store, interacting with a clerk, and leaving. In both videos, the perpetrator's face is clearly visible for exactly 15 seconds.
- After a 10-minute filler task (solving simple math puzzles to prevent immediate visual memory rehearsal), participants are shown a simultaneous line-up of 6 photos on a computer screen (comprising 1 suspect and 5 foils matching the physical description of the suspect).
- **Control 1**: The perpetrator wears identical clothing (black t-shirt and jeans) and moves in the exact same sequence in both video conditions.
- **Control 2**: The environmental factors, such as the computer screen size, screen brightness, and the 10-minute duration of the filler task, are strictly standardised for all participants.

6. **Data Analysis**:
- The data collected will be nominal (categorical: correct vs. incorrect identification).
- Data will be analysed by calculating the percentage of correct identifications in each condition.
- A Chi-Square (̇\(\chi^2\)) test of independence will be conducted to determine if there is a statistically significant association between the presence of a weapon and eyewitness identification accuracy.

Mark Scheme (10 marks total):

**Level 4 (9–10 marks)**:
- The design is highly appropriate, detailed, and fully replicable.
- All key aspects of the prompt are addressed: IV and DV are clearly operationalised, experimental design is justified, sampling method is defined, at least two controls are specified, and a valid data analysis plan is provided.

**Level 3 (7–8 marks)**:
- The design is mostly appropriate with reasonable detail and is largely replicable.
- Most key aspects of the prompt are addressed, though some minor details (such as specific operationalisation or controls) may lack depth.

**Level 2 (4–6 marks)**:
- The design has some appropriate features but lacks detail. It is difficult to fully replicate.
- Several key aspects are missing or described very briefly (e.g., sample method or controls are vague).

**Level 1 (1–3 marks)**:
- Basic design with very limited psychological terminology. Major gaps in structure or methodology.

**Accept/Reject Guidelines**:
- Reject designs that are not laboratory experiments (e.g., naturalistic observations or field experiments without controlled variables).
- Accept any realistic sampling method (volunteer, opportunity, random) as long as it is described in the context of the study.
- Controls must be explicitly linked to improving the reliability or validity of the identification task.

One ethical issue is a lack of informed consent/privacy, as the children are being observed without their active awareness or immediate consent during the observation period.

To resolve this, the researcher must obtain prior written informed consent from the children's parents or guardians before the study begins, explaining that they will be observed through a one-way mirror, and assuring them of their right to withdraw their child's data at any point.

1 mark for identifying/explaining the ethical issue (e.g., lack of informed consent or invasion of privacy due to covert observation of minors).
1 mark for suggesting a viable resolution (e.g., obtaining prior parental consent, or briefing parents and children and allowing them to opt out).

One potential extraneous variable is the participant's baseline vocabulary or comprehension of the complex emotion terms used in the Eyes Test. If some participants do not understand words like 'insisting' or 'imploring', their score will reflect language ability rather than mind-reading ability.

To control for this, the researcher could provide all participants with a standardized glossary defining each emotion word, allowing them to consult it at any point during the test.

1 mark for identifying a relevant extraneous variable in this context (e.g., participant's baseline vocabulary, natural eyesight/vision clarity, or natural differences in sleep/fatigue before entering the lab).
1 mark for explaining a clear, realistic control measure appropriate to the identified variable (e.g., providing a glossary, pre-screening for normal/corrected vision, or requiring participants to sleep a standardized number of hours the night before).