MetadataPastPaper.sampleTitle

Before viewing the cartoon line-up, each child and adult was told that the person who took the toy 'may or may not' be in the line-up to prevent forced-choice errors. They were also instructed to point to the blank silhouette box representing 'not there' if they did not recognize the cartoon target.

1 mark for stating that participants were told the target 'may or may not' be there. 1 mark for stating they were instructed to choose the 'not there' box if the target was absent.

In target-absent conditions, children struggled to correctly state that the target was not present. They showed a lower rate of correct rejection compared to adults and were far more likely to make a false identification by picking a foil/innocent lookalike.

1 mark: Stating children were less likely to correctly reject the target-absent line-up than adults. 1 mark: Stating children made more false identifications than adults when the target was absent.

The Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS) was used to measure the child's rating of fear/disgust on a scale of 0 to 8 during sessions where he imagined buttons falling on him or touching them. This quantified his progress and evaluated whether cognitive imagery self-control strategies decreased his distress.

1 mark: Identifying that the SUDS scale (0-8) was used to measure subjective fear, disgust, or distress. 1 mark: Describing its application during imagery exposure (e.g., imagining buttons falling on him) to track changes in distress.

To control for individual differences in baseline aggression, the nursery school teacher and an experimenter who knew the children well rated them on four 5-point scales. The components included physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition. They were then matched in triplets of comparable aggression levels and randomly allocated to groups.

1 mark: Stating they were rated on 5-point scales by their nursery school teacher and an experimenter. 1 mark: Stating they were rated on specific types of aggression (physical, verbal, objects, inhibition) or matched in triplets and randomly distributed.

The computerized CID task presented a central figure representing the participant. An animated avatar (friend, stranger, partner, or ball) walked toward the center from one of eight directions. The participant was instructed to press the spacebar to stop the approaching figure at the point they would start to feel uncomfortable with its proximity.

1 mark: Describing the visual display (schematic figure representing the participant in the center with an approaching figure/object). 1 mark: Describing the response required (pressing the spacebar to stop the figure when it became uncomfortable).

Participants in the Dement and Kleitman study were instructed to refrain from drinking caffeinated beverages (which are stimulants) and alcohol (which is a depressant) on the day of the study. This served as a control to prevent these substances from altering natural sleep/dream cycles.

1 mark: Avoid drinking alcohol. 1 mark: Avoid drinking caffeine / caffeinated drinks.

In Andrade's study, the monitoring task score was computed by counting the correct names of the party-goers written down. Any false alarms (names written down that were not on the recording, or places written down under the name category) were subtracted from this count to yield the final score.

1 mark: Stating it counted the correct names of the party-goers written down. 1 mark: Stating it subtracted false alarms (incorrect names/places).

Milgram obtained his sample of 40 males by placing an advertisement in a New Haven newspaper asking for volunteers to participate in a study on memory and learning. He also sent direct mail invitations to local residents to recruit a wide variety of occupations and ages.

1 mark: Stating they placed an advertisement in a local newspaper. 1 mark: Stating they sent out direct mail / letters to addresses in the community.

The researchers compared two different methods of presenting faces to participants: the simultaneous line-up, where all faces are shown at the same time, and the sequential line-up, where faces are shown one by one.

1 mark for identifying 'simultaneous' line-up. 1 mark for identifying 'sequential' line-up.

During the recognition phase, participants were exposed to two types of line-ups. In the target-present condition, the person they had seen in the video (the target/culprit) was physically present in the set of faces shown. In the target-absent condition, the actual target was omitted entirely and replaced with a foil, meaning all faces shown were distractors.

1 mark for explaining target-present (target/culprit is included). 1 mark for explaining target-absent (target/culprit is not included/replaced by a foil).

Expectancy learning is a form of classical conditioning where an individual learns to expect a negative outcome or danger as a consequence of the stimulus. In contrast, evaluative learning occurs when the individual associates the stimulus with a cognitive-evaluative state (such as disgust or dislike) rather than anticipating an objective physical threat.

1 mark for defining expectancy learning (expectation of negative consequence/outcome). 1 mark for defining evaluative learning (disgusted/negative evaluation of the stimulus itself).

To ensure that all children experienced a state of frustration/arousal before the observation phase, they were taken to Room 2 and allowed to play with attractive toys (e.g., a spinning top, doll's wardrobe). After about 2 minutes, the experimenter intervened and told the child that these were her very best toys and she was saving them for the other children to play with.

1 mark for describing the initial play phase (allowing the child to play with highly attractive/desirable toys). 1 mark for describing the deprivation phase (taking the toys away / saying they are reserved for other children).

The Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm was presented on a computer screen. Participants were instructed to imagine themselves at the center of a room. They watched a digital figure (representing a friend, a stranger, an authority figure, or an object) approach them from different angles and had to press the spacebar to stop the figure at the point where they would begin to feel uncomfortable with its proximity.

1 mark for describing the computerized simulation setup (imagining themselves in the center while figures approach). 1 mark for describing the participant action (pressing a key/spacebar to stop the figure when feeling uncomfortable).

Although the machine is generally referred to as an EEG, electrodes were placed near the participant's eyes to record eye movements (electrooculography, EOG) to detect REM sleep, and on the scalp to record brain wave activity (electroencephalography, EEG) to monitor sleep depth.

1 mark for identifying brain wave activity (EEG / brain waves / sleep stages). 1 mark for identifying eye movement activity (EOG / eye movements / REM).

Participants in the doodling condition were given a pencil and a sheet of paper with alternating rows of squares and circles. They were instructed to shade in these shapes while listening to the telephone message. The experimenter explicitly told them that it did not matter how neatly or quickly they shaded them in, as it was just a method to relieve boredom.

1 mark for specifying the physical action (shading in the printed shapes/squares/circles). 1 mark for mentioning the instructions regarding quality/reason (neatness or speed did not matter / to relieve boredom).

In Milgram's standard setup, the learner did not provide any verbal feedback until high shock levels. At \(300\) volts, the learner pounded heavily on the wall of the room, which could be heard by the teacher. After the \(315\)-volt shock was administered, the pounding on the wall was repeated, and from that point onward, the learner no longer responded to questions and fell completely silent.

1 mark for describing the feedback at \(300\) volts (pounding/kicking on the wall). 1 mark for describing the feedback at \(315\) volts and beyond (repeated pounding followed by absolute silence/no further responses).

The Feelings Thermometer was a 9-point scale (ranging from 0 to 8) used as a self-report measure of distress/fear. A score of 0 represented no distress/fear, and a score of 8 represented the maximum distress/fear. The boy used this scale to rate his emotional reaction to various types of buttons (e.g., small plastic buttons) during the behavioral exposure and imagery sessions.

1 mark for identifying the structure of the scale (e.g., 9-point scale ranging from 0 to 8).
1 mark for describing its application or what the points represented (e.g., higher ratings/8 represented maximum distress, while lower ratings represented less distress; used to rate fear of different buttons).

To control for individual differences in pre-existing aggression, a nursery teacher and a female experimenter (who knew the children well) rated each child on four 5-point scales (measuring physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggression inhibition). The children were then grouped into triplets with similar aggression ratings, and one child from each triplet was randomly assigned to each of the three experimental groups (aggressive model, non-aggressive model, or control group).

1 mark for describing the assessment/rating of pre-existing aggression (e.g., rated on four 5-point scales of aggression by a teacher/experimenter).
1 mark for explaining how the matching/assignment was done based on these scores (e.g., children with similar ratings were matched in triplets and randomly distributed among the experimental conditions).

### Focus 1: Ethical Considerations
* **Bandura et al. (Weakness/Concern)**: The study raises major ethical concerns, particularly regarding protection from harm. Young children (aged \(3\) to \(6\) years) were deliberately exposed to adult models displaying physical and verbal aggression. This could have distressed the children and potentially taught them long-term anti-social behaviors. Furthermore, children were deliberately frustrated (by being told the best toys were reserved for other children) to prime them for aggression. There was no mention of a deconditioning process or follow-up to mitigate these negative effects. While presumptive parental consent was obtained, the children could not truly consent or easily exercise their right to withdraw.
* **Saavedra and Silverman (Strength/Comparison)**: In contrast, the study of the button-phobic boy demonstrates exemplary ethical care. Informed consent was actively obtained from both the \(9\)-year-old boy and his mother. Although the exposure therapy (especially imagery exposure) caused temporary distress (measured via the Feelings Thermometer), the primary intent was therapeutic. Unlike Bandura's participants, who were left with potential negative behaviors, the boy in this study was cured of a debilitating phobia, meaning the active benefits of the research far outweighed the temporary discomfort.

### Focus 2: Use of Quantitative Data
* **Bandura et al. (Strength/Weakness)**: Bandura et al. collected highly structured quantitative data by recording instances of imitative and non-imitative physical and verbal aggression in \(5\)-second intervals over a \(240\)-second period. This allowed for precise, objective comparisons between different groups (e.g., comparing boys exposed to male aggressive models against those exposed to female aggressive models). It ensured high reliability and facilitated statistical analysis. However, this heavy reliance on quantitative metrics did not capture the children's subjective feelings or provide deep insight into *why* they imitated the models beyond basic behaviorist learning.
* **Saavedra and Silverman (Comparison)**: Saavedra and Silverman also used quantitative data (the Feelings Thermometer ratings from \(0\) to \(8\)) to track the boy's progress objectively. However, they complemented this with rich qualitative data, detailing the boy's thoughts, his cognitive associations with buttons (e.g., how they smelled or looked), and his emotional breakthroughs. This mixed-methods approach provided a more holistic understanding of classical conditioning and cognitive restructuring than the almost exclusively quantitative focus of Bandura et al.

**Level 4 (10–12 marks)**
* Evaluation is comprehensive and balanced, showing excellent understanding of both ethical considerations and quantitative data.
* Both Bandura et al. and Saavedra & Silverman are detailed accurately.
* Comparisons between the two studies are explicit, well-structured, and integrated naturally throughout the response.

**Level 3 (7–9 marks)**
* Good evaluation with reasonable detail of both ethical considerations and quantitative data.
* Both studies are discussed, but one may be described in more detail than the other.
* Clear comparisons are made, though some points may lack depth or balance.

**Level 2 (4–6 marks)**
* Basic evaluation. The response may focus heavily on only one element (e.g., ethics) or only one study.
* Comparisons are superficial or lack clear links between the studies.
* Primarily descriptive rather than evaluative in some sections.

**Level 1 (1–3 marks)**
* Minimal evaluation consisting of isolated points or simple descriptions of the studies.
* No clear comparison between Bandura et al. and Saavedra & Silverman is established.

**0 marks**
* No response worthy of credit.

Worked Exemplar:

Ecological Validity (Named Issue):
The study by Perry et al. has low ecological validity due to its highly controlled and artificial laboratory environment. In the study, participants were placed in a loud, confined fMRI scanner, which does not resemble natural social situations where personal space is normally established. Furthermore, the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm was computerized, showing a 2D representation of a human figure approaching. In real-life interactions, personal space involves dynamic multi-sensory cues (such as body language, scent, and tone of voice) and physical movement, which are absent in a digital simulation. However, sacrificing ecological validity allowed the researchers to achieve high internal validity, ensuring that the changes in amygdala activation were directly due to the experimental manipulations (oxytocin vs. placebo, and different social stimuli) rather than external environmental factors.

Other Evaluation Point: Use of Quantitative Data
A strength of this study is the collection of objective quantitative data. The researchers gathered numerical data on the percentage of preferred distance (CID) and the fMRI BOLD signals representing blood oxygenation levels in the brain. This quantitative approach meant that the findings could be easily compared between the high-empathy and low-empathy groups, and between the oxytocin and placebo conditions. This objectivity minimized researcher bias and allowed for robust statistical testing. However, a limitation of this focus on quantitative data is that it does not provide qualitative insights; for example, it does not explain how participants subjectively felt during the scanner trials or why they preferred certain distances.

Marking Scheme (10 marks total):

Level 4 (8-10 marks):
- Evaluation is comprehensive, detailed, and well-structured.
- Both the named issue (ecological validity) and at least one other evaluation point (e.g., quantitative data, generalisability, ethics) are discussed in depth.
- There is a balanced discussion of both strengths and weaknesses where appropriate.
- The arguments are explicitly linked back to Perry et al.'s study and display excellent psychological knowledge.

Level 3 (5-7 marks):
- Evaluation is good and shows reasonable structure.
- Discusses both ecological validity and another evaluation point, but one may be discussed in significantly more detail than the other.
- The points are mostly linked to Perry et al., but some arguments may lack depth or clarity.

Level 2 (3-4 marks):
- Evaluation is limited. The candidate may focus almost entirely on one point (e.g., ecological validity) while neglecting the other, or both are described with very little analysis.
- The response may be highly descriptive of the study's procedure rather than analytical.

Level 1 (1-2 marks):
- Very basic or superficial response. Showcases minimal understanding of evaluation or the study itself.
- May list points without applying them to Perry et al.

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

1. Identify opportunity sampling (1 mark).
2. Outline a limitation linked to the study, such as lack of generalisability due to localized recruiting (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying the sampling method (opportunity sampling / daycares in Canada).
1 mark for outlining a valid limitation (e.g., poor representativeness, geographic bias, lack of generalisability).

1. Mention the self-report scale and its range of 0 to 8 (1 mark).
2. Explain that it was used to rate distress/fear towards different buttons (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying the scale structure (9-point scale / 0 to 8 rating).
1 mark for describing its function (rating the boy's subjective distress/fear/discomfort towards the buttons).

1. Mention rating of pre-existing aggression levels by an observer and teacher (1 mark).
2. Explain allocating similar rated children into the different experimental groups (triplets matching) (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying that children were pre-rated/assessed on their aggression levels (by teacher and experimenter).
1 mark for explaining that children of similar aggression scores were distributed across conditions (matching/triplets).

1. State a method of maintaining validity, such as counterbalancing or standardized approach distances (1 mark).
2. Explain how this ensures validity, such as reducing order effects or controlling extraneous physical variables (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying a control or design feature (e.g., counterbalancing, standardization of the approach, fixed distances).
1 mark for explaining how it maintains validity (e.g., controlling order effects, eliminating extraneous noise/variations).

1. Mention 9 adult participants (7 males, 2 females) (1 mark).
2. Mention that 5 were studied intensely and 4 were used to confirm results (1 mark).

1 mark for each valid feature of the sample up to a maximum of 2 marks (e.g., 9 participants, 7 males/2 females, opportunity sample, 5 studied in detail).

1. Outline a general strength of quantitative data, such as objectivity or ease of statistical comparison (1 mark).
2. Apply this strength directly to the data collected in Andrade's study (comparing names/places recalled between groups) (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying a general strength of quantitative data (e.g., objective, easy to compare, allows statistical analysis).
1 mark for contextualising to the study (e.g., comparing recall scores/monitoring performance between doodlers and non-doodlers).

1. Identify the use of immediate debriefing (1 mark).
2. Explain specific details of the debriefing, such as meeting the unharmed learner (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying debriefing as the method.
1 mark for outlining specific details of the debriefing (e.g., introduction to the learner, reassurance of normal behavior, checking participant well-being).

1. Explain that target-present contains the actual culprit (1 mark).
2. Explain that target-absent does not contain the culprit and consists only of foils/innocents (1 mark).

1 mark for clearly describing target-present line-ups.
1 mark for clearly describing target-absent line-ups.

In the target-present line-up, the correct target (the cartoon character from the video) was actually present alongside foils. The participant's response was categorized into: 1) Correct identification (pointing to the actual target), 2) Foil identification (pointing to an incorrect person), or 3) False rejection (stating the target was not present or they did not know).

1.1 marks for identifying correct vs foil choice. 1.1 marks for explaining the option to reject or state 'not there'.

Saavedra and Silverman collected qualitative data through interviews and therapy sessions. The boy described his subjective disgust towards buttons (e.g., claiming they emitted a foul odor and looked unpleasant) and expressed his cognitive assessments during imaginary exposure sessions.

1.1 marks for identifying a qualitative measure (e.g., descriptions of disgust, thoughts/feelings). 1.1 marks for linking/contextualising it to the button phobia or therapy sessions.

To ensure inter-rater reliability, a second observer independently rated the behavior of a subset of children. Both observers were blind to the condition of the child (except the control). Their ratings were compared, resulting in a very high correlation coefficient (around 0.89), demonstrating consistency in how aggression was recorded.

1.1 marks for outlining the use of two independent observers (or one-way mirror/blind rating). 1.1 marks for explaining how their ratings were correlated/compared to check for agreement.

In a repeated measures design, all participants perform in every condition (e.g., imagining different social figures like a friend or stranger in the CID task). This controls for participant variables, such as an individual's natural baseline preference for larger or smaller personal space, which otherwise could confound the results.

1.1 marks for identifying the advantage of controlling participant variables/individual differences. 1.1 marks for contextualising this advantage to personal space preferences or the CID task.

Dement and Kleitman instructed participants to avoid alcohol and caffeine on the day of the study because these substances affect physiological sleep cycles (like REM sleep duration and sleep onset) and cognitive functions like memory recall. Controlling these substances ensured that the sleep stages themselves, rather than chemical influences, were the independent variable affecting dream recall, thereby increasing internal validity.

1.1 marks for explaining that these substances alter sleep patterns/REM/dream recall. 1.1 marks for linking this control to maintaining internal validity or preventing confounding variables.

Andrade deceived participants by telling them they would just listen to a tape and write down names, deliberately omitting that they would be tested on memory. This deception was necessary to prevent demand characteristics (active memorisation). It was addressed by debriefing participants after the task, explaining the real aim of the study, and apologizing for the deception.

1.1 marks for identifying the deception (surprise memory test/not telling them they had to remember). 1.1 marks for explaining how it was addressed/justified (avoiding demand characteristics or debriefing/apologizing).

Strength: Self-selected sampling is highly convenient and results in participants who are committed and motivated to take part, reducing drop-out rates. Weakness: It can lead to a biased sample (volunteer bias) because people who volunteer may share specific traits (e.g., being more cooperative or having more free time) that are not representative of the wider population, making it harder to generalise the findings.

1.1 marks for a valid strength (e.g., high motivation, easy recruitment). 1.1 marks for a valid weakness (e.g., volunteer bias, unrepresentative sample).

To ensure internal validity and consistency, the researchers standardised multiple elements of the video stimulus: the clip lasted 6 seconds, the target was visible for 4 seconds, the target's face was fully visible for 2 seconds, and there was no verbal dialogue or sound in the clip.

1.1 marks for the first correct standardised aspect (e.g., duration of clip, visibility of face). 1.1 marks for the second correct standardised aspect.

To plot a correct bar chart for this dataset, four key graphing conventions must be followed:
1. **X-axis Labeling**: The x-axis must clearly display the categories of the independent variable, which are 'Doodling group' and 'Control group'.
2. **Y-axis Labeling & Scale**: The y-axis must represent the dependent variable, labeled 'Mean recall score' or 'Mean correct details recalled'. The scale should start at 0 and go up to at least 8 or 10 to accommodate the highest score of 7.5.
3. **Plotting the Bars**: Two vertical bars must be plotted. The bar representing the 'Doodling group' must be drawn to a height of 7.5, and the bar for the 'Control group' must be drawn to a height of 5.8.
4. **Bar Spacing**: Because the independent variable consists of discrete/nominal categories rather than continuous data, the bars must be drawn with a gap between them (non-touching).

Award 1 mark for each of the following points, up to a maximum of 4 marks:

- **Point 1 (X-axis)**: Labeled with the conditions/categories of the independent variable (i.e., 'Doodling group' and 'Control group').
- **Point 2 (Y-axis)**: Labeled with the dependent variable (i.e., 'Mean recall score' or 'Mean number of items/information recalled') and/or an appropriate scale starting at 0.
- **Point 3 (Plotting)**: Explicitly describes drawing the doodling bar to 7.5 and the control bar to 5.8.
- **Point 4 (Spacing/Format)**: Identifies that the bars must be kept separate/must not touch (as it is discrete/nominal data).

*Accept/Reject Notes:*
- Accept equivalent phrasing for the axes labels, provided they accurately reflect the variables of the study.
- Reject descriptions of continuous data displays (e.g., lines connecting the points or bars touching as in a histogram).

Model Answer:

1. Location and Sample:
The study will take place in a public park (e.g., Regent's Park) during weekdays between 10:00 AM and 2:00 PM to target a similar profile of daytime walkers. The sample will consist of any park visitors walking down a specific 100-metre path.

2. Independent Variable (IV):
The IV is the phrasing on the sign placed halfway along the path. It has two conditions:
- Condition A (Polite Request): A green sign reading, 'Please help keep our beautiful park clean by using the bins. Thank you!'
- Condition B (Stern Command): A red sign reading, 'Do not litter. Offenders will be fined under municipal codes.'

3. Dependent Variable (DV):
To measure littering objectively, a confederate dressed as a park information volunteer will stand at the entrance of the path and hand out a small, uniquely color-coded paper map/leaflet to every visitor walking alone. The DV is whether the visitor litters the leaflet within the 100-metre path. This will be categorised into:
- 'Littered' (leaflet thrown on the ground or left on a bench).
- 'Complied' (leaflet kept in hand/pocket or thrown into the rubbish bin located next to the sign).
Two observers, disguised as park gardeners working near the bin, will record the behavior on a tally sheet.

4. Control of Extraneous Variables:
- Baseline cleanliness: Before each 1-hour observation session, the path will be swept clean of all existing litter so that participants are not influenced by the 'social proof' of existing rubbish.
- Weather conditions: Trials will only be conducted on dry, sunny days (between 15°C and 20°C). Rain or high winds could blow leaflets away naturally or affect participants' speed of walking and mood, confounding the results.

5. Ethical Considerations:
- Consent: Because it is a field experiment in a public place, prior informed consent cannot be obtained without causing demand characteristics.
- Confidentiality and Deception: No personal data, photographs, or video recordings will be taken to ensure complete anonymity. To address deception and lack of consent, a small sign will be posted at the very exit of the park containing a debrief notice explaining that a psychological observation on public signage took place, alongside a contact email for any questions.

Marking Scheme (10 marks total):

Level 3 (8-10 marks):
- The design is highly appropriate, detailed, and fully replicable.
- The independent variable, dependent variable, controls, and ethics are fully operationalised and contextualised to the park scenario.
- The response shows an excellent understanding of field experimental methodology.

Level 2 (5-7 marks):
- The design is mostly appropriate with some relevant details.
- Most key elements (IV, DV, controls, ethics) are addressed, but some lack operational definition or realistic application.
- The response shows a good understanding of field experiments, though there may be minor omissions.
- Max 6 marks if one of the bullet points from the prompt is omitted.

Level 1 (1-4 marks):
- The design is basic, lacks detail, or has significant flaws (e.g., proposing a laboratory experiment instead of a field study).
- Key elements are missing or poorly defined.
- The response shows limited understanding of experimental design.

Specific Guidance on Elements:
- IV Operationalisation (2 marks): Clear difference between polite (e.g., 'please', positive tone) and stern (e.g., 'do not', negative/authoritative tone).
- DV Measurement (2 marks): Quantitative and objective measure of littering (e.g., tracking a specific item handed out, or counting discarded rubbish in a controlled zone).
- Controls (2 marks): Identification of a plausible extraneous variable (weather, pre-existing litter, crowd density) and a clear, realistic method of controlling it.
- Ethics (2 marks): Balanced handling of covert observation ethics (privacy in public spaces, anonymity, debriefing signage) without compromising the naturalistic setting.
- Contextual Detail (2 marks): The plan is realistic, feasible, and clearly tailored to a real-world park setting.

Strength:
One strength of using a natural experiment is that it has higher ecological validity than a laboratory experiment. Because the study takes place in a real university lecture, the environment and the task (listening to a lecture and taking a recall test) are entirely natural for the students. Their doodling and concentration behaviors are therefore much more representative of real-life academic behavior.

Weakness:
One weakness of a natural experiment is the lack of control over participant variables. Because the independent variable (doodling vs. not doodling) is naturally occurring, Dr Aris cannot randomly allocate participants to conditions. It is possible that students who naturally chose to doodle already had lower baseline attention spans or different memory capacities compared to those who did not doodle, which would confound the recall test scores.

Strength [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying/explaining a relevant strength of a natural experiment (e.g., high ecological validity, reduced demand characteristics).
- 1 mark for applying this strength directly to Dr Aris's study (e.g., mentioning the real lecture environment, natural student concentration, or authentic doodling).

Weakness [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying/explaining a relevant weakness of a natural experiment (e.g., lack of control over extraneous/participant variables, difficulty replicating the exact conditions).
- 1 mark for applying this weakness directly to Dr Aris's study (e.g., mentioning the inability to randomly assign students to conditions, or individual differences in attention/memory capacity confounding the recall test results).