2026 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) Practice Paper with Answers

The recorded message had several standardised features: it was 2.5 minutes long, played at a comfortable listening volume in a dull/monotone voice, and contained 8 names of partygoers along with false names (3 people and a cat who could not attend) and 8 place names.

Award 1 mark for each valid feature identified (up to a maximum of 2 marks):
- Lasted for 2.5 minutes / 150 seconds [1]
- Spoken in a dull / monotone voice / average speed of 227 words per minute [1]
- Played at a comfortable listening volume / had background acoustic noise [1]
- Mentioned 8 names of people who would attend the party [1]
- Mentioned 3 people (and 1 cat) who could not attend [1]
- Mentioned 8 place names [1]

In the computerised CID task, the participant is represented by a central figure with their name on it. Another figure (e.g. friend, stranger, authority) approaches from the perimeter along a radius. The participant presses a key to stop the approach when the distance feels uncomfortably close. The computer records the percentage of the remaining distance between the two figures.

Award 1 mark for each descriptive point (up to 2 marks):
- Participant imagines themselves at the centre of a circular room / represented by a central figure with their name [1]
- Another figure (or stranger / friend / authority / ball) approaches from the perimeter toward the centre [1]
- Participant presses a spacebar / key to stop the approaching figure at the distance they feel comfortable [1]
- Distance is recorded as the remaining distance / percentage of total radius between the figures [1]

Dement and Kleitman applied strict controls to ensure sleep patterns and dream reports were not confounded. Before arriving, participants abstained from caffeine and alcohol. During the night, standard electrode placements were used, awakenings occurred via a loud buzzer, and dream content was recorded on an audio tape to prevent experimenter influence.

Award 1 mark for each valid control outlined (up to 2 marks):
- Participants refrained from drinking caffeine (coffee / tea / cola) on the day of the study [1]
- Participants refrained from drinking alcohol on the day of the study [1]
- Participants arrived at the laboratory just prior to their normal bedtime [1]
- Standardised electrode placement near eyes / on scalp [1]
- Woken by a doorbell / buzzer sound that was identical and sufficiently loud [1]
- Recorded dream recall into a tape recorder to avoid experimenter bias / no researcher entered the room immediately [1]

In a target-present line-up, the actual person shown committing the crime in the video clip is included among the photos. In a target-absent line-up, the true culprit is absent, having been replaced by another person who resembles the culprit (a foil).

Award 1 mark for each correct outline (up to 2 marks):
- Target-present line-up: A line-up containing the actual target / perpetrator / culprit seen in the video clip (along with foils) [1]
- Target-absent line-up: A line-up where the target / perpetrator / culprit is not present / is replaced by an innocent foil / distractor [1]

Behavioral exposure involved an in vivo hierarchy created with a Feelings Thermometer (0 to 8). The boy handled increasingly distressing buttons (e.g. large denim buttons up to small plastic buttons) in 30-minute sessions alone and 20 minutes with his mother, who reinforced his approach behaviours with praise.

Award 1 mark for each descriptive point (up to 2 marks):
- Construction of a Distress / Feelings Thermometer / 9-point hierarchy of feared buttons [1]
- In vivo / direct physical exposure to buttons starting with the least distressing and working up to the most distressing [1]
- Positive reinforcement provided by the mother (praise / rewards) for successfully handling buttons [1]
- Sessions lasted 30 minutes with the boy and 20 minutes with the mother [1]

The operationalisations differed in appearance and props: the ill victim held a black cane and appeared sober, whereas the drunk victim carried an alcohol bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag and smelled of liquor.

Award 1 mark for each operational difference outlined (up to 2 marks):
- Ill victim carried a black cane / walking stick; drunk victim carried a bottle in a brown paper bag [1]
- Drunk victim smelled of liquor / alcohol; ill victim did not [1]
- (Accept procedural / behavioural differences if accurately described): Drunk victim received spontaneous help far less frequently / slower response time than the ill victim [1]

Hölzel et al. found that MBSR participants demonstrated significant increases in grey matter concentration in several brain regions, most notably the left hippocampus, posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), and cerebellum, whereas the wait-list control group did not show these increases.

Award 2 marks for a full outline containing the direction of change and specific brain region:
- 1 mark for identifying a correct brain region (e.g. left hippocampus / posterior cingulate cortex / temporo-parietal junction / cerebellum) [1]
- 1 mark for stating that grey matter concentration increased significantly in the MBSR group (and/or did not change in the control group) [1]

1. Educational setting: When students are attending lengthy, potentially dull lectures, teachers could allow them to engage in structured doodling (such as shading shapes). This uses spare cognitive capacity without overburdening working memory, preventing daydreaming and enhancing recall of factual content delivered during class.

2. Workplace setting: In roles requiring workers to listen to long audio recordings or conference calls (e.g., transcriptionists or telephone operators), supervisors can supply materials for low-demand doodling. This can help workers retain critical names, dates, and instructions by keeping arousal levels optimal and reducing cognitive lapses.

Award 1–2 marks for each suggested application (2 × 2 marks):

For each application:
- 1 mark for identifying a practical real-world context/activity (what).
- 1 mark for explaining how the study's findings directly support this application (how).

Example 1 (Education):
- What: Allowing students to doodle during revision or auditory lectures (1 mark).
- How: Andrade found that doodlers recalled 29% more information than non-doodlers, so doodling helps students avoid daydreaming and process auditory inputs more effectively (1 mark).

Example 2 (Workplace):
- What: Providing note pads with shapes for staff during long, monotonous meetings/briefings (1 mark).
- How: Shading shapes occupies central executive resources just enough to stop mind wandering, thereby improving retention of spoken information (1 mark).

Note: Suggestions must be realistic and ethically sound.

The individual versus situational debate centres on whether behaviour is driven by internal dispositions and characteristics unique to a person (individual) or by the features of the physical and social environment (situational).

- Situational explanation in Piliavin et al.: The nature of the emergency and victim type affected helping behaviour; the ill victim with a cane received significantly more immediate help (100% of unmodeled trials, median latency 5 seconds) compared to the drunk victim holding a bottle in a brown bag (73% of unmodeled trials, median latency 109 seconds). The perceived cost of helping in that specific situation determined the bystander reaction.

- Individual explanation in Piliavin et al.: Individual characteristics accounted for variations in who intervened; 90% of first helpers were male, indicating that individual factors like perceived physical strength, socialised gender roles, or personal empathy levels influenced whether an individual took direct action.

1 mark for defining/outlining the debate (individual vs situational).
1 mark for an example of a situational explanation from Piliavin et al.
1 mark for an example of an individual explanation from Piliavin et al.
1 mark for clear elaboration/link of both examples to the debate.

Debate outline:
- Individual explanation focuses on personality, biology, or unique personal traits.
- Situational explanation focuses on external pressures, physical environment, or social context.

Situational example:
- Cane vs drunk condition affecting latency/frequency of help (cost-reward analysis influenced by the situation).
- Being confined in a subway carriage preventing escape, driving direct assistance.

Individual example:
- Gender differences in helping (90% male first helpers).
- Race of helper/victim interaction (same-race helping in drunk condition).

The nature versus nurture debate evaluates the extent to which behaviours and psychological characteristics are products of genetic inheritance and physiological factors (nature) versus environmental learning, upbringing, and socialisation (nurture).

- Nurture explanation in Bandura et al.: Children exposed to an aggressive adult model imitated specific physical actions (kicking, sitting on the Bobo doll, striking with a mallet) and novel verbal phrases ('Pow', 'Sock him in the nose'), whereas children in the non-aggressive condition exhibited virtually zero imitative aggression. This clearly demonstrates social learning through observation and environmental conditioning.

- Nature explanation in Bandura et al.: Overall, boys were significantly more likely to engage in physical aggression than girls regardless of whether the model was male or female, suggesting that biological dispositions, such as hormonal influences (e.g. testosterone) or innate sex-linked behavioural tendencies, also play a role in aggressive expressions.

1 mark for defining/outlining the nature vs nurture debate.
1 mark for an example of a nurture explanation from Bandura et al.
1 mark for an example of a nature explanation from Bandura et al.
1 mark for elaboration/explicit link between the study details and the debate.

Debate definition:
- Nature refers to genetic, biological, or innate factors; nurture refers to environmental influences, upbringing, and learned experiences (1 mark).

Nurture link:
- Observation and imitation of specific novel behaviours from aggressive models (e.g. imitative verbal/physical aggression) (1 mark).

Nature link:
- Baseline differences in physical aggression between males and females; biological predispositions / hormonal mechanisms influencing aggressive drive (1 mark).

The study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning) connects closely to ethical guidelines regarding the use of animals in psychological research:

1. Minimising Harm and Pain: The researchers used positive reinforcement operant conditioning (clickers, treats like bananas and chopped fruits, vocal praise) to shape behaviors such as trunk lifting and saline holding. This proved that elephants could be successfully trained without relying on pain-inducing methods or coercive instruments (like the ankush), thereby adhering to the principle of minimizing suffering.

2. Direct Benefit and Justification: Ethical guidelines require animal research to have scientific validity and clear benefits. This study provided direct veterinary and welfare advantages for captive Asian elephants by establishing a non-stressful method for collecting trunk wash samples to test for tuberculosis, reducing health risks for both elephants and human handlers.

Award marks for outlining specific ethical points/principles and linking them directly to Fagen et al. (up to 4 marks):

- 1 mark for identifying positive reinforcement / replacement of aversive methods.
- 1 mark for explaining how this minimises distress/suffering (guideline on pain and distress).
- 1 mark for identifying the veterinary purpose (trunk wash / tuberculosis screening).
- 1 mark for explaining how this justifies the use of animals by demonstrating high scientific/welfare value for the species.

Alternatively:
- Up to 2 marks for explaining guidelines (minimising harm, housing/rewards, medical justification).
- Up to 2 marks for contextualising with explicit procedural details from Fagen et al. (e.g. clicker training, trunk wash, testing for Mycobacterium tuberculosis).

Application 1:
- What: Tutors or educators can actively encourage students to doodle structured geometric shapes or patterns in their notebooks during passive listening sessions (e.g., listening to recorded lectures).
- How / Why: Andrade demonstrated that doodling prevents daydreaming by maintaining an optimal level of cognitive arousal without competing with main listening tasks, leading to higher recall of auditory details (29% more information retained).

Application 2:
- What: Schools or revision centres could provide worksheets or revision guides with dedicated doodling margins (e.g., pre-printed squares and circles to shade).
- How / Why: As shown by Andrade's controlled shading task, simple motor tasks that do not require high executive demand help dual-task processing without causing dual-task interference, thus enhancing retention for both monitored and incidental information.

Award 1 mark for each practical suggestion (what to do in the educational/revision setting) and 1 mark for each explanation linking explicitly to Andrade's findings/mechanisms (how it works), up to a maximum of 4 marks (2 marks per suggestion).

Suggestion 1:
- 1 mark: Identification of practical application (e.g., allow/encourage students to shade shapes or doodle during lectures).
- 1 mark: Justification linked to Andrade's study (e.g., doodling aids concentration and suppresses daydreaming, resulting in significantly better recall of names/places).

Suggestion 2:
- 1 mark: Identification of a second practical application (e.g., providing printed templates/margins with shapes for students to fill in while revising).
- 1 mark: Justification linked to Andrade's study (e.g., structured non-taxing visual-spatial tasks maintain cognitive arousal without exceeding processing capacity).

Award up to 5 marks for describing the background to the study by Perry et al. Candidates can cover:
- Definition and nature of personal space / interpersonal distance (the preferred distance maintained from others; intrusions cause discomfort/threat).
- Role of individual differences, such as empathy, in modulating preferred social distance.
- Role of oxytocin as a hormone/neuropeptide involved in social bonding, trust, and social interactions.
- Competing/contrasting theories: the 'prosocial' hypothesis (oxytocin uniformly increases social approach) versus the 'social salience' hypothesis (oxytocin increases attention to social cues, making responses dependent on context and personality).
- The rationale/gap identified by Perry et al.: prior studies had not clarified how oxytocin interacts with empathy to influence preferred interpersonal distance.

1 mark per relevant point / elaboration made (up to 5 marks):
- Interpersonal distance (personal space) is the physical distance maintained between individuals to avoid discomfort / feel comfortable (1 mark).
- Empathy refers to the ability to understand and share the feelings of others, which affects how comfortable people feel in proximity to others (1 mark).
- Oxytocin is a neuropeptide hormone known to play an important role in social affiliation / bonding / trust (1 mark).
- Prosocial hypothesis suggests oxytocin directly promotes social approach / makes individuals want to be closer to others (1 mark).
- Social salience hypothesis suggests oxytocin enhances the perception/salience of social cues, meaning its effects depend on contextual factors or personal traits (1 mark).
- There was a lack of clear research showing whether oxytocin's effect on interpersonal distance depends on individual empathy levels / whether high-empathy and low-empathy individuals respond differently to oxytocin regarding personal space (1 mark).

In Experiment 1 of Perry et al. (2015), interpersonal distance was measured using a computerised Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm:
1. Participants were seated facing a computer screen showing a circular area and were instructed to imagine themselves located at the central point (0%).
2. A text label or figure representing a protagonist (friend, stranger, authority figure, or rolling ball control) appeared on the perimeter (100%) and approached inward along one of 8 directions/radii.
3. The participant had to press a designated key (the space bar) to stop the approaching figure as soon as they felt uncomfortable with how close it had come.
4. The software recorded the distance at which the figure was stopped as a percentage of the total path length (from 0% touching the centre to 100% at the perimeter).

Award 1 mark per valid procedural detail up to a maximum of 4 marks.

Points can include:
- Participants saw a circular room / arena on a computer screen with themselves represented at the centre (1 mark)
- A figure / protagonist approached them from the perimeter towards the centre along different directions / 8 radii (1 mark)
- The approaching entities were identified as a friend, a stranger, an authority figure, or a ball / non-human control (1 mark)
- Participants had to press a key / the space bar to stop the figure when they began to feel uncomfortable / felt their personal space was invaded (1 mark)
- The distance was measured / calculated as the percentage of the remaining distance to the centre (1 mark)

Note: Do not credit results, sample characteristics, or oxytocin/placebo administration procedures.

Possible Similarity (e.g., Use of Laboratory Experiment / Standardised Procedures):
- Point: Both studies were laboratory experiments that used highly standardised procedures and experimental controls to enhance internal validity.
- Evidence from Andrade: Andrade used a standardised recorded mock telephone message that was played at a controlled audio speed (1.1 words per second) and a comfortable volume for all participants. Both the doodling and control groups received identical instructions regarding listening to names and ignoring places.
- Evidence from Pozzulo et al.: Pozzulo et al. standardised the presentation of target stimuli, showing all child and adult participants the exact same video clips (a 6-second video of a female target getting her wallet stolen and a 5-second video of a male target asking for directions) under identical viewing conditions with standardised line-up instructions.
- Explanation/Link: In both cases, high levels of standardisation ensured that extraneous variables (such as variation in exposure time or auditory/visual delivery) were controlled, allowing the researchers to confidently establish cause-and-effect relationships.

Possible Difference (e.g., Experimental Design / Sample Age Demographics):
- Point: A key difference between the two studies lies in their experimental designs and target participant age groups.
- Evidence from Andrade: Andrade used an independent measures design solely involving adult participants (40 members of the MRC Applied Psychology Unit participant panel, aged 18–55 years), where participants were randomly allocated to either the doodling condition or the control condition.
- Evidence from Pozzulo et al.: Pozzulo et al. used a mixed design including both children (aged 4–5 years) and adults (aged 17+ years / university undergraduates), where each participant experienced repeated measures across four different line-up conditions (target-present and target-absent for both human and cartoon faces).
- Explanation/Link: While Andrade focused entirely on adult cognitive processing across separate treatment groups to avoid demand characteristics and practice effects, Pozzulo et al. specifically tested developmental differences across age groups using repeated trials to directly compare child and adult eyewitness identification accuracy under identical conditions.

Level 4 (7–8 marks):
- Clear, detailed, and well-explained comparison showing both one similarity and one difference.
- Accurate and balanced use of explicit evidence from both Andrade and Pozzulo et al.
- Effective psychological terminology and clear links explaining why the point is a similarity/difference.

Level 3 (5–6 marks):
- Comparison contains one similarity and one difference, with one explained well and the other described or lacking full balance, OR both points briefly explained.
- Contextual evidence from both studies is present, though one study may have slightly less detail.

Level 2 (3–4 marks):
- Only one similarity OR one difference is fully explained with evidence from both studies, OR both are covered at a brief descriptive level.
- Limited contextual detail or unequal focus on one study.

Level 1 (1–2 marks):
- Identification of a similarity or difference with minimal explanation and little/no evidence from the studies.

Level 0 (0 marks):
- No creditable content.

1 mark for a clear definition of a standardised procedure.
1 mark for an accurate contextual example from the study by Andrade (doodling).

Definition: A standardised procedure refers to keeping all steps, conditions, and instructions identical for every participant in a study so that the experience is consistent.
Example link: In Andrade (doodling), standardisation was achieved by playing the identical pre-recorded 2.5-minute mock telephone message at a controlled speed (227 words per minute) and providing all participants in the doodling condition with the identical A4 sheet containing rows of alternating squares and circles.

1 mark for definition:
- Where all participants are tested under the identical conditions / receive the same instructions / follow the exact same experimental sequence.

1 mark for link to Andrade:
- e.g., All participants listened to the identical recorded telephone message (spoken at 227 wpm / lasting 2.5 minutes).
- e.g., All participants were given identical instructions to write down the names of people attending the party (and ignore other details).
- e.g., All doodling participants received the same response sheet with alternating 1 cm squares and circles.

Note: Do not credit general descriptions of doodling that do not explain the standardised nature of the procedure.

1 mark for a clear definition of inter-observer reliability.
1 mark for an accurate contextual example from the study by Bandura et al. (aggression).

Definition: Inter-observer reliability refers to the consistency between the observations made by two or more independent raters coding the same event or behaviour.
Example link: In Bandura et al., two observers independently recorded the children's imitative and non-imitative aggressive acts behind a one-way mirror in 5-second intervals, achieving high inter-rater agreement (correlations around r = 0.90 across behavioural categories).

1 mark for definition:
- The degree of consistency / agreement between two or more independent observers recording the same event / behaviour.

1 mark for link to Bandura et al.:
- e.g., Two observers watched the child behind a one-way mirror in the experimental room and independently tallied aggressive acts.
- e.g., The observers' ratings were compared and found to have high reliability / correlation (around r = 0.89 to 0.90) across categories of physical and verbal aggression.
- e.g., The experimenter and nursery school teacher independently pre-rated the children on five-point rating scales to match them for baseline aggression.

1 mark for a clear definition of independent measures design.
1 mark for an accurate contextual example from the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups).

Definition: An experimental design in which different participants take part in each distinct level/condition of the independent variable (each participant only experiences one condition).
Example link: In Pozzulo et al., participants were allocated to separate line-up conditions, such that one group completed the target-present line-up trials while another group completed the target-absent line-up trials (or children versus adults serving as separate comparison groups).

1 mark for definition:
- An experimental design where different / separate participants are placed into each condition of the independent variable (participants only do one level of the IV).

1 mark for link to Pozzulo et al.:
- e.g., Different participants viewed the target-present line-up versus the target-absent line-up.
- e.g., Separate groups of child participants and adult participants were tested to compare identification accuracy.

1 mark for a clear definition of positive reinforcement.
1 mark for an accurate contextual example from the study by Fagen et al. (elephant learning).

Definition: Giving a rewarding or desirable stimulus immediately after a specific behaviour is performed, which strengthens the behaviour and makes it more likely to be repeated in the future.
Example link: In Fagen et al., when an elephant successfully completed a stage of the trunk-wash protocol (such as inserting its trunk or holding water), it received a secondary reinforcer (clicker sound / 'good') followed by a primary reinforcer (chopped bananas / sugar cane pieces).

1 mark for definition:
- Rewarding / providing a pleasant or desirable stimulus after a desired behaviour is shown to increase the probability/frequency of that response.

1 mark for link to Fagen et al.:
- e.g., The elephants were offered sliced bananas / sugar cane / food rewards immediately when they placed their trunk into the bucket / allowed the fluid to be collected.
- e.g., The trainer paired a clicker / praise with food treats when the elephant performed the correct behavioural sequence for trunk washing.

Inter-observer reliability is the extent to which two or more independent observers agree on their recordings or ratings when observing the same event or behaviour. To test this, researchers carry out the observation simultaneously but independently, using a standardised and operationalised behavioural coding system. Afterward, their recorded scores/tallies are compared and statistically correlated (e.g. calculating Spearman's rank correlation coefficient or a percentage agreement). If there is a strong positive correlation (typically r = 0.80 or above), high inter-observer reliability is established.

1 mark for defining inter-observer reliability: The degree of consistency/agreement between two or more independent observers recording the same behaviour. 1 mark for describing the practical procedure: Observers use the same operationalised checklist/coding scheme to record the same event/participant simultaneously and independently without conferring. 1 mark for describing the check/comparison: Comparing the two sets of records/scores by calculating a correlation coefficient or percentage agreement (e.g. looking for a high positive correlation / 80%+ agreement).

Order effects occur in repeated measures designs because all participants perform in all experimental conditions. The order of the tasks can systematically bias the results: participants may perform better in the second condition due to learning or practice effects, or perform worse due to fatigue, tiredness, or boredom. Counterbalancing is a control technique designed to cancel out order effects. The sample is divided into equal sub-groups: one group completes condition A followed by condition B (AB), while the other completes condition B followed by condition A (BA). This standardisation does not eliminate order effects, but ensures that their influence is balanced equally across both experimental conditions rather than acting as a confounding variable on a single condition.

Order effects (2 marks): 1 mark for basic definition (extraneous variables arising from the sequence in which conditions are completed / doing more than one condition). 1 mark for explaining specific mechanisms (e.g. practice/learning effect improving performance OR fatigue/boredom effect deteriorating performance). Counterbalancing (2 marks): 1 mark for procedural explanation of counterbalancing (e.g. dividing participants so half complete Condition A then B, and half complete Condition B then A / ABBA design). 1 mark for explaining why this solves the problem (ensures that practice/fatigue effects are spread equally across both conditions so order does not systematically confound the independent variable).

(a) Protection from harm requires researchers to ensure that participants do not experience physical danger, pain, or psychological distress (such as embarrassment, lowered self-esteem, or anxiety). The risk of harm should not be greater than that encountered in standard daily life, and researchers must stop the study if unexpected harm arises.

(b) Deception involves intentionally misleading participants or withholding key information regarding the true purpose, conditions, or hypotheses of the study. While sometimes used to avoid demand characteristics, it prevents participants from giving fully informed consent.

(c) The primary way to minimise the negative effects of deception is through a full debriefing once data collection is complete. In the debrief, the researcher explains the true aims and necessity of the deception, answers any questions, ensures the participant is restored to the same psychological state they entered in, and offers them the right to withdraw their results from the analysis.

(a) 1 mark for basic definition;
1 mark for linked elaboration / detail.
- e.g. Ensuring participants do not experience physical or psychological distress/damage (1);
- The risk of harm should not exceed that experienced in ordinary daily life / researchers must protect participants from stress, anxiety, humiliation, or pain (1).

(b) 1 mark for basic definition;
1 mark for linked elaboration / detail.
- e.g. Misleading participants about the aim or procedure of an investigation (1);
- Withholding information so that participants are unaware of the true hypothesis / creating false beliefs using stooges or cover stories (1).

(c) 1 mark for identifying a valid technique (e.g. debriefing / offering retrospective right to withdraw);
1 mark for explaining how this minimises the impact of deception.
- e.g. Providing a comprehensive debriefing (1);
- Where the researcher explains the real purpose of the study, answers participant queries, and restores them to their pre-experimental psychological state / allows them to retract their data (1).

(a) The guideline of 'species and strain' requires researchers to choose a species that is scientifically suitable for the specific aim while selecting the species with the lowest capacity for suffering/sentience capable of answering the research question.

(b) 'Housing' requires researchers to accommodate animals in facilities that reflect their natural social and physical needs (e.g. adequate space, social companions for gregarious species, cleanliness, and environmental enrichment to prevent stereotypic behaviour).

(c) Minimising numbers is a core ethical principle (reduction) intended to subject the fewest possible animals to laboratory procedures and potential distress, balancing scientific validity against ethical responsibility.

(a) 1 mark for basic definition; 1 mark for elaboration.
- Researchers must carefully select an animal species appropriate for the study (1);
- Choosing the species with the least potential for suffering / considering prior experience and physiological suitability (1).

(b) 1 mark for basic definition; 1 mark for elaboration.
- Ensuring the animal's living environment is appropriate and hygienic (1);
- Providing sufficient space, social grouping, temperature control, food/water, or enrichment to prevent distress (1).

(c) 1 mark for identifying the ethical reason (e.g. principle of reduction / limiting total harm);
1 mark for elaboration linking to experimental necessity (e.g. using only enough animals to achieve statistical power without excess suffering).

(a) A non-directional operationalised hypothesis states an association without predicting the specific direction:
"There will be a significant relationship/correlation between the number of minutes spent on smartphone gaming per day and the score on a 1–10 daytime fatigue rating scale."
- Operationalised gaming: measured in minutes per day.
- Operationalised fatigue: score on a named self-report scale (e.g., 1–10).
- Non-directional wording: relationship / correlation / association.

(b) Correlations measure the strength and direction of a co-relationship between two variables rather than manipulating an independent variable under controlled conditions. Therefore, causality cannot be established because a third unmeasured variable (such as late-night studying, poor diet, or stress) might be causing both increased gaming and increased fatigue, or fatigue could be causing students to play more games (bidirectionality).

(a) [1.5 marks]
- 1.5 marks: Fully operationalised non-directional hypothesis specifying both co-variables clearly (minutes of gaming and a quantifiable measure of fatigue) and stating a relationship/correlation.
- 1 mark: Non-directional hypothesis with one variable operationalised or clear relationship stated with weak operationalisation.
- 0.5 marks: Statement of a difference rather than correlation, or vague/unoperationalised statement.

(b) [1 mark]
- 1 mark: Clear explanation referring to lack of manipulation of an IV / presence of potential third variables / inability to determine direction of effect in a correlational design in context.

(a) Strength of independent measures in context:
Participants only take part in one experimental condition (either nature sounds or silence). This completely eliminates order effects such as practice (they cannot improve at remembering the list because they only do it once) or fatigue/boredom, ensuring their recall score is not artificially inflated or deflated.

(b) Minimising individual differences:
Tariq can randomly allocate participants to the two conditions (e.g. generating random numbers or drawing names out of a hat) so that individual variations in memory span are evenly distributed across the ambient sound and silence groups. Alternatively, he could conduct a pre-test memory span test and match participants in pairs based on their baseline score before assigning one of each pair to each condition.

(a) [1.5 marks]
- 1.5 marks: Identification of a strength (e.g. no order effects / no practice / no fatigue / reduced demand characteristics) with explicit contextual link to the memory recall task or sound conditions.
- 1 mark: Identification of strength with weak or generic context.
- 0.5 marks: Generic mention of an advantage without explanation.

(b) [1 mark]
- 1 mark: Plausible methodological control suggested (e.g. random allocation / matched pairs based on memory pre-test) with brief contextual explanation.

(a) Behavioural categories must be directly observable, objective, and operationalised actions of helping:
1. Bending down to retrieve dropped cutlery/plates from the floor.
2. Verbally offering assistance (e.g. asking "Do you want me to help clean this up?").
(Accept: fetching paper towels / wiping the spilled food / notifying a supervisor).

(b) Assessing inter-observer reliability:
Lara should employ a second trained observer who watches the exact same dining hall episodes independently at the same time using the identical standardised behavioural checklist/operationalised categories. Afterwards, they compare their recorded tallies for each behavioural category and calculate the level of consistency (e.g. percentage agreement or correlation coefficient). A high positive correlation (e.g. \(r \ge +0.80\)) confirms inter-observer reliability.

(a) [1 mark]
- 1 mark: Two distinct, clearly observable, operationalised behavioural categories relevant to helping in a dining hall (0.5 marks each).

(b) [1.5 marks]
- 1.5 marks: Comprehensive description of inter-observer reliability procedure (second independent observer using identical categories + comparison/correlation of data) in context.
- 1 mark: Partial explanation (e.g. mentions having two observers compare notes but lacks detail on standardised operational definitions or statistical check).
- 0.5 marks: Vague mention of comparing results.

(a) Example of a closed Likert scale question:
"'Electric scooters make city centre pedestrian zones less safe.'
1 = Strongly Disagree, 2 = Disagree, 3 = Neither Agree nor Disagree, 4 = Agree, 5 = Strongly Agree"
Must include a clear statement/question related to the scenario and full 5-point response anchors.

(b) Advantage of open questions in context:
Closed questions only yield quantitative numerical ratings, which restrict participant responses to pre-set options without explaining 'why'. Including open questions (e.g. "Explain what concerns you have regarding electric scooters") produces detailed qualitative data. This allows respondents to express complex viewpoints, reasons, and nuances in their own words, enhancing the construct validity and depth of understanding of public attitudes.

(a) [1 mark]
- 1 mark: A clearly formulated closed question/statement relevant to electric scooters with fully specified 5-point response scale anchors.
- 0.5 marks: Question given with incomplete anchors (e.g. only endpoints labelled) or slightly unclear wording.

(b) [1.5 marks]
- 1.5 marks: Detailed explanation of an advantage of open questions (rich qualitative depth, unconstrained responses, explaining reasons) applied to attitudes towards electric scooters.
- 1 mark: Outline of advantage with limited context.
- 0.5 marks: Generic statement (e.g. "it gives qualitative data").

(a) Methodological triangulation involves gathering data through several distinct methods (such as objective neuroimaging/fMRI scans, formal standardized vocabulary tests, and daily self-report diaries or clinical interviews). By cross-verifying findings from different techniques, Professor Alvarez can ensure that observed language recovery patterns are authentic and not an artefact of a single flawed measurement, thereby improving internal validity.

(b) A single case study investigates an individual with unique personal characteristics (e.g., pre-existing neural plasticity, education level, exact site and extent of brain damage). As a result, the findings have low population validity and cannot reliably be generalised to how the wider population of stroke survivors recovers language function.

(a) [1.5 marks]
- 1.5 marks: Clear explanation of triangulation (using \(\ge 2\) data collection techniques to cross-check consistency/validity) explicitly linked to the stroke/language recovery scenario.
- 1 mark: Accurate explanation of triangulation with minimal context.
- 0.5 marks: Vague outline of using different methods.

(b) [1 mark]
- 1 mark: Clear identification of individual uniqueness / unrepresentative sample causing low population generalisability in context.

(a) A major methodological weakness of longitudinal research is participant attrition (drop-out). Over the 6-year duration between ages 6 and 12, families may move away, lose contact, or withdraw from the study. If those who drop out share particular traits (e.g. lower socioeconomic status or lower academic performance), the remaining sample becomes biased and unrepresentative, which harms the internal and external validity of the developmental trends observed.

(b) To maintain contact, the psychologist can collect secondary contact details (e.g., email addresses, phone numbers, and alternative family member contacts) at the start and send regular annual updates, newsletters summarizing broad milestones, or birthday cards to keep families engaged and prompt them to confirm any address changes before each yearly test.

(a) [1.5 marks]
- 1.5 marks: Detailed explanation of a methodological weakness (e.g. attrition causing sample bias / practice effects on repeated digit span tests) applied directly to the longitudinal scenario.
- 1 mark: Identification and outline of weakness with weak context.
- 0.5 marks: Generic mention of "people drop out" without methodological consequence.

(b) [1 mark]
- 1 mark: Practical, feasible suggestion for maintaining contact (e.g. annual newsletters, collecting secondary phone/email contacts, sending scheduled check-ins).

(a) In psychological ethics, individuals have a right to privacy in non-public settings such as a staffroom, where they reasonably expect conversations to remain confidential. Because the study is covert, participants are deceived and cannot give informed consent prior to data collection. This violates ethical guidelines regarding autonomy, voluntary participation, and privacy.

(b) To resolve this, the researcher can provide a comprehensive retrospective debrief immediately following the observation period. During debriefing, the true aims of the study are explained, participants are assured of full anonymity/confidentiality, and they are given the right to withdraw their data and have any notes or video recordings destroyed if they do not wish their information to be used.

(a) [1.5 marks]
- 1.5 marks: Clear explanation linking covert observation in a private/staffroom setting to both lack of informed consent and violation of privacy expectations.
- 1 mark: Explains lack of consent or privacy issue with basic context.
- 0.5 marks: Generic ethical assertion without contextual reference.

(b) [1 mark]
- 1 mark: Pragmatic ethical resolution proposed (e.g. retrospective debrief with right to withdraw data / gaining prior general consent / moving to a genuinely public location) in context.

(a) In a repeated measures design where participants complete both reading tasks consecutively, order effects can confound the DV. Specifically, participants might experience a practice effect (becoming familiar with the question style and reading strategies by the second condition, artificially raising performance) or a fatigue effect (mental tiredness during the second text, artificially lowering scores). This makes it unclear whether differences in reading comprehension are caused by the noise level or task order.

(b) Counterbalancing controls order effects using an AB/BA design:
Elena divides the sample randomly into two equal halves. Half of the participants (Group 1) complete Condition A (high noise) followed by Condition B (low noise), while the other half (Group 2) complete Condition B (low noise) followed by Condition A (high noise). This distributes any practice or fatigue effects evenly across both noise conditions so they cancel each other out.

(a) [1.5 marks]
- 1.5 marks: Detailed explanation of order effects (identifying practice or fatigue) and showing how it confounds comprehension test results between the two noise conditions.
- 1 mark: General explanation of order effects with minimal context.
- 0.5 marks: Simply names fatigue/practice without explaining the confounding mechanism.

(b) [1 mark]
- 1 mark: Accurate outline of counterbalancing using the AB/BA group split explicitly linked to high/low noise conditions.

To check inter-observer reliability:
1. Dr. Aris should introduce a second independent observer who is trained to use the exact same behavioural categories/checklist for toy sharing.
2. Both observers watch the same preschool children during the same indoor free-play session simultaneously but independently.
3. The data collected by both observers is then compared by calculating a correlation coefficient (e.g., Spearman's rank or Pearson's r) between the tallies of sharing behaviours.
4. A strong positive correlation (typically +0.80 or above) demonstrates high inter-observer reliability, confirming consistency in how behaviour categories are applied.

1 mark (AO1): Generic explanation of how inter-rater/inter-observer reliability is assessed (e.g., having two observers record independently using the same operationalised criteria and correlating their data).
1.5 marks (AO2): Clear, contextualised application to Dr. Aris's study (e.g., explicit reference to two observers recording preschool children's sharing behaviour simultaneously during free play and checking for consistency/correlation between their tallies).

In a correlational investigation, variables are measured as co-variables rather than manipulated under controlled experimental conditions, so cause and effect cannot be established.
1. Bidirectionality: It is possible that the direction of effect is reversed—students who already experience poor sleep quality may spend more time on their smartphones late at night to pass the time.
2. Third-variable problem (extraneous factors): An unmeasured factor, such as high academic workload or anxiety, could independently cause both increased screen time (for studying/distraction) and reduced sleep quality.

1 mark (AO1): Identification that correlations measure relationships/associations and cannot demonstrate causality / presence of third variables / bidirectional influence.
1.5 marks (AO2): Contextualised explanation linking lack of causality directly to smartphone screen time and sleep quality in university students (e.g., explaining how poor sleep could lead to phone usage, or how an unmeasured variable like exam stress affects both).

A high-level response should address the following key methodological features:

1. Independent Variable (IV) and Operationalisation:
- Two conditions: (a) Plant condition: Room containing 6 healthy, green indoor potted plants (e.g., peace lilies and spider plants) placed on desks and shelves in full view; (b) Control condition: The identical room with no plants or natural decorations.

2. Dependent Variable (DV) and Operationalisation:
- Working memory performance operationalised using a standardised backward digit span test.
- Participants are presented with spoken sequences of digits (ranging from 3 to 9 digits at a rate of 1 digit per second) and must immediately write them down in reverse order.
- The DV is scored as the total number of correctly recalled backward digit sequences out of 14 trials (quantitative ratio data).

3. Experimental Design and Controls:
- Independent measures design (different participants allocated to the plant condition versus the no-plant condition).
- Random allocation of participants to conditions (e.g., drawing numbers from an opaque envelope) to reduce participant variables.
- Standardisation and controls: identical room temperature (21°C), artificial lighting (fluorescent, 500 lux), background noise levels (sound-dampened room), and identical test duration (15 minutes in the room before starting the test).

4. Procedure and Data Collection:
- Participant enters the designated experimental room (either plant or no-plant condition) and sits at an individual desk for a 10-minute acclimatisation period while reading a neutral article.
- Pre-recorded audio instructions and digit sequences are played through noise-cancelling headphones to standardise delivery.
- Participants complete 2 practice trials followed by 14 test sequences.
- Response sheets are collected immediately and scored objectively by two independent markers using an answer key to ensure high inter-rater reliability.
- Quantitative data (score out of 14) are tabulated to calculate descriptive statistics (mean and standard deviation) for each condition.

Use the 5-level marking grid for 10-mark design questions:

Level 5 (9–10 marks):
- All four essential elements are clearly described in detail: (1) Operationalised IV (both conditions clearly specified), (2) Operationalised DV (specific working memory task and measurement/scoring), (3) Experimental design with explicit controls/standardisation, (4) Step-by-step replicable procedure and data collection method.
- The plan is fully feasible, detailed, and directly replicable.
- Psychological terminology is used accurately and consistently throughout.

Level 4 (7–8 marks):
- At least three essential elements are described in thorough detail, or all four are present with minor omissions in procedural specifics.
- Good standardisation and clear operationalisation of variables.
- Psychological terminology is appropriate and mostly accurate.

Level 3 (5–6 marks):
- At least two essential elements are detailed, or three are outlined with basic descriptions.
- The procedure is understandable but lacks some key operational details for exact replication.
- Basic psychological terminology is used.

Level 2 (3–4 marks):
- One or two elements are described briefly or without sufficient operationalisation.
- Lacks adequate controls or procedural clarity.
- Minimal psychological terminology.

Level 1 (1–2 marks):
- Sparse or muddled response with very limited procedural detail.
- Significant confusion regarding experimental methodology.

Level 0 (0 marks):
- No creditworthy response.

Note: Do not credit sampling techniques or ethical considerations as per question instructions.

To resolve the issue of privacy and lack of informed consent, Kiran can:
1. Provide a specific procedural modification (e.g., displaying visible information posters informing shoppers that observational research is being conducted in that area, or approaching participants immediately after the observation to explain the study and seek retrospective consent).
2. Link the modification to ethical resolution (e.g., allowing participants the right to withdraw their data and delete any recorded footage if they do not agree to have been filmed).

1 mark for a practical modification to the procedure in context.
1 mark for explaining how this modification resolves the ethical issue (privacy / consent / right to withdraw).

Example:
- Kiran could approach participants immediately after they browse and explain the study to obtain retrospective consent (1 mark). If a participant refuses, Kiran must immediately delete the recording to respect their privacy and right to withdraw their data (1 mark).
- Kiran could conduct an overt observation by placing prominent signs in the aisles informing shoppers that observational recording is taking place (1 mark), ensuring participants are aware and their privacy is not covertly violated (1 mark).

To protect participants from psychological harm, Tariq can:
1. Suggest a clear modification (e.g., provide an immediate, structured debriefing session right after the task is completed).
2. Explain how this modification protects the participants (e.g., explicitly revealing the deception by clarifying that the test scores were false and randomised, ensuring participants leave in the same psychological state in which they entered).

1 mark for a practical modification (e.g., thorough debriefing, removing false negative feedback, offering counselling/support).
1 mark for linked explanation showing how it reduces/prevents harm in context.

Example:
- Tariq should provide a full debriefing immediately after the test where he explains that the test was fake and the negative score was completely made up (1 mark). This eliminates the participant's belief that they have low intelligence, restoring their self-esteem and preventing lasting emotional distress (1 mark).
- Tariq could modify the feedback to be milder or non-personal (e.g., challenging puzzle without mentioning IQ) (1 mark), which avoids threatening the participant's intellectual self-worth and reduces anxiety during the task (1 mark).