2023 AQA AS-Level Psychology (New) 7181 Practice Paper with Answers

Commitment refers to the minority showing dedication to their belief or position. This is often demonstrated through extreme activities or personal sacrifices, which carry some risk. This is important because it shows the majority that the minority is not acting out of self-interest. According to the augmentation principle, when the majority sees the minority making these sacrifices, they pay more attention to the cause and begin to rethink their own views, which can lead to conversion/internalisation.

3 marks: A clear, coherent, and detailed explanation of how commitment leads to minority influence, utilizing psychological concepts correctly (e.g., dedication, risk/sacrifice, augmentation principle, drawing attention).
2 marks: A mostly clear explanation that outlines commitment but may lack detail on how it actually influences the majority, or lacks key terms like the augmentation principle.
1 mark: A vague or brief point about commitment (e.g., 'the minority shows they care about their ideas').

First, identify that Sarah acts as a source of social support (an ally) which breaks the unanimity of the majority. Second, explain how this reduces the pressure to conform, specifically normative social influence, because Chloe is no longer alone in her view. Third, apply this to the outcome: this reduction in pressure provides Chloe with the confidence to resist the group and act according to her own wishes of staying in class.

3 marks: A clear, fully-applied explanation of how social support accounts for Chloe's behavior, accurately linking the role of an ally, the break in unanimity, and the reduction in social pressure. 2 marks: A mostly complete explanation with some application to the scenario, but missing one key element or lacking clarity. 1 mark: Basic or superficial understanding of social support with little or no application to Chloe's situation.

First, explain consistency: Marcus shows diachronic consistency by repeatedly raising the recycling issue at every weekly meeting for three months, which forces the majority to reassess their views. Second, explain commitment: Marcus shows dedication and personal sacrifice (the augmentation principle) by bringing his own bin and offering to transport the paper himself. Third, explain the outcome: this combination of consistency and commitment makes the majority take his message seriously, leading to conversion and adoption of recycling.

3 marks: A clear, accurate explanation of both consistency and commitment, with both terms explicitly applied to Marcus's scenario to show how they lead to minority influence. 2 marks: Explanation of consistency and commitment with only one successfully applied to the scenario, or a general explanation of both with weak application. 1 mark: Basic identification or definition of consistency and/or commitment with no successful application to Marcus.

The experimental design used in this study is the **independent groups design** (or independent measures design).

**Strength:** Because participants only take part in one condition (either Condition A or Condition B), they are much less likely to experience order effects or guess the aim of the study (demand characteristics). If they were to experience both conditions, they might realize the study is testing obedience to authority depending on their attire, which could artificially change their behavior.

**1 mark** for correctly identifying the experimental design as independent groups (or independent measures).
**1 mark** for outlining a strength of this design that is clearly applied/contextualised to this study (e.g., avoiding demand characteristics or order effects in relation to obedience behavior).

To operationalise the independent variable (minority consistency), the researcher needs to manipulate how consistently the minority group expresses their viewpoint. This can be achieved by having two distinct experimental groups. In the 'consistent' condition, a minority of confederates would give the same incorrect response (e.g., calling a blue slide 'green') on every single trial (100% of the time). In the 'inconsistent' condition, the same minority of confederates would give the incorrect response on only a portion of the trials (e.g., 24 out of 36 trials) and the correct response on the remaining trials. To operationalise the dependent variable (social influence), the researcher must measure the direct impact of the minority on the majority's behavior. This can be done by recording the number of times, or the overall percentage of trials, that the genuine participant conforms to the minority's incorrect answer.

Up to 2 marks for operationalising the independent variable (minority consistency): 1 mark for identifying a basic way to manipulate consistency (e.g., consistent vs inconsistent groups). 2 marks for a fully operationalised description (e.g., specifying exactly how the consistency is varied, such as confederates calling a blue slide green on all trials versus only some trials). Up to 2 marks for operationalising the dependent variable (social influence): 1 mark for identifying a basic measurement of conformity/influence. 2 marks for a fully operationalised description (e.g., measuring the specific number or percentage of trials where the participant agrees with the minority's incorrect answer).

To gain all 4 marks, the response must clearly explain how the laboratory study can be adapted into a field experiment, addressing all three prompted areas:

1. **Setting (1 mark):** The student must identify a natural, real-world setting where people would naturally congregate or make decisions, such as a school/university common room, a workplace canteen, or a local community meeting.
2. **Manipulation of the Independent Variable (IV) (2 marks):** The student must explain how the minority influence is introduced naturally. For example, two confederates (the minority) consistently argue for a specific, non-majority view (e.g., implementing recycling bins, changing the school uniform, or voting for a specific menu change) during a group discussion or at an information booth. This must contrast with a control condition or an inconsistent minority condition to show manipulation.
3. **Measurement of the Dependent Variable (DV) (1 mark):** The student must explain how the conforming behavior or attitude change is measured. For example, counting the number of actual participants who sign a petition, vote in favor of the minority's proposal, or express agreement on a feedback form.

**4 marks:** The description of the modification is clear, coherent, and fully appropriate for a field experiment. All three bullet points (setting, IV manipulation, and DV measurement) are addressed accurately and in detail.
**3 marks:** The description of the modification is mostly clear and appropriate. All three bullet points are addressed, but one lacks detail, OR only two bullet points are addressed but in significant depth.
**2 marks:** The description is limited. The candidate attempts to address at least two of the bullet points, but the application to a field experiment or minority influence is weak or lacks clarity.
**1 mark:** The description is very weak or vague. Only one bullet point is addressed, or the response simply defines a field experiment without successfully applying it to the context of minority influence.

**Note:** If the suggested modification does not constitute a *field experiment* (e.g., it remains in a laboratory setting or is a questionnaire/correlation), a maximum of 1 mark can be awarded.

Informational Social Influence (ISI) occurs when people conform because they have a desire to be right. This typically happens in ambiguous or novel situations where an individual is unsure of the correct way to behave and looks to others (whom they perceive as having more information or expertise) for guidance.

In this scenario, Sarah is in an ambiguous situation because she does not know which fork to use. Because she wants to avoid making a social error and be correct, she observes and copies the behavior of the person next to her, assuming they have the correct knowledge of dining etiquette.

Award 1 mark for explaining what is meant by Informational Social Influence (desire to be correct/right, looking to others for information/guidance in ambiguous situations).

Award 1 mark for applying ISI to Sarah's scenario (identifying that Sarah is in an ambiguous situation because she does not know which fork to use, and copies the person next to her to be correct).

*Note: No marks can be awarded for application alone. Max 1 mark if there is no application to the scenario.*

One limitation of the dispositional explanation of obedience is that it is difficult to apply to majority populations. For instance, in pre-war Germany, millions of individuals offered obedient and anti-Semitic behaviour. It is extremely unlikely that all of these individuals possessed the same Authoritarian Personality and experienced the same harsh, punitive childhood upbringing. Instead, a situational explanation, such as Milgram's agency theory or social identity theory, is a much more realistic and plausible explanation for mass obedience, demonstrating that dispositional factors alone cannot fully account for widespread obedient behaviour.

3 marks: A clear, fully elaborated explanation of a relevant limitation (e.g., difficulty explaining mass obedience, correlational nature of the evidence, or methodological bias in the F-scale). 2 marks: A relevant limitation is identified and partially explained, but lacks full clarity or elaboration in linking it back to why it limits the explanation of obedience. 1 mark: A relevant limitation is briefly identified (e.g., 'it is only correlational') but there is no elaboration. 0 marks: Incorrect or irrelevant response.

The episodic buffer was added to the Working Memory Model by Baddeley in 2000. It acts as a temporary store for information, integrating acoustic, visual, and spatial information from the other components, and forms the bridge between working memory and long-term memory.

1 mark for the correct selection of option B (Episodic buffer).

One strength of the Working Memory Model (WMM) is support from dual-task studies (such as those conducted by Baddeley and Hitch). Participants find it much more difficult to perform two visual tasks simultaneously (e.g., tracking a light and imagining a letter F) than to perform one visual and one verbal task together. This is because two tasks of the same modality compete for the same limited capacity of the same component (the visuo-spatial sketchpad), whereas tasks of different modalities utilize separate components (the visuo-spatial sketchpad and the phonological loop). This empirical evidence supports the model's claim that working memory consists of several independent, specialized components rather than a single unitary store.

Marks allocation:
- 4 marks: The explanation of a strength is clear, coherent, and detailed, with accurate and effective use of empirical research evidence to support the point.
- 3 marks: The explanation of a strength is mostly clear with some detail. Research evidence is included and relevant, though the explanation of how it supports the model may lack some depth or clarity.
- 2 marks: The explanation of a strength is basic. The student identifies a strength but the elaboration or the use of research evidence is limited or lacks detail.
- 1 mark: The answer is very brief, muddled, or contains major inaccuracies, with little to no relevant research evidence.

One major limitation of the cognitive interview is that it is highly time-consuming and practically demanding to implement in real-world policing. Kebbell and Wagstaff (1999) pointed out that police forces are often unable to provide more than a few hours of training, which is insufficient for officers to master the specialized techniques (such as establishing rapport and using 'change perspective' techniques). Furthermore, the actual interview process takes much longer than standard police questioning, and officers rarely have the time available to conduct them fully. Consequently, the cognitive interview may not be as effective in practice as laboratory studies suggest because it is rarely implemented in its complete form.

Marks allocation:
- 4 marks: The explanation of a limitation is clear, coherent, and detailed, with effective elaboration/context showing why it is a limitation in practice.
- 3 marks: The explanation of a limitation is mostly clear with some elaboration, but may lack full detail or depth in linking it to real-world application.
- 2 marks: The explanation of a limitation is basic. The student identifies a valid limitation (e.g., 'it takes too long') but the elaboration is limited or lacks depth.
- 1 mark: The answer is very brief, muddled, or merely states a limitation without explaining why it is a problem.

The Working Memory Model (WMM), proposed by Baddeley and Hitch, consists of several components.

1. **Central Executive (2 marks)**:
- Its main function is to act as an overall attentional controller, directing focus and monitoring incoming information.
- It allocates cognitive tasks to the appropriate slave systems (the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad).
- It has a very limited processing capacity and cannot store data itself.

2. **Episodic Buffer (2 marks)**:
- Added to the model in 2000, its primary function is to integrate visual, spatial, and acoustic information from the other slave systems into a single, coherent multi-dimensional scene or 'episode'.
- It maintains a sense of chronological/time sequencing for events.
- It has a limited capacity of about four chunks of information and acts as a bridge/link between working memory and long-term memory.

**Central Executive (Max 2 marks):**
- **2 marks**: A clear, accurate, and detailed outline of the central executive's function (e.g., directing attention, allocating tasks to slave systems, and mentioning its limited storage capacity).
- **1 mark**: A vague, basic, or incomplete outline (e.g., 'it controls the memory system' or 'it tells other parts what to do').

**Episodic Buffer (Max 2 marks):**
- **2 marks**: A clear, accurate, and detailed outline of the episodic buffer's function (e.g., integrating information from different modalities into a single episode, recording time sequence, linking working memory to long-term memory, or mentioning its limited capacity).
- **1 mark**: A vague, basic, or incomplete outline (e.g., 'it holds information together' or 'it was added later by Baddeley').

*Note: No marks can be awarded for simply naming the components, as the prompt asks to outline their functions.*

The Working Memory Model (WMM), proposed by Baddeley and Hitch, consists of several components.

1. **Central Executive (2 marks)**:
- Its main function is to act as an overall attentional controller, directing focus and monitoring incoming information.
- It allocates cognitive tasks to the appropriate slave systems (the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad).
- It has a very limited processing capacity and cannot store data itself.

2. **Episodic Buffer (2 marks)**:
- Added to the model in 2000, its primary function is to integrate visual, spatial, and acoustic information from the other slave systems into a single, coherent multi-dimensional scene or 'episode'.
- It maintains a sense of chronological/time sequencing for events.
- It has a limited capacity of about four chunks of information and acts as a bridge/link between working memory and long-term memory.

**Central Executive (Max 2 marks):**
- **2 marks**: A clear, accurate, and detailed outline of the central executive's function (e.g., directing attention, allocating tasks to slave systems, and mentioning its limited storage capacity).
- **1 mark**: A vague, basic, or incomplete outline (e.g., 'it controls the memory system' or 'it tells other parts what to do').

**Episodic Buffer (Max 2 marks):**
- **2 marks**: A clear, accurate, and detailed outline of the episodic buffer's function (e.g., integrating information from different modalities into a single episode, recording time sequence, linking working memory to long-term memory, or mentioning its limited capacity).
- **1 mark**: A vague, basic, or incomplete outline (e.g., 'it holds information together' or 'it was added later by Baddeley').

*Note: No marks can be awarded for simply naming the components, as the prompt asks to outline their functions.*

Chloe is experiencing proactive interference. This occurs when older, previously stored information disrupts the attempt to retrieve newer information. In Chloe's case, the memory of her old passcode, which she used for two years and is therefore highly consolidated, is interfering with her brain's ability to recall the new passcode that she has only recently set.

Up to 3 marks for application of knowledge of proactive interference to the scenario.

- 1 mark: Correctly identifies proactive interference as the type of forgetting Chloe is experiencing.
- 1 mark: Explains the psychological mechanism of proactive interference (older memories/information disrupt the retrieval of newer memories/information).
- 1 mark: Applies the concept directly to Chloe's scenario (e.g., explaining that her old passcode, being used for two years, is strongly established/encoded and therefore blocks or interferes with the newly learned passcode).

AO1 (Outline): Retrieval failure suggests that forgetting is due to the absence of prompts or cues that were present at the time the memory was encoded. According to the Encoding Specificity Principle (ESP) proposed by Tulving, if a cue is to be effective in retrieval, it must be present during encoding and during retrieval. There are two main types of cue-dependent forgetting: context-dependent forgetting and state-dependent forgetting. Context-dependent forgetting occurs when external environmental cues are missing (e.g., being in a different physical setting during recall than during learning). State-dependent forgetting occurs when internal cues are missing (e.g., being in a different physiological or psychological state, such as under the influence of drugs, alcohol, or specific emotions). AO3 (Evaluation): A strength of retrieval failure as an explanation is the supporting empirical evidence. For context-dependent forgetting, Godden and Baddeley (1975) showed that deep-sea divers who learned and recalled word lists in matching environments (both on land or both underwater) had significantly higher recall than those in non-matching environments. For state-dependent forgetting, Carter and Cassaday (1998) found that participants who learned and recalled information while on antihistamines (which cause drowsiness) performed significantly better when their drug state during recall matched their state during learning. Another strength is its practical application. The principles of retrieval failure have been used to develop the Cognitive Interview, specifically the 'mental reinstatement of context' technique, which has proven highly effective in helping eyewitnesses recall more accurate information. However, a limitation of the research is that the environments studied are often very extreme (e.g., land vs. underwater). In everyday life, the difference between physical contexts is rarely this distinct, meaning retrieval failure may not explain typical, minor daily forgetting.

AO1 (4 marks): Level 4 (4 marks) - Knowledge of retrieval failure is accurate and detailed. Explanations of context- and state-dependent forgetting are clear and well-defined with appropriate terminology (e.g., ESP). Level 3 (3 marks) - Knowledge is mostly accurate, though some detail may be missing. Level 2 (2 marks) - Basic or superficial knowledge of retrieval failure. Level 1 (1 mark) - Fragmented or extremely limited knowledge. AO3 (4 marks): Level 4 (4 marks) - Evaluation is detailed, well-structured, and highly relevant to retrieval failure. Critical points (such as supporting studies and practical application) are fully explained and connected back to the theory. Level 3 (3 marks) - Evaluation is mostly detailed with minor omissions. Level 2 (2 marks) - Basic evaluation points are present but lack depth or clear link to the explanation. Level 1 (1 mark) - Very limited or irrelevant evaluation.

Interactional synchrony occurs when a caregiver and infant interact in such a way that their actions and emotions mirror each other. Key features include:
- Coordinated behavior: Both partners move or react in a similar rhythm and timing.
- Simultaneity: The behaviors happen at the same time, unlike simple turn-taking (which is characteristic of reciprocity).
- Research support/Example: For instance, Meltzoff and Moore (1977) demonstrated interactional synchrony by showing that infants as young as two to three weeks old copied specific facial expressions and hand gestures of an adult model in real-time.

3 marks: A clear, coherent, and detailed outline of interactional synchrony, accurately distinguishing it as simultaneous mirroring rather than simple turn-taking.
2 marks: The outline has some detail and accuracy but may lack complete clarity, or may slightly confuse synchrony with reciprocity.
1 mark: A vague, brief, or confused outline (e.g., 'caregiver and baby doing the same thing').
0 marks: Completely incorrect or irrelevant response.

Bowlby's concept of the internal working model comprises three key elements:
- Cognitive Schema: It is a mental representation of the primary caregiver relationship.
- Template for Future Relationships: It acts as a guide or blueprint, shaping expectations about trust, safety, and reciprocity in subsequent relationships (the continuity hypothesis).
- Influence on Self-Esteem: It forms the basis of the child's belief about whether they are lovable or valuable.

3 marks: A clear, coherent, and detailed outline of the internal working model, including its cognitive nature, its origin in early caregiving, and its role as a template for future relationship expectations.
2 marks: The outline is mostly clear but lacks some depth or omits one of the key aspects (such as the impact on future relationships or its origin in the primary attachment).
1 mark: A superficial or highly simplified response (e.g., 'it is a model for future relationships' with no further elaboration).
0 marks: Completely incorrect or irrelevant response.

Leo is demonstrating an Insecure-resistant (Type C) attachment style. This is shown through several specific behaviours in the scenario:

1. **High Separation Anxiety:** When his father leaves him with the childminder, Leo becomes 'extremely distressed'. Insecure-resistant infants show severe distress when separated from their primary caregiver.
2. **High Stranger Anxiety:** Leo 'cannot be calmed down by the childminder'. Insecure-resistant infants typically show extreme anxiety and fear around strangers, rejecting any comfort they offer.
3. **Reunion Behaviour / Ambivalence:** When his father returns, Leo runs to him (seeking proximity/comfort) but then 'immediately starts pushing his father away and struggles to get down' (resisting contact). This display of conflicting, angry/resistive behaviour upon reunion is the hallmark of insecure-resistant attachment.

**Marks Allocation:**
- **1 mark** for correctly identifying Leo's attachment type as Insecure-resistant (or Type C).
- **Up to 5 marks** for application of knowledge to explain Leo's behaviour (AO2).

**Level descriptors for AO2 application (5 marks):**

- **Level 3 (4–5 marks):** The explanation of Leo's behaviour is clear, accurate, and detailed. The answer successfully links specific psychological concepts (such as separation anxiety, stranger anxiety, and reunion behaviour) to details in the scenario. The explanation is well-structured and uses appropriate psychological terminology.
- **Level 2 (2–3 marks):** There is some application of knowledge of attachment types to the scenario. Some links are made to Leo's behaviour (e.g., pointing out his reaction to his father leaving or returning), but the explanation may lack detail, depth, or specific terminology.
- **Level 1 (1 mark):** The response is very brief, superficial, or contains significant inaccuracies. It may list features of insecure-resistant attachment without applying them to Leo, or vice versa.
- **0 marks:** No relevant content or incorrect identification with no valid application.

**Key application points to look for:**
- Identifies 'extremely distressed' as high separation anxiety.
- Identifies 'cannot be calmed by the childminder' as high stranger anxiety/rejection of stranger comfort.
- Identifies 'runs to him... but pushes him away' as reunion resistance/ambivalent behaviour (seeking proximity while simultaneously resisting contact).

### AO1: Description of Animal Studies

**Lorenz (1935): Imprinting in Greylag Geese**
* **Procedure:** Lorenz split a clutch of greylag goose eggs into two groups. One group hatched naturally with their mother (control group), while the other group hatched in an incubator where the first moving object they saw was Lorenz (experimental group).
* **Findings:** The incubator group followed Lorenz everywhere, whereas the control group followed their mother. Even when mixed together, the two groups separated to follow their respective 'parents'.
* **Critical Period:** Lorenz identified a critical period of a few hours after hatching. If imprinting did not occur within this timeframe, the chicks did not attach to a mother figure.
* **Sexual Imprinting:** Lorenz noted that birds would later display courtship behaviour towards the species/object they imprinted on.

**Harlow (1958): Contact Comfort in Rhesus Monkeys**
* **Procedure:** Harlow reared 16 newborn rhesus monkeys with two surrogate mothers: one 'wire mother' (which dispensed milk) and one 'cloth-covered mother' (which offered no food but was soft and warm).
* **Findings:** The monkeys spent significantly more time cuddling the cloth mother and sought refuge with her when frightened by a mechanical toy, only visiting the wire mother to feed. This demonstrated that 'contact comfort' was more important than food ('cupboard love') in attachment formation.
* **Long-term effects:** Deprived monkeys grew up to be socially dysfunctional, highly aggressive, and poor parents (often neglecting or abusing their own offspring).
* **Critical Period:** Harlow concluded that monkeys needed to form an attachment within 90 days, or the damage was irreversible.

### AO3: Evaluation

* **Difficulty in Generalising to Humans:** A major limitation is the issue of extrapolating findings from animals to humans. Human behavior is far more complex and conscious than that of geese or monkeys. For instance, human attachment is a reciprocal, two-way process that develops over several months, rather than an instantaneous instinctual response (like imprinting).
* **Ethical Issues (Harlow):** Harlow's research caused severe and permanent emotional harm to the social monkeys, who suffered extreme distress. However, it can be argued that the immense theoretical value of the study (overturning the behavioral/learning view that feeding is the sole driver of attachment) justified the ethical cost.
* **Practical Applications:** The findings have had profound real-world applications. It has helped social workers understand the devastating consequences of child neglect and abuse, allowing for earlier and more effective intervention. It also influenced hospital care (allowing parents more contact with hospitalized infants) and improved captive breeding programs for primates.
* **Contradictory Evidence for Imprinting:** Guiton (1966) found that chickens who imprinted on yellow washing-up gloves would initially try to mate with them, but with experience, they eventually learned to prefer mating with other chickens. This suggests that the effects of imprinting may not be as permanent or irreversible as Lorenz originally claimed.

### Mark allocation:
* **AO1 (6 marks):** Description of the procedures, findings, and conclusions of animal studies of attachment (Lorenz and/or Harlow).
* **AO3 (6 marks):** Evaluation of the animal studies (e.g., generalisability, ethics, theoretical value, practical applications).

### Level Descriptors:
* **Level 4 (10-12 marks):** Knowledge of animal studies is accurate and generally well-detailed. Evaluation is effective and consistently focused. The answer is well-structured and clear.
* **Level 3 (7-9 marks):** Knowledge is evident, but there may be minor omissions/errors. Evaluation is mostly effective with some clear points made. Structure is reasonable.
* **Level 2 (4-6 marks):** Understanding of animal studies is present but lacks detail. Evaluation is limited, superficial, or poorly focused.
* **Level 1 (1-3 marks):** Knowledge is basic and fragmented. Evaluation is absent or highly descriptive. Structure is poor.
* **0 marks:** No relevant content.

Social learning theory proposes that cognitive factors, known as mediational processes, intervene in the learning process to determine whether a new behavior is acquired and reproduced. Unlike traditional behaviorism, social learning theory suggests that individuals do not automatically observe and imitate a behavior; cognitive processing occurs prior to imitation. Bandura identified four mediational processes: 1. Attention: The extent to which we notice and focus on the model's behavior. 2. Retention: How well the observed behavior is remembered and stored in memory. 3. Motor Reproduction: The physical capability of the observer to replicate the behavior. 4. Motivation: The will to perform the behavior, which is often determined by observing the consequences of the model's actions (vicarious reinforcement).

4 marks: Clear, accurate and detailed outline of the role of mediational processes, naming and describing all four processes (attention, retention, motor reproduction, motivation) and explaining their role as cognitive buffers between stimulus and response.
3 marks: Mostly accurate outline of the role of mediational processes. Names all four with brief descriptions, or explains three in detail.
2 marks: Basic outline of mediational processes. Names some processes with minimal explanation, or explains the general role of cognitive factors in social learning theory.
1 mark: Very limited/vague answer, e.g., just lists one or two processes without explanation.

The genotype is an individual's actual genetic makeup, which is determined at conception and remains completely fixed (e.g., possessing specific gene mutations). The phenotype is the physical, behavioral, and psychological characteristics of an individual, which are determined by the interaction between their genetic makeup (genotype) and the environment. The key difference is that the genotype is purely genetic and unchanging, whereas the phenotype is malleable and represents how those genes are actually expressed in reality due to environmental influences. For example, identical (monozygotic) twins share 100% of their genotype, yet they may exhibit different phenotypes, such as different weights or interests, because of environmental differences like diet, exercise, or physical training.

4 marks: Clear and accurate definitions of both genotype and phenotype, an explicit explanation of the difference between them (fixed genetic code vs interaction with environmental factors), and a relevant example (such as MZ twins or PKU) clearly applied to illustrate the distinction.
3 marks: Accurate definitions of both terms and a difference stated, but the example is weak or lacks clear application to the distinction. Or accurate definitions and example but the difference is not clearly explicated.
2 marks: Basic understanding shown. Defines genotype and phenotype but lacks a clear difference or example.
1 mark: Very limited/vague answer, e.g., only defines one term correctly.

One concept is vicarious reinforcement. Toby observes his brother Leo being rewarded (praised and given a treat) for clearing his plate. Seeing this positive consequence reinforces Toby's desire to perform a similar helpful action (tidying his toys) in expectation of a reward. Another concept is modelling and identification. Leo acts as a role model because he is Toby's older brother, a same-sex sibling with whom Toby is likely to identify. Toby then imitates the general helpful behavior modeled by Leo. Finally, mediational processes (motivation/expectancy) are shown when Toby looks expectantly at his parents, demonstrating he has cognitively processed the potential reward before acting.

4 marks: Two social learning theory concepts are clearly identified, explained, and accurately applied to the scenario. 3 marks: Two concepts are identified with some application, or one concept is explained and applied in detail. 2 marks: One concept is identified and applied, or two concepts are simply identified with no application. 1 mark: Very basic or confused answer showing limited understanding of social learning theory. 0 marks: No creditworthy material. Correct concepts include: Vicarious reinforcement (observing Leo's reward motivates Toby); Modelling/Identification (Toby identifies with Leo as an older brother and copies him); Mediational processes (Toby expects a reward, showing cognitive processing).

AO1 Knowledge:
- The Behaviourist Approach focuses on observable behaviour and suggests all behaviour is learned through interaction with the environment. It includes classical conditioning (learning through association, e.g., Pavlov) and operant conditioning (learning through reinforcement and punishment, e.g., Skinner).
- Social Learning Theory (SLT) suggests behaviour is learned through observation and imitation of others within a social context (Bandura). Key concepts include modelling, identification, imitation, and vicarious reinforcement. It also incorporates cognitive mediational processes: attention, retention, motor reproduction, and motivation.

AO2 Application to Bradley:
- Bradley may have learned to throw toys via operant conditioning. When Bradley throws his toys, his father laughs and gives him a sweet. This acts as positive reinforcement (a rewarding consequence), making Bradley more likely to repeat the toy-throwing behaviour.
- Bradley may also have learned via Social Learning Theory. His older brother, Leo, acts as a role model. Bradley identifies with him (same gender, older sibling). Bradley observes Leo throwing things and receiving attention for it (vicarious reinforcement), which motivates Bradley to imitate this behavior when frustrated.

AO3 Evaluation:
- Contrast in cognitive involvement: Behaviourism ignores cognitive processes (stimulus-response only), whereas SLT recognizes the role of mediational processes, offering a more comprehensive explanation of human learning.
- Scientific credibility: Both approaches rely on controlled, scientific laboratory studies (e.g., Skinner's boxes, Bandura's Bobo doll studies), which allow for replication and high internal validity, though they may lack ecological validity.
- Determinism: Behaviourism is highly environmentally deterministic, suggesting free will is an illusion, whereas SLT allows for some 'soft determinism' (reciprocal determinism), acknowledging that individuals have some control over their behaviour.

Level 4 (10–12 marks):
- Knowledge of both the behaviourist approach and social learning theory is accurate and well-detailed.
- Application to Bradley's behaviour is clear, appropriate, and well-integrated throughout the response.
- Evaluation is thorough, balanced, and shows effective critical thinking.
- The answer is well-structured, coherent, and uses appropriate psychological terminology.

Level 3 (7–9 marks):
- Knowledge of both approaches is mostly accurate, though there may be minor omissions or a slight imbalance.
- Application to the scenario is mostly appropriate and clear.
- Evaluation is largely effective, though it may lack depth in some areas.
- The answer is generally clear and structured.

Level 2 (4–6 marks):
- Knowledge of one or both approaches is present but lacks detail and/or has some inaccuracies.
- Application to the scenario is limited, superficial, or poorly integrated.
- Evaluation is basic, perhaps relying on generic strengths/weaknesses.
- The answer lacks structure and clarity in places.

Level 1 (1–3 marks):
- Knowledge is very basic, fragmented, or highly inaccurate.
- Minimal or no application to the scenario.
- Evaluation is absent or extremely limited.
- The answer is disorganized and difficult to follow.

0 marks:
- No relevant content.

According to Mowrer's two-process model, phobias are acquired through classical conditioning (learning by association) but are maintained through operant conditioning (learning by reinforcement). When Jamil runs away from the dog, his escape/avoidance behaviour successfully reduces his fear and anxiety (negative reinforcement). Because this reduction of anxiety is a rewarding outcome, it strengthens the avoidance behaviour, preventing the phobia from being extinguished.

Award 1 mark for the correct answer: B (Operant conditioning).

According to Mowrer's two-process model, phobias are acquired through classical conditioning (learning by association) but are maintained through operant conditioning (learning by reinforcement). When Jamil runs away from the dog, his escape/avoidance behaviour successfully reduces his fear and anxiety (negative reinforcement). Because this reduction of anxiety is a rewarding outcome, it strengthens the avoidance behaviour, preventing the phobia from being extinguished.

Award 1 mark for the correct answer: B (Operant conditioning).

According to Mowrer's two-process model, phobias are acquired through classical conditioning (learning by association) but are maintained through operant conditioning (learning by reinforcement). When Jamil runs away from the dog, his escape/avoidance behaviour successfully reduces his fear and anxiety (negative reinforcement). Because this reduction of anxiety is a rewarding outcome, it strengthens the avoidance behaviour, preventing the phobia from being extinguished.

Award 1 mark for the correct answer: B (Operant conditioning).

One limitation of flooding is that it is a highly traumatic experience. [1 mark] This is because it involves immediate and intense exposure to the phobic stimulus without a gradual hierarchy of fear, causing extreme anxiety. [1 mark] As a consequence, flooding has high attrition (dropout) rates, which means clinical time and money are wasted, and patients may leave the therapy session with an even stronger phobia. [1 mark]

3 marks: A clear and coherent explanation of a limitation, with appropriate elaboration showing its impact/consequence. 2 marks: A limitation is identified and explained, but the elaboration or consequence is missing or lacks clarity. 1 mark: A limitation is merely identified (e.g., 'it is traumatic') with no explanation or elaboration. 0 marks: No creditworthy material.

**Strength:**
* **Identification (1 mark):** One strength of using an independent groups design is that it avoids order effects.
* **Application to scenario (1 mark):** Because participants only undergo either systematic desensitisation or flooding (not both), their improvement or anxiety levels during the second therapy cannot be influenced by familiarity, practice, or fatigue from the first treatment.

**Limitation:**
* **Identification (1 mark):** One limitation is the presence of participant variables (individual differences).
* **Application to scenario (1 mark):** The participants allocated to the systematic desensitisation group might have naturally less severe spider phobias or higher motivation to recover than those in the flooding group. This difference in participant characteristics, rather than the therapy itself, could confound the final comparison of treatment effectiveness.

**Strength (2 marks):**
* **2 marks** for a clear strength of independent groups design that is explicitly applied to the scenario (e.g., mentioning the specific therapies or phobia).
* **1 mark** for a generic strength of independent groups design without application, or a muddled attempt at application.

**Limitation (2 marks):**
* **2 marks** for a clear limitation of independent groups design that is explicitly applied to the scenario (e.g., referencing individual differences in phobia severity or participant characteristics).
* **1 mark** for a generic limitation of independent groups design without application, or a muddled attempt at application.

Beck proposed that depression is maintained by negative cognitive schemas and cognitive biases that lead to a systematic pattern of negative thinking known as the cognitive triad. This triad consists of:

1. **Negative view of the self**: The individual perceives themselves as worthless, deficient, or a failure (e.g., "I am useless and cannot do anything right").
2. **Negative view of the world**: The individual interprets current experiences and environmental obstacles in an overwhelmingly negative, pessimistic way (e.g., "Everyone dislikes me" or "The world is a hostile place").
3. **Negative view of the future**: The individual anticipates that their current difficulties and suffering will continue indefinitely, leading to hopelessness (e.g., "Things will never get better for me").

These three components interact with each other, reinforcing the individual's depressive state and influencing their behavior and emotions.

**4 marks**: Clear, accurate, and detailed outline of Beck's cognitive triad. All three components (self, world, future) are correctly identified and explained with appropriate detail or examples showing how they relate to depression.
**3 marks**: Mostly clear and accurate outline of the triad. All three components are identified, but the explanation or examples may lack depth or clarity; or two components are outlined in excellent detail.
**2 marks**: Basic or limited outline. Some components may be missing, or the triad is merely listed without explanation of how the components function in depression.
**1 mark**: Very brief or vague response showing a minimal grasp of Beck's theory.
**0 marks**: No relevant content.

AO1 (Description): Mowrer's (1960) two-process model states that phobias are acquired through classical conditioning and maintained through operant conditioning. Acquisition occurs when a neutral stimulus (NS) is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) that naturally produces fear (UCR). Through association, the NS becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS) producing a conditioned response of fear (CR). Maintenance occurs through operant conditioning. When an individual avoids the phobic stimulus, their anxiety levels decrease. This reduction in anxiety acts as negative reinforcement, which strengthens and maintains the avoidance behavior, preventing the extinction of the fear.

AO2 (Application to Leo): Leo acquired his phobia when the dog (initially a Neutral Stimulus) was associated with the pain/fear of being bitten (Unconditioned Stimulus), leading to fear (Unconditioned Response). Now, dogs have become a Conditioned Stimulus that produces fear (Conditioned Response). His phobia is maintained because whenever he avoids dogs or runs away, his anxiety is reduced. This reduction in fear acts as negative reinforcement, encouraging him to keep avoiding parks, which prevents him from learning that dogs are not always dangerous.

AO3 (Evaluation): A strength of the two-process model is its practical application to therapy. It forms the basis of behavioral treatments like Systematic Desensitisation and Flooding, which successfully treat phobias by preventing avoidance and allowing extinction to occur. However, a limitation is that it is reductionist and ignores cognitive aspects of phobias. For instance, cognitive theorists argue that phobias are caused by irrational thinking and cognitive distortions, which the behavioral approach fails to explain. Furthermore, evolutionary theories (such as Seligman's biological preparedness) suggest that some phobias (like fear of snakes or dark) are innate rather than learned, pointing to a biological vulnerability that the two-process model ignores.

AO1: 3 marks, AO2: 2 marks, AO3: 3 marks.

Level 4 (7-8 marks): Knowledge of the two-process model is accurate and detailed. Application to the scenario is clear and fully developed. Evaluation is effective and well-structured, showing a clear critical understanding. The response is coherent and organized with psychological terminology used appropriately.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Knowledge is mostly accurate. Application is present but may contain minor gaps or lack detail. Evaluation is mostly effective with some clear points made.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Knowledge is basic or limited. Application to Leo is superficial or limited. Evaluation is weak, descriptive, or unbalanced.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Very basic knowledge, application, or evaluation is present. Answers may be disorganized or lack focus.

0 marks: No relevant content.

An aim should clearly state the purpose of the study, specifying what is being investigated. It must reference both the independent variable (practicing 10 minutes of mindfulness meditation vs. sitting quietly for 10 minutes) and the dependent variable (self-reported anxiety levels). A fully operationalized aim would be: 'To investigate the effect of practicing 10 minutes of mindfulness meditation before an exam on self-reported anxiety levels compared to sitting quietly for 10 minutes.'

2 marks: For a clear, coherent, and appropriate aim that identifies both the independent variable (mindfulness meditation vs. sitting quietly) and the dependent variable (self-reported anxiety levels). 1 mark: For a vague or incomplete aim that only identifies one of the variables, or is poorly phrased but indicates the general purpose of the research. 0 marks: For an aim that is completely incorrect, or if the candidate writes a hypothesis instead of an aim.

To show why the sign test is appropriate, you must explain how the three criteria for this test apply to the study: 1. Test of difference: The researcher is looking for a difference in memory performance between two conditions (before the training programme vs. after the training programme). 2. Experimental design: The study uses a related design, specifically a repeated measures design, because the same 12 participants take part in both conditions (before and after). 3. Type of data: The test requires nominal data, or data that can be converted to nominal data. The differences between the 'before' and 'after' scores are converted into signs (plus, minus, or equal), which is nominal level data.

4 marks: The candidate clearly explains all three criteria (test of difference, repeated measures design, and nominal data) and explicitly links each one to the scenario. 3 marks: The candidate explains two criteria with clear links to the scenario, or mentions all three with weak/missing contextualisation. 2 marks: The candidate explains one criterion with a clear link to the scenario, or identifies two criteria without context. 1 mark: The candidate identifies one correct criterion (e.g., 'it is a test of difference') without linking it to the scenario. 0 marks: No creditworthy response.

To calculate the sign test: 1. Identify the direction of change for each participant (using After minus Before): Participant 1: -3 (minus); Participant 2: -2 (minus); Participant 3: 0 (no change, excluded); Participant 4: +1 (plus); Participant 5: -6 (minus); Participant 6: -2 (minus); Participant 7: -1 (minus); Participant 8: +1 (plus); Participant 9: -3 (minus); Participant 10: 0 (no change, excluded). 2. Count the signs: Number of pluses (+) = 2, Number of minuses (-) = 6. 3. Determine \(N\): Total number of participants with a change (excluding zero differences) is 10 - 2 = 8. So, \(N = 8\). 4. Determine \(S\): \(S\) is the frequency of the least common sign. Comparing 2 and 6, the lower value is 2. Therefore, the observed value of \(S = 2\).

1 mark for showing workings: either listing the signs for each participant (+, -, or 0) or correctly stating there are 2 pluses and 6 minuses. 1 mark for the correct observed value of \(S = 2\). 1 mark for the correct value of \(N = 8\) (showing that the two participants with no change are excluded).

A pilot study is a small-scale dummy run of the main investigation. A key reason to conduct one in this scenario is to test the design and materials, such as checking if the word lists are too easy (causing a ceiling effect where everyone gets high scores) or too difficult (causing a floor effect). This allows the psychologist to refine the lists before investing time and money in the full study. Other acceptable reasons include testing whether the instructions for listening to the music are clear, or checking if the timing of the recall task is appropriate.

2 marks: A clear and coherent explanation of a reason for conducting a pilot study, with explicit and appropriate application to the scenario (e.g., referencing the word list, classical music, or teenagers).
1 mark: A generic explanation of a reason for conducting a pilot study (e.g., 'to check for design flaws' or 'to see if instructions are clear') without any application to the scenario, OR an applied response that is brief/partially clear.
0 marks: Inaccurate or irrelevant response.

A pilot study is a small-scale dummy run of the main investigation. A key reason to conduct one in this scenario is to test the design and materials, such as checking if the word lists are too easy (causing a ceiling effect where everyone gets high scores) or too difficult (causing a floor effect). This allows the psychologist to refine the lists before investing time and money in the full study. Other acceptable reasons include testing whether the instructions for listening to the music are clear, or checking if the timing of the recall task is appropriate.

2 marks: A clear and coherent explanation of a reason for conducting a pilot study, with explicit and appropriate application to the scenario (e.g., referencing the word list, classical music, or teenagers).
1 mark: A generic explanation of a reason for conducting a pilot study (e.g., 'to check for design flaws' or 'to see if instructions are clear') without any application to the scenario, OR an applied response that is brief/partially clear.
0 marks: Inaccurate or irrelevant response.

The hypothesis is non-directional. This is because it states that there will be a difference in the number of words recalled between the two groups, but it does not specify the direction of that difference (i.e., it does not state which group will perform better or worse).

1 mark for correctly identifying the hypothesis as non-directional. 1 mark for explaining that the hypothesis predicts a difference between the groups but does not specify the direction of this difference (e.g., does not say which group will recall more/fewer words).

The hypothesis is non-directional. This is because it states that there will be a difference in the number of words recalled between the two groups, but it does not specify the direction of that difference (i.e., it does not state which group will perform better or worse).

1 mark for correctly identifying the hypothesis as non-directional. 1 mark for explaining that the hypothesis predicts a difference between the groups but does not specify the direction of this difference (e.g., does not say which group will recall more/fewer words).

An appropriate directional hypothesis must predict the direction of the difference and fully operationalise both the Independent Variable (IV) and Dependent Variable (DV). - IV: Chewing mint-flavoured gum vs. not chewing gum. - DV: Number of words found in the 20-minute word-search puzzle. Example of a 3-mark directional hypothesis: 'Participants who chew mint-flavoured gum will find significantly more words in a 20-minute word-search puzzle than participants who do not chew gum.'

3 marks: The hypothesis is directional, clearly stated, and both the IV (chewing mint-flavoured gum vs not chewing gum) and DV (number of words found in a 20-minute word-search puzzle) are fully operationalised. 2 marks: The hypothesis is directional and has both the IV and DV, but one of the variables is not fully operationalised (e.g., refers to 'performance on the puzzle' rather than 'number of words found', or does not clearly state both conditions of the IV). 1 mark: The hypothesis is directional but neither variable is operationalised, or it is a non-directional / null hypothesis. 0 marks: The statement is not a hypothesis (e.g., an aim) or is completely irrelevant.

To answer this question, you need to: 1. Identify the factor that varies systematically alongside the independent variable (music vs silence). In this case, it is the 'time of day' because Condition A is tested at 9:00 AM and Condition B is tested at 3:00 PM. 2. Explain how this variable affects the dependent variable (spatial reasoning task performance). For example, cognitive performance and concentration levels fluctuate throughout the day, with individuals often feeling more fatigued or less focused in the mid-afternoon compared to the morning. 3. Explicitly link this to the validity of the study. Because of this difference, any change in task performance cannot be confidently attributed to the music alone. The extraneous variable becomes a confounding variable, which lowers the internal validity of the study.

1 mark for identifying the extraneous variable as the 'time of day' (or equivalent). 1 mark for explaining its specific effect on the participant's performance (e.g., levels of alertness, fatigue, or concentration differing between morning and afternoon). 1 mark for explaining the impact on validity (e.g., acts as a confounding variable, making it impossible to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship, thereby reducing internal validity).

To obtain a stratified sample of 30 students:

1. **Identify the strata and calculate proportions**: The college has a total of 600 students (400 + 200). Year 12 makes up \(\frac{400}{600} = \frac{2}{3}\) or 66.7% of the population, and Year 13 makes up \(\frac{200}{600} = \frac{1}{3}\) or 33.3% of the population.
2. **Determine the number for each stratum**: To maintain representation in the sample of 30:
- Year 12: \(30 \times \frac{2}{3} = 20\) students.
- Year 13: \(30 \times \frac{1}{3} = 10\) students.
3. **Random selection**: Put the names of all 400 Year 12 students into a random number generator (or a hat) and select 20. Repeat this process separately for Year 13 by putting all 200 names in and selecting 10.

**3 marks**: A clear, accurate, and fully applied explanation of how to obtain the stratified sample. This must include correct calculations (20 from Year 12 and 10 from Year 13) and a clear description of how random sampling is used to select these students from each stratum.

**2 marks**: The explanation is mostly clear but lacks some detail (e.g., the correct numbers are calculated but the random selection method is omitted/vague, OR the random selection process is clear but the mathematical breakdown is incorrect or omitted).

**1 mark**: Very basic or vague explanation (e.g., merely stating that the sample must reflect the ratio of Year 12 to Year 13 students, without calculations or selection details).

To gain full marks, the student must identify a limitation of volunteer sampling and explicitly apply it to the context of the study (academic stress in college students).

- **1 mark** for identifying a relevant limitation (e.g., volunteer bias, unrepresentative sample).
- **1 mark** for applying this limitation to the scenario (e.g., explaining how those who volunteer might have different stress levels compared to those who do not, meaning findings cannot be generalised to all college students).

**2 marks**: A clear, coherent, and fully applied explanation of a limitation of volunteer sampling in the context of this study.
**1 mark**: A generic explanation of a limitation of volunteer sampling without application to the scenario, OR an applied explanation that lacks clarity.
**0 marks**: An incorrect or irrelevant response.