2025 AQA IAS-Level Psychology (9685) Practice Paper with Answers

One key difference is that episodic memories are time-stamped. This means we can remember exactly when and where a specific life event took place. In contrast, semantic memories are not time-stamped, meaning we know facts about the world without necessarily remembering the specific moment or context in which we learned them. A second difference is that episodic memories are subjective and personal to the individual (such as remembering a first day at school), whereas semantic memories are objective facts and shared knowledge (such as knowing that Paris is the capital of France) that are not tied to personal experience.

For each difference: 2 marks for a clear, coherent, and accurate outline of a difference between episodic and semantic memory. Both memory types must be explicitly compared to get the full 2 marks. 1 mark for a vague, muddled, or one-sided description where only episodic or semantic memory is described without explicit comparison. Max 2 marks per difference (Total: 4 marks).

Proactive interference is a theory of forgetting where past learning interferes with current attempts to learn or retrieve something new.

- **1 mark** is awarded for identifying that older memories/information disrupt or block the retrieval of newer information.
- **1 mark** is awarded for explaining that this results in the forgetting of the newly acquired information (the direction of interference must be clear: old affects new).

**2 marks** for a clear, accurate, and coherent definition that explicitly states older memories/information interfere with the recall of newer information.

**1 mark** for a vague or partially correct definition (e.g. stating that 'memories get mixed up and cause forgetting' or failing to clearly specify the direction of the interference, or confusing 'old' and 'new').

**0 marks** for an incorrect definition (e.g. defining retroactive interference where new information interferes with old).

The procedure of Peterson and Peterson's (1959) study involved the following key steps: 1. Participants were individually tested and presented with a three-consonant nonsense syllable (trigram), such as BKG. 2. Immediately after, they were given a three-digit number and instructed to count backwards in threes or fours from that number (e.g., 412, 409, 406...) to act as an interference task preventing rehearsal. 3. On each trial, the recall interval (retention delay) was varied (specifically 3, 6, 9, 12, 15, or 18 seconds), after which the participant had to recall the trigram.

3 marks: A clear, accurate, and detailed outline of the procedure, including key elements such as the presentation of consonant trigrams, the distractor task (counting backwards to prevent rehearsal), and varied retention intervals (3 to 18 seconds).
2 marks: A mostly accurate outline that includes some key details but lacks complete precision (e.g., omits the specific purpose of the counting backwards task or the exact retention intervals).
1 mark: A vague or brief outline showing only a basic understanding of the procedure (e.g., 'they made participants remember letters and count down before recalling them').

A strength of the Working Memory Model (WMM) is its support from clinical case studies, specifically patient KF. Following a motorcycle accident, KF exhibited severely impaired verbal short-term memory, but his visual short-term memory remained intact. This selective impairment supports the model's claim that short-term memory is not a single unitary store, but is instead comprised of distinct, independent components (the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad).

3 marks: A clear and fully elaborated explanation of a strength of the WMM, explicitly linking the evidence to how it supports the model's structure of separate components. 2 marks: A clear explanation of a strength but lacking complete detail, or with a weak link back to the model's structure. 1 mark: Identification of a strength with little or no explanation.

One limitation is that the contextual cues must be very distinct to show a significant forgetting effect, which reduces its applicability to everyday life. Research (such as Godden and Baddeley's divers study) often uses highly contrasting environments (underwater vs. land). In everyday life, the environments in which we learn and recall information are rarely this different. Therefore, context-dependent retrieval failure may only explain forgetting in extreme situations rather than typical, everyday scenarios.

3 marks: A clear and fully elaborated explanation of a limitation of retrieval failure (e.g., lack of real-world applicability/ecological validity of cue studies, or the issue of circularity/testing the encoding specificity principle), clearly explaining why this weakens the explanation. 2 marks: A clear explanation of a limitation but with some lack of detail or incomplete link to the theory. 1 mark: Identification of a limitation with little or no elaboration.

To achieve full marks, the candidate must outline two distinct techniques of the cognitive interview and apply them directly to Marcus witnessing the robbery at the bus stop. 1. Mental reinstatement of context: This technique involves asking the witness to mentally return to the scene of the event to recreate the environmental and psychological state they were in. For Marcus, Amelie could ask him to imagine the weather, the sounds around the bus stop, and his own emotions (such as feeling cold or bored) just before the robbery took place. 2. Report everything: This technique requires the witness to report every detail of the event, even if it seems insignificant, as small details can act as retrieval cues for more critical information. Amelie should encourage Marcus to describe every single aspect, such as what the robber was wearing or any passing vehicles, even if Marcus believes these details are irrelevant to the investigation.

6 marks total, split as 3 marks for each of the two chosen techniques. For each technique: 3 marks: The technique is correctly identified, clearly explained, and applied in detail to the scenario (must mention Marcus, the bus stop, or specific details of the robbery). 2 marks: The technique is identified and explained with some basic or limited application to the scenario. 1 mark: The technique is identified and explained but there is no application, or there is only application without explanation. 0 marks: Incorrect or irrelevant response. Acceptable techniques: Context Reinstatement, Report Everything, Reverse Order, Change Perspective.

The Working Memory Model (WMM) was proposed by Baddeley and Hitch (1974) to describe short-term memory (STM) as an active processor consisting of multiple specialized components. 1. Central Executive: The master controller of the system. It monitors incoming data, makes decisions, and allocates attention to the other 'slave' systems. It has a very limited processing capacity and does not store information. 2. Phonological Loop: Deals with auditory/verbal information and preserves the order in which information arrives. It is subdivided into: (a) The phonological store ('inner ear'), which stores the words you hear, and (b) The articulatory process ('inner voice'), which allows maintenance rehearsal. 3. Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad: Stores and manipulates visual and spatial information (e.g., planning a route). Logie subdivided it into: (a) The visual cache (stores visual data like color and shape), and (b) The inner scribe (records the arrangement of objects in the visual field). 4. Episodic Buffer: Added by Baddeley in 2000, it acts as a temporary store that integrates visual, spatial, and verbal information from other components, creating a coherent, chronological episode. It has a limited capacity of about four chunks and links working memory to long-term memory.

Marks are awarded as follows:

5-6 marks: Accurate and detailed description of the Working Memory Model. Clear description of the roles/functions of the Central Executive, Phonological Loop, Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad, and Episodic Buffer. The terminology is precise and the response is well-structured.

3-4 marks: Good description of the model, though there may be minor omissions or a lack of detail in some components (e.g., omitting the sub-components of the Phonological Loop or Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad, or omitting the Episodic Buffer). Mostly accurate terminology.

1-2 marks: Basic or vague description of the WMM. Components might only be listed without functional description, or there may be significant inaccuracies.

0 marks: No creditworthy material.

The Multi-Store Model (MSM) proposes that Short-Term Memory (STM) is a single, passive, unitary store. However, cognitive neuropsychology provides strong evidence against this. Patient KF, who suffered brain damage, showed extremely poor STM recall for auditory information (such as read-aloud digits) but normal recall for visual information (such as pictures or silently read text). If STM were indeed a single, unitary store, we would expect all types of short-term memory processing to be equally impaired. This limitation led to the development of the Working Memory Model (WMM), which correctly accounts for these distinct, specialized sub-components of short-term memory (the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad).

Marks are awarded as follows:
- **1 mark** for clearly identifying a valid limitation of the Multi-Store Model (e.g., STM is treated as a unitary store, or LTM is treated as a unitary store, or the model overemphasizes the role of rote rehearsal in transfer to LTM).
- **1 mark** for providing relevant evidence or elaboration of this limitation (e.g., referencing patient KF's selective deficit in auditory STM but intact visual STM).
- **1 mark** for explaining why this evidence poses a challenge to the model's assumptions (e.g., demonstrating that STM must consist of multiple, independent processing sub-components rather than a single store).

The Multi-Store Model (MSM) proposes that Short-Term Memory (STM) is a single, passive, unitary store. However, cognitive neuropsychology provides strong evidence against this. Patient KF, who suffered brain damage, showed extremely poor STM recall for auditory information (such as read-aloud digits) but normal recall for visual information (such as pictures or silently read text). If STM were indeed a single, unitary store, we would expect all types of short-term memory processing to be equally impaired. This limitation led to the development of the Working Memory Model (WMM), which correctly accounts for these distinct, specialized sub-components of short-term memory (the phonological loop and visuospatial sketchpad).

Marks are awarded as follows:
- **1 mark** for clearly identifying a valid limitation of the Multi-Store Model (e.g., STM is treated as a unitary store, or LTM is treated as a unitary store, or the model overemphasizes the role of rote rehearsal in transfer to LTM).
- **1 mark** for providing relevant evidence or elaboration of this limitation (e.g., referencing patient KF's selective deficit in auditory STM but intact visual STM).
- **1 mark** for explaining why this evidence poses a challenge to the model's assumptions (e.g., demonstrating that STM must consist of multiple, independent processing sub-components rather than a single store).

Findings: In the consistent minority condition, where confederates called all 36 blue slides green, the genuine participants agreed with the minority on 8.42% of the trials, and 32% of participants agreed at least once. In the inconsistent minority condition, where confederates called 24 slides green and 12 slides blue, agreement fell significantly to 1.25%. In the control group with no confederates, the error rate was only 0.25%. Conclusions: A minority has the power to influence a majority to change their behavior or beliefs. Consistency is a vital factor in minority influence; if the minority is inconsistent, their influence is greatly reduced and they are largely ignored.

Award up to 4 marks for outlining findings and conclusions. Findings (Up to 2 marks): 2 marks for a clear and accurate outline of the findings, including quantitative data (e.g., 8.42% in the consistent condition vs. 1.25% in the inconsistent condition). 1 mark for a vague outline of findings with no specific data, or only one finding outlined accurately. Conclusions (Up to 2 marks): 2 marks for a clear and accurate outline of the conclusions drawn (e.g., that minorities can influence majorities, and that consistency is crucial for this influence to occur). 1 mark for a vague or incomplete conclusion outlined.

David is demonstrating resistance to social influence due to an internal locus of control (LOC). Individuals with an internal LOC believe that their own personal choices, effort, and actions determine what happens to them. Because David believes he is responsible for his own professional integrity and career progression, he is more self-confident and less likely to blindly obey the manager's unethical instructions. Priya is demonstrating resistance due to social support. Priya initially felt pressure to conform/obey, but David's refusal provided her with an ally. In psychology, the presence of a disobedient peer or ally breaks the unanimity of the situation, significantly reducing the social pressure on others and giving them the confidence to also resist social influence.

Marks are awarded as follows: 3 marks for knowledge/explanation of locus of control and social support: 1 mark for explaining that an internal locus of control involves the belief that one's own actions determine outcomes, making them more independent and resistant to influence. 1 mark for explaining that social support occurs when the presence of an ally who resists pressure reduces the pressure to obey/conform. 1 mark for further elaboration of either concept (e.g., how an ally breaks unanimity). 3 marks for application to the scenario: 1 mark for applying internal LOC to David (e.g., linking his belief in personal integrity and hard work for promotion to internal control). 1 mark for applying social support to Priya (e.g., identifying David as the ally whose refusal allowed her to also resist). 1 mark for fully linking both applications to explain how these psychological mechanisms led directly to their resistance to the manager's instruction.

AO1 Description of Asch (1951): Aim: To investigate the degree to which individuals would conform to a majority opinion even when the majority was clearly incorrect. Procedure: 123 male American undergraduate participants were tested. Each participant was placed in a group with 6 to 8 confederates (accomplices of the researcher). They were shown a card with a 'standard line' and another card with three 'comparison lines' of varying lengths. Participants had to state aloud which comparison line matched the standard line. The real participant always answered last or second-to-last. On 12 of the 18 trials (the 'critical trials'), the confederates unanimously gave the wrong answer. Findings: Real participants conformed to the incorrect majority on 32% of the critical trials. 75% of participants conformed at least once, and 25% never conformed. In a control group with no confederates, participants made errors less than 1% of the time. Variations: Asch investigated variables affecting conformity: 1) Group size: Conformity was low with 1 or 2 confederates but rose to about 31.8% with 3 confederates, showing little increase beyond this. 2) Unanimity: Introducing a dissenting confederate who gave the correct answer reduced conformity to 5.5%. 3) Task difficulty: Making the lines more similar in length increased conformity, suggesting a shift towards informational social influence. AO3 Evaluation of Asch's research: 1) Temporal Validity / 'Child of its time': Asch's study took place in 1950s America, a highly conformist era characterized by McCarthyism. When Perrin and Spencer (1980) replicated the study in the UK with engineering students, they found only 1 conforming response out of 396 trials, suggesting Asch's findings may lack temporal validity and reflect cultural pressures of the era. 2) Artificiality and Low Ecological Validity: The line-judgment task is artificial and lacks mundane realism. There was no real consequence for conforming, meaning participants may have simply gone along with the group to avoid awkwardness (demand characteristics) rather than showing true conformity. Fiske (2014) argued that Asch's groups did not resemble real-life social groups where relationships and consequences exist. 3) Culture and Gender Bias: The sample consisted entirely of male American undergraduates (androcentric and ethnocentric). Research by Bond and Smith (1996) suggests collectivist cultures (like China) show higher conformity rates than individualist cultures (like the US). Therefore, Asch's findings cannot be easily generalized to women or other cultures. 4) Ethical Issues: Participants were deceived about the true nature of the experiment (believing it was a visual test) and the role of the confederates. This prevented them from giving fully informed consent. They may have also experienced mild psychological distress or embarrassment upon realizing they had been deceived.

AO1: 8 marks, AO3: 12 marks. AO1 Marking Criteria: 7-8 marks: Accurately and in detail describes Asch's original procedure, findings, and at least one variation (group size, unanimity, or task difficulty) using precise psychological terminology. 5-6 marks: Mostly accurate description of the procedure and findings, though some details or variations may be omitted or slightly vague. 3-4 marks: Basic description of the study with some inaccuracies or lack of detail. 1-2 marks: Extremely limited description, perhaps only mentioning that participants judged lines in groups. AO3 Marking Criteria: 10-12 marks: Thorough, balanced, and highly critical evaluation. Explicitly addresses multiple limitations (e.g., temporal validity, ecological validity, ethical issues, sample bias) and links them clearly to the validity or generalizability of the research. 7-9 marks: Clear evaluation addressing at least two or three points in reasonable depth. Most points are structured logically. 4-6 marks: Basic evaluation, perhaps listing limitations (such as ethics) without fully explaining why they impact the validity of the study. 1-3 marks: Superficially mentions a limitation with very little or no explanation.

Failure to function adequately (FFA) occurs when someone's behavior suggests they cannot cope with everyday life. To gain both marks, the response must state the core definition (inability to cope with day-to-day demands/living) and elaborate on this (e.g., mentioning specific signs like failure to maintain basic hygiene, inability to hold down a job, or experiencing severe personal distress).

2 marks: A clear and accurate outline of the definition, identifying the inability to cope with everyday demands and providing appropriate elaboration (such as examples of self-care, maintaining a job, or experiencing personal distress).
1 mark: A vague or incomplete outline (e.g., simply stating 'not being able to live normally' without defining everyday demands or coping mechanisms).
0 marks: Inaccurate or irrelevant response.

One strength of using statistical infrequency to define abnormality is its objectivity. Because it relies on quantitative data and mathematical cut-offs (such as defining abnormality as falling more than two standard deviations away from the population mean), it reduces the risk of subjective clinician bias. This makes it a reliable and standardized tool, which is highly valuable in clinical settings for diagnosing conditions like intellectual disability.

2 marks: A clear and fully elaborated explanation of one strength of the statistical infrequency definition of abnormality (e.g., focusing on its objectivity, quantitative nature, or real-world application in clinical diagnosis).
1 mark: A vague or partially elaborated explanation of a strength, or a strength that is merely identified without explanation.

To answer this question successfully, you must explicitly link specific elements of Liam's scenario to established criteria of both definitions of abnormality:

**1. Failure to Function Adequately (FFA):**
* This definition states that an individual is abnormal if they are unable to cope with the ordinary demands of day-to-day living.
* *Application to Liam:* Liam is failing to meet basic self-care and hygiene standards, as he has 'stopped washing his clothes' and 'rarely showers'.
* He is also failing to function in his occupational/academic role by missing university lectures and 'several important assignment deadlines'.
* Liam is experiencing 'extreme distress', which matches Rosenhan and Seligman's criteria of personal distress as an indicator of failure to function.

**2. Deviation from Ideal Mental Health (DFIMH):**
* This definition looks at abnormality by identifying what is missing from a state of positive mental well-being, using Jahoda’s criteria.
* *Application to Liam:* Liam states he has 'lost his sense of self-identity', which relates to a lack of a positive self-attitude/self-esteem.
* He 'no longer feels capable of personal growth', which directly deviates from Jahoda's criterion of self-actualisation (reaching one's potential).
* His inability to attend lectures and keep up with deadlines also demonstrates a lack of environmental mastery (the ability to adapt and succeed in his immediate environment).

**Level 3 (5–6 marks):**
* Knowledge of both 'failure to function adequately' and 'deviation from ideal mental health' is clear and accurate.
* Application to Liam is explicit, detailed, and successfully links multiple specific criteria of both definitions to the scenario.
* The answer is well-structured and uses appropriate psychological terminology.

**Level 2 (3–4 marks):**
* Knowledge of one or both definitions is present with some accurate detail.
* There is some successful application to Liam, but it may be unbalanced (e.g., focusing heavily on one definition and neglecting the other) or lack specific terminology (e.g., failing to name specific criteria like self-actualisation or personal distress).

**Level 1 (1–2 marks):**
* Knowledge of the definitions is basic, vague, or contains significant inaccuracies.
* Application to Liam is superficial or absent.

*Note: A maximum of 3 marks can be awarded if only one definition of abnormality is addressed.*

Cognitive characteristics are concerned with the mental processes involved in a disorder. Obsessive, intrusive thoughts of contamination (Option D) represent a cognitive process. Options A and C are behavioural characteristics (actions), and Option B is an emotional characteristic (feelings).

1 mark for the correct option (D). 0 marks for incorrect options.

One limitation of the two-process model of phobias is that it ignores evolutionary factors, specifically biological preparedness. Seligman (1971) argued that humans are genetically predisposed to develop fears of ancient dangers (such as snakes or spiders) because this provided an evolutionary survival advantage. The behavioral two-process model struggles to explain why people rarely develop phobias of modern dangerous items, like cars or guns, which we have far more negative experiences with. This suggests that classical conditioning alone cannot fully account for how all phobias are acquired.

3 marks: A thorough and well-elaborated evaluation point (strength or limitation) clearly applied to the two-process model of phobias. 2 marks: A clear evaluation point that is partially developed but lacks depth or explicit link to the model's validity. 1 mark: A basic or vague evaluation point identified. Acceptable points include: Evolutionary/biological preparedness (Seligman); Cognitive factors ignored by the behaviourist approach; Practical application to successful treatments (systematic desensitisation and flooding); Research evidence showing trauma does not always lead to a phobia.

Cognitive characteristics of OCD refer to the internal mental processes associated with the disorder.

Two key characteristics include:
1. **Obsessive thoughts (or obsessions):** These are persistent, intrusive, and unwanted thoughts, images, or impulses that enter the mind repeatedly. They are experienced as deeply distressing or inappropriate, such as an overwhelming fear of contamination by germs or fear of causing harm to oneself or others.
2. **Insight into excessive anxiety (awareness):** Individuals with OCD are generally aware that their obsessions and compulsions are irrational, unreasonable, and extreme. This self-awareness (insight) distinguishes OCD from psychotic disorders, though they still find themselves unable to control the thoughts or urges despite knowing they are unrealistic.

For each of the two characteristics:
- 1 mark for naming a valid cognitive characteristic.
- 1 mark for describing that characteristic accurately in the context of OCD.

**Possible cognitive characteristics include:**
- **Obsessive thoughts:** Intrusive, recurrent, and unwelcome thoughts or mental images (e.g., fear of contamination, fear of safety lapses).
- **Insight into excessive anxiety:** Realisation/awareness that the obsessions and compulsions are irrational, unrealistic, or disproportionate.
- **Cognitive coping strategies / mental rituals:** Internal mental strategies designed to manage or neutralise the anxiety (e.g., reciting a silent prayer, counting mentally).
- **Hypervigilance / attention bias:** An extreme alertness to potential threats or hazards in the environment.

*Note: Do not credit behavioural characteristics (e.g., repetitive compulsions, avoidance) or emotional characteristics (e.g., high anxiety, depression) unless they are explicitly linked to a cognitive feature.*

### AO1: Description of Cognitive Explanations of Depression

Cognitive explanations suggest that depression is caused by abnormal, irrational, or biased thought processes. The two main theories within this approach are Beck's Cognitive Theory and Ellis's ABC Model.

**1. Beck’s Cognitive Theory**
Beck proposed that some people are more vulnerable to depression because of their cognitive style, which consists of:
* **Faulty information processing:** Depressed individuals tend to focus on the negative aspects of situations and ignore the positives. They engage in cognitive distortions like overgeneralisation (drawing sweeping conclusions based on single incidents).
* **Negative self-schemas:** A self-schema is a package of information we hold about ourselves. A negative self-schema leads individuals to interpret all information about themselves in a highly critical and negative light.
* **The Cognitive Triad:** Negative views of three key areas that occur automatically:
1. *The Self* (e.g., "I am a failure")
2. *The World* (e.g., "The world is a hostile place and no one likes me")
3. *The Future* (e.g., "Things will never improve").

**2. Ellis's ABC Model**
Ellis suggested that depression arises from irrational thoughts that interfere with happiness. He used a three-stage model:
* **A - Activating Event:** An external trigger (e.g., failing an exam or ending a relationship).
* **B - Beliefs:** The individual’s interpretation of the activating event. This can be rational or irrational. Ellis identified key irrational beliefs, such as "musturbation" (the belief that we must always succeed).
* **C - Consequences:** The emotional and behavioural outcomes of the irrational beliefs (e.g., severe depression, social withdrawal).

---

### AO3: Evaluation of Cognitive Explanations of Depression

**Strengths:**
* **Supporting Research Evidence:** There is strong empirical research supporting the link between negative thinking and depression. For example, Grazioli and Terry (2000) assessed 65 pregnant women for cognitive vulnerability and depression before and after birth. They found that those with high cognitive vulnerability were significantly more likely to develop post-natal depression, indicating that negative thinking patterns exist before the clinical onset of depression.
* **Practical Real-World Application:** A major strength of these explanations is their application to therapy. Both Beck and Ellis’s models have led to highly effective treatments, specifically Cognitive Behavioural Therapy (CBT) and Rational Emotive Behaviour Therapy (REBT). These therapies succeed by identifying and challenging irrational/negative thoughts. The efficacy of CBT validates the cognitive explanation that irrational thinking is a key component of the disorder.

**Weaknesses:**
* **The Issue of Cause and Effect:** It is difficult to establish whether negative thinking *causes* depression or is simply a *symptom* of the disorder. While cognitive changes correlate with depression, biological factors (like a drop in serotonin) could trigger both the emotional state and the subsequent negative thoughts, meaning cognitive models may not be describing the root cause.
* **Incomplete Explanation:** Cognitive models focus heavily on thoughts but neglect other well-documented factors. For instance, biological explanations show that genetics and low levels of neurotransmitters (e.g., serotonin) play a crucial role in depression. A more holistic approach, such as the diathesis-stress model, would suggest that genetic vulnerabilities require cognitive stressors to manifest as clinical depression.

**AO1 (6 marks) and AO3 (6 marks)**

| Level | Marks | Description |
|---|---|---|
| **Level 4** | **10–12 marks** | Knowledge of cognitive explanations of depression is accurate and detailed. Evaluation is thorough, well-structured, and shows clear critical analysis. Appropriate psychological terminology is used throughout. |
| **Level 3** | **7–9 marks** | Knowledge of cognitive explanations is mostly accurate with some detail. Evaluation is present and mostly effective, though some points may lack development or depth. |
| **Level 2** | **4–6 marks** | Knowledge is basic and may lack detail or clarity. Evaluation is limited, superficial, or poorly integrated. |
| **Level 1** | **1–3 marks** | Knowledge is highly limited, fragmented, or inaccurate. Little to no evaluation is present. |
| **0** | **0 marks** | No relevant content. |

**AO1 Indicative Content:**
- **Beck's Negative Triad:** Cognitive vulnerability consists of faulty information processing, negative self-schemas, and a negative triad of beliefs about the self, world, and future.
- **Ellis's ABC Model:** Activating event (A) triggers irrational beliefs (B) which lead to negative emotional/behavioural consequences (C). Key concepts include irrational beliefs like 'musturbation' and 'I-can't-stand-it-itis'.

**AO3 Indicative Content:**
- **Support:** Research evidence showing positive correlation between cognitive vulnerability and depression (e.g., Grazioli and Terry; Boury et al.).
- **Application:** Development of CBT/REBT as highly effective treatments, providing indirect support for cognitive causes.
- **Limitations:** Direction of causality (negative thoughts as a symptom rather than cause); cannot easily explain all symptoms of depression (e.g., extreme anger, hallucinations, cotard delusion); cognitive theories ignore biological factors (neurotransmitters like serotonin).

Localization of function refers to the principle that specific areas of the brain are specialized for particular physical and psychological functions, such as speech or motor control, rather than the whole brain working together for every function.

Award 1 mark for a clear and accurate definition. Examples of acceptable definitions: The theory that specific areas of the brain are responsible for specific functions, behaviors, or activities; The idea that different regions of the brain have specialized roles. Reject answers that only describe lateralization (the difference between the left and right hemispheres) without reference to specific areas or regions of the brain.

Possible responses include:

Option 1:
- Name: Broca's area (1 mark).
- Outline of function: It is responsible for the generation/production of fluent speech (1 mark).

Option 2:
- Name: Wernicke's area (1 mark).
- Outline of function: It is responsible for the understanding/comprehension of spoken and written language (1 mark).

- 1 mark for naming an appropriate cortical language area (Broca's area or Wernicke's area).
- 1 mark for outlining its correct function (speech production for Broca's, or language comprehension for Wernicke's).
- Note: Credit can be given if a student correctly identifies a language center and describes what happens if it is damaged (e.g., Broca's aphasia leading to slow, halting speech) as part of outlining the function.

Possible responses include:

Option 1:
- Name: Broca's area (1 mark).
- Outline of function: It is responsible for the generation/production of fluent speech (1 mark).

Option 2:
- Name: Wernicke's area (1 mark).
- Outline of function: It is responsible for the understanding/comprehension of spoken and written language (1 mark).

- 1 mark for naming an appropriate cortical language area (Broca's area or Wernicke's area).
- 1 mark for outlining its correct function (speech production for Broca's, or language comprehension for Wernicke's).
- Note: Credit can be given if a student correctly identifies a language center and describes what happens if it is damaged (e.g., Broca's aphasia leading to slow, halting speech) as part of outlining the function.

The endocrine system is a network of glands that produces and secretes chemical messengers called hormones directly into the bloodstream to regulate various bodily functions and behaviors. For example, the adrenal glands secrete the hormone adrenaline. Adrenaline prepares the body for action during a stress response by increasing heart rate and elevating blood pressure.

1 mark for explaining the general function of the endocrine system (e.g., secreting hormones into the bloodstream to regulate bodily functions or behaviors). 1 mark for identifying a specific gland (e.g., adrenal gland, thyroid gland, testes, ovaries). 1 mark for identifying the corresponding hormone and its physiological effect (e.g., adrenaline increases heart rate; thyroxine regulates metabolic rate; testosterone develops male secondary sexual characteristics).

The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is responsible for regulating involuntary, unconscious physiological processes vital for survival, such as heart rate, breathing, and digestion. It is split into two primary branches: the sympathetic nervous system and the parasympathetic nervous system. The sympathetic nervous system prepares the body for action by activating the fight-or-flight response, increasing heart rate and redirecting blood flow to muscles. The parasympathetic nervous system opposes this by returning the body to its normal resting state (rest-and-digest), slowing heart rate and promoting digestion.

Award 1 mark for each of the following: 1 mark for stating that the ANS controls involuntary/unconscious bodily processes (e.g. digestion, heart rate). 1 mark for identifying the two branches (sympathetic and parasympathetic). 1 mark for describing the role of the sympathetic branch (activating fight-or-flight/preparing for action). 1 mark for describing the role of the parasympathetic branch (returning the body to homeostasis/rest-and-digest).

Award up to 4 marks for a detailed and coherent explanation of a strength of using fMRI to study the brain: 1 mark for identifying a valid strength (e.g., high spatial resolution, non-invasive nature, or does not use harmful radiation). 1 mark for explaining the mechanism or details of this strength (e.g., detailing what high spatial resolution means: identifying activity down to the millimeter level). 1 mark for contrasting it with another method of studying the brain (e.g., EEG/ERPs have poor spatial resolution; PET scans are invasive/use radiation). 1 mark for explaining the benefit/significance of this to psychological research (e.g., allows precise mapping of brain localization/cognitive functions).

4 marks: Explanation is clear, coherent, and fully detailed, identifying a strength, explaining it in depth, contrasting it with another method, and linking it to the benefits for psychological research. 3 marks: Explanation is mostly clear and detailed, meeting three of the criteria above, but may lack depth in either the comparison or the research benefit. 2 marks: Explanation is basic, meeting two of the criteria (e.g., identifies a strength and explains it briefly). 1 mark: Answer is superficial, only identifying a valid strength without further explanation or comparison. 0 marks: No creditworthy response.

Procedure:
- Sperry used 11 split-brain patients who had their corpus callosum severed to treat severe epilepsy.
- Participants covered one eye and gazed at a central point on a screen.
- Visual stimuli were flashed for 1/10th of a second (to prevent eye movement) to either the left visual field (LVF, processed by the right hemisphere) or the right visual field (RVF, processed by the left hemisphere).
- In tactile tests, objects were placed in either the left or right hand behind a screen to prevent visual feedback.

Findings:
- If a stimulus was presented to the RVF, the patient could easily describe/speak what they saw because language centers are in the left hemisphere.
- If a stimulus was presented to the LVF, the patient could not describe it verbally (often saying they saw nothing) because the right hemisphere lacks language centers. However, they could identify the corresponding object by touch using their left hand (controlled by the right hemisphere).

Up to 2 marks for description of the procedure:
- 2 marks: Clear and detailed description of the procedure (e.g., mentions commissurotomy/split-brain patients, central fixation point, presenting stimuli to one visual field for a fraction of a second/1/10th second, or the tactile condition).
- 1 mark: Vague or incomplete description of the procedure (e.g., 'he showed things to different sides of their brain').

Up to 2 marks for description of the findings:
- 2 marks: Clear and accurate description of the findings representing both hemispheres/visual fields (e.g., RVF presentation allows verbal identification; LVF presentation does not allow verbal identification but allows manual/tactile identification with the left hand).
- 1 mark: Vague or unbalanced description of findings (e.g., only describing what happened in one visual field/hemisphere, or confused about which hand/visual field matches which hemisphere).

1. Sensory Neuron: Receptors in Lucas's skin detect the painful thermal stimulus from the hot pan lid. An electrical impulse is generated and transmitted along sensory neurons from the peripheral nervous system into the central nervous system (spinal cord). 2. Relay Neuron: Within the grey matter of the spinal cord, the sensory neuron synapses with a relay neuron. The impulse crosses this synaptic gap. The relay neuron connects the sensory pathway directly to the motor pathway, bypassing the brain for immediate response. 3. Motor Neuron: The relay neuron synapses with a motor neuron, passing the electrical impulse along. The motor neuron carries the impulse out of the spinal cord to the effector (the muscles in Lucas's arm). This causes the muscles to contract, pulling his hand away from the hot pan.

For each of the three types of neurons, award up to 2 marks (1 mark for AO1 description of the neuron's role, and 1 mark for AO2 application to Lucas's scenario). Sensory Neuron (Max 2 marks): - 1 mark for describing that sensory neurons carry impulses from sensory receptors to the CNS. - 1 mark for applying to Lucas (e.g., receptors in Lucas's skin detect the hot pan and send an impulse along the sensory neuron to his spinal cord). Relay Neuron (Max 2 marks): - 1 mark for describing that relay neurons connect sensory neurons to motor neurons within the CNS. - 1 mark for applying to Lucas (e.g., the impulse is passed to a relay neuron inside Lucas's spinal cord, bypassing the brain). Motor Neuron (Max 2 marks): - 1 mark for describing that motor neurons carry impulses from the CNS to effectors (muscles/glands) to trigger a response. - 1 mark for applying to Lucas (e.g., the motor neuron sends the impulse to Lucas's arm muscles, causing them to contract and pull his hand away).

The answer must demonstrate both accurate knowledge of the biological mechanisms of functional recovery (AO1) and effective application to Arthur's scenario (AO2).

Key biological mechanisms to explain:
1. **Recruitment of homologous areas**: This occurs when an undamaged area on the opposite hemisphere of the brain takes over the function of a damaged area. In Arthur's case, his right motor cortex became active when moving his right arm, demonstrating that the right hemisphere's motor cortex is compensating for the damaged left motor cortex.
2. **Axonal sprouting**: This involves the growth of new nerve endings (dendrites) from surviving neurons to connect with undamaged nerve cells, forming new pathways. This helps Arthur rebuild the neural connections needed to control and move his right arm.
3. **Neuronal unmasking**: Dormant or inactive synapses are 'unmasked' and activated to open up alternative routes for neural signals. Intensive rehabilitation would encourage these dormant connections to become active, allowing Arthur to bypass damaged brain tissue and regain arm control.

**Level 3 (5–6 marks)**
- Knowledge of mechanisms of functional recovery (AO1) is clear, accurate, and detailed.
- Application to Arthur’s case (AO2) is highly appropriate, explicit, and well-integrated.
- The response is well-structured and uses psychological terminology effectively.

**Level 2 (3–4 marks)**
- Knowledge of functional recovery mechanisms (AO1) is mostly accurate, though some details may be missing.
- Application to Arthur (AO2) is present but may be limited or lack depth (e.g., identifying a mechanism but not fully linking it to his right arm movement or brain scan changes).
- Psychological terminology is generally used appropriately.

**Level 1 (1–2 marks)**
- Knowledge of recovery mechanisms (AO1) is basic, superficial, or contains inaccuracies.
- Application to the scenario (AO2) is minimal, weak, or absent.

**0 marks**
- No creditworthy material.

Piaget proposed that cognitive adaptation occurs through assimilation (fitting new information into existing schemas), accommodation (modifying existing schemas in response to new information), and equilibration (the mechanism by which children move from cognitive conflict to a state of cognitive balance). Scaffolding is a concept associated with Wood, Bruner, and Ross, and is linked to Lev Vygotsky's sociocultural theory of cognitive development, rather than Piaget's theory.

1 mark for identifying C as the correct exception. 0 marks for any other choice.

Accommodation is a key adaptive process in Piaget's cognitive development theory. It involves: 1. Adjustment of cognitive structures: Modifying existing schemas or forming new schemas because new environmental experiences cannot be assimilated into current mental structures. 2. Motivation via disequilibrium: The process is driven by the state of cognitive disequilibrium, which is the uncomfortable feeling of mismatch between existing schemas and new information. 3. Example of application: A child who has a schema for a 'dog' (furry, four legs) sees a cat and initially assimilates it into their dog schema. Once they realize it meows and climbs walls, they experience disequilibrium and accommodate this new information by creating a separate 'cat' schema, restoring equilibrium.

Award marks as follows: 1 mark for a clear definition of accommodation (changing existing schemas or creating new ones when new information cannot be assimilated). 1 mark for explaining the role of cognitive disequilibrium as the driving force behind this change. 1 mark for providing a clear, relevant example demonstrating a transition from an incorrect schema to a newly accommodated schema.

**AO1 (6 marks):** Vygotsky's sociocultural theory proposes that cognitive development is a social process facilitated by interaction with more knowledgeable others (MKOs) within a cultural context. Central to this theory is the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD), which is the distance between a child's current independent problem-solving ability and their potential development when guided by an adult or more competent peer. To help a child cross the ZPD, MKOs provide 'scaffolding'—a temporary framework of support. This support is structured, active, and progressively withdrawn ('faded') as the child internalizes the skill and achieves independence. Wood, Bruner, and Ross identified features of scaffolding, including recruitment, reduction in degrees of freedom, and direction maintenance. Language is also central, moving from social speech to private speech, and finally inner speech as the cognitive tool for thought. **AO2 (4 marks):** The scenario illustrates these key Vygotskian concepts in action. Sarah's inability to solve fraction problems on her own, combined with her success when given 'hints, clues and demonstrations' by Mr Carter, shows that fraction problem-solving lies within her ZPD. Mr Carter acts as the More Knowledgeable Other (MKO), providing scaffolding that is tailored to her current level of understanding. Once Sarah internalizes these strategies, this scaffolding will be faded. On the other hand, James has already mastered this skill, meaning it is outside his ZPD (he can do it independently). James then takes on the role of the MKO for his classmates, providing peer tutoring. By offering 'small hints and guidance', James is delivering scaffolding to his peers, helping them bridge their own ZPDs. **AO3 (10 marks):** There is strong empirical support for Vygotsky's theory. For instance, Wood and Middleton (1975) found that mothers who adjusted their level of help when teaching their 4-year-olds to build a 3D toy block tower (scaffolding) had children who were more successful, supporting the concept of contingent scaffolding. Additionally, Connor and Cross (2003) conducted a longitudinal study showing that mothers used less direct intervention and more subtle hints as their children aged, demonstrating the 'fading' of scaffolding. Practically, Vygotsky's theory has highly successful educational applications. It underpins modern teaching methods such as collaborative learning, peer mentoring (as seen with James), and dynamic assessment, which measures a child's potential rather than just past learning. However, the theory can be criticized for underestimating individual differences. Some children do not learn well through social interaction and prefer independent discovery, a concept more aligned with Piaget's theory. Furthermore, Vygotsky's theory lacks detail regarding biological maturation and the specific cognitive processes involved in development, unlike Piaget's highly structured stage theory.

**Marking Scheme:** **AO1 (6 Marks):** Award 5-6 marks for accurate, well-detailed description of Vygotsky's theory (ZPD, scaffolding, MKO, and language). Award 3-4 marks for reasonable description with some detail. Award 1-2 marks for basic or fragmented description. **AO2 (4 Marks):** Award 4 marks for clear, accurate application to both Sarah and James (linking Sarah's hints to scaffolding/ZPD, and James to MKO/peer scaffolding). Award 2-3 marks for applying to only one child or for basic links. Award 1 mark for superficial application. **AO3 (10 Marks):** Award 9-10 marks for a highly effective, balanced, and critical evaluation, detailing empirical support (e.g. Wood and Middleton, Connor and Cross) and contrasting with Piaget or noting educational applications. Award 6-8 marks for sound evaluation with clear discussion points. Award 3-5 marks for limited evaluation. Award 1-2 marks for highly superficial or disorganized comments.

Standardisation involves using the exact same formalised procedures and instructions for all participants in a research study. This is done to ensure that any differences in results are due to the independent variable and not due to variations in how the study was conducted, thereby controlling potential extraneous variables.

1 mark for a clear, accurate definition of standardisation. E.g., keeping procedures/instructions identical for all participants to ensure consistency or control extraneous variables.

A pilot study is a preliminary, small-scale version of an investigation carried out before the actual research. Its main purpose is to test the feasibility of the research design, instructions, and materials, allowing the researcher to make necessary adjustments before investing time and money into the full-scale study.

1 mark for a clear definition of a pilot study (e.g., a small-scale trial run of a study to test its design, procedures, or materials before carrying out the main research).

Counterbalancing is used to control order effects (such as learning, practice, or fatigue) in a repeated measures design. It involves splitting participants into groups and having them complete the conditions in different sequences (e.g., half do condition A then B, and the other half do condition B then A), so any order effects are distributed equally across both conditions.

1 mark for defining counterbalancing as an experimental technique used to control order effects in a repeated measures design by varying the sequence/order in which conditions are completed.

The two co-variables in this correlational study are:
1. The number of hours spent using social media per day (amount of social media use).
2. The score on the self-esteem questionnaire (level of self-esteem).

Award 1 mark for each correctly identified co-variable:
- 1 mark for: Number of hours spent on social media per day (or amount of time spent on social media).
- 1 mark for: Scores on the self-esteem questionnaire (or self-esteem level).

Note: If candidates write 'independent variable' and 'dependent variable' instead of co-variables, but correctly identify the variables, they can still be awarded the marks, but no marks are given for simply stating IV and DV without contextualizing them to the scenario.

The two co-variables in this correlational study are:
1. The number of hours spent using social media per day (amount of social media use).
2. The score on the self-esteem questionnaire (level of self-esteem).

Award 1 mark for each correctly identified co-variable:
- 1 mark for: Number of hours spent on social media per day (or amount of time spent on social media).
- 1 mark for: Scores on the self-esteem questionnaire (or self-esteem level).

Note: If candidates write 'independent variable' and 'dependent variable' instead of co-variables, but correctly identify the variables, they can still be awarded the marks, but no marks are given for simply stating IV and DV without contextualizing them to the scenario.

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis specifies the exact nature of the outcome of a study.

- 1 mark: Defining a directional hypothesis as a statement that predicts the specific direction of the expected difference, relationship, or effect between variables (e.g., stating which group will perform better/worse or that a variable will increase/decrease).
- 1 mark: Providing a clear, appropriate psychological example of a directional hypothesis or explaining that it is used when prior research or theory suggests a specific direction for the outcome.

Award 1 mark for a clear, accurate definition:
- It is a testable statement that predicts the specific direction of the difference or relationship between variables (e.g., group A will score higher than group B, or there will be a positive correlation).

Award 1 mark for elaboration or a relevant psychological example:
- Example: 'Students who study with music playing will perform worse on a test than students who study in silence.'
- OR explaining that it is formulated when existing research, theories, or previous findings suggest which way the results will go.

Note: Do not award the second mark for a non-directional example (e.g., stating there will be 'a difference' without specifying which way).

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis specifies the exact nature of the outcome of a study.

- 1 mark: Defining a directional hypothesis as a statement that predicts the specific direction of the expected difference, relationship, or effect between variables (e.g., stating which group will perform better/worse or that a variable will increase/decrease).
- 1 mark: Providing a clear, appropriate psychological example of a directional hypothesis or explaining that it is used when prior research or theory suggests a specific direction for the outcome.

Award 1 mark for a clear, accurate definition:
- It is a testable statement that predicts the specific direction of the difference or relationship between variables (e.g., group A will score higher than group B, or there will be a positive correlation).

Award 1 mark for elaboration or a relevant psychological example:
- Example: 'Students who study with music playing will perform worse on a test than students who study in silence.'
- OR explaining that it is formulated when existing research, theories, or previous findings suggest which way the results will go.

Note: Do not award the second mark for a non-directional example (e.g., stating there will be 'a difference' without specifying which way).

A non-directional correlational hypothesis states that there is a relationship (without predicting the direction, i.e., positive or negative) between two co-variables. To gain full marks, both co-variables must be clearly operationalised.

Example of a fully operationalised non-directional correlational hypothesis:
"There is a significant relationship/correlation between the number of hours an individual spends on social media per week and their self-esteem score measured on a scale of 1 to 50."

Co-variables:
1. Number of hours spent on social media per week (operationalised measure of social media usage).
2. Self-esteem score on a scale of 1 to 50 (operationalised measure of self-esteem).

3 marks: A clearly written non-directional correlational hypothesis with both co-variables clearly operationalised (e.g., specifying 'number of hours spent per week' and 'score on a 1-50 scale').

2 marks: A non-directional correlational hypothesis where only one co-variable is operationalised, or both variables are present but lack precise operationalisation. Alternatively, a fully operationalised directional correlational hypothesis.

1 mark: A basic non-directional hypothesis with no operationalisation (e.g., 'There will be a relationship between social media and self-esteem'), or a directional hypothesis with no operationalisation.

0 marks: The response does not state a correlational hypothesis (e.g., states an experimental hypothesis of difference) or is completely incorrect.

Debriefing serves several essential ethical purposes in research involving deception:

1. **Revealing the True Aim**: It ensures that participants are fully informed about the actual hypothesis and procedures of the study, restoring them as close as possible to the physical and mental state they were in before the research.
2. **Minimizing Harm**: It provides an opportunity to address and mitigate any distress, anxiety, or embarrassment caused by the deception, offering reassurance or therapeutic support if necessary.
3. **Retrospective Right to Withdraw**: It allows participants to make an informed decision about whether they still wish to have their data included in the study once they understand its true nature.

Award up to 3 marks for an explanation of the significance of debriefing when deception is used:

- **1 mark**: For identifying that debriefing involves explaining the true aims/nature of the study to the participants to restore them to their pre-research state.
- **1 mark**: For explaining that debriefing is significant for protecting participants from psychological harm/distress arising from the deception.
- **1 mark**: For explaining that debriefing gives participants the opportunity to withdraw their data retrospectively once they are aware of the deception.

To obtain informed consent ethically, the researcher should present a written consent form to the participants before the experiment begins. The protocol must cover the following four key components:

1. **Information about the study:** The researcher must explain that the study investigates the relationship between mild sleep deprivation and reaction times. They must describe exactly what the participant will be expected to do (e.g., complete reaction time tasks on a computer after staying awake for a set number of hours).
2. **Right to withdraw:** The form must explicitly state that participation is voluntary and that participants can withdraw from the experiment at any time, including having their data destroyed after the study has finished, without having to provide a reason or face any negative consequences.
3. **Confidentiality:** The protocol must assure participants that their personal details and performance scores will be kept confidential and stored anonymously (e.g., using participant numbers instead of names).
4. **Consent confirmation (Sign-off):** The document must end with a statement confirming that the participant has read the information, understands their rights, and voluntarily agrees to take part. A designated space for their printed name, signature, and date must be provided.

Award up to 4 marks for a detailed, applied consent protocol.

- **1 mark** for explaining the nature and purpose of the study in the context of the scenario (e.g., sleep deprivation and reaction time tests).
- **1 mark** for clearly detailing the right to withdraw at any point during or after the investigation.
- **1 mark** for outlining how confidentiality/anonymity of the participants' data will be protected.
- **1 mark** for including a formal sign-off section (e.g., signature and date) to confirm agreement.

*Note: A maximum of 2 marks can be awarded if the response is entirely generic and has not been applied to the sleep deprivation study described in the prompt.*

A positive correlation occurs when two co-variables move in the same direction. Specifically, as one co-variable increases, the other co-variable also increases. Conversely, as one co-variable decreases, the other co-variable also decreases. An example would be the relationship between height and weight, where taller individuals generally weigh more.

2 marks for a clear and accurate definition of a positive correlation, stating that as one co-variable increases, the other also increases (or they both change in the same direction).
1 mark for a vague or partial definition (e.g. 'both variables go up' without explicitly describing the relationship clearly, or failing to use appropriate terminology such as variables/co-variables).
0 marks for a completely incorrect definition, or for confusing correlation with causation (e.g. explaining it in terms of an independent variable causing a change in a dependent variable).

1 mark for identifying the experimental design as a repeated measures design.

1 mark for explaining a relevant limitation of this design in the context of the study (e.g., order effects such as practice or fatigue/boredom, or demand characteristics as they might guess the hypothesis by the second day).

1 mark: Repeated measures (design).

1 mark: Clear explanation of a limitation linked to the scenario (e.g., explaining how doing a proofreading task twice could lead to practice effects which act as a confounding variable, or how doing it twice could lead to boredom/fatigue, or how participants might guess the aim of the study and alter their behavior on the second day).

To achieve a random allocation for 40 participants into two conditions (Condition A and Condition B) in an independent groups design:
1. Assign each of the 40 participants a unique number from 1 to 40.
2. Write each of these numbers on identical, separate pieces of paper and place them into a container (like a hat), mixing them thoroughly to ensure bias is eliminated.
3. Blindly draw out 20 slips of paper. The participants corresponding to these numbers are assigned to Condition A.
4. The remaining 20 participants whose numbers were not drawn are assigned to Condition B.

Alternative methods using a random number generator are also fully acceptable: e.g., generating 20 unique random numbers between 1 and 40 using a computer program to form Condition A, with the rest forming Condition B.

Marks are awarded as follows:
- **3 marks**: A clear, complete, and practical description of a random allocation procedure that successfully distributes the 40 participants into the two conditions (ensuring equal/fair distribution and showing clear steps in the context of the scenario).
- **2 marks**: A mostly complete description of a random allocation procedure, but missing a key detail (e.g., does not mention mixing the papers, or fails to specify how the remaining participants are allocated).
- **1 mark**: A very basic or vague description of random allocation (e.g., 'put names in a hat and draw them out' without contextualizing or detailing the split).
- **0 marks**: Incorrect or irrelevant response.

The independent variable (IV) is the variable that is manipulated by the researcher to observe its effect on the dependent variable. To be fully operationalised, both specific conditions of the independent variable must be clearly specified, which includes playing with interactive building blocks for 20 minutes and watching an educational cartoon on a tablet for 20 minutes.

2 marks: A clear and fully operationalised independent variable, identifying both specific conditions (playing with interactive building blocks for 20 minutes AND watching an educational cartoon on a tablet for 20 minutes). 1 mark: An independent variable is identified but lacks full operationalisation (e.g., 'the type of activity the toddlers did' or 'building blocks versus a cartoon' without the details or duration). 0 marks: The response is incorrect (e.g., identifying the dependent variable, such as 'seconds spent focusing on a puzzle').

One clear extraneous variable in this study is the time of day at which the participants are tested (9:00 AM vs. 4:00 PM). This could act as a confounding variable because human alertness and cognitive performance naturally fluctuate throughout the day. Participants tested in the morning (Group A) are likely to be fresher and more alert, which could improve their recall scores. Conversely, those tested in the late afternoon (Group B) may be fatigued after a full day, which could hinder their performance. Therefore, any observed difference in recall scores between the two groups might be due to their level of alertness rather than the mnemonic technique.

1 mark for identifying a relevant extraneous variable from the scenario:
- Accept 'Time of day'.
- Accept 'Participant alertness' / 'fatigue'.

1 mark for explaining its potential effect on the dependent variable (recall performance):
- e.g., explaining that being tested in the morning makes participants more alert, which could increase their recall score, meaning the difference in scores might not be due to the mnemonic technique alone.

Do not accept 'the mnemonic technique' (IV) or 'word recall' (DV).

Demand characteristics refer to any features, cues, or clues in an experimental setup that may help participants work out the true aim or hypothesis of the investigation. Once participants believe they understand the purpose of the study, they are likely to alter their natural behavior, either by trying to please the researcher (the 'good participant' effect) or by intentionally disrupting the study (the 'screw-you' effect). This reduces the internal validity of the research because the researcher is no longer measuring genuine behavior.

2 marks: A clear and complete definition that addresses both aspects:
1. Cues/clues in the research environment that reveal the study's aim or hypothesis.
2. The resulting change/alteration in the participant's natural behavior.

1 mark: A vague or partial definition that mentions only one aspect (e.g., 'when participants guess what the experiment is about' or 'when participants do not act naturally' without linking it to environmental cues).