2024 Cambridge IAL Psychology (9990) Practice Paper with Answers

To establish the secondary reinforcer in the training of the elephants, the researchers used classical conditioning. First, the secondary reinforcer chosen was the sound of a whistle. Second, this sound was paired repeatedly with a primary reinforcer, which was food (specifically chopped bananas, carrots, or sweet potatoes). Third, the trainer blew the whistle at the exact moment or immediately prior to handing the food reward to the elephant, allowing the animal to associate the sound of the whistle with positive reward.

1 mark: Identifying the whistle as the secondary reinforcer. 1 mark: Identifying the food (e.g. bananas/carrots/sweet potatoes) as the primary reinforcer. 1 mark: Explaining the pairing process (e.g. blowing the whistle immediately before/at the moment of feeding to build an association).

Andrade standardised the telephone task through several precise controls. First, instead of a live speaker, a pre-recorded telephone message was played to ensure every participant heard the exact same delivery. Second, the voice on the recording spoke at a monotonous, flat, and unexpressive pace to avoid any emotional cues. Third, the speed of speech was controlled at precisely 220 words per minute, and the volume was set to a comfortable average level for all participants.

1 mark: Mentioning the use of a pre-recorded tape/message (instead of a live speaker). 1 mark: Describing the voice delivery characteristics (e.g. flat, monotonous, unexpressive, or comfortable volume). 1 mark: Specifying the controlled speed of the recording (220 words per minute).

The selection and validation of words for the Revised Eyes Test involved several steps. First, the target words and foil options (three foils per photo) were initially designed by two of the study's authors. Second, they were then presented to a validation panel of eight independent judges (four male and four female). Third, to be included in the final test, at least five of the eight judges had to agree that the target word was the correct description of the mental state. If an item failed this consensus, a new target and/or foil options were chosen.

1 mark: Mentioning that words were initially drafted by the authors and tested on a panel of judges (8 judges: 4 male, 4 female). 1 mark: Explaining that a minimum consensus was required (at least 5 out of 8 judges had to agree on the target word). 1 mark: Mentioning that if the criteria were not met, the target word and/or foils were redesigned/replaced.

To collect quantitative data on dream duration estimates, Dement and Kleitman used the following procedure. First, participants were woken up by a loud doorbell at fixed intervals during REM sleep, specifically after either 5 minutes or 15 minutes of continuous REM. Second, upon awakening, participants were asked to make a forced-choice estimation, deciding whether they had been dreaming for 5 minutes or for 15 minutes. Third, the researchers recorded this quantitative data as the number of correct and incorrect estimations made by each participant.

1 mark: Mentioning waking up participants after specific times in REM sleep (5 minutes or 15 minutes). 1 mark: Describing the response method (a forced-choice question: estimating 5 or 15 minutes). 1 mark: Stating how the quantitative data was recorded (frequency/count of correct vs incorrect estimates).

The Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program in the Hölzel et al. study consisted of several structured components. First, duration and format: It was an 8-week program consisting of weekly group meetings lasting 2.5 hours each, along with a full-day class retreat. Second, active practices: Participants were trained in core mindfulness techniques, specifically body scan, mindful yoga, and sitting meditation. Third, home practice: Participants were given audio recordings and asked to practice these exercises daily at home for approximately 45 minutes.

1 mark: Specifying the program's structure (8 weeks, weekly 2.5-hour sessions, or full-day retreat). 1 mark: Identifying at least two specific mindfulness practices (body scan, mindful yoga, sitting meditation). 1 mark: Mentioning the home practice requirement (45 minutes daily using audio guides).

The 'ill' victim condition was standardly executed as follows. First, appearance: The victim was dressed casually in an Eisenhower jacket, old trousers, and no tie. Crucially, he did not carry a bottle of alcohol and smelled completely sober. Second, action/collapse: He boarded the train and stood near a metal pole in the critical area. Approximately 70 seconds into the journey, he staggered and collapsed onto the floor. Third, post-collapse behaviour: He remained lying on his back, staring up at the ceiling, waiting for assistance. If no one helped by the time the model stepped in, the model helped him to his feet.

1 mark: Outlining physical appearance/apparel (e.g., Eisenhower jacket, old trousers, sober/no bottle of alcohol). 1 mark: Describing the collapse event (collapsing/falling to the floor after about 70 seconds near a pole). 1 mark: Describing the victim's state after collapsing (lying on back, staring at the ceiling, waiting for help).

Milgram designed a standardised verbal protocol for the experimenter if a participant showed reluctance to deliver shocks. First, the experimenter used a sequence of four specific, pre-determined verbal prods delivered in a firm but polite voice: Prod 1 was 'Please continue' or 'Please go on'; Prod 2 was 'The experiment requires that you continue'; Prod 3 was 'It is absolutely essential that you continue'; Prod 4 was 'You have no other choice, you must go on'. Second, these prods were always given in sequence. Only if the participant still refused to obey after Prod 4 was the experiment stopped and terminated.

1 mark: Explaining that there was a set of four standardised verbal prods used in a strict, sequential order. 1 mark: Providing at least two correct or highly accurate paraphrases of the prods (e.g., 'Please continue' and 'The experiment requires that you continue'). 1 mark: Detailing the outcome rule (e.g., if the participant refused after Prod 4, the experiment was terminated).

Using a semi-structured interview compared to a structured interview offers specific trade-offs. Strength: It offers greater flexibility. While there is an interview guide, the researcher can ask spontaneous follow-up questions based on the participant's unique answers. This allows for deeper exploration of thoughts and feelings, resulting in highly detailed, qualitative, and ecologically valid data. Weakness: It has lower reliability and is harder to standardise. Because the interviewer deviates from a fixed set of questions to probe individual responses, the experience is not uniform across all participants. This makes replication difficult and increases the risk of interviewer bias affecting the course of the conversation.

1 mark: Explaining a clear strength of semi-structured interviews (e.g., flexibility, depth of data, ability to clarify answers, higher validity). 1 mark: Explaining a clear weakness of semi-structured interviews (e.g., lower reliability, difficulty in replicating, potential interviewer bias, time-consuming to analyse). 1 mark: Explicitly comparing or contrasting with structured interviews (e.g., showing why it yields more detail or less uniformity than a rigid, identical question format).

To design a training program based on Fagen et al.: 1. Secondary Reinforcer & Bridging: Use a secondary reinforcer, such as a whistle (initially paired with a primary reward like grapes) as a bridge to signal the exact moment the chimpanzee performs the correct behavior. 2. Shaping: Break down the target behavior (allowing ear inspection) into small, successive approximations. Reward the chimpanzee first for sitting near the trainer, then for pressing its ear against a mesh barrier, and finally for holding still. 3. Desensitisation: Gradually introduce the medical tool (e.g., an otoscope) so the chimpanzee becomes habituated to its presence and touch without showing fear or distress. 4. Clear Progression Criteria: Establish a strict passing criterion for each phase (e.g., the chimpanzee must successfully hold still for 10 seconds in 8 out of 10 consecutive trials before moving to the actual examination phase).

Award 1 mark for each of the following points up to a maximum of 5 marks: 1 mark for operationalising a secondary reinforcer (e.g., clicker/whistle) paired with primary reinforcement (e.g., food/juice). 1 mark for describing the shaping process (rewarding successive approximations of the final ear inspection behavior). 1 mark for incorporating desensitisation to the equipment (e.g., presenting the otoscope slowly over trials). 1 mark for establishing clear criteria for progression through the training stages (e.g., 8 out of 10 successful trials). 1 mark for context-specific application to chimpanzees (e.g., ensuring voluntary participation, using a safety barrier).

To design the study: 1. Operationalising the IV (Doodling): The doodling group is given a customized sheet with shapes (e.g., circles and squares) to shade in, while being instructed that it does not matter how neat they are. The control group is given lined paper and told to listen. 2. Standardisation: The lecturer delivers a pre-recorded 30-minute lecture on a neutral topic to ensure the tone, speed, and content are identical for all participants. 3. Minimising Demand Characteristics: Students are told a cover story (e.g., they are testing a new auditory learning technique) so they do not consciously try to memorise information or change their doodling behavior. 4. Measuring the DV (Memory Recall): A surprise recall test is administered. It includes 'monitoring' questions (e.g., names of main concepts discussed) and 'recall' questions (e.g., specific examples or details mentioned incidentally in the lecture).

Award 1 mark for each of the following points up to a maximum of 5 marks: 1 mark for a clear operationalisation of the doodling task (e.g., shading shapes) vs. the control condition. 1 mark for detailing how demand characteristics are controlled (e.g., using a cover story about listening styles to hide the true aim of doodling). 1 mark for explaining how the dependent variable of memory recall is measured (must include both monitoring/main points and peripheral/unexpected details to reflect Andrade's design). 1 mark for standardisation of the stimulus (e.g., using a pre-recorded video or a strictly scripted, monotonous lecture delivery). 1 mark for ethical details or practical classroom control (e.g., debriefing after the surprise test, ensuring voluntary participation).

Similarity: Ethics (Deception / Lack of Informed Consent)
Both studies failed to protect participants from deception and did not obtain prior informed consent. In Milgram's study, participants volunteered for a study on 'memory and learning' and were deceived into believing they were administering real, potentially fatal electric shocks to a fellow participant (the learner). In Piliavin et al.'s study, subway passengers were completely unaware that they were part of an experiment studying bystander behaviour; they were deceived by a staged collapse of a victim (either drunk or ill) and could not give informed consent to participate.

Difference: Ecological Validity and Research Setting
Milgram's study was conducted in a controlled, artificial laboratory environment at Yale University. The task itself—administering electric shocks to a stranger in a word-pair task—was highly artificial and did not reflect everyday behavior, leading to low ecological validity. In contrast, Piliavin et al. conducted a field experiment in a natural, real-world setting: a moving New York subway train. The situation of seeing someone collapse is an event that could realistically occur in everyday life, and the participants (passengers) were in their natural environment, resulting in high ecological validity.

For each comparison (1 similarity, 1 difference) up to 4 marks are available:

Similarity (4 marks):
- 1 mark: Clearly identifying a valid similarity (e.g., ethical issues / deception).
- 1 mark: Contextualised detail from Milgram's study (e.g., participants believed they were delivering real shocks/testing memory).
- 1 mark: Contextualised detail from Piliavin's study (e.g., passengers did not know the victim's collapse was staged).
- 1 mark: Explicit comparison explaining why this constitutes a similarity (e.g., both studies misled participants about the true nature of the environment and task, meaning informed consent could not be obtained).

Difference (4 marks):
- 1 mark: Clearly identifying a valid difference (e.g., ecological validity / research setting).
- 1 mark: Contextualised detail from Milgram's study (e.g., artificial laboratory setting at Yale University, administering shocks).
- 1 mark: Contextualised detail from Piliavin's study (e.g., naturalistic field setting on a real moving Harlem Line subway carriage).
- 1 mark: Explicit comparison explaining why this constitutes a difference (e.g., Milgram's setup created an unnatural demand characteristic environment, whereas Piliavin's passengers acted naturally in a real-life public situation).

Acceptable alternative comparison points include:
- Quantitative vs. qualitative data collection.
- Sample characteristics (all male volunteers vs. opportunistic mixed demographic passengers).

Reject:
- Vague assertions of 'both being about social psychology' without elaboration.

Introduction: State that biochemical explanations, particularly the dopamine hypothesis, suggest that schizophrenia is caused by an excess or imbalance of neurotransmitters (specifically dopamine) in the brain. Evaluation point 1 (Named issue - Reductionism): Discuss how biochemical explanations are highly reductionist as they explain a complex, multi-faceted disorder entirely in terms of micro-level chemical processes (D2 receptor sensitivity, dopamine levels in subcortical regions versus prefrontal cortex). Explain the strengths of this reductionism (leads to clear, testable hypotheses; facilitates the development of targeted, effective pharmacological treatments like first- and second-generation antipsychotics). Explain the limitations of this reductionism (overlooks cognitive, environmental, and social factors, such as high expressed emotion in families or socioeconomic stress, which are better explained by a holistic model like the diathesis-stress model). Evaluation point 2 (Scientific methodology/evidence): Discuss the strengths of the biochemical approach, such as using objective, replicable measures (PET and fMRI scans, spinal fluid analysis) and clinical trials showing that dopamine antagonists reduce positive symptoms. Contrast this with the 'treatment-etiology fallacy' (the assumption that because a drug alleviates symptoms, the biochemical imbalance must have caused the disorder). Evaluation point 3 (Determinism vs Free Will): Note that biochemical explanations are biologically deterministic, suggesting individuals have no control over the onset of their symptoms. While this removes moral blame/stigma from the individual, it can lead to patient passivity where they rely solely on drugs rather than active psychological therapies. Conclusion: Summarize that while biochemical explanations have revolutionized treatment through drug development, they must be integrated with holistic, psychological explanations to fully understand and treat schizophrenia.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Detailed and well-contextualised evaluation of biochemical explanations. Both strengths and weaknesses are considered. The named debate of reductionism is integrated effectively and discussed with depth. The response is coherent, well-structured, and uses precise psychological terminology. Level 3 (6-7 marks): Mostly detailed evaluation but may lack balance. The named debate of reductionism is discussed, but with less integration or depth. Good structure and terminology. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Limited evaluation. Points are superficial or heavily one-sided. The named debate of reductionism is only mentioned briefly or poorly explained. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Very basic response, mostly descriptive of the dopamine hypothesis with little to no evaluation or mention of reductionism. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

In the study by Hölzel et al. (2011), the MBSR program was delivered using the following procedure: 1) It was an 8-week group program with weekly meetings lasting 2.5 hours each. 2) There was a single full-day class (retreat) lasting 6.5 hours, which took place during the sixth week of the course. 3) Participants were requested to practice mindfulness exercises daily for 45 minutes at home. 4) Home practice was guided by audio recordings containing three exercises (body scan, mindful yoga, and sitting meditation) which they alternated, and they recorded their daily practice duration in daily logs.

Award 1 mark for each correct, detailed point about the MBSR procedure, up to a maximum of 4 marks. Points can include: 1 mark for stating it was an 8-week program; 1 mark for stating group meetings were weekly / lasted 2.5 hours; 1 mark for identifying the full-day (6.5-hour) class/retreat during the sixth week; 1 mark for noting daily home practice was 45 minutes; 1 mark for identifying the use of audio recordings (or mentioning the specific types: body scan, mindful yoga, sitting meditation); 1 mark for mentioning the use of daily practice logs.