2024 Cambridge IAL Psychology (9990) Practice Paper with Answers

The participants in the doodling condition were given a sheet of A4 paper featuring alternating rows of shapes (squares and circles) with a wide margin on the left side to write down target names. They were given a pencil and told to shade in the shapes. The instructions specified that neatness and speed were not important, and that the activity was simply meant to relieve the boredom of listening to the telephone message.

1 mark for describing the paper design (e.g., A4 sheet with rows of alternating shapes/squares and circles, and a margin on the left).
1 mark for describing the instruction to shade (e.g., instructed to shade in the shapes while listening to the message).
0.5 marks for mentioning the instruction context (e.g., told that neatness/speed did not matter or that it was to relieve boredom).

Two controlled aspects of the laboratory environment were the quiet and dark sleep room, and the bundling of the EEG electrode wires into a single 'ponytail' cord. Bundling the wires was necessary to prevent them from tangling or pulling, allowing the participants to roll over and move naturally. Keeping the room quiet and dark prevented external stimuli from waking the participants, ensuring the sleep patterns observed were natural.

1 mark for identifying two environmental controls (0.5 marks each: e.g., quiet room, dark room, electrodes bundled into a single ponytail cord).
1 mark for explaining why one control was necessary (e.g., bundling wires to allow free movement/prevent tangling, or dark/quiet room to avoid waking the participant up).
0.5 marks for detail/link to natural sleep patterns.

Hassett et al. categorized toys into two types: wheeled toys (which are culturally considered masculine) and plush toys (culturally considered feminine). Examples of wheeled toys used in the study include a wagon, a dump truck, and a police car. Examples of plush toys include a rag doll, a Winnie the Pooh soft toy, and a teddy bear.

1 mark for outlining the two categories: wheeled/masculine-typed and plush/feminine-typed.
0.5 marks for providing a correct example of a wheeled toy (e.g., wagon, truck).
0.5 marks for providing a correct example of a plush toy (e.g., doll, teddy bear).
0.5 marks for explaining how they were defined/constructed (e.g., wheeled toys have moving parts, plush toys are soft and have features/faces).

The two therapies used were: 1. Contingency management (a behavioral approach using positive reinforcement), where the boy completed a fear hierarchy of exposure to buttons and was rewarded with praise and tokens from his mother. 2. Imagery exposure (a cognitive approach), where the boy imagined buttons falling on him, described how they felt and smelled, and used self-talk to restructure his disgust reactions.

1 mark for describing contingency management/positive reinforcement therapy (exposure paired with rewards/praise).
1 mark for describing imagery exposure therapy (visualizing button contact and addressing disgust thoughts).
0.5 marks for distinguishing between their theoretical bases (behavioral/reinforcement vs. cognitive/disgust management).

For the Revised Eyes Test, target and foil words were initially selected by a panel of 8 judges (4 male, 4 female). A consensus of at least 5 judges was required for a word to be chosen as the target. They were then validated using a control sample (Group 2 and 3) where at least 50% of the participants had to pick the target word, and no more than 25% could select any single foil word. If a item failed this, it was replaced.

1 mark for detailing the judge panel consensus (8 judges, 4 male and 4 female, requiring at least 5/8 agreement on target/foil words).
1 mark for describing the control participant validation (requiring at least 50% target selection and less than 25% foil selection).
0.5 marks for stating the outcome of validation (unsuitable items were replaced or modified).

In the elephant learning study, the secondary reinforcer used was a whistle blow. It was established by pairing the whistle sound with a primary reinforcer, which was food (specifically bananas, sugar cane, or tamarind). Through classical conditioning, the sound of the whistle became a signal for reward, allowing trainers to reward correct behaviors instantly from a distance.

1 mark for identifying the secondary reinforcer (the sound of a whistle).
1 mark for explaining the pairing process (whistle blown immediately before giving primary/food reward like bananas).
0.5 marks for reference to classical conditioning / creating an association between the whistle and the reward.

To be selected for the MBSR group in the study by Hölzel et al., participants had to meet several inclusion criteria: they had to be physically and mentally healthy (with no psychotropic medication use), have had no mindfulness or meditation classes in the preceding 5 years (be meditation-naive), and be compatible with MRI scanning procedures (e.g., no metal implants, non-claustrophobic).

1 mark for stating health/medication criteria (physically/mentally healthy, no psychotropic medications).
1 mark for stating meditation-naive status (no mindfulness/meditation training in the last 5 years).
0.5 marks for stating MRI eligibility (capable of lying still, no metal implants).

Ecological Validity: A strength regarding ecological validity in Fagen et al. is that the research was conducted in the elephants' naturalistic home environment (the stable and sanctuary in Nepal where they already lived). This meant the elephants were in a familiar physical environment, reducing artificial stress and making their behaviour more representative of captive elephants in typical care settings. However, a weakness is that the task of trunk-washing is highly artificial. In the wild, elephants do not naturally hold their trunks still to receive saline fluid and blow it back into a bag. Therefore, the behaviour being measured lacks mundane realism. Furthermore, the use of a secondary reinforcer (a clicker) is an artificial training mechanism not found in nature, reducing the ecological validity of the learning process itself. Ethical Considerations: A strength is that Fagen et al. used Positive Reinforcement Training (PRT) instead of traditional, punitive methods. The elephants were never punished or deprived of food, and they could choose to walk away from the training sessions at any point. This respects their welfare and avoids physical or psychological harm. Additionally, the study aimed to facilitate tuberculosis testing, which directly benefits the health and long-term welfare of the elephants, representing a positive ethical outcome. However, a potential ethical concern is that the elephants were still kept in captivity, and training them to comply with human demands could be seen as reinforcing their captive state rather than preparing them for natural life.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive and balanced, addressing both ecological validity and ethical considerations with clear strengths and weaknesses. Explicit, accurate reference to the Fagen et al. study is maintained throughout. Analysis is mature and highly structured. Level 3 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is structured, addressing both issues, but may focus more on one than the other, or may have minor inaccuracies. Good reference to the study is demonstrated. Level 2 (3-4 marks): The response is limited, evaluating only one issue in detail or both superficially. Limited or general references to the study. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, anecdotal points are made about ecological validity or ethics. Very little or no relevant reference to the study. Level 0 (0 marks): No response worthy of credit.

To operationalise the independent variable (IV) in this experiment, Dr. Sunder must clearly define and standardise the two treatment conditions:
1. Experimental Condition (Computerized CBT): Participants complete a specific program consisting of, for example, eight weekly 45-minute interactive computer sessions focused on modifying thoughts and appraisals related to auditory hallucinations.
2. Control Condition (Supportive Counseling): Participants attend eight weekly 45-minute face-to-face active listening sessions with a trained therapist, where no CBT techniques are used.
This ensures that the two levels of the IV are distinct, standardized, and comparable in duration and frequency.

1 mark: Clearly identifying the two levels/conditions of the independent variable (new computerized CBT vs standard supportive counseling).
1 mark: Describing a concrete way the experimental treatment is administered (e.g., specifying the number, duration, or focus of CBT sessions).
1 mark: Describing a standardized comparison for the control/supportive counseling group (e.g., matching the frequency/length of sessions to control for attention effects).

An investigator must control for individual color preference, as some participants might rate a perfume higher simply because they prefer red or blue.
To control this participant variable, the investigator could use a matched-pairs design:
1. Pre-screen participants on their baseline color preference (e.g., whether they prefer warm/red tones or cool/blue tones).
2. Pair participants with identical or highly similar color preferences.
3. Assign one member of each pair to the bright red packaging condition and the other to the pastel blue packaging condition.
This ensures that individual differences in color preference are balanced across both conditions, preventing this variable from becoming a confounding factor.

1 mark: Identifying a relevant participant variable in this scenario (e.g., individual color preferences, prior brand loyalty, gender, age).
1 mark: Describing a clear method of control (e.g., matched pairs, pre-screening, or random allocation with a large sample size).
1 mark: Explaining how this control successfully minimizes the threat to internal validity (e.g., balancing the preference across groups so color preference does not confound perceived quality ratings).

To use event sampling in this observational study, the researcher must follow these steps:
1. Define the specific target events/behaviors clearly (e.g., a shopper stopping to look at the screen for more than 3 seconds, a shopper touching the digital screen, or a shopper scanning the screen with a mobile phone).
2. Design a standardized coding sheet listing these target behaviors.
3. Have observers watch the digital display and record a tally mark every single time one of these specific events occurs, regardless of when it happens during the observation session.

1 mark: Explaining the core principle of event sampling (recording every occurrence of a predefined behavior).
1 mark: Providing a clear, operationalised target behavior relevant to the supermarket digital display scenario (e.g., touching the screen, stopping to read).
1 mark: Explaining the recording process (e.g., using a checklist or coding sheet to record a tally mark each time the event occurs).

To use a matched-pairs design in this study:
1. The psychologist recruits a group of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia.
2. For each patient in this experimental group, she recruits a healthy control participant who matches them closely on two key variables: age (e.g., within 2 years) and years of education completed (e.g., both having a high school diploma or college degree).
3. Both members of the pair then complete the cognitive tests, and their scores are compared directly.
Matching on these variables controls for participant variables that could independently affect cognitive performance, ensuring any observed differences are more likely attributable to the schizophrenia diagnosis.

1 mark: Describing the matching process (pairing a participant from the schizophrenia group with a control participant on a one-to-one basis).
1 mark: Identifying two appropriate matching variables (e.g., age, years of education, biological sex, IQ).
1 mark: Explaining the methodological reason for matching on these specific variables (e.g., to control for extraneous variables that affect cognitive test performance, thereby increasing internal validity).

To conduct the correlational study, both variables must be measured quantitatively on a continuous scale:
1. Variable 1 (Physical weight of the container): The researchers can measure the actual weight of various beverage bottles (e.g., ranging from 50 grams to 800 grams) using a standardized digital weighing scale to obtain a precise measurement in grams.
2. Variable 2 (Price consumers are willing to pay): The researchers can show participants each bottle and ask them a standardized open-ended question: 'What is the maximum amount in dollars and cents you would be willing to pay for the beverage in this bottle?'
These two numerical values (weight in grams and price in dollars) can then be analyzed using a correlational test (like Pearson's r or Spearman's rho) to determine if a relationship exists.

1 mark: Describing a clear, quantitative way to measure the physical weight of the container (e.g., using a digital scale to measure weight in grams).
1 mark: Describing a clear, quantitative way to measure the consumers' willingness to pay (e.g., asking for a maximum price in a specific currency or rating scale).
1 mark: Explaining how these measurements allow for a correlational analysis (e.g., producing pairs of numerical data that can be plotted on a scatter graph or analyzed with a statistical correlation test).

In this study on work environment and employee satisfaction:
- Advantage: A semi-structured interview allows the researcher to ask open-ended follow-up questions (probing) based on the employee's unique responses. For example, if an employee mentions lighting, the interviewer can ask them to elaborate on how it affects their mood. This yields rich, detailed qualitative data that a rigid structured interview would miss.
- Disadvantage: Because each interview can take a different path with different follow-up questions, the data is less standardized. This makes it much more difficult and time-consuming to compare responses across different employees or to perform thematic analysis to find common trends in employee satisfaction.

1 mark: Explaining one clear advantage of a semi-structured interview (e.g., flexibility to ask follow-up questions, obtaining rich qualitative data, exploring unexpected topics).
1 mark: Explaining one clear disadvantage of a semi-structured interview (e.g., less standardized, harder to replicate, more time-consuming to analyze, risk of interviewer bias).
1 mark: Applying both points directly to the context of work environment or employee satisfaction.

To conduct this correlational study, the researcher would measure two continuous co-variables: Co-variable 1: Time spent looking at the advertisement. This will be measured in seconds using a desktop-mounted eye-tracking device (e.g., Tobii) which starts recording the moment the participant's gaze enters the bounding box of the advertisement image on the monitor, and stops when they look away. Co-variable 2: Level of brand trust. Immediately after viewing the advertisement, participants will complete a standardized 5-question questionnaire about the brand. Each question (e.g., 'To what extent do you feel this brand is reliable?') will be scored on a 10-point Likert scale (1 = Not at all, 10 = Completely). The total brand trust score will range from 5 to 50. For the sample, 60 adult participants (aged 18-35) will be recruited using opportunity sampling in a university library foyer by asking passersby if they would like to participate in a 5-minute cognitive research study. Two key controls will be: first, the physical environment will be standardized: participants will sit exactly 60cm from a 24-inch monitor in a quiet testing booth with a fixed ambient light level of 150 lux to ensure external distractions do not affect gaze duration; second, all participants will see the exact same 15-second static digital perfume advertisement with identical branding, imagery, and text layout. Regarding ethics, all participants will sign an informed consent form prior to starting, they will be explicitly told they can withdraw at any time without consequence, and their data will be fully anonymized by assigning numeric ID codes instead of using names. A debriefing sheet explaining the exact nature of the consumer trust research will be provided at the end.

Marks are awarded out of 10 based on the quality, detail, and appropriateness of the proposed research design. Level 3 (8-10 marks): Detailed and coherent description of a correlational study. Both co-variables are clearly operationalized and quantitative. Sample size and opportunity sampling technique are specified. Two appropriate controls are explained in detail, and relevant ethical considerations are addressed. The study is fully replicable. Level 2 (5-7 marks): Description is reasonable but lacks detail in some areas (e.g., one co-variable may be vaguely operationalized, or only one control is fully explained). The design is mostly viable. Level 1 (1-4 marks): Basic description with major omissions. May outline a lab experiment instead of a correlation, or fail to explain how variables are measured or controlled. Minimal detail. 0 marks: No creditworthy response.

1 mark: Identifies a weakness of a repeated measures design (e.g., order effects like practice or fatigue, or demand characteristics). 1 mark: Contextualises the weakness to Dr Aris's study on packaging colour or purchasing decision speed. Example answer: Order effects such as practice could occur (1 mark). Participants might become faster at making the purchasing decision during the second trial because they are familiar with the procedure, confounding the effect of the packaging colour (1 mark).

1 mark: Generic identification of a relevant weakness of repeated measures. 1 mark: Specific application/link of this weakness to the scenario.

1 mark: Identifies a strength of covert observation (e.g., reduced demand characteristics, higher ecological validity, natural behaviour). 1 mark: Contextualises the strength to Dr Chen's study on retail scent or browsing duration. Example answer: It reduces demand characteristics / Hawthorne effect (1 mark). Because the shoppers do not know they are being watched, they will not change their natural browsing time in the boutique, ensuring the validity of the duration measured (1 mark).

1 mark: Generic identification of a relevant strength of covert observation. 1 mark: Specific application/link of this strength to the scenario.