2025 Cambridge IAL Psychology (9990) Practice Paper with Answers

The researcher gave specific instructions to the doodling group: 1) They were given a pencil and an A4 sheet of paper with rows of shapes (circles and squares). 2) They were told to shade in the shapes. 3) They were told it did not matter how neat or quick they were, and that it was just to relieve boredom. 4) They were instructed to listen to the mock telephone call and write down the names of the people who would be attending the party, whilst ignoring the names of places mentioned.

1 mark for each correct detail of the instructions, up to a maximum of 4 marks: - Mentioning they were given an A4 sheet with shapes (circles and squares) to shade. - Mentioning they were told it didn't matter how neat/fast they shaded. - Mentioning they were told it was just to prevent boredom. - Mentioning they were instructed to write down the names of people attending the party. - Mentioning they were told to ignore the names of places.

To establish the clicker as a secondary reinforcer, the trainers paired the sound of the clicker with a primary reinforcer (food rewards, such as bananas) through classical conditioning. Once the elephant learned that the click predicted food, the clicker was used during training sessions. It acted as a bridging stimulus, immediately marking the precise moment the elephant executed the target behavior correctly, allowing for immediate feedback before the physical food reward was handed over.

1 mark for identifying the primary reinforcer (e.g., food, bananas). 1 mark for explaining the pairing/conditioning process (associating click with food). 1 mark for explaining its role as a bridging stimulus / providing immediate feedback. 1 mark for stating that the physical reward (food) is delivered immediately after the click.

Two target behaviors trained in the study were: 1) 'Steady': The elephant had to stand still and remain calm without moving its body or limbs. 2) 'Foot': The elephant had to lift and present its foot to the trainer/vet so that it could be inspected, cleaned, or treated. Other possible behaviors include 'trunk' (lifting the trunk) or 'ear' (presenting the ear for behind-the-ear procedures).

2 marks per behavior described (max 2 behaviors): - 1 mark for identifying the behavior (e.g., 'steady', 'foot', 'trunk', 'ear'). - 1 mark for describing what the elephant had to do in response to that command. Max 4 marks in total.

The standardization of the victim included: 1) Demographics: All victims were male, aged between 26 and 35. 2) Clothing: They all wore identical informal clothes (Eisenhower jacket, old trousers, no tie). 3) Location of collapse: The victim always stood near the metal pole in the critical area and collapsed forward onto the floor. 4) Timing: The collapse always occurred exactly 70 seconds after the train departed the station.

1 mark for each correctly identified standardizing feature (maximum of 4 marks): - Age/Gender (male, 26-35 years old). - Dress/Clothing (Eisenhower jacket, old trousers, no tie). - Location of collapse (near the metal pole in the critical area / facing forward). - Timing of collapse (exactly 70 seconds after departure).

Qualitative data was collected unobtrusively by two female observers who sat in the adjacent area of the subway car. They wrote down the exact spoken comments made by nearby passengers during the trials, especially when no help was offered or before someone intervened. A key finding was that many comments came from female passengers, who often made remarks justifying their lack of action, such as 'It is for a man to help him' or 'I wish I were strong enough to help.'

For data collection (max 2 marks): - 1 mark for stating it was recorded by two female observers (unobtrusively/sitting in adjacent area). - 1 mark for explaining they wrote down spoken comments made by passengers. For the finding (max 2 marks): - 1 mark for stating that comments were made particularly when help was delayed or by females. - 1 mark for providing an illustrative comment (e.g., 'It is for a man to help', 'I wish I was strong enough').

The final sample for the MBSR group consisted of 16 participants (5 male and 11 female). They were healthy, right-handed individuals with a mean age of approximately 38 years. They were recruited from individuals who had already signed up for one of the 8-week MBSR courses at the Center for Mindfulness at the University of Massachusetts Medical School, seeking stress reduction.

1 mark for specifying the number of participants (16). 1 mark for mentioning key demographic features (e.g., right-handed, healthy, or the gender split of 5 male/11 female). 2 marks for the recruitment description: - 1 mark for stating they had already enrolled in/signed up for MBSR courses. - 1 mark for identifying the location/source (Center for Mindfulness at the University of Massachusetts).

High-resolution T1-weighted MRI scans were obtained for all participants. The scans were performed at two specific time points: approximately two weeks before the start of the MBSR program (pre-intervention) and approximately two weeks after the program ended (post-intervention). During the scanning procedure, participants lay inside the MRI machine and were instructed to keep their head still and close their eyes.

1 mark for mentioning high-resolution/T1-weighted structural scans. 1 mark for pre-intervention timing (2 weeks before the course). 1 mark for post-intervention timing (2 weeks after the course). 1 mark for participant instruction/state during scan (lying still, closing eyes).

Systematic desensitization is a behavioral treatment based on classical conditioning principles (reciprocal inhibition). First, the patient is taught deep muscle relaxation techniques. Second, the therapist and patient together construct an anxiety hierarchy, which ranks feared situations from least to most terrifying. Third, the patient is gradually exposed to these situations (either in imagination/in vitro or in real life/in vivo), starting at the lowest level, whilst practicing relaxation. The patient only advances to the next level of the hierarchy when they can remain completely relaxed at the current level.

1 mark for explaining relaxation training (e.g., breathing, progressive muscle relaxation). 1 mark for explaining the construction of an anxiety hierarchy (ranking phobic stimuli from least to most feared). 1 mark for describing gradual exposure (starting at the least feared level). 1 mark for explaining the progression rule (only moving to the next level when completely relaxed / extinguishing anxiety).

Strength 1 (Objective measurements): A major strength of Hölzel et al.'s study is the use of magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) scans to measure brain changes. Unlike self-report measures of stress, MRI scans provide highly objective, quantitative data on grey matter concentration in specific regions of interest (ROI) such as the hippocampus and amygdala. This eliminates researcher bias and participant expectancy effects, increasing the scientific validity of the findings regarding brain plasticity. Strength 2 (Control group): The study used a waitlist control group of 17 participants alongside the MBSR experimental group. This allowed researchers to compare the brain structure changes over the 8-week period, ruling out extraneous variables such as the natural passage of time or seasonal fluctuations in brain density. Weakness 1 (Sample generalisability): The sample used was highly unrepresentative. It consisted of only 16 participants in the MBSR group (after exclusions) who were self-selected, highly motivated individuals seeking stress reduction, and overall very highly educated. This means the findings regarding the effectiveness and neural effects of the MBSR program may not generalize to the wider, less-motivated, or lower-income population. Weakness 2 (Self-report limits): Although objective MRI data was collected, the study also relied on the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ). This self-report measure is subjective and susceptible to demand characteristics, as participants knew they were undergoing a mindfulness course and might have over-reported their mindfulness skills to please the researchers.

Level 4 (9-11 marks): Detailed and balanced evaluation containing two clear strengths (including one on the objective nature of MRI scans) and two clear weaknesses (including one on the generalisability of the sample). Detailed examples from the Hölzel et al. study are used to support arguments. Psychological terminology is used correctly. Level 3 (6-8 marks): Good evaluation with some detail. Contains at least one strength and one weakness, addressing both the objective data and generalisability requirements, though one may be less developed. Structure is mostly clear. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Limited evaluation. May only cover strengths or weaknesses, or fails to address the specific prompt requirements (e.g., does not discuss MRI objectivity or sample generalisability). Few study details. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Superficial points, very little detail or relevance to the study. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

Strength 1 (Standardization): A key strength of the study is its highly standardized training procedure. The training of the five Asian elephants used specific, pre-determined steps (such as shaving off skin and washing behind ears) with precise acoustic signals (whistles acting as secondary reinforcers) and food rewards (bananas) administered immediately. This level of standardization ensured that all elephants experienced the same learning conditions, increasing the internal validity and replicability of the research. Strength 2 (Inter-rater reliability): The study utilized high-quality objective coding where independent observers evaluated the video recordings of the training sessions. This resulted in strong inter-rater reliability, ensuring that the target behaviors were recorded objectively and reducing observer bias. Weakness 1 (Animal ethics): Although the study aimed to introduce positive reinforcement (SPR) as a humane alternative to traditional training, ethical concerns remain. The elephants were still kept in captivity and restricted within a training camp in Nepal. Furthermore, the tasks required of them (like presenting ears or feet on command) are unnatural behaviors for wild elephants and could cause stress or psychological distress. Weakness 2 (Sample generalisability): The sample size was extremely small, consisting of only five juvenile Asian elephants (four female, one male) from one specific location. This highly specific and limited sample makes it difficult to generalize the learning rates and effectiveness of SPR training to other elephant populations, older elephants, or different animal species.

Level 4 (9-11 marks): Detailed and balanced evaluation containing two clear strengths (including one on the standardization of training) and two clear weaknesses (including one on the ethics of animal research). Detailed examples from the Fagen et al. study are used to support arguments. Psychological terminology is used correctly. Level 3 (6-8 marks): Good evaluation with some detail. Contains at least one strength and one weakness, addressing both the standardization and animal ethics requirements, though one may be less developed. Structure is mostly clear. Level 2 (3-5 marks): Limited evaluation. May only cover strengths or weaknesses, or fails to address the specific prompt requirements (e.g., does not discuss standardization or animal ethics). Few study details. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Superficial points, very little detail or relevance to the study. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

An advantage of using a pre-recorded message is that it standardises the procedure. Every participant hears the exact same delivery (187 words per minute, monotonous tone), which controls for extraneous variables such as researcher bias or varying speech patterns. A disadvantage is that it lacks ecological validity or mundane realism. Real-world telephone conversations or messages are rarely delivered in a completely flat, expressionless tone without any background noise or opportunity for interaction, meaning the task may not represent real-life cognitive performance.

1 mark for outlining an advantage.
1 mark for explaining/applying the advantage to the study.
1 mark for outlining/explaining a disadvantage.

Housing: The elephants were housed in their stable groups at the tourist facilities and were not isolated, allowing them to maintain their normal social structures and contact.
Procedures: The training utilized non-invasive positive reinforcement techniques (SPR) rather than physical punishment or force. Additionally, training sessions were kept short (approximately 10–15 minutes once or twice a day) to prevent physical exhaustion, stress, or distress.
Species and strain: The researchers chose Asian elephants, which were already captive at the camp and required husbandry training, meaning no wild animals were captured for the study, and the training directly benefited their welfare.

Award marks as follows:
- 1 mark for identifying/describing how one guideline was met.
- 1 mark for identifying/describing how a second guideline was met.
- 1 mark for detail/elaboration linking the guidelines directly to the specific context of the Fagen et al. study (e.g., mentioning SPR, stable groups, or husbandry tasks).

To operationalise training success:
- Quantitative measure: The researcher could measure the percentage of correct behavioral responses (e.g., touching a target stick) out of 10 consecutive trials, or record the exact time taken (in seconds) for the sea lion to perform the requested behavior after the whistle is blown.
- Qualitative measure: The researcher could record descriptive observations of the sea lions' behavior, such as rating their level of focus or fluidity of movement (e.g., 'smoothly executed with no signs of hesitation', 'hesitant and easily distracted', or 'agitated/refusing to cooperate').

Quantitative measure:
- 1 mark for a clear, measurable quantitative operationalisation suitable for sea lions (e.g., percentage of trials, time in seconds).
- 1 mark for contextual detail (e.g., response to the target stick/whistle).
Qualitative measure:
- 1 mark for a descriptive, non-numerical operationalisation suitable for sea lions (e.g., behavioral descriptions, subjective ratings of fluidness/cooperation).
- 1 mark for contextual detail (e.g., describing signs of focus, hesitation, or distress).

Operationalisation (2 marks):
The independent variable of the victim's race was operationalised into two levels: Black victim or White victim. To ensure standardisation and control for potential extraneous variables, all victims (regardless of race) were dressed identically in Eisenhower jackets, old trousers, and no tie, ensuring that only physical racial characteristics differed.
Methodological Issue (2 marks):
One issue was the unequal distribution of trials. Due to circumstances beyond the researchers' control (and the termination of the study), there were significantly more trials conducted with White victims (65 trials) than Black victims (38 trials) in the 'ill' condition. This imbalance makes statistical comparisons less reliable. Alternatively, because only a small number of actors played the victim role, individual differences in their acting style or physical appearance (other than race) could have acted as confounding variables.

Operationalisation:
- 1 mark for identifying the two levels of the IV (Black and White).
- 1 mark for describing how standardisation was maintained (e.g., identical clothing/Eisenhower jackets).
Methodological Issue:
- 1 mark for identifying a valid issue (e.g., unequal trials, actor participant variables).
- 1 mark for explaining how this issue affected the study's validity or reliability.

Strength:
Using a longitudinal design allows researchers to track structural brain changes within the same individuals over the 8-week period. This controls for individual differences (participant variables) in baseline brain anatomy, as each participant acts as their own baseline comparison.
Weakness:
A major weakness is participant attrition (participants dropping out). In this study, several participants failed to complete the full 8-week MBSR program or did not attend the final MRI scanning session, which can bias the results or reduce the final sample size, affecting statistical power.

- 1 mark for identifying a valid strength (e.g., control of participant variables, tracking actual change over time).
- 1 mark for explaining this strength in the context of the study (e.g., comparing pre- and post-MBSR scans for the same participant).
- 1 mark for identifying/explaining a valid weakness (e.g., attrition rate/dropouts or historical effects affecting the participants during the 8 weeks).

Experimental Design (1 mark):
Independent measures design (or independent groups design).
Limitation (3 marks):
- 1 mark for identifying a limitation: The lack of random allocation of participants to the groups (or presence of individual differences/participant variables).
- 1 mark for linking to study details: The experimental group consisted of individuals who actively sought out and paid for the MBSR course, whereas the control group was a convenience sample recruited separately who did not express a desire to take the course.
- 1 mark for explaining the impact on validity: This means the two groups may have differed significantly in baseline motivation, stress levels, or socio-economic status. These pre-existing differences, rather than the mindfulness training itself, could have influenced the differences in brain structure or responses, lowering the internal validity of the comparison.

- 1 mark for identifying the design (independent measures / independent groups).
- 1 mark for identifying a limitation of this design (e.g., participant variables / selection bias).
- 1 mark for linking the limitation to the Hölzel study (motivation to take MBSR vs. control group recruitment).
- 1 mark for explaining the consequence on the study's findings (confounding variables/reduced internal validity).

To control for participant variables, the psychologist can use either of the following methods:
1. Random Allocation: The psychologist could assign participants to either the systematic desensitisation or the CBT group using a random number generator. This ensures that individual differences, such as initial fear severity, age, or treatment expectations, are distributed equally across both treatment conditions, reducing the likelihood of systematic bias.
2. Matched Pairs Design: The psychologist could first assess all participants' phobia severity using a standardized spider phobia questionnaire. They would then pair up participants with similar scores and randomly assign one member of each pair to systematic desensitisation and the other to CBT. This directly controls for the extraneous variable of baseline fear levels.

Award marks as follows:
- 1 mark for identifying a valid control method (e.g., random allocation, matched pairs).
- 1 mark for explaining how this method would be carried out in this specific scenario (e.g., matching based on baseline spider phobia scores or using a random generator to distribute participants).
- 1 mark for explaining how this controls participant variables (e.g., ensuring equal distribution of characteristics or direct control of baseline fear severity, preventing these from confounding the treatment results).

Advantage:
Closed questions produce quantitative data (such as scores on a 1-5 Likert scale for anxiety symptoms). This makes it easy to perform statistical analyses, calculate the mean severity score, and compare findings across different subgroups (e.g., comparing science students to humanities students). It also increases reliability as the questionnaire is highly standardised and easy to replicate.
Disadvantage:
Closed questions lack detail and depth. Anxiety is a complex, subjective experience, and forcing participants to select from pre-determined options (e.g., 'Never', 'Sometimes', 'Always') does not allow them to explain their unique experiences or the specific context of their anxiety. This can lead to a lack of validity, as the fixed choices might not accurately capture the true nature of their generalized anxiety disorder symptoms.

Advantage:
- 1 mark for outlining an advantage of closed questions (e.g., quantitative data, ease of statistical analysis, comparability).
- 1 mark for applying this advantage to the GAD/university student study context.
Disadvantage:
- 1 mark for outlining a disadvantage of closed questions (e.g., lack of depth/detail, forced choices, response bias).
- 1 mark for applying this disadvantage to the GAD study context (e.g., inability to express nuance in complex mental health/anxiety symptoms).

A strength of using physiological measurements (such as MRI scans) is that they produce highly objective, quantitative data that are free from participant bias or demand characteristics. In the Hölzel et al. study, this meant researchers could measure actual structural changes in the brain (such as gray matter concentration in the hippocampus) rather than relying on self-reports, which could be biased by participants wanting to show that the MBSR course worked.

A weakness of using physiological measurements like MRI is that the procedure can be highly stressful and artificial. Participants must lie completely still inside a noisy, cramped tube, which can cause claustrophobia or situational anxiety. This might lead to high attrition rates or affect the validity of the physiological data collected.

Marks are awarded as follows:
- 1 mark for outlining a valid strength of physiological measurements.
- 1 mark for outlining a valid weakness of physiological measurements.
- 1 mark for explicitly linking either the strength or the weakness to the Hölzel et al. study (e.g., mentioning gray matter, hippocampus, mindfulness course, or MRI scanner conditions).

Guidelines:
- Acceptable strengths include: high reliability, objective/unbiased data, ability to look at biological mechanisms directly.
- Acceptable weaknesses include: high cost, low ecological validity, participant anxiety/claustrophobia, correlation does not equal causation.
- Reject: Vague answers that do not address research methods principles.

A strength of using physiological measurements (such as MRI scans) is that they produce highly objective, quantitative data that are free from participant bias or demand characteristics. In the Hölzel et al. study, this meant researchers could measure actual structural changes in the brain (such as gray matter concentration in the hippocampus) rather than relying on self-reports, which could be biased by participants wanting to show that the MBSR course worked.

A weakness of using physiological measurements like MRI is that the procedure can be highly stressful and artificial. Participants must lie completely still inside a noisy, cramped tube, which can cause claustrophobia or situational anxiety. This might lead to high attrition rates or affect the validity of the physiological data collected.

Marks are awarded as follows:
- 1 mark for outlining a valid strength of physiological measurements.
- 1 mark for outlining a valid weakness of physiological measurements.
- 1 mark for explicitly linking either the strength or the weakness to the Hölzel et al. study (e.g., mentioning gray matter, hippocampus, mindfulness course, or MRI scanner conditions).

Guidelines:
- Acceptable strengths include: high reliability, objective/unbiased data, ability to look at biological mechanisms directly.
- Acceptable weaknesses include: high cost, low ecological validity, participant anxiety/claustrophobia, correlation does not equal causation.
- Reject: Vague answers that do not address research methods principles.

### Proposed Experimental Design

**1. Operationalisation of the Independent Variable (IV):**
The IV is the mindfulness-based intervention, with two levels:
- **Mindfulness Group:** Participants attend a 20-minute guided mindfulness meditation session daily for 5 consecutive days during the week prior to final exams. The sessions are led by a certified instructor via a standardized audio recording.
- **Control Group:** Participants spend 20 minutes daily sitting quietly in the same environment without any guidance or meditative instructions (an active control group).

**2. Measurement of the Dependent Variable (DV):**
Physiological stress will be measured using **heart rate variability (HRV)** and **salivary cortisol levels**:
- **HRV:** Measured using a continuous wearable heart-rate monitor for 10 minutes before and immediately after the final 20-minute session on Day 5.
- **Salivary Cortisol:** Saliva samples will be collected using a cotton swab at exactly 09:00 AM on Day 1 (baseline) and Day 5 (post-intervention) to measure physiological hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal (HPA) axis activity.

**3. Controls to Ensure Internal Validity:**
- **Time of Day:** Cortisol levels naturally fluctuate throughout the day (diurnal rhythm). Therefore, all saliva collections and sessions must take place at the same time each day (e.g., 09:00 AM) for both groups.
- **Dietary Restrictions:** Participants must refrain from eating, drinking caffeine, or exercising for at least 1 hour before their daily sessions, as these factors can artificially alter heart rate and cortisol levels.

**Marking Scheme (7 Marks total):**

- **Independent Variable (IV) Operationalisation (2 marks):**
- **2 marks:** Clear operationalisation of both levels of the IV (e.g., guided mindfulness vs. control condition, with specified durations/frequency).
- **1 mark:** Vague operationalisation (e.g., 'one group does mindfulness and the other does nothing').

- **Dependent Variable (DV) Measurement (2 marks):**
- **2 marks:** Clear description of how physiological stress is measured (e.g., detailing the specific physiological metrics like HRV or cortisol, and when/how they are recorded).
- **1 mark:** Basic mention of a physiological measure without procedural detail (e.g., 'measuring heart rate').

- **Controls for Internal Validity (2 marks):**
- **2 marks:** Two appropriate, distinct controls explained in context (e.g., standardising time of day to control for cortisol rhythms, restricting caffeine/exercise prior to measurement).
- **1 mark:** Only one valid control explained, or two controls listed without explaining how they maintain validity.

- **Context and Feasibility (1 mark):**
- **1 mark:** The overall study is practical, explicitly situated in the context of 'university students during exam season', and shows clear logical flow.

### Proposed Case Study Design

**1. Implementation of Systematic Desensitisation (SD):**
The therapy will be conducted over 8 weekly sessions. First, the therapist will train the 10-year-old child in progressive muscle relaxation techniques. Next, together they will construct a **fear hierarchy** for buttons (e.g., Level 1: looking at a drawing of a plastic button; Level 5: holding a single metal button; Level 10: wearing a shirt with multiple small plastic buttons). The therapist will guide the child through reciprocal inhibition, moving up the hierarchy only when the child reports complete relaxation at the current stage.

**2. Measurement of the Reduction in Phobia:**
Progress and treatment effectiveness will be measured using both quantitative and qualitative methods:
- **Subjective Units of Distress Scale (SUDS):** The child will rate their fear on a scale of 0 to 10 at the start and end of each session.
- **Behavioral Avoidance Test (BAT):** At baseline (pre-treatment) and post-treatment, the therapist will measure the physical distance (in centimeters) the child is willing to stand from a bowl of buttons, and whether they can touch them.
- **Parental Reports:** Semi-structured interviews with the parents to assess the child's real-world behavior around buttons at home.

**3. Ethical Treatment of the Participant:**
- **Informed Consent and Assent:** Written informed consent will be obtained from the parents, and verbal assent will be obtained from the child using age-appropriate language.
- **Right to Withdraw:** The child will be given a 'stop card' (e.g., a red card to raise) that they can use at any moment to immediately halt the therapy session if the distress becomes too intense, protecting them from psychological harm.

**Marking Scheme (7 Marks total):**

- **Implementation of Systematic Desensitisation (2 marks):**
- **2 marks:** Clear description of relaxation training, creation of a fear hierarchy, and progressive exposure/reciprocal inhibition.
- **1 mark:** Brief or incomplete description (e.g., mentioning exposure without relaxation training or a structured hierarchy).

- **Measurement of Treatment Effectiveness (2 marks):**
- **2 marks:** Two clear, appropriate measures of phobia reduction, combining subjective (e.g., SUDS) and objective/behavioral (e.g., Behavioral Avoidance Test) data.
- **1 mark:** Only one measure is detailed, or measures are vague (e.g., 'asking them if they feel better').

- **Ethical Considerations (2 marks):**
- **2 marks:** Two distinct ethical safeguards appropriate for a child participant (e.g., parental consent + child assent, and an explicit mechanism for the right to withdraw like a 'stop card' to prevent undue distress).
- **1 mark:** Only one ethical concern addressed, or general ethics mentioned without specific application to this study.

- **Case Study Focus (1 mark):**
- **1 mark:** The response is framed correctly as a deep, individual-focused case study of a single 10-year-old child.