2023 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) Practice Paper with Answers

The participant could outline either: 1) The computerized Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) task, where they stopped an approaching silhouette/avatar from 8 different angles, or 2) The actual physical distance task, where they determined comfortable spacing in a real room with an experimenter. One mark is awarded for identifying the task, and one mark for explaining how it was performed.

1 mark: Identifying one of the tasks (e.g., computerized CID task / physical distance task).
1 mark: Describing how it was conducted (e.g., stopping an avatar when it got too close, or asking a physical person to stop walking).

Positive reinforcement was implemented by immediately rewarding correct target behaviors. The trainers blew a whistle (secondary reinforcer) and handed the elephant a food treat like a banana (primary reinforcer). No punishment was used for incorrect moves.

1 mark: For identifying the reinforcer (food/bananas and/or the whistle blow).
1 mark: For explaining that it was administered immediately following a correct target behavior (or that incorrect behaviors received no reward/punishment).

The researchers provided participants with audio recordings of guided mindfulness exercises. To track adherence, participants logged their daily home practice duration in minutes using a paper diary or calendar sheet.

1 mark: For mentioning the use of the guided audio recordings for home practice.
1 mark: For mentioning the daily tracking/logging of practice duration in minutes.

The fundamental difference lies in the presence of the guilty party. In a target-present line-up, the suspect (perpetrator) is physically present in the line-up. In a target-absent line-up, the perpetrator is replaced by an additional innocent foil, meaning all options in the line-up are innocent.

1 mark: Correctly explaining that a target-present line-up contains the actual culprit/perpetrator.
1 mark: Correctly explaining that a target-absent line-up contains only foils/innocent people and lacks the perpetrator.

Systemizing toys were characterized by having moving parts, wheels, or the capability of being actively propelled through space. Example toys included a police car or a dump truck. Mentioning two features yields one mark, and the example yields the second mark.

1 mark: Stating two features (e.g., can be moved through space, has wheels, has mechanical parts, or lacks animate features).
1 mark: Providing a correct example from the study (e.g., truck, wagon, car).

Andrade calculated the monitoring performance score as: correct names written down minus any false alarms. Correct names meant those explicitly mentioned as attending. False alarms included names of non-attenders, names from outside the script, or places written in the names column.

1 mark: For stating that the score counted correct names of people attending.
1 mark: For explaining that false alarms (non-attending names/places written as names) were subtracted from this total.

The hierarchy was developed by having the boy rate different types of buttons using a 9-point Distress Feelings Thermometer (0 to 8). The list structured these stimuli from those evoking the lowest distress (e.g., large denim buttons, rating of 2) to those evoking the highest distress (e.g., small, colored plastic buttons, rating of 8).

1 mark: Identifying that it used a 9-point scale or the Distress Feelings Thermometer (0-8 scale).
1 mark: Explaining that stimuli were ordered from least distressing/fearful to most distressing/fearful (can use button examples to illustrate).

The early model condition was defined by both the location of the model and the timing of their intervention. The model stood in either the critical or adjacent area of the subway carriage and waited exactly 70 seconds after the victim's collapse before offering assistance.

1 mark: Describing the timing (intervening 70 seconds after the collapse).
1 mark: Describing the location (standing in either the critical or adjacent area).

In Andrade's study, the doodling condition participants received an A4 sheet of paper. This sheet had alternating rows of circles and squares, with ten shapes in each row. There was also a 4.5 cm wide margin on the left-hand side of the sheet, which was designed for writing down the target information (the names of the party-goers).

Award 1 mark for each descriptive point of the sheet of paper, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
- Mentioning it was an A4 sheet (1 mark).
- Mentioning alternating rows of shapes (circles and squares) / 10 shapes per row (1 mark).
- Mentioning the margin on the left-hand side (for writing names) (1 mark).

Before the experiment, the children were rated on their aggression levels to ensure matched groups. This assessment was conducted by two observers who knew the children well: a female nursery teacher and one of the experimenters. They rated the children on four five-point scales assessing physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition (self-control).

Award 1 mark for each point outlined about the assessment process, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
- Rated by two observers (a nursery school teacher and an experimenter who knew them) (1 mark).
- Rated on four 5-point scales / rated on specific types of aggression (physical, verbal, inanimate, or aggressive inhibition) (1 mark).
- Mentioning that this was done to match the participants on baseline aggression (1 mark).

In the study by Saavedra and Silverman, the imagery exposure therapy was used to address the boy's evaluative learning (disgust). First, the boy's distress was rated using an 11-point Feelings Thermometer (0-8). The therapy sessions involved the boy imagining buttons falling on him, hugging his mother while she wore buttons, and describing how the buttons looked, felt, and smelled. For example, he imagined hundreds of buttons falling all over his body. Along with these imaginal exposures, the therapist helped him with cognitive restructuring, assisting him in replacing self-statements about the disgust of buttons (such as 'they smell bad') with more positive or neutral thoughts (such as 'they smell nice' or 'they do not look dirty'). Over the course of the sessions, his ratings of distress decreased significantly.

Award 1 mark for each relevant point. [Max 5 marks] - The therapy addressed the evaluative learning/disgust aspect of his phobia. - The boy rated his disgust/fear using a 0 to 8 Feelings Thermometer. - Sessions involved imagining buttons falling on him and describing how they smelled, looked, and felt. - He was guided to engage in cognitive restructuring, replacing negative self-statements with positive ones (such as changing 'they are dirty' to 'they smell nice'). - The imagery sessions progressed from less distressing stimuli to more distressing stimuli (such as imagining large plastic buttons to clear plastic buttons). - The therapy successfully reduced his distress ratings over time.

Milgram recruited 40 male participants through a newspaper advertisement and direct mail solicitation, which claimed to study 'learning and memory' at Yale University. They were promised a payment of $4.50 (plus 50 cents for carfare) simply for arriving, regardless of whether they completed the study. When each participant arrived, they met the experimenter (in a grey lab coat) and another participant, who was actually a confederate (Mr. Wallace). They were told about the study's fake aim (the effects of punishment on learning). They then drew slips of paper from a hat to determine who would be the 'teacher' and who would be the 'learner'. This was rigged so that the real participant always drew 'teacher'. Finally, the teacher was taken to the adjacent room and given a sample shock of 45 volts from the shock generator to convince them that the equipment was real before the learner was strapped into the chair.

Award 1 mark for each correct detail of selection/preparation. [Max 5 marks] - Recruited via newspaper advertisement/direct mail seeking volunteers for a study on memory/learning. - Promised $4.50 (plus carfare) just for showing up. - Met at Yale University by the experimenter and a confederate (Mr. Wallace). - Drew rigged slips of paper from a hat so the real participant was always the 'teacher'. - Shown the shock generator and given a real sample shock of 45 volts to demonstrate the machine worked.

To investigate this aim, participants were woken up during REM sleep at one of two durations: either 5 minutes or 15 minutes after REM had started. This was determined randomly or in a predetermined sequence. Upon being woken by a loud doorbell, they were asked to state whether they had been dreaming for 5 minutes or 15 minutes (a forced-choice question). They were then asked to describe their dream narrative. The researchers found that participants were highly accurate in their estimates. For the 5-minute waking condition, 45 out of 51 estimations were correct. For the 15-minute waking condition, 47 out of 60 estimations were correct. Additionally, they found a significant positive correlation between the number of words used in the dream narrative and the actual duration of the REM sleep period.

Award 1 mark for each point. [Max 5 marks] - Participants were woken up after either 5 or 15 minutes of REM sleep. - They were asked to estimate if they had been dreaming for 5 or 15 minutes (forced choice). - They had to write down or describe their dream content. - Results: 45 out of 51 estimations were correct for the 5-minute condition. - Results: 47 out of 60 estimations were correct for the 15-minute condition. - Additional finding: There was a strong correlation between the word count of the dream narrative and the actual duration of REM sleep.

In the study by Bandura et al., the children were pre-assessed for their baseline aggressiveness to ensure the groups were balanced. They were rated on four five-point rating scales by a female experimenter and a nursery school teacher who knew them well. The scales measured physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition. Based on their total scores, the children were arranged in triplets of similar aggressiveness. One child from each triplet was then randomly assigned to one of the three main experimental groups (aggressive model, non-aggressive model, or control group). This matched pairs design was used to control for individual differences and participant variables, preventing baseline differences in natural aggression from confounding the effect of the model's behavior on the children's subsequent aggression.

Award 1 mark for each point. [Max 5 marks] - Children were rated by a female experimenter and nursery teacher who knew them. - Rated on four 5-point scales measuring physical, verbal, inanimate aggression, and inhibition. - Total scores were used to group children into triplets of similar aggression levels. - One child from each triplet was assigned to each of the treatment/control conditions. - The matched pairs design was used to control for participant variables (baseline aggressiveness) that could confound the results.

In the Piliavin et al. study, the models were programmed to intervene under four distinct conditions to test the effects of model location and timing on helping behavior. The first condition was 'Critical area - early', where the model stood in the critical area (near the victim) and helped the victim 70 seconds after they collapsed. The second was 'Critical area - late', where the model stood in the critical area but waited 150 seconds after the collapse before helping. The third was 'Adjacent area - early', where the model stood in the adjacent area (further away) and helped after 70 seconds. The fourth was 'Adjacent area - late', where the model stood in the adjacent area and waited 150 seconds before helping. By varying these conditions, the researchers could test if being closer to the victim or helping sooner prompted more overall bystander intervention.

Award 1 mark for each correct description. [Max 5 marks] - Models varied by location (critical vs adjacent area) and timing (early vs late help). - Condition 1: Critical area, early (model in critical area, helped after 70 seconds). - Condition 2: Critical area, late (model in critical area, helped after 150 seconds). - Condition 3: Adjacent area, early (model in adjacent area, helped after 70 seconds). - Condition 4: Adjacent area, late (model in adjacent area, helped after 150 seconds).

The response must identify and explain points of comparison between Milgram and Piliavin et al. specifically regarding ecological validity.

Points to include:
- **Similarities:** High experimental realism in both (participants genuinely believed the situations: shocking a learner in Milgram, a victim collapsing in Piliavin).
- **Differences in Setting:** Piliavin et al. took place in a natural environment (New York subway train), whereas Milgram took place in an artificial environment (laboratory at Yale University).
- **Differences in Task (Mundane Realism):** Piliavin's task of witnessing a collapse has high mundane realism, whereas Milgram's task of administering electric shocks has extremely low mundane realism.
- **Differences in Awareness (Demand Characteristics):** Piliavin's participants were completely unaware they were being studied, eliminating demand characteristics. Milgram's participants knew they were in a study, which could lead to demand characteristics.

**Level 4 (7–8 marks):**
- Clear, detailed, and balanced comparison (at least one similarity and two differences, or vice versa, clearly linked to ecological validity).
- Explicit focus on ecological validity, demonstrating excellent knowledge and understanding of both Milgram and Piliavin et al.

**Level 3 (5–6 marks):**
- Comparison is mostly clear and detailed but may be slightly unbalanced (e.g., strong on differences, weak on similarities).
- Good understanding of both studies and how they relate to ecological validity.

**Level 2 (3–4 marks):**
- Outlines similarities and/or differences but they are described in a basic or limited way.
- May focus heavily on only one study or fail to make explicit, detailed comparisons regarding ecological validity.

**Level 1 (1–2 marks):**
- Shows a very limited understanding of ecological validity and/or the two studies.
- Response is brief, highly generalized, or mostly inaccurate.

**0 marks:**
- No creditworthy response.

### Example Response:

**Strength 1: High Control and Standardisation**
A major strength of the study by Hassett et al. is its highly standardised and controlled environment, which reduces confounding variables. For example, the placement of the toys (one plush toy and one wheeled toy) was counterbalanced (left vs. right) in the outdoor testing area for each trial. This control ensured that the monkeys did not show a preference simply because of a side bias. Additionally, the observations were videotaped and coded by observers using predefined operational definitions of interactions (such as 'hold' or 'sit-on'), and a subset was dual-coded to calculate inter-rater reliability, which yielded a very high correlation coefficient (0.97). This level of control ensures the study is highly replicable and possesses high internal validity.

**Strength 2: Use of Quantitative Data**
The study relied on objective, quantitative measures to evaluate toy preference, such as the duration of interactions and the frequency of specific behaviours. Collecting numerical data allowed the researchers to conduct precise statistical analyses (such as Mann-Whitney U tests) to compare the preferences of male and female monkeys. This numeric analysis minimises observer bias and subjectivity, making it easier to conclude objectively that male monkeys showed a significant preference for wheeled toys over plush toys, whereas female monkeys did not show such a clear preference.

**Weakness 1: Issues with Generalisability**
A key weakness of the study is the generalisability of the sample. The study used a specific troop of 82 rhesus monkeys living in a captive environment at the Yerkes National Primate Research Center. Because these monkeys live in a controlled, artificial social group and are fed by humans, their behaviour might not reflect that of wild rhesus monkeys. More importantly, while rhesus monkeys share biological similarities with humans, generalizing these findings directly to human children is problematic because human cognitive processes, cultural influences, and socialisation are far more complex than those of non-human primates.

**Weakness 2 (Named Issue): Use of Animals in Psychological Research**
*Evaluation of using animals:* A significant strength of using non-human primates (rhesus monkeys) in this research is that it allowed the researchers to investigate gender-typed preferences without the confounding influence of human culture and socialisation. Human children are exposed to gender-typed marketing, parental expectations, and peer pressure from birth, making it nearly impossible to isolate biological preferences. Using monkeys, who have no societal constructs of 'boy toys' or 'girl toys', allowed a cleaner test of evolutionary and biological theories of sex differences.

*Alternatively, an ethical/methodological weakness of using animals:* Despite the benefits, using animals presents ethical challenges. Although the researchers complied with the Animal Welfare Act and institutional guidelines, the monkeys were kept in captivity and subjected to experimental interventions (being let out into a specific trial area where food was withheld or controlled to encourage movement). Furthermore, because animals cannot give informed consent or exercise a right to withdraw, researchers bear a heavy ethical burden to justify the necessity of the research and ensure housing conditions (like the 25m x 25m outdoor compound) minimise distress, which is difficult to fully guarantee in a captive research setting.

### Marking Scheme (10 Marks Total)

**Level 4 (8-10 marks):**
* Evaluation is detailed and extremely well-contextualised, explicitly linked to Hassett et al.
* Both strengths and weaknesses are discussed (two of each), demonstrating excellent balance.
* The named issue (use of animals) is addressed in detail with a clear argument (either as a strength or a weakness).
* The student demonstrates a sophisticated understanding of psychological concepts and terminology.

**Level 3 (6-7 marks):**
* Evaluation is mostly detailed with some context from the study.
* The candidate attempts to cover both strengths and weaknesses, though one may be more detailed than the other.
* The named issue (use of animals) is addressed.
* The student shows good understanding with some minor omissions or lack of depth.

**Level 2 (4-5 marks):**
* Evaluation is limited, or points are described in a generic way without solid context from Hassett et al.
* The response may focus only on strengths or only on weaknesses.
* The named issue (use of animals) may be omitted or described very superficially.
* The student shows basic understanding.

**Level 1 (1-3 marks):**
* The candidate write a very basic, superficial response.
* Points are highly descriptive or show significant confusion about the study.
* Very little or no evaluation is present.

**Level 0 (0 marks):**
* No response or completely irrelevant response.

---
### Content Guide / Accept & Reject Notes
* **Acceptable Strengths:** Standardisation (counterbalancing of toy positions, videotaped trials), Reliability (high inter-rater reliability of 0.97), Objective quantitative data (duration and frequency measures which prevent bias), Isolation of biological variables (eliminating human socialisation factors).
* **Acceptable Weaknesses:** Sample representativeness (captive rhesus monkeys from a single facility), Anthropomorphism/Generalisability issues (translating monkey preferences to human children), Validity of toys used (plush/wheeled might not perfectly map onto masculine/feminine concepts for animals), Ethical concerns associated with animal housing/testing.
* **Named Issue (Use of Animals):** Must evaluate how using animals was beneficial (e.g., controlling socialisation, evolutionary comparisons) or problematic (e.g., ethics of captivity, generalisability to humans).

In Dement and Kleitman's study, participant variables were controlled by using a repeated measures design. Each participant slept in the lab and was awakened during both REM and NREM sleep states. Because the same individuals were compared across these conditions, individual differences in dreaming frequency, cognitive recall, or physiological baseline did not act as confounding variables.

1 mark: Correctly identifying the use of a repeated measures design or participants acting as their own controls. 1 mark: Explaining what participant variables are in this context (e.g., individual dream recall capabilities). 1 mark: Explaining how this prevents confounding and increases validity (e.g., comparing REM vs NREM within the same person).

Bandura et al. used inter-rater reliability by having two observers independently rate the children's aggressive behavior (resulting in a high correlation of r = 0.89). Advantage: It ensures that the measurement of aggression is reliable, objective, and free from individual observer bias. Disadvantage: It requires rigorous training to standardise the coding scheme, which is time-consuming, and observer fatigue or drift could still occur over long periods of observation.

1.5 marks for a clear explanation of the advantage (e.g., objective data, low bias, verifiable consistency). 1.5 marks for a clear explanation of the disadvantage/limitation (e.g., time-consuming training, risk of observer drift, difficulty in maintaining perfect alignment across all sessions).

Andrade operationalised doodling as shading in circles and squares of 1 cm diameter on a lined piece of paper. This lacks ecological validity because spontaneous doodling in real life is creative and unrestricted, not structured shading. Improvement: Researchers could provide a blank piece of paper and allow participants to sketch freely while listening to the telephone message, thereafter coding the presence and duration of spontaneous drawings.

1 mark: Explaining why the shading task lacks ecological validity (e.g., too structured, not spontaneous). 1 mark: Linking this to real-world behavior (e.g., people usually doodle freeform shapes). 1 mark: Offering a viable methodological improvement (e.g., using a blank sheet and coding freeform doodles).

The first group (AS/HFA) in Baron-Cohen et al. consisted of 15 male adults. They were recruited through support groups or clinical sources. All participants had a formal clinical diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism according to DSM-IV criteria, and their mean intelligence quotient (IQ) was 115.3.

1 mark per correct feature listed, up to a maximum of 3 marks. Acceptable features: All male, 15 participants, adults, diagnosed with AS/HFA, recruited via support groups/clinical centers/magazines, mean IQ of 115.3.

Piliavin et al. conducted a field experiment because they actively manipulated independent variables (the victim's condition: drunk vs. sober/ill; the victim's race: black vs. white; the presence of a model; and group size) within a natural environment (the New York subway). A naturalistic observation would only involve recording spontaneous bystander behavior without introducing any pre-planned conditions or actors to trigger a reaction.

1 mark: Defining a field experiment as involving active manipulation of an independent variable in a natural setting. 1 mark: Identifying the specific IV(s) manipulated in Piliavin et al. (e.g., drunk/ill condition, race). 1 mark: Clarifying that a naturalistic observation would not manipulate variables and would only observe existing behaviors.

In psychological research, a directional (one-tailed) hypothesis states the expected direction of the results (for example, predicting that sleep deprivation will decrease cognitive test performance). A non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis predicts that there will be a significant difference or relationship between variables but does not specify the direction of the effect (for example, predicting that sleep deprivation will affect cognitive test performance, without stating whether it will improve or worsen it).

1 mark: Clearly defining a directional/one-tailed hypothesis (specifies the direction of the difference or correlation). 1 mark: Clearly defining a non-directional/two-tailed hypothesis (states a difference or correlation exists but not the direction). 1 mark: Providing clear examples or explaining the key distinction (e.g., 'higher/lower' vs. 'different').

(a) One mark for a clear, observable cooperative play behavior (e.g., sharing a toy, taking turns on a slide). (b) Two marks for explaining a strength of time sampling: it reduces observer fatigue and makes recording more manageable by giving the observer set breaks between intervals. (c) One mark for stating a weakness of structured observation: it lacks flexibility and may miss unexpected behaviors not on the checklist.

(a) 1 mark: Clear, operationalized cooperative behavior. Reject vague terms like 'being nice'. (b) 2 marks: 1 mark for identifying a strength (e.g., reduces observer fatigue) and 1 mark for linking it to the context of observing children playing. (c) 1 mark: 1 mark for explaining a limitation of using pre-defined categories/checklists (e.g., rigidity).

(a) Two marks: 1 mark for identifying the IV as the lighting color, 1 mark for identifying the DV as the number of puzzles solved. (b) Two marks: 1 mark for identifying a valid participant variable (e.g., prior math ability or fatigue levels) and 1 mark for explaining a control method (e.g., random allocation or pre-testing).

(a) IV: 1 mark (must mention both blue and yellow lighting). DV: 1 mark (must mention puzzles completed). (b) Extraneous variable: 1 mark. Control: 1 mark. Accept any valid participant variable (e.g., age, vision quality) and an appropriate control.

(a) Two marks: 1 mark for identifying an order effect (practice/fatigue) and 1 mark for explaining how it applies to this specific word recall task. (b) Two marks: 1 mark for outlining the group division (half do noisy first, half do quiet first) and 1 mark for explaining how this balances out the order effects.

(a) 1 mark for identifying order effects/demand characteristics. 1 mark for context-specific explanation. (b) 1 mark for the concept of AB/BA design. 1 mark for linking it to the quiet and noisy conditions.

(a) Two marks: 1 mark for identifying the ethical issue (lack of consent or invasion of privacy) and 1 mark for explaining it in the supermarket context. (b) Two marks: 1 mark for a practical solution (debriefing/retrospective consent or observing only in public areas where consent is implied) and 1 mark for detailing how it works.

(a) 1 mark for naming/defining lack of consent or privacy violation. 1 mark for linking to the supermarket environment. (b) 1 mark for suggesting retrospective consent, debriefing, or sign-posting. 1 mark for explaining how it resolves the issue.

(a) Two marks: 1 mark for identifying the flexibility/depth of interviews and 1 mark for linking to the nurse stress topic. (b) One mark for a valid open question related to stress. (c) One mark for explaining that open, qualitative responses are difficult to standardize or replicate.

(a) 1 mark for qualitative depth/flexibility. 1 mark for application to nursing stress. (b) 1 mark for an open-ended question (cannot be answered with yes/no). (c) 1 mark for explaining issues with replication or researcher bias in interpreting subjective data.

(a) Two marks: 1 mark for approaching people who are readily available, 1 mark for applying it to the university environment. (b) Two marks: 1 mark for identifying the bias/lack of generalizability, 1 mark for explaining how a specific location (like the gym or library) creates this bias.

(a) 1 mark for definition (available participants). 1 mark for context (approaching students on campus). (b) 1 mark for explaining the bias/unrepresentativeness. 1 mark for context-specific bias example.

(a) Two marks: 1 mark for identifying a reason (e.g., checking procedures, timing, instructions) and 1 mark for explaining why it helps (e.g., saving resources, adjusting variables). (b) Two marks: 1 mark for pointing out sample size/scale difference and 1 mark for pointing out the difference in purpose (testing feasibility vs. testing hypotheses).

(a) 1 mark for identifying a standard purpose of a pilot study (timing, instructions, feasibility). 1 mark for application to the anxiety therapy scenario. (b) 1 mark for scale/sample size contrast. 1 mark for purpose contrast.

A model design would be as follows: 1. Independent Variable (IV): The level of eye contact made by the charity collector. This is operationalised into two conditions: Condition A (Direct Eye Contact), where the confederate charity collector makes continuous direct eye contact with an approaching pedestrian for at least 3 seconds from a distance of 5 metres until they pass; and Condition B (No Eye Contact), where the collector looks down at their clipboard or donation bucket as the pedestrian approaches. 2. Dependent Variable (DV): The helping behaviour of the pedestrian, measured in two ways: first, a binary qualitative measure of whether they stop and donate (Yes or No), and second, the quantitative amount of money donated in cents. 3. Sample and Sampling Technique: An opportunity sample of pedestrians walking alone on a busy metropolitan high street on weekdays between 11:00 AM and 1:00 PM. Children and groups of people will be excluded to avoid confounding variables such as social pressure or peer influence. 4. Controls: To maintain high internal validity, the same confederate (a 21-year-old female) will be used across all conditions. She will wear identical neutral clothing (black jeans and a plain green charity t-shirt), stand in the exact same spot outside a major department store, and use the same blue collection bucket. If spoken to, she will use a standardised script: 'Excuse me, would you like to donate to save the local woodlands today?' 5. Ethics: Since this field experiment takes place in a public area where people naturally expect to be observed, the initial lack of informed consent is ethically acceptable. However, to protect participant welfare, any participant who stops to donate or speaks to the collector will be immediately debriefed about the true nature of the study and asked for verbal consent to keep their donation data. If they decline, their data will be destroyed. No personal identifying information or photographs will be collected to guarantee absolute confidentiality.

Marks are awarded out of 10 based on the following rubric. Level 3 (8-10 marks): The design is highly appropriate, detailed, and practically viable. The candidate fully operationalises both the IV and DV, details an appropriate sample and sampling method, includes robust controls to ensure reliability and validity, and addresses ethics thoughtfully. Level 2 (5-7 marks): The design is mostly appropriate and outlines several key elements but may lack specific details or fail to fully operationalise one of the key variables (e.g., vague measurement of the DV or lack of specific control measures). Level 1 (1-4 marks): The design is basic, lacks essential detail, or contains significant methodological flaws (e.g., designing a laboratory study instead of a field experiment). Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response is provided. Key elements to reward: [1] Operationalisation of the IV (eye contact vs. no eye contact). [2] Measurement of the DV (donation rate / amount). [3] Sampling method and setting details. [4] Standardisation/controls (same confederate, clothing, script). [5] Ethical considerations (informed consent challenges in public spaces, debriefing, right to withdraw data).

1. **Limitation Identification (1 mark):** The use of a repeated measures design introduces the risk of order effects (specifically, practice or fatigue effects).
2. **Contextualisation of Limitation (1 mark):** In Dr. Aris's study, participants might perform better on the second comprehension test because they have practiced the reading/testing process (practice effect), or they might perform worse because they have become tired or bored by the second test (fatigue effect), which confounds the results.
3. **Solution Identification (1 mark):** To overcome this limitation, Dr. Aris could use counterbalancing.
4. **Contextualisation of Solution (1 mark):** Half of the participants would complete the reading and comprehension test in the quiet room first, followed by the noisy room, while the other half would start in the noisy room and finish in the quiet room. This distributes any order effects evenly across both conditions.

Award marks based on the following criteria (max 4 marks total):

- **1 mark** for identifying a valid methodological limitation of repeated measures design in this context (e.g., order effects, demand characteristics).
- **1 mark** for explaining/contextualising how this limitation affects the validity of Dr. Aris's reading concentration study.
- **1 mark** for proposing an appropriate methodological solution (e.g., counterbalancing, using an independent measures design).
- **1 mark** for explaining how this solution would be implemented specifically in Dr. Aris's study to resolve the limitation.

*Acceptable alternative solutions:* Switching to an independent measures design (different participants in each noise condition) with appropriate control for individual differences (e.g., matching participants on reading ability).