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

For part (a), the student correctly identifies two independent variables from Experiment 1, which are the type of protagonist (friend, stranger, acquaintance, or authority figure) and the empathy level of the participants (high vs. low).
For part (b), the student accurately describes the computerized CID task (figure in the center, approach of the other figure, stopping with the spacebar, distance measured in pixels) and evaluates its lack of ecological validity by pointing out that a 2D computer simulation cannot capture the true physical sensation, sensory cues, or behavioral adjustments involved in real-world personal space boundaries.

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for each correctly identified independent variable (up to 2 marks).
- Acceptable: Protagonist type (or level of closeness/intimacy), empathy level (high vs. low).

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- Up to 2 marks for describing the computerized CID paradigm: 1 mark for mentioning the central schematic figure and the approaching figure, 1 mark for explaining that the participant pressed a key (spacebar) to stop the figure when they felt uncomfortable, and/or distance was measured in pixels.
- 1.5 marks for explaining the lack of ecological validity: 1 mark for identifying the limitation (unrealistic computerized task), 0.5 marks for linking it directly to the contrast between physical real-world boundaries and clicking a keyboard on a flat screen.

For part (a), the exact numbers of monkeys must be stated: 11 males and 23 females (34 in total).
For part (b), the student explains how the findings (males preferring wheeled toys and females showing no significant preference/playing with both) support biological mechanisms. They then outline a strength of using monkeys: the absence of human cultural socialization/gender-role expectations, which acts as a major confounding variable when studying toy preferences in human infants.

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for stating the correct number of male monkeys (11).
- 1 mark for stating the correct number of female monkeys (23).

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- 2 marks for the explanation linking findings to the biological approach: 1 mark for stating the specific finding (males preferred wheeled toys; females had more variable preferences), 1 mark for explaining how this supports biological origins (i.e., preference exists without social/cultural influence).
- 1.5 marks for outlining a strength of using non-human animal subjects: 1 mark for identifying the control over socialization/confounding cultural variables, 0.5 marks for clearly explaining why this is a benefit in the context of gendered preferences.

For part (a), the student must outline the daily practice expectations: 45 minutes daily, guided audio recordings (body scan, yoga, sitting meditation), and the use of a calendar/diary to log their practice.
For part (b), the student must identify a valid brain region (e.g., hippocampus, temporo-parietal junction, posterior cingulate cortex, cerebellum) and explain its corresponding psychological role (e.g., the hippocampus's role in memory and emotion regulation) to link the physiological change with psychological wellbeing.

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for specifying the duration (45 minutes per day).
- 1 mark for describing the nature of the homework practice (audio recordings of body scan/yoga/sitting meditation, or logging practice in a diary).

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying a correct brain region showing increased gray matter concentration (e.g., hippocampus, temporo-parietal junction, posterior cingulate cortex, or cerebellum).
- 1.5 marks for describing the psychological function of that brain region (e.g., emotion regulation, learning, memory, perspective-taking).
- 1 mark for linking this physiological change directly to the psychological benefits of mindfulness (e.g., reducing stress, improving emotional resilience).

For part (a), the student describes the process of pairing the neutral stimulus/secondary reinforcer (whistle) with the unconditioned stimulus/primary reinforcer (food) until the association is made.
For part (b), the student must provide two detailed reasons. These reasons should focus on: 1) animal welfare and stress-free medical examination (voluntary compliance for trunk washing), and 2) the safety of handlers/mahouts by avoiding aggressive or avoidant fear responses triggered by punishment or coercion.

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for stating that the whistle was blown first and immediately followed by a food treat (banana/sugarcane).
- 1 mark for explaining the outcome: the elephant associated the whistle with the food, making the whistle a secondary reinforcer indicating a correct action.

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- 1.5 marks for the first reason (e.g., animal welfare/humane care): 1 mark for identifying that positive reinforcement allows for voluntary, stress-free trunk washing for veterinary diagnostics, 0.5 marks for linking it to overall welfare.
- 2 marks for the second reason (e.g., safety/avoiding aggression): 1 mark for noting that physical coercion/negative reinforcement causes stress, fear, or avoidance, 1 mark for explaining how this increases physical danger for mahouts and handlers during medical procedures.

For part (a), the student correctly identifies the child age groups (4-5 and 11-12) and explains that adults served as a benchmark/baseline for comparison.
For part (b), the student accurately describes the main finding (children have significantly worse correct rejection rates in target-absent line-ups than adults) and derives a clear practical implication for police procedures (e.g., clear pre-lineup instructions to prevent guessing, or implementing sequential lineups).

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying the two child age groups (4-5 and 11-12 years old).
- 1 mark for stating that the adult group was used as a comparative baseline/control group.

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- 2 marks for explaining the findings on correct rejections: 1 mark for stating children (especially young ones) had lower correct rejection rates than adults, 1 mark for noting that children were more likely to make false positive selections when the culprit was absent.
- 1.5 marks for the practical implication: 1 mark for identifying a specific real-world application (e.g., warning children that the culprit might not be there, avoiding suggestive questioning), 0.5 marks for explaining why this modification protects innocent suspects based on the findings.

For part (a), the student must detail the standardized verbal prods used by the experimenter when participants hesitated or wanted to stop (minimum of two prods described or general explanation of the 4-prod sequence).
For part (b), the student must evaluate the ethical issues of deception and harm, and then explain Milgram's justifications: the necessity of deception for scientific validity, the post-experimental debriefing, the psychiatric follow-up, and the participant satisfaction data.

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the experimenter used a series of standardized verbal prods.
- 1 mark for providing examples of these prods (e.g., "Please continue", "The experiment requires that you continue", etc.).

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- 1.5 marks for evaluating the ethical issues: 1 mark for identifying the specific harms (stress, seizures) and deceptions (fake shocks, confederate), 0.5 marks for linking them to ethical guidelines.
- 2 marks for explaining Milgram's justification: 1 mark for scientific necessity (deception was needed to avoid demand characteristics/ensure realism), 1 mark for post-experimental safety measures (reassuring debrief, meeting the unharmed learner, longitudinal psychiatric follow-up showing no long-term harm).

For part (a), the student lists two specific buttons from the boy's hierarchy (e.g., small, clear plastic buttons; large, colored plastic buttons).
For part (b), the student describes the imagery exposure sessions (imagining buttons falling, sensory images, cognitive self-control) and explains the distinction between behavioral reinforcement (which only alters actions/fear response) and cognitive/evaluative therapy (which targets the core cognitive association of disgust, explaining why behavioral therapy alone was unsuccessful).

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for each correctly identified button type from the hierarchy (up to 2 marks).
- Acceptable: Small clear plastic buttons, large colored plastic buttons, school shirt buttons.

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- 1.5 marks for describing imagery exposure: 1 mark for noting the use of imagination (e.g., imagining buttons falling on his body, imagining how they smell), 0.5 marks for noting the incorporation of cognitive self-control/restructuring statements.
- 2 marks for the explanation: 1 mark for identifying that behavioral exposure only targeted outer behavior/fear, 1 mark for explaining that imagery exposure targeted the cognitive 'evaluative learning' (the disgust association) which was the true root of his phobia.

For part (a), the student must describe the matched-pairs design based on pre-rated aggression levels. They must mention who rated them (teacher and experimenter) and the dimensions of aggression rated (physical, verbal, etc.).
For part (b), the student must state the specific interaction findings (boys imitating male physical models, girls imitating female verbal models) and link this to social learning theory, specifically the concept of model identification (children are more motivated to replicate behaviors of models they identify with).

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying the matched-pairs design where children were pre-rated on aggression.
- 1 mark for explaining the rating process (rated by a teacher and experimenter on 5-point scales representing physical, verbal, or target aggression).

Part (b) [3.5 marks]:
- 2 marks for describing the interaction results: 1 mark for physical aggression findings (boys imitating male physical aggression more), 1 mark for verbal aggression findings (same-sex model preference for verbal aggression, especially girls/female model).
- 1.5 marks for explaining the support for social learning theory: 1 mark for connecting it to the concept of 'identification' (same-sex models are more readily identified with), 0.5 marks for explaining how this leads to greater cognitive encoding and replication of the model's behavior.

To achieve full marks (Level 4, 8-10 marks), the essay must:
1. Clearly identify and discuss two distinct strengths of Hassett et al. (e.g., high control/standardization, high inter-rater reliability, objective quantitative data).
2. Clearly identify and discuss two distinct weaknesses of Hassett et al., with at least one focusing on the 'use of animals in psychological research' (e.g., ethical guidelines, species choice, generalizability from animals to humans, housing conditions).
3. Use explicit, detailed examples from the Hassett et al. study to back up each evaluative point.
4. Maintain a balanced structure with clear paragraphing and highly developed arguments.

Level 4 (8-10 marks):
- Evaluation is comprehensive, containing two strengths and two weaknesses.
- Discussion of all points is balanced and detailed.
- Explicit reference is made to the named issue (use of animals in psychological research).
- Clear and accurate understanding of the Hassett et al. study is demonstrated throughout.

Level 3 (5-7 marks):
- Evaluation is good, but may be slightly unbalanced (e.g., three strong points and one weak point).
- Points are structured but may lack some specific detail or study evidence.
- Reference is made to the named issue (use of animals in psychological research), but it may lack depth.
- Good understanding of the study is shown.

Level 2 (3-4 marks):
- Evaluation is limited or basic.
- May only cover two or three points in total, or points may be very brief and superficial.
- Limited or no reference to the named issue (use of animals in psychological research).
- Basic understanding of the study.

Level 1 (1-2 marks):
- Very superficial evaluation with little to no structure.
- Little or no understanding of the study shown.

Level 0 (0 marks):
- No response worthy of credit.

Operationalisation refers to defining variables in a way that is clear and measurable. Researchers operationalise the independent variable to ensure that the study can be easily replicated by other researchers to test for reliability. It also ensures that the independent variable is manipulated consistently across all participants, which increases the internal validity of the experiment. For example, rather than just using 'coffee' as an independent variable, a researcher might operationalise it as 'drinking 200ml of black coffee containing 80mg of caffeine' versus 'drinking 200ml of warm water'.

1 mark: Explaining why operationalisation is important (e.g., replication, reliability, or consistency). 1 mark: Further explanation of why (e.g., explaining how it helps control extraneous variables or ensures objective measurement). 1 mark: Providing an appropriate example of an operationalised independent variable in an experimental context.

First, the researcher must clearly define the behavioral categories in a coding scheme and train two or more observers to use it consistently. Next, the observers must independently observe and record the same behaviors during the same trial or session. Finally, the researchers should run a statistical correlation (such as Cohen's Kappa or Spearman's rho) on the observers' records; a high positive correlation (typically +0.80 or higher) indicates good inter-rater reliability.

1 mark: Outline training or defining coding categories. 1 mark: Outline independent observation of the same events or participants. 1 mark: Outline correlating the scores/data and checking for a high coefficient or level of agreement (e.g., +0.80).

A directional (one-tailed) hypothesis predicts the specific direction of the expected difference or relationship between variables (e.g., stating that one group will perform better than the other). In contrast, a non-directional (two-tailed) hypothesis predicts that there will be a difference or relationship, but does not state the direction of that difference. An example of an appropriate directional hypothesis is: 'Students who sleep for 8 hours the night before an exam will score significantly higher than students who sleep for 4 hours.'

1 mark: Correctly explaining a directional hypothesis. 1 mark: Correctly explaining a non-directional hypothesis. 1 mark: Providing a valid, operationalised directional hypothesis relevant to the sleep and test performance scenario.

One strength of opportunity sampling is that it is highly convenient and time-saving. Researchers can quickly recruit participants who are already present and available, making it more cost-effective than other sampling methods. One weakness is that the sample is highly likely to be unrepresentative of the wider target population. This is because people who happen to be in the same place at the same time are likely to share similar characteristics, which limits the generalisability of the findings.

1 mark: Identifying a valid strength (convenience, speed, or cost-effectiveness). 1 mark: Identifying a valid weakness (unrepresentativeness, bias, or lack of generalisability). 1 mark: Elaboration of either the strength or weakness (e.g., explaining why they are biased, or how it saves time in practice).

To respect the right to withdraw, researchers must explicitly inform participants during the consent process that they can leave the study at any point without penalty, and that they can withdraw their data even after the study has finished. This can be difficult to maintain because participants may experience implicit social pressure or a sense of obligation to continue, especially if they are being paid, receiving course credit, or if the researcher is in a position of authority.

1 mark: Explaining how to respect the right to withdraw (e.g., informing participants they can leave/withdraw data at any point without penalty). 1 mark: Identifying a difficulty in maintaining this right (e.g., pressure of financial reward, social obligation, or researcher authority). 1 mark: Elaborating on the difficulty (e.g., explaining how this pressure prevents participants from acting on their rights).

In an independent measures design, different participants take part in each condition of the experiment. Participant variables (such as age, intelligence, or personality) can act as extraneous variables if they differ systematically between the groups, meaning any observed difference in the dependent variable might be due to these individual characteristics rather than the independent variable. To minimize this issue, the researcher can use random allocation to assign participants to the conditions. This ensures that individual differences are distributed evenly and randomly across the groups, reducing systematic bias.

1 mark: Explaining how participant variables act as extraneous variables (e.g., individual differences confounding the effect of the IV on the DV). 1 mark: Identifying a method to minimize this (random allocation). 1 mark: Explaining how this method works to reduce the issue (distributing individual differences evenly across groups).

This question assesses understanding of observational research methods, independent and dependent variables, sampling methods, and ethical considerations in research with children. (a) The independent variable is the condition being manipulated (the playground environment), and the dependent variable is the behavior being measured (cooperative play). (b) Structured observations use a predetermined checklist, which reduces observer bias and increases reliability, making it easier to replicate compared to unstructured observations. (c) Time sampling involves recording behavior at specified time intervals (e.g., every 2 minutes), which makes the observation process more manageable for a single observer. (d) Because the participants are children, the researcher must obtain informed consent from their parents or guardians, as children cannot legally give consent.

(a) 1 mark for identifying the IV: Type of play area (outdoor natural vs. indoor synthetic). 1 mark for identifying the DV: Level of cooperative play. (b) 1 mark for identifying an advantage of structured observation (e.g., high reliability, ease of recording). 1 mark for applying it to the study (e.g., using a checklist of play behaviors). (c) 1 mark for describing how time sampling is conducted (e.g., observing at set time intervals). 1 mark for contextualizing it (e.g., recording cooperative behaviors every 2 minutes). (d) 1 mark for identifying an ethical issue (e.g., parental consent). 1 mark for explaining how to address it (e.g., obtaining written consent from guardians before the play session).

This question tests the candidate's understanding of experimental designs, specifically repeated measures and counterbalancing, and the comparison with matched pairs design. (a) Repeated measures control for participant variables (as the same people are in all conditions) but introduce order effects (practice/fatigue). (b) Counterbalancing (AB/BA design) is the standard technique to control for order effects by distributing them equally across both conditions. (c) Matched pairs design avoids order effects because each participant is only tested once, while still maintaining control over key participant variables by pairing similar individuals.

(a) Strength: 1 mark for control of participant variables. 1 mark for context (the same 20 participants' baseline spatial skills are constant). Weakness: 1 mark for danger of order effects (practice/boredom). 1 mark for context (performing better/worse on the second spatial reasoning task). (b) 1 mark for identifying counterbalancing as the control method. 1 mark for explaining it in context (splitting the 20 participants into two groups of 10, with one group doing music first and the other doing silence first). (c) 1 mark for explaining that it eliminates order effects because participants only complete one task. 1 mark for explaining how matching controls participant variables (e.g., matching participants on their baseline spatial reasoning scores).

This question tests knowledge of self-report methods, specifically questionnaires, and validity checks. (a) Closed questions limit responses to fixed options, while open questions allow detailed free-text responses. (b) Questionnaires can be completed privately and anonymously, reducing social desirability bias compared to face-to-face interviews. (c) Mixed-method data collection provides both statistical generalizability (quantitative) and rich, detailed descriptive depth (qualitative). (d) Face validity is a subjective assessment of whether a measure appears to test what it claims to test, which can be checked by expert consensus.

(a) 1 mark for a closed question with options/scale about environmental conservation. 1 mark for an open question about environmental conservation. (b) 1 mark for identifying a strength of questionnaires over interviews (e.g., anonymity, efficiency). 1 mark for context (students being more honest about their environmental attitudes when anonymous). (c) 1 mark for explaining the value of combining quantitative and qualitative data. 1 mark for context (combining numerical ratings of conservation attitudes with descriptive ideas for school conservation). (d) 1 mark for describing how to check face validity (e.g., having an expert review the questions). 1 mark for context (having an environmental expert or teacher review the conservation questions).

Part (a) Sample Plan: 1. Independent Variable (IV): The background music played in the study area. Condition 1 features upbeat, instrumental synth-pop music played at a constant volume of 60 decibels. Condition 2 features no background music (silence). These conditions are alternated every second day over a two-week period. 2. Dependent Variable (DV): The time spent reading, measured in minutes. This is recorded by a researcher acting as a covert observer (sitting nearby pretending to read) using a stopwatch. The timing begins when a participant sits down with an open book or laptop and ends when they close their book or leave the reading area. 3. Controls: To control for extraneous variables, the experiment is restricted to the hours of 10:00 AM to 2:00 PM each day to maintain consistent lighting and natural foot traffic. The library's thermostat is kept at exactly 21 degrees Celsius across all days. 4. Sample and Sampling Technique: An opportunity sample consisting of library visitors who naturally choose to sit down in the designated reading room. The researcher aims for a sample size of 40 participants per condition. Part (b) Sample Evaluation: 1. Limitation: A major limitation is the influence of participant variables (individual differences). Some library visitors are naturally highly motivated readers who will stay for hours regardless of the music, while others only need to look up information briefly. 2. Solution: Dr. Aris can overcome this by utilizing a repeated measures design. By focusing on regular library members who visit multiple times a week, he can track the same individuals using library card login records, comparing their reading time on a music day with their own reading time on a non-music day to establish a baseline control.

Part (a) Marking Scheme (10 marks): - Level 4 (9-10 marks): The design is appropriate, highly coherent, and replicable. All four requested details (IV, DV, controls, sample) are fully operationalised and contextually relevant. - Level 3 (7-8 marks): The design is mostly appropriate and replicable. Most details are present, though some may lack full operationalisation. - Level 2 (5-6 marks): The design is basic but appropriate. Some key details are present, while others are vague or missing. - Level 1 (1-2 marks): The design is highly unstructured, lacks feasibility, or fails to address several essential components. - 0 marks: No creditworthy response. Part (b) Marking Scheme (4 marks): - 1 mark for identifying a valid methodological limitation (e.g., participant variables, observer bias, environmental noise). - 1 mark for contextualising this limitation directly to the library music study. - 1 mark for proposing a plausible solution to overcome the limitation. - 1 mark for explaining how this solution resolves the issue in context.