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

According to Dement and Kleitman, eye movements during REM sleep correspond to the active visual imagery of the dream. The researchers found specific associations: 1. Vertical eye movements: Associated with dreams of looking up and down, such as climbing a ladder or looking at a cliff. 2. Horizontal eye movements: Associated with dreams of watching objects or people move side-to-side, such as watching two people throw tomatoes at each other. 3. Little or no movement: Associated with watching distant objects or staring at a stationary object.

1 mark for identifying the general finding (eye movements correspond to visual imagery of the dream). 1.5 marks for describing the vertical eye movement example (e.g., climbing a ladder, looking up at a cliff). 1.5 marks for describing the horizontal eye movement example (e.g., throwing tomatoes, watching a see-saw). 0.75 marks for detailing a third pattern or explaining the objective measurement (e.g., little/no movement for looking at distant objects). Total: 4.75 marks.

In Bandura et al.'s study, observers recorded specific responses that matched the aggressive model's behaviors. Imitative physical aggression was defined by actions like sitting on the Bobo doll and punching its nose, hitting it with a mallet, kicking it, and tossing it. Imitative verbal aggression was defined by repeating the model's vocalizations, specifically: 'Sock him in the nose', 'Hit him down', 'Kick him', and 'Pow'.

Up to 2.5 marks for imitative physical aggression: 1 mark for each distinct physical behavior described (e.g., sitting on and punching the nose, hitting with mallet, kicking, tossing) up to a maximum of 2.5 marks. Up to 2.25 marks for imitative verbal aggression: 1 mark for each distinct verbal phrase mentioned (e.g., 'Sock him in the nose', 'Hit him down', 'Kick him', 'Pow' [0.25 marks]) up to a maximum of 2.25 marks. Total: 4.75 marks.

The original test had several weaknesses that were resolved in the revised version: 1. Forced-choice options: The original test had only 2 response options (a target and one foil), which meant participants had a 50% chance of guessing correctly. The revised test increased this to 4 options (1 target and 3 foils), reducing guessing to 25% and avoiding a ceiling effect. 2. Vocabulary comprehension: Some target/foil words in the original test were difficult, meaning the test measured comprehension rather than theory of mind. The revised version included a glossary with definitions that participants could refer to at any time.

Award marks for each of the two improvements explained: First improvement (2.375 marks): 1 mark for identifying the change (e.g., 4 options instead of 2); 1 mark for describing the original vs revised state; 0.375 marks for explaining the psychological benefit (reduces guessing/ceiling effect). Second improvement (2.375 marks): 1 mark for identifying the change (e.g., adding a glossary, or using only complex mental states); 1 mark for describing the detail; 0.375 marks for explaining the benefit (avoids comprehension issues/standardizes difficulty). Total: 4.75 marks.

In Saavedra and Silverman's study, imagery exposure was used to address the boy's disgust and evaluative learning. He was asked to imagine buttons falling all over his body, smell them, and describe how they felt. The therapist used cognitive restructuring to help the boy replace negative thoughts with positive self-talk (e.g., imagining buttons smelling pleasant). Throughout this process, his distress levels were tracked using a 9-point Distress Thermometer, where his subjective distress ratings (e.g., for buttons falling on his body) decreased significantly from 8 to 5 to 3.

1 mark: Explaining the focus on disgust/evaluative learning. 1 mark: Describing the imagery tasks (e.g., visualizing buttons falling on his body, hugging his mother). 1 mark: Describing the cognitive restructuring / self-talk used alongside visualization. 1.75 marks: Describing the monitoring/results (e.g., using the 9-point Distress Thermometer and detailing the decrease in distress ratings, such as from 8 to 5 to 3). Total: 4.75 marks.

Andrade measured memory using a surprise test. To control for order effects, the order of recall was counterbalanced (half recalled names first, then places; half recalled places first, then names). Monitoring performance was scored as the number of correct target names/places written down during the tape. False alarms were defined as names/places mentioned that were not on the list (e.g., 'sister') or completely incorrect guesses. The final score was calculated by subtracting false alarms from the total correct names and places.

1 mark: Stating it was a surprise test. 1 mark: Explaining the counterbalancing of recall order (names then places vs. places then names). 1 mark: Defining 'monitoring performance' (correct names of people attending and/or places mentioned). 1 mark: Defining 'false alarms' (incorrect names, names of non-attenders, or generic terms). 0.75 marks: Explaining the calculation of the final score (monitoring score minus false alarms). Total: 4.75 marks.

Milgram designed the environment to maximize legitimacy and authority. Features included: 1. The study took place at Yale University, a prestigious Ivy League institution. 2. The experimenter wore a grey laboratory technician's coat, symbolizing scientific expertise. 3. The equipment, including the shock generator, looked highly realistic, scientific, and professional. One of these features (e.g., Yale University) encouraged obedience because participants associated the university with safety, academic integrity, and competence. They believed that a highly respected institution would not sponsor an experiment where actual physical harm occurred, leading them to defer responsibility to the authority figure.

Up to 3 marks for identifying features: 1 mark for each feature identified (e.g., Yale University, lab coat, realistic shock generator) up to a maximum of 3 marks. 1.75 marks for explaining how one chosen feature encouraged obedience: 1 mark for connecting the feature to authority/perceived safety; 0.75 marks for explaining the psychological mechanism (e.g., trust in competence, entering an agentic state, feeling that the study is legitimate and worthy). Total: 4.75 marks.

The training sessions in Fagen et al.'s study were structured to ensure safe and effective learning. Sessions were short, lasting approximately 10 to 12 minutes once a day, and were conducted using protected contact (a barrier separating trainer and elephant). Trainers used operant conditioning with positive reinforcement, pairing a secondary reinforcer (a whistle blow/clicker) with a primary reward (food like bananas or sugarcane). Successful learning was determined through a standardized final test where the elephant had to perform a sequence of 5 target wash behaviors in response to verbal cues, without physical guidance or prompts.

Up to 2.5 marks for describing session structure: 1 mark for mentioning short duration (10–12 minutes); 1 mark for explaining the reinforcement mechanism (whistle paired with food rewards); 0.5 marks for mentioning protected contact / trainer roles. Up to 2.25 marks for explaining how success was determined: 1 mark for mentioning the final test containing 5 target behaviors; 1 mark for explaining that it had to be performed without physical prompts/guidance; 0.25 marks for mentioning the independent assessment/criteria. Total: 4.75 marks.

Hassett et al. categorized toys into two distinct groups: 1. Wheeled toys: These represented 'masculine' toys and included items like trucks, cars, and construction vehicles. 2. Plush toys: These represented 'feminine' toys and included items like soft rag dolls, teddy bears, and cartoon characters. The findings showed a clear sex difference: male monkeys had a strong, statistically significant preference for wheeled toys and spent significantly more time playing with them compared to plush toys. Female monkeys, however, showed no statistically significant preference, playing with both wheeled and plush toys to a similar extent, although they did interact with plush toys more than male monkeys did.

Up to 2.75 marks for explaining toy categorization: 1 mark for identifying the two categories (wheeled/masculine vs. plush/feminine); 1 mark for providing examples of wheeled toys (e.g., trucks, cars); 0.75 marks for providing examples of plush toys (e.g., teddy bears, dolls). Up to 2 marks for describing one main finding: 1 mark for stating the preference of male monkeys (significant preference for wheeled toys); 1 mark for contrasting this with the female monkeys' behavior (no significant preference between the two, or playing with plush toys more than males). Total: 4.75 marks.

(a)
Two ethical guidelines include:
1. Species and strain (choosing a species that is suited to the task and least likely to suffer).
2. Housing (providing appropriate caging, social companionship, and clean environments).
Other acceptable guidelines: Number of animals (using the minimum necessary), Rewards, deprivation and aversive stimuli, Procedures (avoiding pain and distress), Anaesthesia, analgesia and euthanasia.

(b)
In Fagen et al., the elephants were trained using Secondary Positive Reinforcement (SPR).
1. A primary reward (such as bananas or sugar cane) was paired with a secondary reinforcer, which was a whistle blow.
2. The whistle acted as a 'bridge' to indicate to the elephant that the correct behavior had been performed.
3. Food rewards were given immediately after the whistle to reinforce correct behaviors (e.g., trunk flare, trunk insertion) without resorting to food or water deprivation to motivate them.

(c)
One advantage is that animals do not show demand characteristics or social desirability bias.
For example, in Hassett et al. (monkey toy preferences), the rhesus monkeys would not have been influenced by gender stereotypes or expectations about what toys they 'should' play with, unlike human children. This ensures that their interactions with the toys (masculine vs. feminine) reflected genuine, uninfluenced biological preferences.

(d)
Housing:
- The elephants were housed in their naturalistic/usual environment at the Samutprakarn Crocodile Farm and Zoo in Thailand.
- They remained with their social companions (other elephants) and their usual handlers (mahouts) during non-training hours to prevent isolation distress.

Procedures:
- The researchers used positive reinforcement (SPR) rather than traditional aversive/coercive methods (no bullhooks, chains, or physical force were used during the training sessions).
- If an elephant showed signs of distress or chose to walk away, the session was immediately stopped, meaning participation was voluntary and did not cause unnecessary distress.

Part (a)
[2 marks total]
1 mark per correct guideline identified up to a maximum of 2.
- Guidelines include: Species and strain, Number of animals, Housing, Reward/deprivation/aversive stimuli, Procedures (pain/distress), Anaesthesia/analgesia/euthanasia.
- Do not accept generic 'human' ethics (e.g., right to withdraw, informed consent) unless specifically framed for animal protocols (e.g., voluntary participation/avoiding confinement).

Part (b)
[3 marks total]
1 mark for identifying positive reinforcement/secondary reinforcement.
1 mark for describing the mechanism (whistle/bridge paired with food).
1 mark for link/context (elephants learning the trunk wash behaviors / rewarded with bananas/sugarcane without food deprivation).

Part (c)
[3 marks total]
1 mark for identifying a valid advantage (e.g., no demand characteristics, high control over longitudinal variables, ability to perform procedures not ethically possible on humans).
1 mark for detail/explanation of this advantage.
1 mark for linking explicitly to a core study (e.g., Hassett et al. or Fagen et al.).

Part (d)
[4 marks total]
[2 marks for Housing]
- 1 mark for stating they were kept in their usual environment/zoo.
- 1 mark for mentioning social housing with other elephants/mahouts.
[2 marks for Procedures]
- 1 mark for noting the lack of punishment/force/no bullhooks used in the training sessions.
- 1 mark for explaining that sessions were stopped if the elephant showed signs of distress or wanted to leave (voluntary participation).

Strength 1: High levels of standardization and reliability. Point: The study used a highly standardized and structured positive reinforcement training (PRT) program, which makes the procedure highly replicable and reliable. Contextualization: Fagen et al. utilized a set of 10 specific target behaviors (such as 'trunk up' and 'foot lift') trained in a precise sequence using secondary reinforcers (whistles) and primary reinforcers (food rewards like bananas). Sessions were systematically video-recorded, allowing for objective analysis. Inter-rater reliability was measured and found to be exceptionally high, with 100% agreement on whether targets were passed, demonstrating that the training assessments were consistent and free from observer bias. Strength 2: Practical applications and high utility. Point: The findings of this research have direct, positive real-world applications for animal management and veterinary care. Contextualization: By demonstrating that young Asian elephants can be successfully trained to perform medical tasks (such as trunk washing for tuberculosis testing) using entirely positive reinforcement, the study provides a humane alternative to traditional, highly coercive training methods (such as 'the crush' or using bullhooks). This improves the welfare of captive animals globally and increases safety for mahouts (handlers) and veterinarians. Weakness 1: Generalisability limitations. Point: The study had a small and restricted sample size, which limits the generalisability of the findings. Contextualization: The sample consisted of only 5 juvenile female Asian elephants (aged 5 to 7 years) housed at a single facility in Nepal. Because of this small sample, the results may not generalize to male elephants, who can exhibit different temperaments and behaviors, to older elephants who might have different learning speeds, or to African elephants, who belong to a different genus and may respond differently to the training protocol. Weakness 2 (Specific Requirement): Ethical considerations in animal research. Point: Although PRT is a welfare-friendly approach, conducting research on captive, working animals still raises ethical considerations regarding confinement, social deprivation, and freedom of choice. Contextualization: Elephants are highly intelligent, social, and wide-ranging mammals. During the training sessions, they were isolated from their social groups in a training run, which could cause temporary distress. Furthermore, while the researchers highlighted that elephants could choose to walk away from the training, the animals' overall lives were still characterized by significant restriction and control by human handlers, and they were chained at night. While PRT is an improvement over traditional methods, the ethical issues of keeping large, complex mammals in captivity for human purposes remain a broader ethical concern.

Marking Scheme & Levels of Response: For each evaluation point, look for a clear point (1 mark), explanation of the methodological/ethical concept (1 mark), and detailed contextualization using evidence from Fagen et al. (1 mark). Level 4 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive, containing two detailed strengths and two detailed weaknesses. At least one point explicitly and successfully addresses ethical considerations in animal research. The argument is balanced, showing depth of understanding of both positive and negative aspects of the study. Every point is fully contextualized with specific details from Fagen et al. (elephant learning). Level 3 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is good, with some balance (e.g., two strengths and one weakness, or vice versa, or four points with varying levels of detail). Addresses the specific requirement of ethical considerations in animal research, though it may lack some detail. Points are mostly explained and contain some relevant contextual details from the study. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Evaluation is basic or limited. The response is unbalanced or discusses fewer than four points. The specific requirement of ethical considerations may be omitted or described only superficially. Limited contextualization to the study; points feel generic to animal research. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Evaluation is very basic, with little or no structure. Points are extremely brief, superficial, or confused. Little or no contextualization. Level 0 (0 marks): No response worthy of credit.

In a naturalistic observation, the researcher observes behavior in a natural, unstructured environment. The main disadvantage is that there is no control over extraneous variables. In a pre-school setting, factors such as the number of toys available, the presence of specific high-conflict peers, or external distractions cannot be controlled. This makes it impossible to draw direct cause-and-effect conclusions about what triggers sharing behavior. Furthermore, because the environment is constantly changing, the study is very difficult to replicate to test for reliability.

Marks allocation:
- 1 mark: Identifies a general disadvantage of naturalistic observation (e.g., lack of control over extraneous variables / difficulty with replication).
- 1 mark: Contextualises the disadvantage to the pre-school sharing study (e.g., references to specific toys, peer interactions, or play environment noise).
- 1.2 marks: Explains the consequence of this disadvantage on the study (e.g., reduces internal validity, prevents drawing causal conclusions, or prevents establishing test-retest reliability).

Quantitative data consists of numerical measurements. In Andrade's study, this included the number of correct names and places recalled (and false alarms). The advantage of this numerical data is that it is highly objective and standardisable. It allowed Andrade to easily calculate mean scores and perform statistical tests to compare the doodling and control groups directly. If qualitative data had been collected instead (such as asking participants to describe what they remembered), the analysis would have been open to subjective interpretation and would have been harder to compare systematically.

Marks allocation:
- 1 mark: Identifies a general advantage of quantitative data (e.g., objectivity, easy to compare, allows statistical analysis).
- 1 mark: Links the advantage directly to the Andrade study (e.g., referencing specific measures like recalling names, places, or calculating monitoring/shading scores).
- 1.2 marks: Explains why this is beneficial to this specific research (e.g., allows a direct, unbiased comparison of cognitive capacity between the experimental and control groups, thereby increasing objectivity and internal validity).

Strength: Closed questions yield quantitative data (e.g., rating satisfaction with bus schedules on a scale of 1-5). This makes it easy for the researcher to calculate averages and make direct comparisons across different demographics of travelers.
Weakness: Closed questions lack depth because they do not allow participants to explain *why* they feel a certain way. For example, a respondent might rate public transport as 'poor' but cannot explain that this is due to a lack of wheelchair accessibility rather than poor service times.

Marks allocation:
- Strength [1.6 marks]:
- 0.8 marks: Identifies a general strength of closed questions (e.g., standardized, easy to analyze statistically).
- 0.8 marks: Links the strength to public transport attitudes (e.g., comparing ratings on bus/train satisfaction).
- Weakness [1.6 marks]:
- 0.8 marks: Identifies a general weakness of closed questions (e.g., forces choices, lacks depth, lowers construct validity).
- 0.8 marks: Links the weakness to public transport attitudes (e.g., cannot explain specific issues like accessibility, pricing, or comfort).

Before the experiment, children were rated on a four five-point scale for physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition. This pre-rating was necessary to match the children in each experimental group based on their baseline aggression levels. This controlled for participant variables (individual differences). If the groups had not been matched, one group (such as the aggressive model condition) might have randomly ended up with more naturally aggressive children by chance. If that happened, any aggression shown later could have been due to pre-existing traits rather than the model, which would have compromised the internal validity of the study.

Marks allocation:
- 1 mark: Identifies that matching controls for participant variables / individual differences.
- 1 mark: Refers directly to the matching process in the Bandura study (e.g., pre-rating on physical, verbal, or inanimate object aggression).
- 1.2 marks: Explains how failing to match would affect the results (e.g., it could act as a confounding variable, making it impossible to separate pre-existing aggression from the effect of the aggressive model, thereby ruining internal validity).

A double-blind procedure occurs when neither the participants nor the researchers who are interacting with them (and collecting data) know which condition the participants have been assigned to. In this study, the participants would not know whether they are drinking actual chamomile tea or an identical-looking placebo herbal tea. Similarly, the researcher administering the anxiety questionnaire or measuring physiological markers would not know who drank which tea. This prevents the participants from showing demand characteristics (acting relaxed because they expect to feel relaxed) and prevents the researcher from displaying bias (expecting chamomile-drinkers to look calmer and scoring them as such).

Marks allocation:
- 1 mark: Clearly defines a double-blind procedure (neither participant nor researcher knows who is in which condition).
- 1 mark: Applies the concept to this study (e.g., details that participants don't know if they have chamomile or placebo, and researchers measuring anxiety do not know either).
- 1.2 marks: Explains the benefit of using this procedure (e.g., controls demand characteristics/expectancy effects from the participant AND controls observer/researcher bias during data collection, ensuring high internal validity).

Part (a): The psychologist must ensure the chosen species and strain are appropriate for the research question. Rats are an excellent choice for a maze study because they possess natural foraging instincts and well-developed spatial navigation abilities, meaning they will adapt well to the task. Furthermore, the psychologist should use laboratory-bred strains (like Wistar or Sprague-Dawley) rather than wild-caught rats. Wild-caught rats would experience high levels of distress and fear in captivity and during handling, whereas laboratory-bred strains are docile and habituated to human contact. Part (b): The guideline of numbers states that researchers should use the absolute minimum number of animals necessary to meet the scientific objectives of the study. The psychologist can apply this by performing a pilot study or a statistical power analysis beforehand to determine the smallest sample size required to detect a significant effect in maze learning. Additionally, they could employ a repeated measures design where the same rats are tested across different conditions (e.g., before and after a treatment), which significantly reduces the total number of individual rats needed compared to an independent measures design.

Part (a): [3 marks] 1 mark for stating the general principle of choosing a species/strain (e.g., suitability of the species, minimizing distress/sentience). 1 mark for explaining why rats are suitable for this specific study (e.g., natural spatial learning abilities in a maze). 1 mark for contrasting laboratory-bred strains with wild-caught strains to minimize distress. Part (b): [3 marks] 1 mark for stating the general principle of minimizing numbers (e.g., using the minimum number of animals to achieve valid data/statistical power). 1 mark for a specific application to this study (e.g., conducting a power analysis to calculate the exact sample size needed). 1 mark for a practical design decision to reduce numbers (e.g., using a repeated measures design to use fewer total rats).

(a) It is a naturalistic observation because it occurs in a real-life environment (a library) where participants are in their natural setting and do not know they are being observed. (b) Helping behavior could be operationalized as: whether a participant picks up at least one dropped book for the stooge, or whether they verbally offer help within 10 seconds of the drop. (c) An ethical issue is the lack of informed consent, because participants in the library do not know they are part of a study and have not agreed to participate. (d) A strength of unstructured observation is that it allows the researcher to record unexpected helping behaviors (e.g., helping to organize the books or comforting the stooge) that might not be on a pre-determined structured checklist.

(a) 1 mark for identifying 'naturalistic'. 1 mark for explaining it in context of the library setting. (b) 1 mark for a basic behavioral indicator. 2 marks for a clearly operationalized definition of helping (e.g., picking up books or offering verbal assistance). (c) 1 mark for identifying an ethical issue (e.g., consent, deception). 1 mark for applying it to the library scenario. (d) 1 mark for stating a strength of unstructured observation. 1 mark for context-specific application.

(a) The independent variable (IV) is whether the participant listens to upbeat classical music or sits in silence. The dependent variable (DV) is the performance on the word search puzzle (e.g., number of words found or time taken). (b) A disadvantage is order effects (such as practice or fatigue). Participants might perform better on the second word search because they have practiced, or worse because they are tired. (c) Chloe can use counterbalancing by splitting participants into two groups: Group 1 does the word search with music first then in silence, while Group 2 does it in silence first then with music. (d) Chloe can control situational variables by keeping the room temperature, lighting, and comfortable seating identical for both conditions, or by using word search puzzles of equal difficulty.

(a) 1 mark for correctly identifying the IV. 1 mark for correctly identifying the DV. (b) 1 mark for identifying an order effect (practice/fatigue). 1 mark for explaining it in the context of the word search task. (c) 1 mark for explaining the split of participants. 1 mark for explaining the sequence of conditions (AB/BA). (d) 1 mark for identifying a relevant situational variable (e.g., noise, room, puzzle difficulty). 1 mark for explaining how it is controlled (kept constant).

(a) This is a correlational design because Samuel is measuring the relationship between two co-variables (time spent on social media and life satisfaction) without manipulating any variable. (b) Open question: 'Describe how you feel about your life after using social media.' Closed question: 'On a scale of 1 to 10, how satisfied are you with your life?' (c) An advantage of open questions is that they provide rich qualitative data, allowing participants to fully express their complex personal feelings and reasons behind their satisfaction levels. (d) Correlation does not equal causation. Samuel cannot establish cause and effect because there could be a third variable (such as loneliness or stress) that causes both higher social media use and lower life satisfaction.

(a) 1 mark for identifying 'correlation/correlational'. 1 mark for explaining that there is no manipulation of an IV, only measuring the relationship between two variables. (b) 1 mark for a valid open question. 1 mark for a valid closed question. (c) 1 mark for identifying 'detailed/qualitative data'. 1 mark for explaining this benefit in relation to life satisfaction. (d) 1 mark for explaining that correlation does not show direction of cause and effect. 1 mark for suggesting a potential third variable (e.g., loneliness) in context.

### Model Response (Full Marks Design)

**Type of Study:** Field Experiment
**Setting:** A large, busy public park (e.g., Hyde Park) during weekend daylight hours (12:00 PM to 4:00 PM) to ensure a steady flow of solitary pedestrians.

**1. Operationalisation and Manipulation of the Independent Variable (IV)**
* The IV is the attire of the confederate making the request. This will have two levels:
* *Condition A (High Authority/Official attire):* The confederate wears a high-visibility yellow vest over a dark green uniform with an official-looking lanyard/ID badge, resembling a park ranger.
* *Condition B (Neutral/Casual attire):* The same confederate wears everyday casual clothes (blue jeans and a plain grey t-shirt) with no vest or badge.
* To control for individual differences, the same male confederate (aged 25, average height and build) will be used across both conditions. He will act in an identical manner in both conditions.

**2. Measurement of the Dependent Variable (DV)**
* The DV is compliance, measured in two ways:
* *Quantitative:* Direct compliance (Yes/No) – whether the participant picks up the plastic bottle and places it in a nearby bin.
* *Qualitative/Quantitative:* The latency of compliance (the time taken in seconds from the request to the participant picking up the bottle, timed discreetly using a stopwatch by a hidden observer).
* An observer will be hidden behind a large tree 15 metres away, recording the data on a standardised coding sheet.

**3. Standardisation and Controls**
* *The Setup:* The confederate will sit on a park bench. As a solitary pedestrian approaches a pre-marked line on the path (5 metres from the bench), the confederate will stand up, accidentally-on-purpose drop a clean, empty plastic water bottle on the path, and say clearly: "Excuse me, could you please pick that up and put it in the bin for me?" pointing to a bin 3 metres away.
* *Standardised Script and Actions:* The confederate will use the exact same verbal request, tone of voice, and body language for every participant.
* *Environmental Controls:* The experiment will only run on dry days to avoid weather-related confounding variables. Trials will only occur when there is only one pedestrian on that section of the path to avoid diffusion of responsibility.

**4. Sample and Sampling Technique**
* *Sampling Technique:* Opportunity sampling. Solitary adult pedestrians walking down the specific designated path in the park.
* *Sample Size:* A target of 60 participants (30 in Condition A, 30 in Condition B).
* *Exclusion Criteria:* Groups of people, children, individuals wearing headphones, or individuals looking at their phones will be excluded to ensure they can hear and process the request clearly.

**5. Ethical Considerations**
* Because this is a field experiment without prior consent, participants will be debriefed immediately after the trial. A second researcher will step out of a nearby area, explain the nature of the study, obtain retrospective consent, and inform them of their right to withdraw their data.

### Marking Scheme (Out of 10 Marks)

#### Level 3 (8–10 marks):
* The design is highly appropriate, coherent, and practically possible.
* All four required bullet points are addressed with excellent, replication-ready detail.
* The candidate shows a sophisticated understanding of experimental design in a field setting (including controls, standardisation, and operationalisation).
* The description is structured logically.

#### Level 2 (5–7 marks):
* The design is mostly appropriate and realistic.
* Most of the required bullet points are addressed in reasonable detail, though there may be minor omissions or lack of clarity in one area (e.g., unclear how the DV is recorded or weak sampling detail).
* The candidate demonstrates good methodological knowledge with some appropriate use of terminology.

#### Level 1 (1–4 marks):
* The design is weak or contains major flaws (e.g., is not a field experiment, or lacks basic controls).
* Few of the required bullet points are addressed, or they are described in very vague terms.
* The response lacks the detail necessary for replication.

---

### Key Areas for Marks Allocation:

* **Independent Variable (IV):** Must clearly define how the uniform/clothing is manipulated (e.g., uniform vs. casual) and ensure it is a realistic field manipulation.
* **Dependent Variable (DV):** Must specify how compliance is measured (e.g., binary tally of yes/no, or time to comply) and *how* it is recorded without causing demand characteristics (e.g., hidden observer, tally sheet).
* **Controls & Standardisation:** Must include specific controls (e.g., same confederate, same script, same location, control for weather/distractions, ensuring solitary participants to prevent group pressure).
* **Sampling:** Must identify the sampling technique (opportunity) and the demographic/criteria of target participants (e.g., solitary adult park visitors).

To gain full marks, the candidate must identify a limitation, explain it in the context of the cafe observation study, propose a realistic solution, and explain how that solution resolves the limitation. Example answer: Limitation: Measuring exact eye contact duration from a distance in a crowded cafe is highly difficult and subjective because the researcher's view could easily be obstructed by other patrons or objects, leading to inaccurate data. Overcoming: This could be overcome by using two observers positioned at different vantage points to independently record the duration of eye contact using stopwatches. They can then calculate a Spearman's correlation coefficient to check for high inter-rater reliability (above 0.80), ensuring the data collected is consistent and accurate.

Max 4 marks total. 1 mark for identifying a practical limitation (e.g., observer bias, line of sight/measurement issues, lack of control over environment). 1 mark for explaining the limitation in the context of the study. 1 mark for proposing a logical way to overcome the limitation. 1 mark for explaining how this solution resolves the issue in context.