2025 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) Practice Paper with Answers

The shock generator's instrument panel featured 30 switches in a horizontal row, with each switch clearly labeled with a specific voltage rating (from 15 to 450 volts, rising in steps of 15 volts). Descriptive verbal designations grouped these switches into categories (such as Slight Shock, Moderate Shock, Strong Shock, Very Strong Shock, Intense Shock, Extreme Intensity Shock, Danger: Severe Shock, and XXX). To ensure the participant believed the apparatus was fully functional, they were given a sample shock of 45 volts, which was actually generated from an external battery source connected to the third switch, allowing them to feel a real physical sensation.

1 mark for noting the 30 switches and/or the 15 to 450-volt range in 15-volt steps. 1 mark for mentioning the descriptive verbal labels (e.g., Slight Shock to XXX). 1.5 marks for explaining the 45-volt trial shock given to the participant (teacher). 1 mark for specifying that this trial shock was generated by an actual battery connected to the generator to simulate realism.

The doodling instructions required participants to shade the printed shapes (circles and squares) on an A4 sheet. They were explicitly told that the neatness or speed of their doodling did not matter, and that it was simply a tool to help them overcome boredom. The controls used during the recorded message included using a pre-recorded tape to ensure consistency, keeping the vocal delivery at a highly monotonous pitch, maintaining a constant rate of 227 words per minute, and adjusting the volume to a comfortable level for all participants.

1.5 marks for describing the doodling instructions (shading circles/squares, neatness/speed did not matter, meant to relieve boredom). 1 mark each (up to 3) for identifying specific auditory/environmental controls (monotonous voice, 227 words per minute, comfortable volume, quiet room, standardized pre-recorded tape).

Pozzulo et al. used two video clips: one depicting a high-arousal event (a man snatching a woman's purse) and one depicting a low-arousal event (a man asking a woman for directions). For the identification task, target-present lineups contained 1 target and 5 matched foils (6 photos total). In contrast, target-absent lineups replaced the target with a brand new foil who matched the physical description of the target, resulting in 6 foils and 0 targets.

1.5 marks for identifying the two video clips (purse-snatching/high-arousal and asking directions/low-arousal). 1.5 marks for describing the composition of the target-present lineup (target + 5 foils). 1.5 marks for describing the composition of the target-absent lineup (target replaced by a foil + 5 other foils, total 6 foils).

In Room 2, children were presented with highly appealing toys. After they had played with them for 2 minutes, the experimenter intervened, stating that these toys were reserved for other children and that the participant must play with different toys in the next room. This frustration-induction phase was critical because: 1) it ensured a common, baseline level of frustration/aggression-readiness among all participants (since the non-aggressive model might inhibit aggression that would otherwise be triggered by frustration), and 2) it aligned with the theory that frustration is a necessary precursor or instigator of aggressive behavior.

2.5 marks for explaining the frustration-induction procedure (identifying attractive toys, playing for 2 minutes, being told they are reserved for others, and redirected). 2 marks for explaining the design rationale (establishing a uniform baseline of frustration across all experimental groups, triggering aggressive instigation as hypothesized).

The boy developed a hierarchy of fear using a Feelings Thermometer ranging from 0 to 8. Large plastic buttons were at the bottom (score of 2), while small plastic buttons (clear or colored) were at the top (score of 8). During imagery exposure, the clinician guided the boy to imagine scenarios involving buttons (e.g., hundreds of buttons falling on him, touching or smelling them) and pair these thoughts with positive cognitive self-statements to change his negative evaluations and decrease disgust.

1.5 marks for describing the hierarchy and identifying the lowest (large plastic buttons, score of 2) and highest (small plastic buttons, score of 8) rated items. 3 marks for describing the imagery exposure therapy (use of the Feelings Thermometer, imagining buttons falling, focusing on sensory aspects like look/smell/feel, and using positive cognitive self-talk/coping statements to reduce ratings).

Hassett et al. divided toys into plush (e.g., Raggedy Andy, Winnie the Pooh, plush doll) and wheeled (e.g., dump truck, police car, shopping cart). For the observational coding, 'holding' was operationalized as any active physical contact where the monkey clasped the toy with its hands or feet, or carried it. 'Destroying' was operationalized as destructive actions such as tearing, ripping, biting, or chewing the toy.

2 marks for explaining the toy categories and providing correct examples (1 mark for plush + example, 1 mark for wheeled + example). 2.5 marks for the operational definitions of the behaviors (1.25 marks for 'holding': physical clasping with hands/feet or carrying; 1.25 marks for 'destroying': tearing, ripping, biting, or chewing).

The target training procedure relied on a target stick, which was a bamboo pole ending in a colored ball. The elephant was taught to touch its body parts to this target. When the elephant successfully executed the touch, the trainer immediately used a secondary reinforcer (a whistle blow) to mark the precise moment of correct behavior, immediately followed by a primary reinforcer (food rewards like bananas). By moving the target stick, trainers could shape the elephant's physical position step-by-step for safe veterinary inspection.

1.5 marks for explaining the role/design of the target stick (bamboo stick with colored tip used to guide physical placement). 1.5 marks for explaining the pairing of the secondary reinforcer (whistle) and primary reinforcer (food/bananas). 1.5 marks for explaining the shaping process (rewarding successive approximations of physical contact with the target stick to build veterinary postures).

In the computerized CID task, participants viewed a screen depicting a room layout with themselves represented at the center. A target figure would appear at the edge of the room and move toward the center along one of 8 vectors. The participant pressed the spacebar to halt the figure's approach when they felt the distance was starting to feel uncomfortable. The four types of target figures used in this paradigm were a close friend, an acquaintance, a complete stranger, and a ball (representing a non-human control object).

2.5 marks for describing the computerized CID task (schematic room, participant in center, target approaching from 8 angles/directions, pressing spacebar to stop when uncomfortable). 2 marks for identifying the four target figures (0.5 marks each: close friend, acquaintance, stranger, ball/non-human object).

Introduction: The nature versus nurture debate discusses whether human and animal behaviour is primarily determined by biological, innate factors (nature) or environmental, learned experiences (nurture). Both Hassett et al. and Dement and Kleitman belong to the biological approach but provide key insights into both sides of this debate.

Hassett et al.:
- Nature: The study strongly supports nature through the clear sex differences in toy preferences in rhesus monkeys. Male monkeys spent significantly more time interacting with masculinised (wheeled) toys compared to feminised (plush) toys. Because these monkeys had no prior exposure to human toys, advertising, or human socialisation, this preference is argued to be biologically driven (e.g., hormonal influences like prenatal androgens affecting neural systems that process motion/activity).
- Nurture: Female monkeys showed more plastic and variable play behaviour, playing with both plush and wheeled toys without a statistically significant preference for either. This suggests that feminine preferences are less strictly determined by biology alone, allowing for environmental or situational flexibility in interactions. Also, interactions within their social groups (dominance hierarchies) could represent social environmental factors influencing play choices.

Dement and Kleitman:
- Nature: The relationship between physiological states (EEG/EOG readings during REM and NREM sleep) and the psychological state of dreaming supports the nature argument. Waking up during REM sleep consistently resulted in dream recall across all participants, showing that sleep architecture and the biological mechanism of dreaming are hardwired, universal human physiological processes.
- Nurture: While the mechanism of REM sleep is biological, dream content is shaped by nurture. For example, participants reported dreams containing specific, learned real-life activities (such as throwing tomatoes, driving a car, or standing at a typewriter). These are learned environmental concepts. Additionally, the experimental setup (sleeping in a dark lab, connected to electrodes, awakened by a loud bell) is an environmental factor that influenced the participants\' sleeping experience, showing that situational nurture can disrupt biological processes.

Conclusion: Both studies demonstrate that while biological mechanisms (nature) set the physical foundation for play preferences and sleep cycles, the environment (nurture) plays an essential role in shaping the specific expressions of these behaviours.

Level 4 (10-12 marks):
- Evaluation is detailed and well-conceptualised.
- Explicit comparison and evaluation of both studies (Hassett et al. and Dement & Kleitman) in relation to both nature and nurture.
- Balanced argument presenting both sides of the debate for both studies.
- Effective use of psychological terminology and specific details from the studies.

Level 3 (7-9 marks):
- Evaluation is detailed but may be slightly unbalanced (e.g., focusing more on nature than nurture, or focusing more on one study than the other).
- Good understanding of the nature vs nurture debate with relevant examples from both studies.

Level 2 (4-6 marks):
- Evaluation is limited or descriptive. The response may describe the studies with only basic or superficial links to the nature vs nurture debate.
- May focus almost entirely on one study or fail to cover both nature and nurture properly.

Level 1 (1-3 marks):
- Response is basic and lacks detail. Shows a limited understanding of the debate or the studies chosen.
- Fragmented points with no clear structure or analysis.

Level 0 (0 marks):
- No creditable content.

An excellent response will evaluate Andrade (doodling) across the following points: 1. Quantitative Data (Named Issue): Strength: Andrade collected highly objective, numerical data (e.g., the mean number of names and places recalled: 7.5 for the doodling group versus 5.8 for the control group). This allows for straightforward statistical comparison, high reliability, and limits researcher subjectivity. Weakness: The reliance on purely quantitative measures means we lack qualitative insight into why doodling improved performance. For instance, the study did not measure whether participants felt bored or daydreamed, nor did it explore how participants subjectively experienced the doodling process. 2. Individual and Situational Explanations (Named Issue): Situational side: The study suggests that the monotonous situation itself causes daydreaming, and introducing a doodling task (a situational manipulation) successfully alters cognitive performance for anyone placed in that environment. Individual side: However, individual cognitive styles or natural differences in working memory capacity could explain why some individuals in the control group still performed highly, or why some in the doodling group did not benefit. The study assumes a uniform cognitive effect, ignoring these individual differences. 3. Standardization and Control (Strength): The study used a highly standardized procedure, such as a pre-recorded tape running at 227 words per minute, played at a comfortable volume, and standard instructions. This high level of control ensures high internal validity, confirming that the doodling task—and not external distractions—caused the difference in recall. 4. Ecological Validity (Weakness): The task lacks ecological validity as listening to a tape of a telephone call about a party invitation and transcribing names in a quiet room is an artificial laboratory setup. In real-world scenarios, listening to a message involves active interaction, and doodling is typically self-initiated rather than forced.

Marks are awarded using a holistic levels-of-response grid: Level 4 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive, balanced, and highly detailed. Both named issues (quantitative data and individual vs. situational explanations) are fully evaluated and applied directly to Andrade's study. The argument is well-structured and uses appropriate psychological terminology. Level 3 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is good but may lack balance (e.g., stronger on strengths than weaknesses) or detail. Addresses both named issues with some appropriate application to Andrade's study, though one might be stronger than the other. Structure is mostly clear. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Evaluation is limited or lacks detail. May only address one of the named issues or apply them poorly to the study. The response may be highly descriptive of the study rather than evaluative. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Show some basic understanding of the study but offers very little or no effective evaluation. The named issues are not clearly addressed or are misunderstood. Level 0 (0 marks): No response worthy of credit.

Andrade operationalised monitoring performance by counting the correct names of party-goers written down and subtracting any false alarms (misheard names or places written down). This created a direct 'monitoring score' (out of 8). Strength: This produced objective, numeric data that minimized researcher subjectivity. It allowed for easy statistical comparison of the means between the doodling group (mean = 7.7) and the control group (mean = 6.9) to establish if doodling significantly enhanced attention.

2 marks: Explanation of the operationalisation (1 mark for correct names, 1 mark for subtracting false alarms/mishearings). 1 mark: Identification of a generic strength of quantitative data (e.g., objective comparison). 2.11 marks: Application of this strength to Andrade's study (e.g., comparing the mean monitoring scores of doodlers vs. controls without investigator bias).

Strength: Volunteers are highly motivated, reducing attrition during highly stressful procedures like the administration of shocks up to 450V. Weakness: The sample is unrepresentative as it only consisted of males aged 20 to 50 from New Haven who responded to a newspaper ad, meaning the results may not generalise to women or people who do not volunteer.

2 marks for explaining a strength (1 mark generic, 1 mark applied to Milgram's high-stress context). 2 marks for explaining a weakness (1 mark generic, 1 mark applied to New Haven males/newspaper reader bias). 1.11 marks for clear integration of specific details of the sample (e.g., 40 males, age 20-50, or shock levels).

The independent variable of age (children vs. adults) is a participant variable, meaning a participant can only belong to one age group, ruling out a repeated measures design. Additionally, repeating the line-up task with the same faces would cause learning/order effects. Standardization was achieved by showing all participants the same 2-minute videos (with human and cartoon targets) and using a uniform script for line-up questioning.

2 marks for explaining the design choice (1 mark for identifying age as an unchangeable participant variable, 1 mark for order effects of repeated identification). 2 marks for outlining standardization (1 mark for naming a specific control, e.g., same videos/scripts; 1 mark for explaining its standardizing effect). 1.11 marks for link to Pozzulo's study details.

Two observers independently watched the child through a one-way mirror, coding behavior every 5 seconds across pre-defined categories. They calculated a Pearson correlation coefficient (which was high, around \( r = 0.89 \)). High inter-rater reliability was crucial to demonstrate that the recorded aggressive behavior was objective and consistent, confirming that any observed differences in aggression between groups were real rather than a product of individual researcher bias.

2 marks for describing how reliability was established (1 mark for independent coding, 1 mark for the 5-second interval scheme or the correlation coefficient). 2 marks for explaining its importance for validity (1 mark for the subjectivity of aggression coding, 1 mark for removing observer bias/ensuring objective reality). 1.11 marks for linking to specific aggression categories or the correlation statistic.

Benefit 1: It allowed for rich, detailed data collection regarding the boy's thoughts and feelings (such as the distress rating on the Feelings Thermometer) and the origins of his phobia. Benefit 2: It enabled a longitudinal assessment of a rare phobia (button phobia) over a 12-month period to monitor the long-term success of the exposure therapy. Limitation: Extremely low generalisability because the findings are based on a single 9-year-old Hispanic-American boy, meaning the therapeutic outcomes might not apply to individuals of different ages, genders, or those suffering from different phobias.

2 marks for two benefits (1 mark for each: e.g., rich detailed data, tracking rare phenomena/longitudinal design). 2 marks for one limitation (1 mark for low generalisability, 1 mark for context of a single 9-year-old boy). 1.11 marks for linking to specific details (e.g., Feelings Thermometer, 12-month follow-up, button phobia).

Observers knew the hypothesis that male monkeys prefer wheeled toys and female monkeys prefer plush toys. If they knew the sex of each monkey, they might exhibit observer bias by interpreting ambiguous interactions (e.g., sitting near a toy) to align with their expectations. By keeping observers blind to the sex of the monkeys, it ensured that behavior was coded objectively based only on predefined definitions (e.g., 'hold', 'destroy'), safeguarding internal validity.

2 marks for explaining why it was important (1 mark for identifying expectancy effects/observer bias, 1 mark for context of coding masculine/feminine play). 2 marks for explaining how the blind technique controls for bias (1 mark for removing expectation, 1 mark for forcing objective coding). 1.11 marks for linking to Hassett's rhesus monkey toy play study.

The dependent variable (learning/training success) was operationalised as the performance of 5 key target behaviors (e.g., presenting a foot for inspection, trunk up, lying down) scored as a pass or fail, alongside the total training sessions needed. PRT (using bananas/treats) is ethically superior and reduces animal stress. A less stressed elephant displays more natural behavior and is more cooperative, preventing distress-related distress from confounding the performance data.

2 marks for describing the operationalisation (1 mark for target behaviors/foot presentation, 1 mark for pass/fail score or sessions needed). 2 marks for the advantage of PRT (1 mark for ethical benefits/reduced animal stress, 1 mark for how this enhances data validity by reducing distress confounding). 1.11 marks for linking to elephant husbandry tasks or food rewards.

In this study, a double-blind design meant that neither the participant nor the experimenter administering the spray and conducting the trials knew whether the nasal spray contained oxytocin or the placebo (saline solution). This protected internal validity because it prevented participants from displaying demand characteristics (altering their personal space demands based on expectations) and prevented investigator effects (the researcher unconsciously influencing the participant's space choices or biasedly interpreting the data).

2 marks for defining double-blind in context (1 mark for participant ignorance of oxytocin/placebo, 1 mark for experimenter ignorance). 2 marks for explaining protection of internal validity (1 mark for controlling demand characteristics/investigator bias, 1 mark for ensuring uncorrupted measurement of interpersonal distance). 1.11 marks for mentioning study-specific details like oxytocin nasal spray or CID paradigm.

Part (a): In Hassett et al., specific operational definitions were developed to categorize toy interactions. 'Holding' required the monkey to actively grip or hold any part of the toy using its hand or foot. 'Placing a hand or foot on' was distinct because it involved contact (touching) without any gripping. Part (b): Operationalization is crucial for establishing reliability, especially in observational studies with multiple coders. By having explicit, non-overlapping criteria, different observers could watch the same video recordings of the rhesus monkeys and arrive at the same frequency counts for each behavior. This increases inter-rater reliability and ensures the consistency of the measurement of the dependent variable (toy preferences).

Part (a) [2 marks total]: 1 mark for correctly describing the operational definition of 'holding' (must mention gripping/holding with hand/foot). 1 mark for correctly describing 'placing a hand or foot on' (must mention contacting/touching without gripping). Part (b) [3 marks total]: 1 mark for explaining that operational definitions provide objective, clear criteria for observers (reducing bias/subjectivity). 1 mark for linking this to increased inter-rater/inter-observer reliability (consistency across coders). 1 mark for applying/contextualising this to the study (e.g., ensuring both observers code 'holding' the same way when watching the rhesus monkeys interact with wheeled or plush toys).

### Model Design for a Laboratory Experiment

**1. Experimental Design & Independent Variable (IV)**
An independent measures design will be used to prevent order effects, demand characteristics, and the physical difficulty of rapidly changing room temperatures for the same participant.
* **IV Manipulation**: Room temperature, operationalised into two distinct conditions:
- *Warm Condition*: The experimental laboratory room is regulated to a constant temperature of \(26^\circ\text{C}\).
- *Cold Condition*: The laboratory room is regulated to a constant temperature of \(16^\circ\text{C}\).
A digital thermostat will be used to pre-set and monitor the temperature before each participant enters.

**2. Dependent Variable (DV)**
* **DV Measurement**: Personal space preference, operationalised using a computerized Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) task on a 15-inch monitor.
* Participants are shown a circular screen. Their personal avatar is at the center. A neutral gray humanoid silhouette starts from the perimeter of the circle and approaches the center avatar from one of 8 randomized angles (e.g., \(0^\circ, 45^\circ, 90^\circ\)).
* Participants must press the spacebar the exact moment they begin to feel uncomfortable with the figure's proximity. The remaining distance from the silhouette to the center avatar is automatically measured in pixels. The mean distance across 8 trials forms the participant's personal space score (where higher pixel values indicate a larger personal space requirement).

**3. Control Variables**
* **Control 1 (Standardised Clothing)**: To ensure that differences in clothing insulation do not confound the perceived temperature, all participants will be instructed prior to arrival to wear a short-sleeved cotton t-shirt and standard denim jeans. Outer jackets or sweaters must be left outside the testing room.
* **Control 2 (Standardised Figure Characteristics)**: The computerized approaching figure will remain completely identical for all participants (a featureless, gender-neutral, gray silhouette) and will approach at a standardized, constant speed of 50 pixels per second to prevent changes in threat perception.

**4. Sample and Sampling Method**
* **Sample**: 60 healthy university students (30 males, 30 females, aged 18–25) to ensure a balanced demographic distribution across the two conditions (15 males and 15 females per condition).
* **Sampling Method**: Volunteer (self-selected) sampling. Participants will be recruited via flyers posted in the university student union and online student forums. They will be offered a small token of appreciation (a $5 cafeteria voucher) for their participation.

Award marks based on the following criteria (max 10 marks total):

**A. Quality of Design and Operationalisation (Max 6 marks)**
* **Independent Variable (IV) [2 marks]**:
- **2 marks**: Clear operationalisation showing two distinct conditions with specific, realistic values (e.g., \(26^\circ\text{C}\) vs. \(16^\circ\text{C}\)).
- **1 mark**: Vaguely operationalised (e.g., just 'warm room and cold room' without specific temperatures).
* **Dependent Variable (DV) [2 marks]**:
- **2 marks**: Clear, quantitative operationalisation of personal space (e.g., remaining pixels on a computerized CID task when pressing a key).
- **1 mark**: Vague measurement description (e.g., 'how close the person lets them get').
* **Control Variables [2 marks]**:
- **2 marks**: Two logical, specific control variables described in the context of this study (e.g., standard clothing instructions, identical approach speed/appearance of silhouette).
- **1 mark**: Only one control variable described, or controls are very generic (e.g., 'same computer').

**B. Methodology and Terminology (Max 4 marks)**
* **Sample & Sampling [2 marks]**:
- **2 marks**: Specific sample size and target demographic identified alongside an appropriate sampling technique with realistic implementation details (e.g., volunteer sampling via university flyers).
- **1 mark**: Outlines only the sample or only the sampling method, or lacks practical detail.
* **Coherence, Feasibility, and Ethics [2 marks]**:
- **2 marks**: The design is highly feasible, ethical (informed consent, temperature levels are safe), and structured with an appropriate experimental design (independent measures explained logically to avoid temperature carry-over).
- **1 mark**: Design has minor flaws, lacks logical flow, or overlooks basic ethics/practicality.

To achieve high inter-rater reliability, the researcher must first establish an objective, unambiguous operational definition of the target behaviour (for example, the elephant successfully presenting its foot to the trainer within a specific time limit of 10 seconds without resistance). Second, the researcher must have two or more independent observers score the same training trials using this definition, and then calculate a statistical correlation (such as Cohen's Kappa) to confirm there is a high level of agreement between them.

1 mark for providing a clear, objective operational definition of the compliance behaviour (e.g., measurable action within a specific timeframe). 1 mark for describing the process of checking reliability (e.g., using two independent observers to record the same events and comparing/correlating their scores).

The main disadvantage is reduced ecological validity or mundane realism. Selecting a distance on a computer screen (the CID task) is highly artificial and lacks the multisensory and social cues of a real-life interaction, such as body language, eye contact, and physical presence. Consequently, how a participant responds to a digital silhouette may not accurately reflect how they would actively manage their personal space boundaries in everyday real-world encounters.

1 mark for identifying a valid disadvantage (e.g., low ecological validity, response bias, artificiality of the task). 1 mark for linking the disadvantage specifically to the difference between the computerised task and real-world physical spacing (e.g., the lack of physical presence or emotional realism).