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

The study utilized a customized self-report measure called the Feelings Thermometer, which was a 9-point scale ranging from 0 to 8. Higher numbers indicated greater distress or fear. Different types of buttons were presented to the boy, who then assigned them a rating based on his immediate reaction. For instance, large denim buttons were rated lowest (2), while small, clear plastic buttons received the highest rating of 8, enabling the researchers to quantify his cognitive and emotional distress before and after therapy.

1 mark for naming the scale (Feelings Thermometer).
1 mark for describing the range of the scale (9-point scale / 0 to 8).
1 mark for explaining what the numbers represent (0 = no distress, 8 = maximum distress).
1.75 marks for providing specific examples of button ratings (e.g., small plastic buttons rated 8, or large denim buttons rated lowest/2).

The experimental model acted as an intervention control. In the 'adjacent area - late' condition, the model was positioned in the compartment adjacent to where the victim fell (the critical area). He did not immediately intervene; instead, he waited for 150 seconds (or 2.5 minutes) following the victim's collapse. After this duration, the model walked over, helped the victim back into a sitting position, and stayed with him until the train arrived at the station.

1 mark for physical location (standing in the adjacent carriage/compartment, not the critical area).
1.75 marks for timing details (waiting 150 seconds / 2.5 minutes after the collapse before moving).
2 marks for describing the actual helping behavior (helping the victim to his feet/sitting position and staying with him until the train stopped).

The trainers established the secondary reinforcer by classically conditioning the elephants to associate a distinct sound—a high-pitched whistle—with a primary reinforcer (food rewards like bananas). During training, when the elephant performed the desired target behavior, the trainer blew the whistle instantly. This served as an immediate acoustic marker of success, bridging the brief delay between the action and the delivery of the food reward.

1.75 marks for explaining the association process (pairing the whistle with food/banana).
1.5 marks for explaining the timing of the whistle (blown immediately upon correct behavior).
1.5 marks for explaining its role as a bridge/marker (signaling that the food reward is on its way).

Milgram utilized two main techniques to enforce compliance: first, a standardized sequence of four verbal prods ('Please continue', 'The experiment requires that you continue', 'It is absolutely essential that you continue', and 'You have no other choice, you must go on') delivered in an authoritative, neutral voice. Second, when participants voiced concerns about the learner's well-being, the experimenter explicitly stated that he would take full responsibility, thereby encouraging the transition to an agentic state.

Up to 2.5 marks for describing the verbal prods (must mention they were standardized/sequential, and give an example prod like 'Please continue' or 'You have no other choice, you must go on').
Up to 2.25 marks for describing the experimenter's assurance of responsibility/insistence that no permanent tissue damage would occur, or the physical presence/authoritative demeanor of the experimenter.

Hassett et al. categorized toys based on their physical and functional characteristics into two primary classifications: wheeled (masculine) and plush (feminine). The wheeled category included vehicles and objects with functional wheels such as a police car, a dump truck, a wagon, and a shopping cart. The plush category included soft, stuffed toys such as a Raggedy Ann doll, a plush bear, and a plush turtle.

1.75 marks for identifying the two categories ('wheeled/masculine' and 'plush/feminine').
1.5 marks for providing two correct examples of wheeled toys (e.g., dump truck, wagon, police car).
1.5 marks for providing two correct examples of plush toys (e.g., Raggedy Ann, plush bear, plush turtle, Winnie the Pooh).

Before assigning children to experimental conditions, the researchers pre-rated each child's baseline aggression. A nursery school teacher and an experimenter rated each child on four 5-point scales measuring: physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition. To control for individual differences, a matched-pairs design was used where children with identical or highly similar overall scores were grouped in triplets and then randomly allocated to one of the experimental conditions.

1 mark for stating they were pre-rated by an experimenter and teacher.
1.5 marks for listing or describing the categories rated (physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression to inanimate objects, aggressive inhibition).
1 mark for mentioning the 5-point rating scale.
1.25 marks for explaining the matching process (matched-pairs/triplets to distribute aggression levels equally across conditions).

During the 8-week course, MBSR participants were instructed to perform 45 minutes of formal mindfulness homework practice each day. They were given three audio recordings (guided body scan, yoga, and sitting meditation) to assist them with their home routines. To track compliance and measure the actual duration of active practice, participants were required to complete a daily diary/paper log documenting how many minutes they spent practicing.

1.75 marks for stating the required duration/frequency (45 minutes per day).
1.5 marks for mentioning the guided recordings or the specific types of meditation (body scan, yoga, or sitting meditation).
1.5 marks for explaining how their compliance/practice time was tracked (completing daily paper logs/diaries).

The computerized Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm displayed a small circle representing the participant in the exact center of a screen. Another circular figure (an avatar designated as a friend, acquaintance, stranger, or control object like a ball) would appear at the edge and slowly slide towards the center from one of eight directions. Participants were instructed to press the spacebar key as soon as they began to feel uncomfortable with the avatar's proximity, stopping its movement. The system recorded the remaining distance between the center and the avatar, translating it into a measure of comfortable personal space.

1 mark for describing the screen setup (participant in the center, other figure approaching).
1.75 marks for explaining the independent variables of the approaching figure (different identities like friend, stranger, acquaintance, or a non-human control like a ball; approaching from different angles/directions).
2 marks for explaining the measurement mechanism (pressing spacebar/key to stop the figure when feeling uncomfortable, measuring the remaining distance).

Candidates should structure their response to address both ecological validity and ethical guidelines, explicitly comparing Milgram and Piliavin et al. throughout. Ecological Validity comparison: Milgram's study took place in an artificial lab environment at Yale University. The task of administering electric shocks to a stranger for failing a word-association test is highly unnatural and lacks mundane realism. This contrasts sharply with Piliavin et al., which was a field experiment set on a real New York subway. The participants (passengers) were in their natural daily routine, and the emergency (a person collapsing) is a plausible real-world event, giving Piliavin et al. much higher ecological validity. Ethical Guidelines comparison: Milgram's study is notorious for ethical breaches, particularly the extreme psychological harm caused to participants (sweating, trembling, and even seizures). He also used significant deception (the learner was a confederate, the shocks were fake) and compromised the right to withdraw through the experimenter's verbal prods. However, Milgram did fully debrief his participants and conducted long-term psychiatric follow-ups. In comparison, Piliavin et al. also violated ethical guidelines. They did not obtain informed consent from the subway passengers, deceived them with a staged collapse, and did not offer a right to withdraw (passengers were stuck on a moving train) or any form of debriefing. However, the level of immediate distress inflicted on passengers in Piliavin's study was generally much lower than the intense stress experienced by Milgram's participants.

Level 4 (10-12 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive and balanced. Both ecological validity and ethical guidelines are evaluated thoroughly. Clear and explicit comparison points are made between Milgram and Piliavin et al. throughout the response. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Evaluation of both ecological validity and ethics is present, but may be slightly unbalanced in depth. Some clear comparison points are made to Piliavin et al. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Basic evaluation of Milgram's study on one or both issues. Comparison to Piliavin et al. is weak, superficial, or only mentioned briefly. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Shows limited knowledge of the studies. Minimal attempt to evaluate or compare. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

In the evaluation, candidates must address exactly two of the listed evaluation issues (quantitative data, ecological validity, or generalisability) and relate them directly to Perry et al. (personal space). For Quantitative Data: Strengths include the objective, precise measurements obtained via the CID task (percentage of distance remaining) and empathy scales (IRI). This allowed for statistical testing (ANOVAs) to identify significant interactions between oxytocin, empathy, and social distance. Weaknesses include the reduction of a complex social phenomenon (personal space) to raw numbers, ignoring individual phenomenological experiences. For Ecological Validity: The study lacks ecological validity because estimating distance comfort on a 2D screen by pressing buttons to move a drawing is far removed from real-world physical spacing where multi-sensory cues (smell, touch, actual physical threat) are present. However, the artificial laboratory setting allowed for high standardized controls (such as the double-blind administration of oxytocin/placebo saline solution and controlled timing of 45 minutes). For Generalisability: The sample consisted of 57 male students from the University of Haifa. While sufficient for experimental control, this is a narrow, gynocentric, and ethnocentric sample, making it difficult to generalise the neurochemical effects of oxytocin on personal space preferences to females or older populations.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive and shows a very good understanding of both chosen issues. Points are well-supported with detailed, accurate examples from the Perry et al. study. The argument is well-structured and balanced. Level 3 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is good, showing a reasonable understanding of one or both issues. Points are supported with some relevant examples from the study. The argument is structured but may lack depth or balance. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Evaluation is limited. There may be a basic discussion of one or both issues, but with limited or inaccurate support from the study. Alternatively, only one issue is evaluated well. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Fragmented, superficial points. Very little understanding of the issues or the study. Level 0 (0 marks): No response worthy of credit.

(a) The dependent variable (learning success) can be operationalised by measuring the frequency, percentage, or duration of time it takes for a giraffe to lift its front hoof to a designated height (e.g., 10 cm off the ground) upon a specific auditory command, without physical prompting.
(b) The guideline of 'species and strain' requires researchers to choose a species that is scientifically and physically suited to the research aims. In this case, the researcher must ensure that the specific subspecies of giraffe being trained is physically capable of lifting its hoof comfortably without putting excess strain on its joints, and that the individual animals do not show signs of high anxiety or distress when interacting with trainers.
(c) Giraffes are highly sensitive prey animals with strong flight reflexes. A task-oriented schedule (requiring specific milestones before moving on) may be difficult because giraffes may easily become startled by veterinary equipment or human movement, delaying training milestones compared to the more physically robust and stable elephants used in Fagen et al.'s study.

(a) 1 mark for a clear, operationalised measure of the dependent variable (e.g., percentage of successful hoof lifts to a verbal cue).
(b) 1 mark for explaining 'species and strain' (choosing a suitable species/subspecies that is hardy/adaptable to the task), 1 mark for linking directly to the giraffe/training context.
(c) 1 mark for identifying a relevant biological/behavioural difference (e.g., height, temperament, anatomy), 1 mark for explaining why this makes task-oriented scheduling difficult.

(a) Protection of participants is compromised because participants may feel extreme anxiety, guilt, or fear of losing their job if they refuse or comply with an unethical instruction. The researcher can address this by providing an immediate, comprehensive debriefing right after the task, clarifying that no actual policy was violated, their job is safe, and offering psychological support if needed.
(b) The Independent Variable (IV) is the level of perceived authority of the person giving the command (e.g., the managing director vs. a peer colleague). The Dependent Variable (DV) is the level of obedience, operationalised as whether the participant shredded the documents (yes/no) or the time/hesitation before they complied.
(c) A field experiment in an office has higher ecological validity because it takes place in a natural, real-life environment (a workplace) where employees are accustomed to receiving and processing directives from bosses, unlike the artificial and unfamiliar laboratory setting at Yale University.

(a) 1 mark for identifying a valid ethical issue (e.g., stress/anxiety). 1 mark for suggesting a logical way to address it (e.g., immediate debriefing/reassurance).
(b) 1 mark for correctly identifying/operationalising the IV, 1 mark for the DV.
(c) 1 mark for explaining that the workplace is a natural environment with realistic authority dynamics (ecological validity).

(a) The experimental design is an independent measures (independent groups) design because different participants are used in each condition (doodling vs. non-doodling).
(b) One strength is that it avoids order effects (such as learning, practice, or fatigue). Since participants only listen to the boring lecture once under one condition, they will not become bored or practiced, which would confound the memory/concentration scores if they had to listen to it twice.
(c) To control for participant variables (such as individual differences in baseline memory or attention span), the researcher could use a matched pairs design. They could give all participants a pre-test of short-term memory capacity and then pair participants with similar scores, assigning one to the doodling condition and the other to the control condition.

(a) 1 mark for identifying independent measures / independent groups.
(b) 1 mark for identifying a strength (e.g., no order effects), 1 mark for applying it directly to the context of listening to a boring lecture and memory testing.
(c) 1 mark for identifying a standardisation / design control (e.g., matched pairs, pre-screening attention span), 1 mark for explaining how this controls participant variables in this study.

(a) The independent variable is whether the victim/passenger is wearing a physical support (the neck brace) or not.
(b) An advantage of conducting this as a field experiment is that participants are in their natural environment (riding a public bus) and are unaware they are part of a study. This minimises demand characteristics, meaning their helping behaviour is more spontaneous and genuine compared to a laboratory setting where they might act socially desirable.
(c) One uncontrolled situational variable is the crowdedness of the bus. On a crowded bus, there are more potential helpers, which could lead to diffusion of responsibility (bystander effect), whereas on a nearly empty bus, the single bystander may feel a greater personal obligation to help, regardless of the neck brace.

(a) 1 mark for correctly identifying the IV (presence vs. absence of the neck brace).
(b) 1 mark for identifying an advantage of a field experiment (e.g., ecological validity, low demand characteristics). 1 mark for applying it to the bus setting / helping behaviour.
(c) 1 mark for identifying a valid uncontrolled situational variable (e.g., number of people present, time of day, bus motion). 1 mark for explaining how it could affect the DV (helping behaviour).

(a) The researcher can use structured observation by creating a behavioral checklist/coding scheme with specific categories of toys (e.g., 'Structured: blocks, puzzles, vehicles' vs. 'Unstructured: play-dough, dress-up clothes') and recording which category each child plays with at fixed time intervals (e.g., every 2 minutes using time sampling).
(b) To ensure reliability, the researcher can hire a second observer to watch the sessions independently. They would both use the same coding scheme. Afterward, they can calculate the percentage of agreement (inter-rater reliability) using a correlation coefficient (like Cohen's kappa) to ensure it is high (above 0.80).
(c) This is a naturalistic observation because the children are being observed in their normal, everyday preschool environment during their usual free-play session, without any manipulation or artificial control of the setting by the researchers.

(a) 1 mark for identifying a structured observation feature (e.g., coding scheme, behavioral categories). 1 mark for applying it to toy choices (e.g., categorising blocks vs. dress-up).
(b) 1 mark for identifying inter-rater reliability / two observers. 1 mark for explaining how their scores would be compared/correlated.
(c) 1 mark for identifying 'naturalistic' and justifying it by referring to the unchanged, real preschool/free-play setting.

(a) The data is quantitative because the AQ test produces numerical scores (e.g., a score out of 50). This allows for statistical analysis and direct numerical comparison between individuals or groups.
(b) A negative correlation means that as scores on the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) increase, scores on the Eyes Test decrease. In this context, it shows that teenagers who exhibit higher levels of autistic traits tend to have lower accuracy in identifying emotions from facial expressions around the eyes.
(c) A limitation of using self-report questionnaires like the AQ with teenagers is the risk of social desirability bias or a lack of self-awareness, where they might answer questions in a way that makes them look good or misrepresent their actual daily behaviours.

(a) 1 mark for identifying quantitative data. 1 mark for explaining why (e.g., it produces a numerical score/count).
(b) 1 mark for defining a negative correlation (one goes up, the other goes down). 1 mark for applying it directly to higher AQ scores and lower Eyes Test performance.
(c) 1 mark for a valid limitation of self-reports/questionnaires in teenagers (e.g., social desirability, lack of insight, reading comprehension).

(a) The experimental design is a repeated measures design because the same participants complete both experimental conditions: they walk towards a virtual avatar representing a friend AND a virtual avatar representing a stranger.
(b) The independent variable (type of relationship) can be operationalised by programming one VR avatar to have the photo-realistic face and body dimensions of a close friend of the participant, and the other avatar to have the face and dimensions of an unfamiliar stranger matched for gender and age.
(c) One strength is the high level of environmental control. In VR, the researcher can ensure that both avatars have identical neutral facial expressions, posture, clothing, and do not blink, breathe heavily, or move unexpectedly. This eliminates confounding variables that would naturally occur with real-life confederates.

(a) 1 mark for identifying repeated measures design. 1 mark for justifying it (e.g., participants experience both friend and stranger conditions).
(b) 1 mark for a clear operationalisation of the IV (e.g., how 'friend' and 'stranger' are visually presented in the VR environment).
(c) 1 mark for identifying a strength of VR (e.g., standardisation, safety, ease of measurement). 1 mark for linking it directly to the control of physical cues / personal space.

(a) A case study is an in-depth, detailed investigation of a single individual, group, or institution. It is appropriate here because a phobia is highly subjective and complex; a case study allows the clinical psychologist to explore the child's unique emotional responses, history, and gradual progress over a long-term therapy timeline.
(b) The psychologist could collect qualitative data by conducting semi-structured interviews with the child and their parents after each session. They can ask open-ended questions like, 'How did you feel when you saw the dog on the screen?' and record their detailed verbal descriptions, or ask the child to write a diary entry about their fear levels.
(c) A major weakness is that the findings have low generalisability. Because the study focuses on only one child with a specific phobia of dogs, the treatment progress and outcomes may not apply to other children with different phobias, personalities, or family backgrounds.

(a) 1 mark for defining 'case study' (in-depth, single individual). 1 mark for explaining its appropriateness (e.g., tracking complex individual progress in therapy).
(b) 1 mark for identifying a qualitative method (e.g., interviews, diaries, open-ended questions). 1 mark for describing how it collects rich, descriptive data from the child or parents.
(c) 1 mark for a valid weakness of case studies applied to this context (e.g., lack of generalisability, researcher bias/over-involvement).

(a) The correct identification is a covert observation (or non-participant covert observation), as the researcher is hidden/undercover and not interacting with the participants.

(b) A strength of covert observation is high ecological validity and reduced participant reactivity. Because the library visitors do not know they are being observed, they will not show social desirability bias (e.g., helping someone only because they know they are being watched). This ensures the observed helping behavior is genuine.

(c) Operationalization requires translating a vague concept into a measurable, objective behavior. In a library, this could be defined as: (1) picking up a dropped book/item for another person, or (2) holding open a door for a person carrying multiple books.

(a) [1 mark total]
- 1 mark for identifying covert (or non-participant covert) observation.

(b) [2 marks total]
- 1 mark for identifying a strength of covert observation (e.g., reduced demand characteristics, natural behavior, higher validity).
- 1 mark for contextualizing/linking the strength directly to the library helping behavior scenario (e.g., visitors will not perform artificial helping actions just to please the observer).

(c) [2 marks total]
- 1 mark for a basic/vague operationalization (e.g., helping someone find a book).
- 2 marks for a clear, objective, and fully operationalized definition specific to a library setting (e.g., holding a door for someone carrying books, or picking up a dropped item for another person).

Example of a high-scoring response:

**Design and Variables**
The study will use a correlational design to investigate the relationship between two co-variables:
1. **Co-variable 1 (Social media use):** Operationalised as the average daily screen time (in minutes) spent on social media applications (e.g., Instagram, TikTok). This will be measured by having participants submit a screenshot of their phone's built-in digital well-being/screen time tracker at the end of a 7-day period, from which the daily mean is calculated.
2. **Co-variable 2 (Self-reported attention span):** Operationalised using a custom 10-item questionnaire. Participants rate their attentional control over the same 7 days (e.g., "How often did you lose focus while reading?" rated on a Likert scale from 1 = Never to 5 = Very Frequently). The total score will range from 10 to 50, where higher scores indicate a stronger attention span.

**Sample and Sampling Method**
An opportunity sample of 60 office workers (aged 22–45) will be recruited from a local commercial business park. The researcher will approach individuals in communal dining areas during lunch hours, explain the study, and ask if they would be willing to participate.

**Procedure**
1. Participants who agree to take part will sign an informed consent form.
2. Over a 7-day period (Monday to Sunday), participants go about their normal routines.
3. On Sunday evening, participants receive an email containing a link to an online portal. They upload a screenshot of their smartphone's weekly social media usage log.
4. Immediately after uploading, they fill out the online 10-item attention span questionnaire.

**Reliability and Controls**
- To ensure reliability, the questionnaire items will be fully standardized so that all participants answer the exact same questions with identical phrasing.
- A pilot study with 5 individuals will be conducted prior to the main study to ensure the instructions and questions are clear and unambiguous.
- To control for screen-time tracking variation, only participants with smartphones that have automated weekly screen-time reporting systems will be included.

**Ethical Considerations**
- **Informed Consent:** Participants are fully briefed that their phone's social media tracking data will be collected.
- **Confidentiality:** No personal identifiable information (like names or contact details) will be linked to the data. Each participant will be assigned a random ID code (e.g., Participant 01).
- **Right to Withdraw:** Participants are informed that they can withdraw their data from the study at any point until the final questionnaire submission.

**Level 3 (8-10 marks):**
- The response is described in detail, showing a clear and coherent understanding of a correlational study design.
- Both co-variables are clearly operationalised (specifically how social media use and attention span are measured numerically).
- Details of the sample, sampling technique, and a step-by-step procedure are appropriate and realistic.
- Issues of reliability (standardization, controls) and ethics (consent, anonymity, right to withdraw) are thoroughly and appropriately addressed.
- The response does not describe an experiment (no IV/DV manipulation).

**Level 2 (5-7 marks):**
- The response is described in some detail. The design is mostly appropriate, though there may be minor omissions (e.g., failing to fully operationalise one of the variables, or lack of detail in the sampling technique).
- It is clearly a correlational design, but some procedural elements lack clarity.
- Reliability and ethics are mentioned but may lack specific application to this scenario.

**Level 1 (1-4 marks):**
- The response is basic and lacks detail.
- There are major omissions (e.g., omitting the sample details or procedure completely).
- The candidate may incorrectly describe an experimental design (manipulating social media use) rather than a correlational design.

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

**Key Criteria to look for:**
- **Co-variables:** Must have two distinct, continuous variables. Reject designs that compare "high vs low users" as this is an independent measures experiment, not a correlation.
- **Operationalisation:** Explicit measurement methods must be provided (e.g., screen time in minutes, score on a questionnaire).
- **Sample:** Number of participants and how they are obtained (opportunity, volunteer, etc.).
- **Reliability:** Standardized tools, pilot study, or consistency controls.
- **Ethics:** Informed consent, privacy/confidentiality of personal phone data, right to withdraw.

Part (a):
- 1 mark: A basic description of a method to measure stress (e.g., 'use a questionnaire').
- 2 marks: A clear, operationalised description of how the variable is measured (e.g., 'a self-report questionnaire where participants rate their daily stress on a Likert scale from 1 to 10 every evening').

Part (b):
- 1 mark: Identifies a relevant weakness (e.g., 'subjective interpretation' or 'social desirability').
- 2 marks: Explains the weakness in the context of the operationalisation described in (a) (e.g., 'participants may want to appear relaxed and therefore under-report their stress, which lowers the validity of the stress score').

Part (a):
- 2 marks: Detailed and fully operationalised explanation of how daily stress is measured.
- 1 mark: Vague or partially operationalised explanation (e.g., just 'give them a survey').
- 0 marks: Incorrect or unrelated to measuring stress.

Part (b):
- 2 marks: Weakness is clearly identified and linked back to the operationalisation described in part (a).
- 1 mark: Weakness is identified but not linked to the specific operationalisation or lacks detail.
- 0 marks: Incorrect or irrelevant weakness.