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

The study selected participants based on clear criteria to control for confounding variables:
1. Handedness: All participants had to be right-handed to ensure uniform brain lateralisation.
2. Age: They had to be between 18 and 55 years old.
3. Health Status: Physically and psychologically healthy, free of psychotropic medications.
4. Scanner Compatibility: Safe and able to undergo MRI procedures.
5. Meditation Experience: Meditation-naive (no classes in the past 5 years, and fewer than 10 classes in their lifetime total).

Award up to 3.875 marks for identifying and describing the criteria:
- 1 mark for each clearly outlined inclusion criterion (up to 3 maximum).
- Additional 0.875 marks for detail/elaboration (e.g., specifying 'right-handed' or details about the 'meditation-naive' threshold: no classes in 5 years / <10 total).

How it was recorded:
- Participants used paper-and-pencil diaries (or logs) to record the number of minutes they practiced the exercises at home daily.

Results:
- The average time spent on home practice across the 8-week program was 22.6 hours in total (SD = 6.4 hours).
- This translates to approximately 27 minutes of home practice per day.

Award marks as follows:
- Up to 2 marks for outlining how the practice was recorded (1 mark for daily logs/diaries, 1 mark for recording duration in minutes/for specific techniques).
- Up to 1.875 marks for description of the results (1 mark for the overall average of 22.6 hours or ~27 minutes per day, and 0.875 marks for additional precise details like the 8-week period or mentioning the standard deviation of 6.4 hours).

The Feelings Questionnaire was designed to construct a hierarchy of stimuli to measure distress levels on a 9-point scale (0-8).
- 0 represented the lowest level of distress (no distress at all).
- 8 represented the highest level of distress.
- Example 1: Large denim/metal buttons (rated 2 on the scale).
- Example 2: Small plastic buttons (clear or colored, rated 8 on the scale).

Award marks as follows:
- Up to 1.875 marks for describing how the scale was used (1 mark for identifying the range 0 to 8, 0.875 marks for explaining that 0 is no fear/distress and 8 is extreme fear/distress).
- Up to 2 marks for providing two examples of rated stimuli (1 mark for each correct example, such as large denim/metal buttons, school uniform buttons, or small clear/colored plastic buttons).

The positive reinforcement program involved:
- Gradual behavioral exposure where the boy had to handle buttons.
- Sessions lasting 20-30 minutes.
- The boy receiving praise/rewards from his mother for showing less fear or touching buttons.
- The mother being involved to deliver reinforcement both during the sessions and at home to facilitate generalization.

Award marks as follows:
- Up to 2 marks for explaining the positive reinforcement program (e.g., gradual exposure tasks, handling buttons, session length of 20-30 minutes).
- Up to 1.875 marks for explaining the mother's involvement (1 mark for her role in giving praise/reinforcement, 0.875 marks for specifying that she reinforced him at home/outside sessions).

How arousal was induced:
- Children were taken to a room with attractive toys (fire engine, doll set, etc.) and allowed to play for 2 minutes.
- The experimenter stopped them, saying these toys were reserved for other children and they must go to another room.

Why it was necessary:
- To create a standard state of frustration/arousal in all children.
- To increase the likelihood of aggressive behaviors occurring, avoiding a floor effect.
- To control for pre-existing frustration levels across participants.

Award marks as follows:
- Up to 2 marks for describing how the arousal was induced (1 mark for mentioning attractive toys, 1 mark for explaining the experimenter taking them away/saying they were for other kids).
- Up to 1.875 marks for explaining why it was necessary (1 mark for baseline level of frustration/arousal, 0.875 marks for mentioning the floor effect or controlling individual mood differences).

The computerized CID task worked as follows:
- A central figure represented the participant.
- Another figure (the target) approached from 8 directions.
- The participant pressed the spacebar to stop the figure when they felt uncomfortable.
- The remaining distance (in percentage/pixels) was the measure of personal space.
- The three human targets were: a close friend, an acquaintance, and a stranger.

Award marks as follows:
- Up to 2 marks for describing the computerized CID task (1 mark for explaining the movement of the figure from 8 directions, 1 mark for explaining that the spacebar was used to stop it and distance was measured as a percentage).
- Up to 1.875 marks for specifying the targets (0.5 marks each for: close friend, acquaintance, stranger; plus 0.375 marks for complete, clear recall of all three).

Toys:
- Masculine: Dump truck, police car, grader (any wheeled toy).
- Feminine: Rag doll, Winnie-the-Pooh, teddy bear (any plush toy).

Interactive behaviors definition:
- Active physical contact/manipulation of the toy.
- Examples include touching, holding, dragging, carrying, chewing, mouthing, or pushing. This excluded non-interactive behaviors like looking at the toy or sitting within proximity without contact.

Award marks as follows:
- Up to 2 marks for identifying the toys (1 mark for a correct masculine toy, 1 mark for a correct feminine toy).
- Up to 1.875 marks for describing 'interactive behaviors' (1 mark for explaining active physical manipulation/contact rather than passive proximity, and 0.875 marks for giving at least two specific examples of interactive behaviors, like chewing, dragging, or holding).

Procedure for waking:
- A loud doorbell/buzzer was sounded close to the participant's bed.

Recording dream recall:
- The participant spoke into a tape recorder next to the bed.
- They had to state whether they were dreaming or not.
- If dreaming, they described the dream content.
- No experimenter was present in the room to avoid demand characteristics/bias.

Award marks as follows:
- Up to 1.875 marks for describing the waking procedure (1 mark for the doorbell/buzzer sound, 0.875 marks for explaining it was done during different sleep stages/near the bed).
- Up to 2 marks for describing how dream recall was recorded (1 mark for the tape recorder/stating whether they had a dream, 1 mark for describing the content/explaining the absence of the experimenter to prevent bias).

To achieve full marks (12/12), a response must explicitly compare both studies across both criteria (physiological measurements and ecological validity), providing at least one similarity and one difference for each, using detailed and accurate knowledge from both Hölzel et al. and Dement & Kleitman.

Level 4 (10–12 marks):
- Candidate provides a detailed, balanced comparison showing excellent knowledge and understanding of both studies.
- Both areas (physiological measurements and ecological validity) are addressed thoroughly.
- Explicit similarities and differences are clearly identified and explained.
- The response is well-structured and uses psychological terminology accurately.

Level 3 (7–9 marks):
- Candidate provides a good comparison showing reasonable knowledge and understanding of both studies.
- Both areas are addressed, but there may be some imbalance (e.g., focusing more on similarities than differences, or more on one area than the other).
- Some explicit similarities and/or differences are identified, with reasonable explanation.
- The response is structured and uses psychological terminology appropriately.

Level 2 (4–6 marks):
- Candidate provides a basic comparison showing some knowledge of the studies.
- The comparison may only focus on one area (e.g., physiological measurements) or describe the studies separately with weak comparative links.
- Limited use of psychological terminology.

Level 1 (1–3 marks):
- Candidate offers very basic points.
- Description of one or both studies with little or no comparative element.
- Lack of clarity or understanding of the specified areas.

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

An exemplar Level 4 response should look like this:

A major strength of the study by Hölzel et al. is the use of highly objective physiological measures. By employing Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans and analyzing them using VBM (voxel-based morphometry), the researchers could directly measure precise changes in gray matter concentration in the brain. Unlike self-reports, which are susceptible to social desirability and memory decay, MRI scans produce objective, quantifiable physical data that cannot be consciously altered by the participants. This high objectivity ensures that the study's conclusions about neurological changes in regions like the left hippocampus and the temporoparietal junction are highly valid and scientifically robust.

Another strength of the study is its experimental control, specifically the use of a wait-list control group of 17 participants. By comparing the MBSR group with a group that did not undergo the mindfulness training over the same 8-week period, the researchers could confidently attribute the changes in gray matter concentration to the mindfulness intervention rather than confounding variables like the simple passage of time, external life events, or the effects of being scanned twice.

However, a weakness of the study is its reliance on subjective self-report logs for measuring home practice. Participants had to manually log the number of minutes they spent practicing mindfulness exercises daily. This method is highly prone to social desirability bias, as participants may have exaggerated their practice times to please the researchers. Because of this, the reported correlation between home practice time and specific brain density changes may lack reliability.

Additionally, the study is limited by its small and selective sample. The final analysis included only 16 participants in the MBSR group, all of whom were healthy, highly educated, and self-selected because they were looking to reduce their stress. This specific and small sample limits the generalisability of the findings to the wider, more diverse population. Furthermore, several participants had to be excluded due to movement artifacts or scan issues, which introduces attrition bias, as the final participants might have been systematically different (e.g., more patient or physically stable) than those excluded.

**Level 4 (8-10 marks):**
- Evaluation is detailed and balanced (two strengths and two weaknesses are clearly identified and discussed).
- The named issue (use of objective measures) is explicitly addressed and fully contextualised to Hölzel et al.
- The response shows an excellent, accurate understanding of the study throughout.
- Arguments are structured logically with clear, coherent psychological terminology.

**Level 3 (5-7 marks):**
- Evaluation is good, containing both strengths and weaknesses but may be slightly unbalanced (e.g., 2 strengths, 1 weakness, or one point lacks depth).
- The named issue (objective measures) is addressed, although it may lack full development.
- The response shows a good understanding of the study.

**Level 2 (3-4 marks):**
- Evaluation is limited or very unbalanced (e.g., only strengths/weaknesses are discussed, or points are very brief and undeveloped).
- The named issue (objective measures) may be mentioned briefly or omitted.
- The response shows some basic understanding of the study.

**Level 1 (1-2 marks):**
- The response contains one or two basic, generic evaluation points with little or no application to Hölzel et al.
- Demonstrates very little or no understanding of the study.

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

(a) The boy's subjective distress was measured using the 'Feelings Thermometer', a 9-point scale ranging from 0 (no distress/fear) to 8 (maximum distress/fear). (b) A strength of using this scale is that it produces quantitative data. This allowed the researchers to establish a clear baseline of the boy's distress for different types of buttons (e.g., small plastic buttons scored an 8, while large denim buttons scored a 2) and to track progress objectively across the behavioral exposure and cognitive restructurings, increasing the reliability of the clinical assessments.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for identifying the Feelings Thermometer / self-report scale, 1 mark for describing its features (e.g., 9-point scale / 0 to 8 range). (b) 3.11 marks: 1 mark for identifying a strength (e.g., quantitative data / objective comparison), 1 mark for explaining the strength in the context of the study (e.g., comparing different types of buttons), 1.11 marks for linking to how this tracks progression/therapeutic change over time.

(a) The experimental design used was repeated measures, where the same participants in the MBSR group underwent MRI scans at two time points: pre-intervention (baseline) and post-intervention (after the 8-week course). (b) A weakness of a repeated measures design over a two-month period is the history effect or maturation. Participants' brains could undergo structural changes due to other life events, academic stress, or natural biological changes over those 8 weeks, which acts as a confounding variable, making it harder to establish a direct causal link between MBSR and gray matter increases.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for naming repeated measures (or pre-test/post-test design), 1 mark for explaining it in context (MRI scans before and after the 8-week MBSR course). (b) 3.11 marks: 1 mark for identifying a weakness (e.g., confounding variables over time / maturation / history effects), 1 mark for explaining it in context of the 8-week gap, 1.11 marks for explaining how this threatens the internal validity of the study.

(a) In event sampling, the researcher decides on a specific behavior to observe, such as 'one person sitting directly adjacent to another' or 'a person adjusting their chair away from a neighbor'. The researcher records every single instance of this specific event during the observation period. (b) A major ethical concern is the lack of informed consent and the right to withdraw. Since the study occurs in a public cafeteria, participants do not know they are in a study. While observing in public spaces is ethically acceptable under guidelines because people expect to be seen, recording specific spatial distances without consent can violate privacy. To mitigate this, the researcher must maintain absolute anonymity (no names or identifying student details) and ensure no distress is caused.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for defining event sampling (recording a specific behavior every time it happens), 1 mark for applying it to personal space (e.g., sitting distance / moving away). (b) 3.11 marks: 1 mark for identifying the ethical issue (e.g., lack of informed consent / privacy), 1 mark for explaining why it is an issue in this specific cafeteria setting, 1.11 marks for explaining how to resolve or justify the ethical issue (e.g., public space guidelines, maintaining strict anonymity).

(a) Children were pre-rated on their aggressiveness by an experimenter and their nursery school teacher using four 5-point scales measuring physical, verbal, inanimate-object aggression, and aggressive inhibition. Based on these ratings, children with similar aggression scores were grouped into triplets and randomly assigned to one of the experimental groups or the control group. (b) The main advantage of matched pairs is that it controls for individual differences (participant variables) in baseline aggression. Aggression is a highly variable personality trait; if one experimental condition accidentally contained naturally highly aggressive children, the study's validity would be compromised. Matching ensures that differences in physical and verbal imitative aggression can be confidently attributed to the independent variable (type of model) rather than pre-existing aggressive traits.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for explaining that children were rated on baseline aggression scales by a teacher/experimenter, 1 mark for explaining how they were placed into matched triplets/groups. (b) 3.11 marks: 1 mark for identifying an advantage (e.g., controlling participant variables / pre-existing aggression), 1 mark for applying this to Bandura's study (preventing naturally aggressive children from clustering in one group), 1.11 marks for explaining how this increases internal validity (isolating the effect of the role model).

(a) Andrade operationally defined doodling as the act of shading in printed shapes (circles and squares of 1 cm diameter) on an A4 piece of paper using a pencil, while being instructed that it did not matter how neatly or quickly they did it. (b) Clear operationalization of the independent variable is essential for replication because it ensures standardisation. If another researcher attempted to replicate the study but let participants doodle freely (e.g., drawing faces or patterns), this would involve active creative thinking and require more cognitive resources than simple shading. By defining 'doodling' precisely as shading pre-printed shapes, other researchers can replicate the exact level of low-cognitive-demand activity, ensuring the study's construct validity and reliability.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for mentioning shading shapes (circles/squares), 1 mark for mentioning the context (A4 paper / pencil / during the telephone task). (b) 3.11 marks: 1 mark for identifying a reason for operationalization (e.g., standardisation / replication / controlling cognitive load), 1 mark for explaining why non-operationalized doodling (free drawing) would be a confound, 1.11 marks for explaining how this increases the reliability/validity of replication.

(a) Two behaviors that were coded as interactions include: holding a toy, carrying/dragging a toy, touching the toy with a hand/foot, sitting on the toy, or manipulating its parts. (b) High inter-rater reliability (which was achieved at a high level, such as Cohen's kappa of 0.95) was critical because observations of animal behavior are inherently open to subjective interpretation. For example, a rater might mistake a monkey accidentally brushing against a toy for an intentional interaction. By ensuring that independent observers consistently agreed on what constituted 'interaction', the researchers minimized observer bias, which directly increased the validity of the conclusions about gender-typed toy preferences in rhesus monkeys.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for each correct behavior identified (e.g., holding, carrying, touching, dragging, pushing). (b) 3.11 marks: 1 mark for defining inter-rater reliability or explaining why subjective bias is a risk in animal observations, 1 mark for explaining how high agreement avoids observer bias, 1.11 marks for linking this directly to the validity of the study's conclusions about toy preferences.

(a) The dependent variable was measured quantitatively as the maximum shock level (from 15 to 450 volts) that the participant administered to the learner before refusing to continue. (b) The laboratory setting at Yale University represents a highly controlled, prestigious, and artificial environment. This reduces ecological validity because administering severe physical shocks to an innocent person in an academic study is not an everyday task. In real-world settings, obedience involves everyday rules, workplace demands, or military orders, which carry different social consequences. The high status and scientific context of Yale likely created an artificial level of trust and pressure, which means obedience levels might be higher than in naturalistic, real-world settings.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for stating that obedience was measured by the maximum shock level administered, 1 mark for adding details (e.g., scale of 15 to 450 volts / stopping point). (b) 3.11 marks: 1 mark for identifying how the Yale lab setting is artificial / high-status, 1 mark for explaining how this differs from real-world obedience situations, 1.11 marks for explaining the impact on ecological validity (e.g., overestimating obedience due to institutional trust).

(a) Secondary reinforcement involved using a clicker (or whistle) as an acoustic bridge. The sound of the clicker was initially paired with a primary reinforcer (food rewards like bananas/sugarcane). Once the elephant associated the click with food, the trainer could click the instant a correct target behavior was performed, immediately reinforcing the action even if food delivery took a few seconds. (b) Observer bias occurs when researchers record behaviors that align with their expectations (e.g., expecting elephants trained with positive reinforcement to perform better). To control this, the researchers could use a blind observer who is unaware of the study's hypotheses or the specific training progress of each elephant when scoring their test performance. Alternatively, they could video-record the testing sessions and have an independent rater, who did not perform the training, score the elephants' behaviors using a highly operationalized behavioral checklist, which would be tested for inter-rater reliability.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for identifying the clicker/whistle as the secondary reinforcer / acoustic bridge, 1 mark for explaining how it was paired with the primary reinforcer (food) to reinforce correct behaviors instantly. (b) 3.11 marks: 1 mark for defining observer bias or explaining why it is a risk (expecting positive outcomes), 1 mark for describing a control method (e.g., blind rater / independent video analysis), 1.11 marks for explaining how this control ensures objective measurement of elephant learning.

(a) One mark is awarded for explaining a benefit of naturalistic observation (e.g., natural environment, higher ecological validity, or reduced demand characteristics). A second mark is awarded for linking this to the scenario of preschool children's sharing behaviour. (b) One mark is awarded for a basic operationalisation of sharing. Two marks are awarded for a highly specific, observable, and measurable definition suitable for a checklist in this context. (c) 0.5 marks are awarded for identifying a relevant ethical issue (such as informed consent or protection from harm). 0.61 marks are awarded for applying this directly to how Dr Aris can resolve the issue with this sample (e.g., getting written parental consent since the children cannot legally consent).

Part (a) [2 marks]: 1 mark for explaining a general advantage of naturalistic over controlled observations (e.g., realistic behavior, high ecological validity). 1 mark for applying to this context (e.g., children playing naturally at the nursery). Part (b) [2 marks]: 1 mark for a vague or partial definition of sharing. 2 marks for a fully operationalised, clearly observable behavior (e.g., handing over a toy). Part (c) [1.11 marks]: 0.5 marks for identifying the correct ethical guideline (informed consent). 0.61 marks for describing the solution in this study (obtaining written consent from the parents/guardians).

Here is an example of a high-scoring (Level 3, 10-mark) response:

1. **Independent Variable (IV) and Operationalisation:**
The IV is the behavior shown by the adult model in the video, with two levels:
- **Cooperative Model Condition:** Participants watch a 5-minute pre-recorded video of an adult playing with building blocks, actively sharing blocks, helping another adult build a structure, and using positive verbal statements (e.g., 'Let's build this together!').
- **Neutral/Control Condition:** Participants watch a 5-minute pre-recorded video of the same adult sorting blocks by colour individually, showing no cooperative or uncooperative social behavior.

2. **Dependent Variable (DV) and Measurement:**
The DV is the level of cooperative play, operationalised as specific behaviors displayed during a play session. This is measured by placing the participant in a playroom with a standardised building set and a trained confederate child of the same age. Two observers watch behind a one-way mirror and use time sampling (every 30 seconds for 10 minutes) to record the presence of three specific behavioral categories:
- *Sharing:* willingly handing a toy block to the partner.
- *Assisting:* physically helping the partner build their structure.
- *Cooperative verbalisation:* suggesting a joint goal (e.g., 'should we build a bridge?').
Inter-rater reliability will be assessed using Cohen's kappa to ensure consistency between observers.

3. **Sample and Recruitment:**
A sample of 40 children aged 4-5 years (20 boys, 20 girls) will be recruited via volunteer sampling. An advertisement will be placed in local nursery school newsletters inviting parents to sign up. Full written parental consent and verbal child assent will be obtained prior to the study.

4. **Procedure and Controls:**
- **Pre-trial:** Each child is individually brought to the lab and randomly assigned to either the cooperative or control group (balanced for gender).
- **Stimulus Phase:** The child sits alone at a desk and watches the designated 5-minute video on a tablet. The researcher leaves the room to prevent observer effects.
- **Testing Phase:** Immediately after, the child is guided to an adjacent playroom containing the block set and the trained confederate child. The confederate is completely blind to whether the child watched the cooperative or control video.
- **Observation:** The 10-minute play session is filmed and live-coded by observers.
- **Controls:** The videos are identical in duration, visual setting, and actress. The playroom setup, including the exact number of blocks (50 blocks), is standardised for all participants. The confederate child follows a strict, predetermined script of neutral, non-initiating behavior to keep the interaction highly standardised.

Marks are awarded using a level-of-response marking grid (Max 10 marks):

**Level 3 (8-10 marks):**
- The design is highly detailed, realistic, and can be replicated directly.
- Clear, operationalised IV with distinct levels.
- Clear, operationalised DV with a detailed, objective measurement method (e.g., behavioral checklist, time-sampling).
- Appropriate sample described with a specific recruitment technique.
- Highly standardised procedure with explicitly described controls to manage confounding variables (e.g., double-blind confederate, standardised video, identical playroom setup).
- Logical and coherent structure.

**Level 2 (5-7 marks):**
- The design is generally sound and could be implemented, but some details are omitted.
- The IV and DV are defined but may lack full operationalisation (e.g., measuring 'cooperation' without clear behavioral categories).
- The sample is mentioned but recruitment or demographics are vague.
- The procedure is described but lacks some controls, or some aspects of replication are unclear.

**Level 1 (1-4 marks):**
- The design is basic with major omissions.
- IV or DV are poorly defined or lack operationalisation.
- The procedure is disjointed, lacks controls, or is highly unethical/impractical.

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

Strength: One strength is high ecological validity. Because the study is conducted in the students' natural school library rather than an artificial laboratory setting, the students are likely to behave naturally. They are unaware of being observed for an experiment, meaning their reading habits will reflect real-life behaviors. Weakness: One weakness is the lack of control over extraneous variables. In a natural school setting, Dr. Aris cannot control factors such as peer distractions, students leaving because their next class is starting, or varying schoolwork loads. Any of these extraneous variables could affect the time spent reading, making it difficult to establish a clear cause-and-effect relationship between the classical music and reading duration.

Strength: 1 mark for identifying a generic strength of natural experiments (e.g., high ecological validity, reduced demand characteristics). 1 mark for applying this strength to the library/reading context. Weakness: 1 mark for identifying a generic weakness of natural experiments (e.g., lack of control over extraneous variables, difficulty in replicating). 1 mark for applying this weakness to the library/reading context.