2025 OCR A-Level Psychology - H567 Practice Paper with Answers

Six values are already in order. The median is the mean of the 3rd and 4th values: (15 + 18) / 2 = 16.5 seconds. 17.3 is the mean (104/6), 15 is the mode.

1 mark for B only. A is the mode; C is the mean; D is the 4th value only. No partial credit.

Participants decide for themselves whether to respond to an advertised request, which is self-selected (volunteer) sampling.

1 mark for C only. Opportunity sampling involves the researcher approaching available people; snowball relies on participants recruiting others; random requires every member of the population to have an equal chance.

A test of difference, related design, ordinal data: Wilcoxon signed ranks. Mann-Whitney is for independent data; Chi-square needs nominal data; Spearman's rho tests correlation.

1 mark for D only.

The difficulty coping with everyday tasks such as hygiene, work and self-care is the key feature of failure to function adequately.

1 mark for C only.

Grant et al. found participants recalled more when the context at recall matched the context at learning (silent-silent or noise-noise) than when they were mismatched, supporting context-dependent memory.

1 mark for B only.

Greater experience as a taxi driver was associated with larger posterior hippocampal volume: a positive correlation. It was not perfect.

1 mark for B only.

Most infants crawled off the centre board onto the shallow side but refused to crawl over the deep side, suggesting depth perception is present by the age when crawling starts.

1 mark for C only. Accept that B is not the main finding (the mother calling was a manipulation, and most still refused).

Extra information about the case outside the evidence itself is shaping the examiner's judgement: contextual (expectation) bias in forensic processing.

1 mark for A only.

A field experiment has the IV manipulated by the researcher in a natural setting. A quasi experiment uses a naturally occurring IV; a laboratory experiment is in a controlled setting; observation involves no IV manipulation.

1 mark for B only.

Rank orders show relative position but not equal gaps between ranks, so the data are ordinal.

1 mark for C. Do not credit other letters. If more than one box is marked, no mark.

Participants chose to respond to an advertisement themselves, which is self-selected (volunteer) sampling. The researcher did not approach people (opportunity), ask participants to recruit others (snowball) or use chance selection (random).

1 mark for B. Do not credit other letters.

The aim is a test of correlation using at least ordinal data, so Spearman's Rho is appropriate. Chi-square needs nominal frequency data; Mann-Whitney U and Wilcoxon test differences, not association.

1 mark for D. Do not credit other letters.

Joining the group is participant observation; the group knowing about the research is overt.

1 mark for A. Do not credit other letters.

Sum = 4 + 7 + 9 + 12 + 8 = 40. Mean = 40 / 5 = 8.

1 mark for B. Do not credit other letters. 40 is the total, not the mean.

The method section covers design, sample, materials and procedure, including operationalisation of variables.

1 mark for C. Do not credit other letters.

Falsification means a scientific claim must be testable in a way that could show it to be false. The other options describe replication, sample size and setting, not falsifiability.

1 mark for A. Do not credit other letters.

A Type 1 error is a false positive: the null hypothesis is rejected although it is actually true. Retaining a false null hypothesis (B) is a Type 2 error.

1 mark for D. Do not credit other letters.

Every participant takes part in both conditions of the independent variable, so the design is repeated measures.

1 mark for C. Do not credit other letters.

Minutes are measured on a scale with equal intervals between units, so the data is interval. Nominal and categorical data would be counts in categories; ordinal data would be ranks.

C = 1 mark. Any other response = 0. Indicative content: equal intervals on a true scale of time.

Every member of the target population has an equal chance of selection through the draw, which is random sampling.

A = 1 mark. Any other response = 0.

A stricter significance level means the probability of wrongly rejecting a true null hypothesis (type 1) falls, but the chance of wrongly retaining a false null hypothesis (type 2) rises.

A = 1 mark. Any other response = 0.

Structured interviews use a fixed set of questions in a fixed order, so the procedure is standardised and easily replicated. A and C describe unstructured interviews; D is not a reliable advantage as social desirability can still occur.

B = 1 mark. Any other response = 0.

Identify the technique (self-selected/volunteer sampling), state a limitation (unrepresentative/biased), and link it to this study (gym users already exercise, may already have higher mood, so findings about walking cannot be generalised).

Award up to 3 marks for one limitation:
1 mark: identifies a valid limitation of self-selected sampling (e.g. unrepresentative/biased sample, volunteer bias, low generalisability).
1 mark: explanation of why this is a problem (e.g. volunteers are likely to be more motivated or keen, so may not reflect the target population).
1 mark: application in context (e.g. gym users already exercise and may have a naturally better mood or respond differently to walking, so results may not generalise to people who do not exercise).
Only the first limitation is credited if more than one is given. A limitation that is generic and not linked to the study can access a maximum of 2 marks. Accept other appropriate responses, e.g. the notice only reaches people who use that gym, so limited to one locality/age group. Do not credit 'small sample' unless sample size is stated, as no sample size is given.

State an advantage of independent measures (no order effects / less chance of demand characteristics because each participant experiences one condition only) and apply it to mood ratings after walking.

Award up to 3 marks for one reason:
1 mark: identifies a valid reason (e.g. avoids order effects; reduces demand characteristics; avoids participants guessing the aim).
1 mark: elaboration/explanation (e.g. taking part in both conditions could lead to fatigue, boredom or practice in using the rating scale; seeing both conditions makes the aim easier to work out).
1 mark: application in context (e.g. mood after the park walk could carry over into the rating after the road walk; volunteers rating mood twice might give ratings they think the researcher wants).
Only the first reason is credited. A response that only defines independent measures design, with no reason, scores 0. Accept other appropriate responses. Do not credit 'no participant variables' as an advantage, as this is a weakness of independent measures.

The technique is self-selected (volunteer) sampling. A weakness is that volunteers are likely to differ from the wider student population, for example being more motivated or more interested in music or study, so the sample is unrepresentative. The findings, such as how many words are remembered, may therefore not be generalised to all 600 students.

2 marks: 1 mark for identifying a valid weakness of self-selected (volunteer) sampling (e.g. sample is biased or unrepresentative; volunteers may be more motivated; only certain types of student see the notice); 1 mark for elaboration in context of this study (e.g. students who volunteer for a study about music and studying may be keener or more organised, so memory scores may not reflect all 600 students, limiting generalisability). Accept other creditworthy weaknesses, e.g. volunteer bias or demand characteristics because participants know the aim, if developed in context. Do not credit a generic definition of the sampling technique alone, or a weakness that applies to the study design rather than the sampling. Award a maximum of 1 mark if the answer is not in context. If more than one weakness is given, mark the first only.

(a) Two distinct, measurable operationalisations of concentration are needed, e.g. (i) the number of spelling errors correctly identified in the passage within 10 minutes; (ii) the proportion of the total errors in the passage identified, or the number of errors missed. (b) Strength: an opportunity sample means she can use students already present at her college, saving time and cost, so a reasonable number of participants can be tested for both walking conditions. Weakness: students from one local college are a narrow, possibly biased group (similar age, education, area), so the sample is not representative and results may lack population validity and generalisability to other age groups or areas.

(a) 2 marks: 1 mark for each valid, different operationalisation that is measurable and linked to concentration in the proofreading task. Do not credit the same measure worded twice. Do not credit vague answers such as 'how well they concentrate' or 'their score' without reference to errors found. Max 2.

(b) 4 marks, two separately developed contributions (2 + 2). Strength (2): 1 mark for a valid strength of opportunity sampling (convenient, quick, cheap, easy access); 1 mark for elaboration in context (students at her local college are readily available, so she can recruit enough for both conditions without travelling). Weakness (2): 1 mark for a valid weakness (unrepresentative, biased, hard to generalise, researcher chooses who is asked); 1 mark for elaboration in context (only one college and age group, so the findings may not apply to adults or students elsewhere). Credit is not given for a general definition of opportunity sampling alone. If a strength and weakness are given as the same point reversed, credit once only. First strength and first weakness only should be credited if more are given. Other appropriate responses should be credited.

(a) Strength: the questionnaire is standardised, so all 40 participants answer the same questions in the same way, which makes the sleep hours and cheerfulness ratings quick to collect and easy to compare. Weakness: participants may misremember their hours of sleep or exaggerate cheerfulness to look happier (social desirability), reducing the validity of the data. (b) The method is correlation, as two co-variables (hours of sleep and cheerfulness rating) are measured and their relationship analysed. A non-directional hypothesis states a relationship without predicting its direction.

(a) 4 marks, two separately developed contributions (2 + 2). Strength (2): 1 mark for a valid strength of questionnaires (standardised, quick to administer to many people, quantitative data easy to analyse, can be replicated, may be anonymous); 1 mark for elaboration in context (e.g. all 40 volunteers answer identical sleep and rating questions so scores are comparable). Weakness (2): 1 mark for a valid weakness (social desirability, inaccurate recall, response bias such as always choosing the middle option, volunteer bias, limited depth from closed questions); 1 mark for elaboration in context (e.g. participants may not accurately recall last night's sleep or may overstate cheerfulness). Do not credit generic statements without elaboration beyond 1 mark. First strength and first weakness only.

(b) 2 marks: 1 mark for 'correlation' (accept correlational analysis). 1 mark for a suitable non-directional hypothesis that is operationalised and refers to both variables in context and states a relationship or association without direction, e.g. 'There is a relationship between hours slept and cheerfulness rating.' Do not credit a directional hypothesis (e.g. 'more sleep is linked to higher cheerfulness') or a null hypothesis. Do not credit a hypothesis that refers to a difference between groups. Other appropriate responses should be credited.

Indicative design (one of several valid):

Design: a repeated measures experiment. Each volunteer completes both conditions (20-minute brisk park walk; 20-minute seated rest in the office) on different days, with the order counterbalanced (half do walk first, half rest first) to control order effects. Repeated measures controls individual differences in baseline mood, which matters because mood varies a lot between people. A gap of at least a day between conditions reduces carry-over effects.

Hypothesis: directional (one-tailed) because the company's aim and the exercise-and-mood literature suggest an improvement: 'Office workers will report higher mood scores after a 20-minute park walk than after 20 minutes of seated rest.' Null: any difference is due to chance.

Sample: target population is the c.400 head-office staff. Random sampling from the staff list gives a representative sample but not everyone invited will agree; a self-selected (volunteer) sample via an email advert is more practical but is likely to over-represent people who like walking, limiting generalisability. A sample of about 20-30 is manageable. In my own practical, I used opportunity sampling because of time limits and noted the resulting bias.

Operationalisation: IV = type of activity (walk in park vs seated rest), each exactly 20 minutes, walking pace checked at 'brisk' (e.g. about 100 steps per minute by pedometer/step app). DV = mood, measured at 3 pm using a 10-item self-report rating scale (e.g. 1-7 Likert items such as 'I feel cheerful', 'I feel tense' reverse-scored) giving a total of 10-70; interval/ordinal data suitable for a Wilcoxon test. A closed-item scale gives quantitative data that are quick to score and analyse, though self-report may be affected by social desirability. Piloting in my practical showed ambiguous wording needed changing.

Controls/standardisation: same time of day for both conditions; same route and distance for walking; same room, temperature and no phones/talking during rest; no extra caffeine or exercise before the session; similar weather/avoid rain days; standardised written instructions; same mood scale and instructions each time; participants unaware of the specific hypothesis to reduce demand characteristics; the researcher not involved in scoring to reduce bias.

Ethics (BPS Code - Respect, Responsibility, Integrity): informed consent with a briefing sheet, voluntary participation with no employer pressure (Respect); right to withdraw at any point and to withdraw data; confidentiality using participant numbers and storing data securely, with results not shared with managers by name; protection from harm through a health check/screening question for anyone with mobility or heart problems and a risk assessment of the route; debrief at the end explaining the aim; avoid deception (Integrity), or if mood-testing is described only as 'wellbeing', debrief fully.

Links to practical experience: e.g. problems with counterbalancing, pilot study changes, participants guessing the aim, using opportunity sampling and its bias.

15 marks. AO2 (application to the context) 6 marks, AO3 (justification and evaluation of design decisions) 9 marks approx. Level of response, marked holistically. Non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate designs (e.g. independent measures or matched participants) if justified in context.

Level 4 (13-15): Good. Design is fully described and appropriate to the scenario, and covers ALL five bullet areas in context. Decisions are clearly and consistently justified (e.g. why repeated measures, why this sample, why this DV measure, why these controls). At least two extraneous variables are controlled and explained. Ethics are applied to the study. Explicit, relevant and accurate links to own practical experience. Well organised and clear.

Level 3 (9-12): Reasonable. Most bullet areas covered in context; most decisions justified, though some justification may be partial or generic. Some links to practical experience. Minor omissions or lack of detail.

Level 2 (5-8): Limited. Some bullet areas addressed, with limited context or justification, mainly description. Practical links are brief or generic. Lacks coherence in places.

Level 1 (1-4): Basic. Few relevant points, mostly generic statements about research methods with little or no application to the scenario. Little or no justification.

0: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (credit creditworthy points with elaboration):
- Design: experimental design (repeated measures/independent measures/matched) with justification such as individual differences, order effects, counterbalancing; field or lab setting.
- Hypothesis: clear, testable, operational; directional or non-directional with justification; null hypothesis may be credited.
- Sampling: named technique (random, self-selected, opportunity, snowball) applied to the 400 staff, with strength/weakness (representativeness, generalisability, volunteer bias); sample size reasonable.
- Operationalisation: IV levels clearly defined (duration, pace, location vs control task); DV measured by valid rating scale/questionnaire with scoring explained; consideration of reliability, validity, level of data.
- Controls: time of day, weather, route, instructions, prior caffeine/exercise, order effects, demand characteristics, researcher bias (single/double blind), standardisation.
- Ethics: informed consent, right to withdraw, confidentiality, protection from harm, debrief, deception, employer pressure; BPS Code headings.
- Practical experience: must refer to a practical the candidate actually did, e.g. piloting, sampling issues, ethical problems, standardisation difficulties, analysis. Generic reference such as 'in my practical' without detail gains no more than Level 2 on this strand.

Caps/notes: Response that addresses only description with no justification cannot exceed Level 2. Response that omits any practical experience cannot exceed Level 3. Do not credit a design that cannot test the hypothesis (e.g. no comparison condition). Candidates need not name a statistical test; if named, it must suit the design/data for credit.

The independent variable (waiting area) is a set of separate categories, so a bar chart is appropriate (not a histogram or line graph). Put the four waiting areas on the x-axis with gaps between equal-width bars. Put mean anxiety score on the y-axis with an even scale starting at 0 and reaching at least 14 (e.g. 0 to 14 or 16 in steps of 2). Draw bars to heights 13.4 (plain), 9.8 (plants), 10.6 (poster) and 8.2 (window view). Add a title such as 'Mean anxiety score in four clinic waiting areas' and label both axes, including the units/measure (anxiety score, 0-20 scale).

4 marks in total:
1 mark - Correct choice of graph: bar chart, with separate (non-touching) bars of equal width. Reject histogram, line graph or scatter diagram.
1 mark - Axes correctly assigned and labelled: waiting area on the x-axis, mean anxiety score on the y-axis, both labelled. Accept equivalent wording. Do not award if either axis label is missing.
1 mark - Suitable scale: y-axis starts at 0 (or clearly indicated), even intervals, covers at least up to 13.4 so all bars fit.
1 mark - Accurate plotting: all four bars at the correct heights (tolerance of half a small square / approx. 0.2 on the scale). Award only if all four bars are correct; if only three are correct, no mark.
Also creditworthy within the labelling mark: an informative title (e.g. mean anxiety score by waiting area). A title alone cannot replace an axis label.
Cap: if the wrong type of graph is drawn, maximum 3 marks for the remaining points. Bars may be in any order of conditions provided labelled. Other appropriate responses allowed.

Compare the observed rho with each critical value. +0.64 > 0.587, so the result is significant at the 5% level (two-tailed) and the null hypothesis of no relationship is rejected. +0.64 < 0.777, so it is not significant at the 1% level; the probability that the result is due to chance is below 5% but not below 1%. The sign is positive, so students who spent more hours in the library tended to score higher. Because the design is correlational, causation cannot be concluded.

Two conclusions, each worth up to 3 marks (maximum 6). Only the first two conclusions given are credited.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses):
- Significance at 0.05: observed rho (+0.64) is greater than the critical value of 0.587 (1), so the correlation is significant / null hypothesis rejected (1), in context: a relationship exists between library hours and exam percentage (1).
- Direction: rho is positive (1), so more hours in the library are associated with higher exam percentages (1), supported by a reference to the data (+0.64) (1).
- Not significant at 0.01: 0.64 is below 0.777 (1), so the researcher cannot claim significance at the stricter level / the chance of a type 1 error is greater than 1% (1), in context (1).
- Causation: correlation does not show that library time causes better performance (1) with an elaboration in context, e.g. motivated students may do both (1) and a data reference (1).

Award 1 mark for a correct but undeveloped conclusion with no reference to the data. Do not credit a conclusion that treats rho as a percentage or as proof of cause and effect. Do not credit both 'significant at 0.05' and 'reject the null hypothesis' as two separate conclusions, because they are the same point.

(a) The Wilcoxon test is used because the data are ordinal/repeated measures. The observed T (6) is equal to or less than 8, so the result is significant at the 5% level, and the null hypothesis is rejected. Lower median scores after the programme (25 compared with 31) show the direction. T = 6 is greater than 3, so it is not significant at the 1% level. (b) Any one valid threat to the causal claim, developed in context, e.g. no control group, so the change might come from time or other life events; or demand characteristics, since participants knew the aim of the study; or a lack of counterbalancing/order effects such as practice on the questionnaire.

(a) 3 marks: significance identified with the data (T = 6 is less than or equal to 8) (1); a correct statement of what this means: significant at p ≤ 0.05, null hypothesis rejected (1); linked to the direction in context, e.g. lower mood-symptom scores after the programme (median 25 vs 31) (1). Accept a correct statement that the result is not significant at p ≤ 0.01 (6 > 3) for 1 mark in place of one of the above. Max 2 if the data are not referred to.

(b) 3 marks: one reason identified (1), explained (1), and applied to this study (1). Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses): no control group, so improvement could be due to the passage of time or other events; demand characteristics, because participants knew the programme was meant to help; order effects/no counterbalancing from repeated completion of the same questionnaire; self-report bias or social desirability on the mood questionnaire; small sample of only ten. Only the first reason given is credited. Do not credit vague references such as 'other variables' with no elaboration, and do not credit a reason that merely says correlation is not causation, because this is an experimental design.

(i) Order the scores: 9, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17, 20. With ten scores the median lies between the 5th and 6th values: \( (12 + 13) / 2 = 12.5 \).
(ii) Range = highest - lowest = \( 20 - 9 = 11 \).
(iii) Sum of scores = 130, so mean = \( 130 / 10 = 13.0 \) (1 d.p.).

3 marks in total, 1 mark per part.
(i) 1 mark for 12.5. Method credit: scores correctly ordered and the 5th and 6th values (12 and 13) identified, but the final value wrong or missing = 0 marks for the part unless the answer is clearly 12.5. Accept 12.5 only if shown or clearly derived; answer 12 or 13 = 0.
(ii) 1 mark for 11. Accept '9 to 20' with 11 stated; '9-20' alone = 0. Do not accept 12 (inclusive range) unless the working clearly shows the calculation 20 - 9 followed by +1 and then 11 is not stated, in which case 0.
(iii) 1 mark for 13.0 (accept 13 only if the working shows 130 / 10; the 1 d.p. format is expected). Correct method (sum divided by 10) with an arithmetic slip = 0 marks, as this is a 1-mark part; award 1 mark for a correct answer even where working is brief, since the answer alone is creditworthy.
There is no automatic consequential credit between parts: each part is marked independently. Equivalent valid methods accepted (e.g. a calculator-derived mean). Penalise rounding errors once only.

Step 1: Mean. \( \sum x = 12+15+9+14+11+16+13+10 = 100 \), so \( \bar{x} = 100 \div 8 = 12.5 \).

Step 2: Deviations from the mean: -0.5, 2.5, -3.5, 1.5, -1.5, 3.5, 0.5, -2.5.

Step 3: Squared deviations: 0.25, 6.25, 12.25, 2.25, 2.25, 12.25, 0.25, 6.25. \( \sum (x-\bar{x})^2 = 42 \).

Step 4: Variance \( = 42 \div (8-1) = 6 \).

Step 5: \( s = \sqrt{6} = 2.449... \approx 2.45 \) (2 d.p.).

5 marks:
1 mark: correct mean of 12.5 (\( 100 \div 8 \)).
1 mark: method for deviations/squared deviations shown (subtracting the mean from each score and squaring).
1 mark: accuracy - sum of squared deviations = 42 (accept an equivalent valid method, e.g. \( \sum x^2 - (\sum x)^2/n \), giving 1292 - 1250 = 42).
1 mark: dividing by n - 1 = 7 to obtain variance of 6.
1 mark: standard deviation = 2.45 (2 d.p.). Accept 2.449 if rounded correctly to 2.45 at the end; 2.4 or 2.5 scores no accuracy mark for the final answer.

Partial credit: if the mean is wrong but the candidate then applies the method correctly to their own mean, award the method marks (steps 2 to 4 method and final square root) but not the accuracy marks. Dividing by n (8) instead of n - 1 gives 5.25 variance and 2.29: award the method marks only, max 3. Correct final answer of 2.45 with no working: award full marks. Other appropriate responses should be credited.

The Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test is used when (i) a difference between two conditions is being tested, (ii) the same participants provide data in both conditions (repeated measures, so the data are related) and (iii) the data are at least ordinal. In this study the aim is to compare mood after the park walk with mood after sitting in the room (a difference), every worker completed both conditions (repeated measures), and the mood scores are ordinal, which allows a non-parametric test.

2 marks: 1 mark for each of two different, correct reasons, each linked to the study (in context). Max 2.

Creditworthy reasons (indicative, non-exhaustive):
- Looking for a difference between conditions (park walk v sitting in room) rather than a correlation / association. [1]
- Repeated measures / related design: the same 24 workers did both conditions. [1]
- Data are ordinal (mood rating scale scores), so a non-parametric test is appropriate. [1]

Award 1 mark only for a generic reason with no link to the study (e.g. 'it is used for repeated measures designs'); do not award a second mark for it. Accept 'matched pairs' only if clearly framed as related data, but reject 'independent groups'. Reject reasons that duplicate each other (e.g. 'repeated measures' and 'same participants in both conditions' = one reason). Do not credit 'the data are not normally distributed' or 'the sample is small' unless supported by information in the question. Do not credit the directional hypothesis as a reason for choosing this test. Ignore any additional reasons beyond two; mark the first two given. Accept other appropriate responses.

For Spearman's rho the observed value must be equal to or greater than the critical value for the result to be significant.

1. At 0.05 (two-tailed, N = 12): \(0.64 > 0.591\), so the result is significant.
2. At 0.01 (two-tailed, N = 12): \(0.64 < 0.777\), so the result is not significant.
3. The result is significant at 0.05, so the null hypothesis (no relationship between minutes in green space and wellbeing score) is rejected and the alternative hypothesis is accepted: longer time in green space is associated with higher wellbeing scores. The result is not strong enough to reject the null at the stricter 0.01 level.

3 marks, 1 per point:

- 1 mark: significant at 0.05 because the observed value (0.64) is greater than the critical value (0.591). Both the decision and the comparison are needed.
- 1 mark: not significant at 0.01 because 0.64 is less than 0.777. Both the decision and the comparison are needed.
- 1 mark: reject the null hypothesis (accept the alternative) in context, i.e. a significant positive correlation between time in green space and wellbeing at the 0.05 level.

Accept: 'equal to or exceeds' wording. Do not credit a conclusion that the result proves causation (cap the third mark if causation is stated). Do not credit comparisons that are reversed (observed less than critical for significance). Do not award the third mark for 'accept the null hypothesis'. Award the third mark if the null is rejected without the word 'positive' only if the relationship is described in context. Other appropriate responses allowed. Assessment objective: AO2 (quantitative data) and AO3 (interpretation).

Credit one strength and one weakness, each applied to the study. Example strength: the same 12 workers took part in both conditions, so individual differences in baseline mood are controlled, and varying the order of days reduces order effects; a difference in ratings is therefore more likely to be due to the walk. Example weakness: the sample is 12 volunteers from one company, so it is unlikely to represent all office workers and results may not generalise (population validity). Alternative weakness: mood is self-rated, so participants may guess the aim and report better mood after the walk (demand characteristics).

3 marks, AO3 (evaluation in context).
1 mark: identification of a creditworthy strength (e.g. repeated measures controls participant variables; counterbalancing reduces order effects; Wilcoxon appropriate for related ordinal data; standardised 0-40 scale gives quantifiable data).
1 mark: identification of a creditworthy weakness (e.g. small volunteer sample from one company limits generalisability; self-report demand characteristics/social desirability; extraneous variables such as workload differing between the two days; only one day per condition limits reliability).
1 mark: elaboration of either point in context of this study.
Maximum 3. Only the first strength and first weakness are credited. Generic points with no reference to the study cap at 2. Accept other appropriate responses. Do not credit 'small sample' alone without a consequence.

Example strength: choosing every tenth visitor is a systematic method that limits the researcher's personal selection of friendly-looking people, so sampling bias is reduced. Example weakness: all participants were park visitors on one Saturday morning, so people who spend little or no time in parks, and weekday visitors, are missing; the +0.46 correlation may not generalise. Alternative weakness: hours in parks are recalled from memory and wellbeing is self-rated, so answers may be inaccurate or socially desirable.

3 marks, AO3 (evaluation in context).
1 mark: identification of a creditworthy strength (e.g. systematic every-tenth selection reduces researcher bias; 1-5 rating scales produce quantifiable data suitable for correlation; closed questions are standardised so reliable).
1 mark: identification of a creditworthy weakness (e.g. sample unrepresentative, one park and one time; self-report problems such as inaccurate recall or social desirability; validity of the questionnaire unknown).
1 mark: elaboration of either point in context of this study.
Maximum 3. Only the first strength and first weakness are credited. Answers not referring to the study cap at 2. Accept other appropriate responses. Do not credit 'correlation does not show cause' alone, as it is not about sampling or data collection.

Indicative points: participants read a passage of written material (on psychoacoustics) for a fixed time; they were allocated to learn in silence or with background noise (recorded noise through headphones); they were then tested in either the same or the opposite condition (independent-measures, four groupings); memory was tested with short-answer and multiple-choice questions.

Award 1 mark for each creditworthy procedural point, up to 3 marks. Indicative content (non-exhaustive): reading of an article/passage for a set time (1); learning condition manipulated, silence vs background noise (1); test in same or different condition, so matched/mismatched context (1); recall measured by short-answer and/or multiple-choice test (1). Do not credit findings or conclusions. Do not credit sample details alone unless linked to the procedure. Allow other appropriate responses. Answers that are only generic descriptions of context-dependent forgetting with no reference to this study: maximum 1 mark.

A valid conclusion: the posterior hippocampus is involved in storing spatial representations of the environment and is capable of structural change (plasticity) in adulthood. Support: taxi drivers had significantly greater posterior hippocampal volume than controls, and volume correlated positively with the number of years spent as a taxi driver, suggesting experience of navigating changes the brain.

Award up to 3 marks for ONE developed conclusion: conclusion identified (1); reference to finding(s) in this study that support it, e.g. larger posterior hippocampal volume in taxi drivers, positive correlation with years of experience (1); elaboration/explanation linking the evidence to the conclusion, e.g. the hippocampus changes structurally in response to environmental demands so adult brain plasticity, or role in spatial memory (1). If two conclusions are given, credit only the first. Do not credit a description of the method alone. Allow other appropriate responses.

(a) Shadowing is repeating the message in the attended ear aloud while listening, so attention is kept on that ear. (b) Finding 1: participants remembered almost nothing of the rejected message, even when a short list of words was repeated many times (e.g. 35 times). Finding 2: some participants noticed their own name in the rejected message, especially when it was preceded by an instruction, showing that personally relevant information can break through.

(a) 1 mark: repeating/speaking aloud the message from the attended ear as it is heard. (b) 1 mark for each finding, up to 2 marks, e.g. very little/none of the rejected message could be recalled or recognised, even when words were repeated many times (1); participants did not notice a change of language or speaker's voice in the rejected ear OR a minority noticed their own name or an instruction prefixed by their name (1). Findings must relate to the rejected message. Do not credit general theory (e.g. filter model) without a finding. Allow other appropriate responses.

Description: 75 boys from Chicago (USA), in three age groups of 10, 13 and 16, including working-class and middle-class boys. Limitation: the sample was all male and from one Western city, so the stages may not describe girls' moral reasoning (e.g. an ethic of care) or children in other cultures, which reduces population validity and generalisability.

Sample description, up to 2 marks: boys only/male (1); around 75 participants OR aged 10, 13 and 16 OR from Chicago/USA/mixed social class (1). Limitation, up to 2 marks (maximum 3 overall): identification of a relevant sample feature as a limit to generalisability, such as all male, one culture/city, narrow age range (1) with elaboration in context, e.g. girls may reason differently, other cultures may have different moral values (1). A generic statement that the sample was biased with no link to this study: maximum 1 mark. Total capped at 3. Allow other appropriate responses.

Two biases from the army testing described by Gould: (1) the tests assumed knowledge of American culture and English, so recruits born abroad or with little schooling were disadvantaged even on the pictorial tests, because they were unfamiliar with items and with holding a pencil; (2) testing conditions were crowded, instructions poorly heard and administration inconsistent, and recruits who failed the written test were not always given the alternative test, so scores did not reflect innate ability.

Award 1 mark for each bias identified, up to 2 marks, and 1 further mark for elaboration or reference to Gould's discussion of one of them, giving 3 marks maximum. Indicative content (non-exhaustive): cultural bias in test content/language; recruits unfamiliar with English or test format; poor, crowded or inconsistent testing conditions; unequal schooling treated as innate ability; inappropriate alternative test allocation. Do not credit generic statements about IQ tests unrelated to the army testing. Allow other appropriate responses.

Participants who studied and were tested in the same environment (both silent or both noisy) recalled more than those tested in a mismatched environment, so recall is better when the retrieval context matches the encoding context (context-dependent memory).

2 marks: 1 mark for the conclusion that recall is better when learning and test contexts match (context-dependent memory / cue-dependent forgetting when they differ). 1 mark for a supporting finding in context, e.g. higher scores for matched conditions (silent-silent or noise-noise) than for mismatched conditions. Accept other creditworthy responses. Do not credit a finding alone as the conclusion; a conclusion with no link to the findings or the study context is capped at 1 mark.

In taxi drivers, the amount of time spent working as a taxi driver correlated positively with grey matter volume in the right posterior hippocampus, so more experienced drivers tended to have a larger posterior hippocampus.

2 marks: 1 mark for identifying a relationship with time spent as a taxi driver (a correlation was found within the taxi drivers). 1 mark for the correct direction and region: positive correlation with the posterior hippocampus (accept a negative correlation with anterior hippocampal volume as an alternative creditworthy finding). Accept other appropriate responses. Reject a finding that only compares taxi drivers with controls and does not refer to time spent as a taxi driver.

Participants remembered almost nothing of the content of the non-shadowed message, even when a list of words was repeated many times, but they did notice physical changes such as a switch to a different voice or a tone, and some noticed their own name when it was preceded by an instruction.

1 mark for each of two different findings, up to 2 marks. Creditworthy examples: very little of the content or meaning of the unattended message was remembered, even when words were repeated many times; participants did not notice a change of language; participants noticed physical changes such as a change in speaker's gender or a pure tone; some participants noticed their own name when it was heard in the unattended ear, particularly when preceded by an instruction. Accept other appropriate findings. Reject conclusions or evaluation points that are not findings. Mark the first two findings only.

Participants studied a passage of written material (on psychoacoustics) for a fixed time, either in silence or with background noise played through headphones. They were then tested on it, again in silence or with noise, giving four combinations (matched and mismatched). The test comprised short-answer questions and multiple-choice questions, so recall and recognition could both be assessed. Scores were compared between matched and mismatched conditions.

Award 2 marks for each of two creditworthy features of the testing procedure: 1 mark for identifying the feature and 1 mark for elaboration or detail from the study (AO1).

Indicative content (non-exhaustive, other appropriate responses creditable):
- Learning and testing took place in either silence or noise, so the conditions were matched or mismatched (1) giving four combinations / the independent variable was match between learning and recall context (1).
- Short-answer questions were used (1) which test recall, e.g. answers written in own words (1).
- Multiple-choice questions were used (1) which test recognition (1).
- Participants were tested individually / given a set time, e.g. studied the article for a fixed time before the test (1) with the same material for all participants (1).
- Participants were tested after the study phase with the test given in a specified setting (1) with the scores compared across conditions (1).

Rules: Do not credit results or conclusions alone. Detail about learning (not testing) only is capped at 2 marks. If more than two features are given, mark the first two only. A generic definition of context-dependent memory without reference to this study scores 0.

The taxi drivers had greater grey matter volume in the posterior hippocampus than controls, and less in the anterior hippocampus. Posterior volume correlated positively with the number of years spent driving. Conclusions: the hippocampus is involved in storing spatial representations and its structure is adaptable; the brain shows plasticity in response to environmental demands, with the posterior region expanding as the anterior region shrinks.

Award 2 marks for each of two conclusions: 1 mark for a clear conclusion and 1 mark for elaboration linked to the findings of this study (AO1/AO3).

Indicative content (non-exhaustive):
- The posterior hippocampus is larger in taxi drivers than in controls (1), which suggests it is involved in spatial memory / navigation of a complex environment (1).
- The anterior hippocampus was smaller in taxi drivers (1), suggesting a redistribution of grey matter / the gain in one region has a cost in another (1).
- Posterior hippocampal volume correlated positively with years as a taxi driver (1), suggesting the brain changes in response to experience, i.e. plasticity, rather than the difference being innate (1).

Rules: A conclusion must be supported by reference to the results to gain the second mark. Restating a result without drawing an inference gains 1 mark maximum per point. Do not credit methodological evaluation. If more than two conclusions are given, mark the first two only.

Strength: the laboratory experiment with dichotic listening gave tight control over what each ear heard, so the effect of changes to the rejected message (e.g. instructions, own name) on recall could be measured with extraneous variables controlled, and the procedure is standardised and easy to replicate. Weakness: shadowing continuous messages through headphones is an artificial task unlike real-life divided attention, so the findings lack ecological validity; the sample was also small and drawn from students, limiting generalisability.

Award 2 marks for the strength and 2 marks for the weakness: 1 mark for identification and 1 mark for elaboration in the context of this study (AO3).

Indicative content (non-exhaustive):
Strengths: laboratory control of the messages / variables (1) so cause and effect can be established, e.g. between changes to the rejected message and recall (1); standardised procedure (1) so it can be replicated and reliability checked (1); objective measure of shadowing accuracy or words recalled (1) reducing researcher bias (1).
Weaknesses: artificial task / lacks ecological validity (1) because people do not normally shadow messages through headphones (1); small or unrepresentative sample, e.g. university students (1) so findings may not generalise (1); demand characteristics, as participants know they are being tested (1) which may affect how they attend (1).

Rules: Generic statements about laboratory experiments with no link to this study gain a maximum of 1 mark per point. Strength and weakness must be separate; if two strengths or two weaknesses are given, credit only the first of each type required. Accept other appropriate responses.

A strong answer gives one strength and one weakness, each identified, explained and tied to the study (participants read an article on psychology and immune function, either in silence or with background noise, then were tested on short-answer and multiple-choice questions in the same or the other condition; recall was not better when contexts matched).

Strength example: the procedure was highly controlled. All participants read the same article for the same time and answered the same questions, and the only difference was whether noise or silence was present at learning and at recall. This allows cause and effect to be inferred (high internal validity) and makes the study easy to replicate, which supports the reliability of the finding that context had little effect on recall in this task.

Weakness example: the sample was small and consisted of volunteers recruited from a limited population, so the finding that context did not matter may not generalise to other groups. Alternatively, reading an article and answering questions in a quiet room is an artificial task unlike everyday remembering, so ecological validity is low; the weak context effect may be because the context manipulation (noise vs silence) was less distinctive than environments such as underwater or different rooms.

AO3 - 5 marks. Award up to 2 marks for the strength and up to 2 marks for the weakness, and 1 further mark for overall quality of reference to the study (context used accurately in both points).

For each point: 1 mark for identifying a creditworthy strength/weakness (e.g. internal validity, control, replicability, reliability, sample size, sample bias/generalisability, ecological validity, ethics, use of volunteers, quantitative data); 1 mark for elaboration/explanation of why it is a strength/weakness.

The final mark is for reference to the procedure, sample, or findings of Grant et al. used in context in the points (accept one clear piece of supporting evidence in each point for the full mark, but only one mark is available in total for this element).

Caps/rules: if two strengths or two weaknesses only are given, maximum 3 marks (credit the first of each type only, plus context mark). A generic point with no link to the study can gain the identification mark but not the elaboration or context mark. If more than one strength/weakness is given, mark the first of each only. Indicative content is not exhaustive: accept other appropriate responses, e.g. use of both short-answer and multiple-choice tests (more than one measure of recall), small sample of 39 limiting power, individual differences controlled by participants experiencing both types of context, no deception issues, lack of real-life relevance.

Individual explanation (2 marks): the students who push on almost every occasion, whatever the queue size, show consistent behaviour across situations, suggesting internal dispositional factors such as personality or a tendency towards aggression. This could be linked to research such as Hancock et al. (2011), where language use was linked to stable individual traits, or to Bandura et al. (1961) where individual differences in aggression were found between children.

Situational explanation (2 marks): the pushing and shouting being common only on crowded days with long queues suggests that the external situation, such as crowding, frustration at waiting and the behaviour of others, triggers the behaviour. This could be linked to Milgram (1963), where features of the situation changed behaviour, or to Piliavin et al. (1969), where situational factors affected helping.

An interactionist conclusion may be given as creditworthy elaboration but is not required.

4 marks: 2 marks for the individual explanation and 2 marks for the situational explanation, marked separately.

For each explanation: 1 mark for identifying a creditworthy explanation (individual = internal/dispositional, stable across situations; situational = external, varies with circumstances); 1 mark for elaboration in context, linked to the evidence in the scenario (for example, a small number of students push whatever the queue size; pushing is common only when the queue is long and crowded).

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; other appropriate responses should be credited): individual - personality, temperament, aggressive disposition, impulsivity, upbringing, consistency of behaviour across situations. Situational - crowding, time pressure, frustration, social norms, the presence and behaviour of others, features of the environment.

Supporting evidence from named studies is creditworthy as elaboration but is not essential.

Caps and exclusions: a definition of the debate with no application to the scenario can receive a maximum of 1 mark per explanation. Answers covering only one type of explanation have a maximum of 2 marks. If the same point is made for both explanations, credit it once only.

A good answer defines the debate: individual explanations locate the cause of behaviour in internal characteristics (personality, genes, traits, cognition, language style), while situational explanations locate it in external factors (authority, setting, roles, other people, social context). It supports each position with evidence, for example: Milgram (1963) - high obedience attributed to the presence of an authority figure, the Yale setting and the experimenter's prods (situational), although some participants defied the experimenter, suggesting individual differences; Haney et al. (1973) - guards and prisoners adopted roles from the simulated prison, showing the power of the situation, though not all guards behaved cruelly; Piliavin et al. (1969) - helping varied with victim type (cane vs drunk) and the size of the group, showing situational influence; Bocchiaro et al. (2012) - only a minority disobeyed or blew the whistle, with personality and ethical measures giving some individual explanation; Hancock et al. (2011) - psychopaths' language differed from controls, an individual dispositional explanation. Discussion: situational accounts can reduce personal responsibility and may excuse harmful behaviour; individual accounts may ignore context and underestimate social pressure; lab research may lack ecological validity; ethical issues arise in situational studies; many psychologists favour an interactionist view in which person and situation combine, with a conclusion that is reasoned and supported.

AO1 (knowledge and understanding) 3 marks; AO3 (analysis, evaluation, judgement) 5 marks. Levels-based response; select the level that best fits, then the mark within the level according to clarity, relevance, evidence and reasoning.

Level 4 (7-8 marks): Good, accurate knowledge of both the individual and situational positions. Supporting evidence is relevant, accurate and used in context to illustrate each position. Discussion is well developed (e.g. strengths, weaknesses, interactionism, applications) and leads to a reasoned conclusion. Clear, coherent and well structured.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Reasonable knowledge of both positions with some relevant supporting evidence. Discussion is present but may be uneven or only partly developed. Some reasoning toward a conclusion.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Limited knowledge, probably of one position or both described superficially. Evidence is limited, generic or only partly relevant. Limited discussion.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, isolated points. Little or no evidence, or evidence that is not linked to the debate. Little or no discussion.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate research from any component, including studies not named here): definitions of individual (dispositional) and situational explanations; Milgram (1963); Haney et al. (1973); Piliavin et al. (1969); Levine et al. (2001); Bocchiaro et al. (2012); Hancock et al. (2011); Baron-Cohen et al. (1997); strengths and weaknesses of each position; interactionist position; implications for responsibility; usefulness and applications; methodological issues such as validity and sampling.

Caps and notes: a response covering only one position without evidence is capped at Level 2. A response with no research evidence is capped at Level 2. Descriptions of studies that are not linked to the debate gain AO1 credit only. Do not credit research inaccurately attributed.

Model approach: (1) Define each explanation: individual explanations locate the cause of behaviour in the person (personality, genes, traits, cognitive style); situational explanations locate it in the external context (authority, others present, setting). (2) Similarity: both seek to explain why people behave as they do and both can be tested empirically; neither alone fully explains behaviour, and both can be shown within one study. E.g. in Milgram (1963) most participants obeyed up to 450 V (situation: authority, laboratory setting) yet a minority stopped earlier, suggesting individual differences. Bocchiaro et al. (2012) found most participants obeyed an unethical request, but a minority disobeyed or whistle-blew, and those who did differed on personality measures such as honesty-humility, so both factors operated. (3) Difference: individual explanations predict consistency across situations and differences between people, whereas situational explanations predict that most people will behave similarly in the same situation and that behaviour changes when the situation changes. E.g. Piliavin et al. (1969): helping varied with the situation (victim appearing ill vs drunk, model helping, group size), supporting a situational account; Hancock et al. (2011): psychopaths' language use differed from non-psychopaths when describing their crimes, supporting an individual account. (4) Further contrast: implications. Individual explanations imply treating or selecting individuals; situational explanations imply changing environments. Individual accounts risk blaming the person; situational accounts risk excusing responsibility (determinism). A strong answer concludes that an interactionist view is most plausible.

8 marks, AO1 (3) and AO3 (5): knowledge and understanding of both explanations, with comparison and supporting evidence.

Level 4 (7-8 marks, good): Accurate, detailed understanding of both individual and situational explanations. Developed comparison, with at least one similarity and one difference explicitly drawn. Relevant, accurate supporting evidence for both sides used effectively to support the points. Clear, well-structured reasoning; may reach a supported conclusion such as interactionism.
Level 3 (5-6 marks, reasonable): Good understanding of both explanations. Some comparison, but may be uneven or mainly one of similarity or difference. Evidence is relevant and mostly accurate, but not always linked well to the point being made.
Level 2 (3-4 marks, limited): Limited understanding of one or both explanations. Comparison is basic or implied, with description of each side given separately. Evidence is brief, partly accurate or only loosely linked.
Level 1 (1-2 marks, basic): Basic, possibly muddled knowledge of one explanation only, or a few generic statements. No real comparison. Evidence absent or inaccurate.
0 marks: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses):
- Individual explanations: personality, genes, traits, cognitive style, psychopathy (e.g. Hancock et al. 2011; individual differences in Bocchiaro et al. 2012 such as honesty-humility; Baron-Cohen et al. 1997).
- Situational explanations: authority, proximity, setting, bystander number, models (e.g. Milgram 1963 variations or procedure; Piliavin et al. 1969; Bandura et al. 1961 exposure to a model; Levine et al. 2001 city features).
- Similarities: both are causal explanations, both are supported by empirical evidence, both are partial, both can operate within the same study, both can be reductionist or deterministic in the extreme.
- Differences: location of cause (person vs context); predicted consistency across situations; predicted variation between individuals vs between settings; implications for application, such as selection and treatment vs changing environments; responsibility and blame; type of evidence typically used (e.g. personality tests vs manipulated conditions).
- Conclusion: interactionist position, e.g. most people obey but some disobey.

Rules: Candidates may cite any relevant study; named evidence must be accurate to be credited as evidence. Evidence for only one explanation caps the answer at Level 2 (max 4 marks). A description of the two explanations with no comparison caps the answer at Level 2. Studies from outside the core list are creditworthy if accurate and relevant. Do not penalise spelling errors if meaning is clear.

Indicative outline of a good answer.

Definitions: Individual (dispositional) explanations locate the cause of behaviour within the person, e.g. personality, genes, cognitive style, brain structure. Situational explanations locate the cause in the external context, e.g. the presence of others, authority, roles, setting.

Individual position - illustrations: Hancock et al. (2011): psychopaths' language differs from non-psychopaths (e.g. more past-tense verbs, more references to basic needs), suggesting a stable personal characteristic. Baron-Cohen et al. (1997): adults with autism spectrum conditions perform differently on the Eyes Test, suggesting an individual cognitive difference. Bocchiaro et al. (2012): participants' personality scores (e.g. honesty-humility) were linked to whether they disobeyed or blew the whistle. Maguire et al. (2000): hippocampal differences in taxi drivers.

Situational position - illustrations: Milgram (1963): obedience was high (65% to 450 volts) in a lab with an authority figure, and varied with situational factors in later variations. Haney et al. (1973): the simulated prison roles produced guard and prisoner behaviour from ordinary volunteers. Piliavin et al. (1969): helping varied with the model's apparent disability/drunkenness and with the size of the group. Levine et al. (2001): helping varied with city features such as population density and economic productivity.

Evaluation - individual: strengths include explaining differences between people in the same situation (e.g. the 35% who defied Milgram), measurable data, and applications such as screening or targeted treatment. Weaknesses: underplays context; can be reductionist and deterministic; risk of labelling and socially sensitive consequences (e.g. psychopathy).
Evaluation - situational: strengths include explaining why ordinary people act out of character, and applications such as changing environments, procedures and training to reduce harm. Weaknesses: ignores individual differences, can excuse responsibility, lab settings may lack ecological validity, samples may be unrepresentative (e.g. Milgram, Haney: mostly male, from a single culture).

Debate/conclusion: the two are best seen as interacting (interactionist approach); e.g. Bocchiaro found situational pressure and personal traits both mattered. A strong conclusion makes a judgement about relative weight, supported by evidence, e.g. that situational factors explain group-level patterns while individual factors explain variation within a situation.

Total 15 marks: AO1 = 5, AO3 = 10 (approx.). This is an extended response and quality of written communication is considered when placing the response within a level.

Level 4 (13-15 marks): Good. Accurate, detailed knowledge of both individual and situational explanations, with well-chosen supporting evidence from at least two areas. Evaluation is balanced and in-depth, covering strengths and weaknesses of both positions, and may include usefulness/applications, reductionism, determinism or the interactionist view. A clear, well-reasoned and supported conclusion. Response is well structured and uses terminology accurately.

Level 3 (9-12 marks): Reasonable. Mostly accurate knowledge of both positions with some supporting evidence. Evaluation is relevant and reasonably developed but may be less balanced or less elaborated. A conclusion is present and mostly supported. Mainly clear.

Level 2 (5-8 marks): Limited. Some knowledge of one or both positions, possibly one-sided, with limited evidence. Evaluation is basic or partly relevant, largely descriptive or assertion. Conclusion absent or weakly supported.

Level 1 (1-4 marks): Basic. Few relevant points, possibly confusing the two positions; evidence is vague or absent; little or no evaluation or conclusion. Poorly organised.

Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; other appropriate responses, including studies not listed, are creditworthy):
- Definitions: individual/dispositional = internal causes (personality, genes, brain, cognition); situational = external causes (setting, roles, others, authority).
- Individual evidence: Hancock et al. (2011); Baron-Cohen et al. (1997); Bocchiaro et al. (2012) personality links; Maguire et al. (2000); Gould (1982) on IQ test bias.
- Situational evidence: Milgram (1963); Haney et al. (1973); Piliavin et al. (1969); Levine et al. (2001); Bandura et al. (1961) models.
- Evaluation points: explanatory power, individual variation within the same situation, determinism/reductionism, ethics and socially sensitive research, ecological validity and sampling bias, practical applications, interactionist view.

Guidance: Credit must be given to evidence used in context to support a point; a mere list of studies without explicit link to the debate is capped at Level 2. Research from a single area only caps AO1 at Level 3. A response covering only one position cannot exceed Level 2. Evidence is not limited to the core studies. Do not credit inaccurate details of studies.

Grant et al. (1998) tested participants who studied a passage in silence or with background noise and were then tested in the same or a different condition. Those tested in the same context as they learned did better on recall, showing that features of the environment act as retrieval cues. In the source the student learned in a noisy café with music and a latte (and a familiar table), but was tested in a silent, cold sports hall with different smells. The cues present at learning were missing at recall, so retrieval failed. The friend who revised in her bedroom may have been helped by a more similar, quiet setting.

AO2 (3 marks). Award up to 3 marks as follows:
- 1 mark: identifies that learning and recall contexts differed / mismatch between café and sports hall (in context).
- 1 mark: links to Grant et al.: context-dependent memory / environmental cues at learning help retrieval when present at recall; accept same-context groups outperformed different-context groups.
- 1 mark: elaboration with specific source detail (music/noise absent in the silent hall; smells; setting) or Grant's silence vs noise conditions, explaining why recall failed.
Max 2 marks if there is no reference to the source (generic answer only). Do not credit a description of Grant et al. with no link to the student. Accept other appropriate responses, e.g. cue-dependent forgetting explanation. Do not credit anxiety or tiredness as the main reason unless linked to context cues.

Simons and Chabris (1999) showed participants a film of two teams passing basketballs and asked them to count passes by one team. Many failed to notice an unexpected person in a gorilla suit or with an umbrella who crossed the scene, especially when attention was on the team similar to the unexpected object's colour. This is inattentional blindness: attention is selective and unattended objects may not be consciously perceived even when in view. In the source, Mr Okafor was concentrating on reading labels and searching for a pallet, an attention-demanding task, so the unexpected colleague crossing the aisle was not noticed despite being bright and visible. The safety adviser's comment fits this explanation, and it suggests the failure was not carelessness.

AO2 (3 marks). Award up to 3 marks as follows:
- 1 mark: identifies inattentional blindness / failure to notice an unexpected object when attention is directed elsewhere.
- 1 mark: links to Simons and Chabris: participants counting passes missed the gorilla/woman with umbrella; focused attention reduced noticing.
- 1 mark: applies in context: Mr Okafor was focused on labels/finding a pallet (demanding task) so did not see the colleague despite her bright jacket; or notes that similarity/difficulty of task increases the effect.
Max 2 marks if there is no reference to the source. Do not credit simple description of the study with no application. Accept other appropriate responses, e.g. selective attention, expectation of what is likely to appear. Do not credit poor eyesight or tiredness as the main explanation.

Suggestion 1: Tomasz should practise past papers in silent conditions, ideally in a place like the exam hall or the nearby library, rather than at his desk with music. Grant et al. (1998) found that participants who read a passage and were tested in the same noise condition (both silent or both noisy) recalled more short-answer answers than those who changed conditions. This supports context-dependent forgetting: the cues present at learning (his playlist, tea, bedroom) were absent in the hall, so retrieval failed, as in his blanking. Silent revision in the hall-like setting means that the cues at learning match the cues at recall.

Suggestion 2: He should not rely on one context-specific cue (such as music) and should vary where he revises or practise mentally reinstating the exam setting (picturing the silent gym) before recall. Grant et al. showed that matching context benefits recall, so reducing reliance on cues absent in the exam, or recreating them, should improve recall. His observation that he could recall again at his desk shows that the desk context acted as a retrieval cue.

4 marks: 2 x 2 marks, one for each of two suggestions. For each suggestion: 1 mark for a suitable suggestion in context (e.g. revise in silence / in the library or a similar room to the exam hall / drop the music and tea / mentally reinstate the exam context / revise in several places), and 1 mark for an explanation with supporting evidence, e.g. the link to context-dependent forgetting or matching cues at encoding and recall, and/or evidence such as Grant et al. (1998): participants recalled more when learning and testing conditions matched (silent-silent, noisy-noisy) than when they mismatched. Elaboration of the explanation in context (e.g. the playlist and bedroom were cues absent in the hall) can secure the second mark.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other creditworthy responses, including other relevant research such as Godden and Baddeley or Smith, and state-dependent ideas if linked sensibly in context): silent revision; practising past papers in exam-like conditions; mental reinstatement of context; varying revision locations.

Caps/rules: Two suggestions only; mark the first two if more are given. A suggestion without any link to psychological evidence or explanation scores a maximum of 1 mark. Do not credit generic study tips (e.g. start earlier, use flashcards) unless linked to context cues. Evidence that is accurate but not applied to Tomasz can score 1 mark only for that suggestion. The same study cannot be credited twice for identical points; the second suggestion needs a separately developed point.

Grant et al. (1998) had participants read an article either in silence or with background noise and then be tested in the same or a different condition. Those tested in the same context scored higher on short-answer and multiple-choice tests, supporting context-dependent memory: environmental cues present at encoding aid retrieval. Applying this: the student revises with music at home but sits the exam in silence, so the cues are mismatched, explaining the blanking. Suggestion: use the library (quiet) free periods, without the playlist, so the conditions at revision match the silent hall. Weakness: the library is not the hall, so other cues (room, desks, lighting) still differ; also Grant's sample was small and of students, tested on one short passage, so the size of the effect in real exam revision across ten days is uncertain. Better still, if allowed, ask the teacher for time in the hall, though the question asks for one suggestion only.

7 marks: AO1 2, AO2 3, AO3 2 (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses).

Suggestion and explanation (5 marks):
- 1 mark: creditworthy suggestion that matches revision conditions to exam conditions (e.g. revise in silence / in the quiet library / without music / in the hall if possible).
- 1 mark: accurate reference to Grant et al.: participants studied and were tested in same or different conditions (silence vs noise).
- 1 mark: finding: matched contexts gave better recall than mismatched (accept context-dependent memory; environmental cues aid retrieval).
- 2 marks: application in context: student's mismatch (music at home, silence in hall) explains poor mock performance; the suggested change creates a match so cues at encoding are present at retrieval. 1 mark for basic link, 2 for developed, elaborated link to the source.
Generic description of Grant et al. without application to the source: max 2 marks.

Weakness (2 marks): one weakness of the suggestion, 1 mark identified, 1 mark elaborated in context. e.g. library is still not the hall, so other cues differ, limiting the match; Grant's effect was modest and based on a small student sample with a short passage, so generalising to subject-wide revision is uncertain; ignores that music could be an enjoyable aid to motivation; alternative of mental reinstatement of context. Do not credit a weakness of Grant et al. alone with no link to the suggestion (max 1).

Only the first suggestion is credited if more than one is given. A suggestion unrelated to context-dependent memory (e.g. spaced practice) with no link to Grant et al.: max 2 marks.

Model answers (non-exhaustive; other creditworthy psychology-based suggestions accepted).

(a) Announcements [5]: Moray (1959) shows that unattended messages are largely not processed (selective attention in a dichotic listening task); Simons and Chabris (1999) show inattentional blindness when attention is directed elsewhere. Suggestion: pair each platform-change announcement with an attention-grabbing signal (a distinct chime or name of the train first) and a matching message on the departures boards, because passengers attending to phones or conversations will filter out the speech unless a personally relevant cue (like their own destination, as with names in Moray) breaks through. Evaluation: chime may become habituated or annoying; noisy stations still limit effectiveness.

(b) Collapse [6]: Piliavin et al. (1969) found help is more likely when the victim is seen as having a clear, genuine need and when costs of helping are low, with diffusion of responsibility greater in larger groups. Suggestion: display signs and make announcements such as "If you see someone collapse, you can help - call 999 and alert staff by pressing the red help point", and run a campaign showing that emergency help points are easy to use, to reduce the cost of helping; also encourage individuals to be named/pointed at by anyone who first stops ("You, call 999"). Evaluation: Piliavin was in a field setting (high ecological validity) on a New York subway, so may not generalise to UK stations; the effect of signs may fade.

(c) Witness statements [6]: Loftus and Palmer (1974) found that leading verbs ("smashed" vs "hit") changed speed estimates and increased false reports of broken glass a week later. Suggestion: train supervisors to use open, neutral questions ("What did you see?") and to take written statements from witnesses separately before discussion; use CCTV only after statements are taken. Evaluation: lab-based student participants watching films lack the emotional involvement of real witnesses; neutral questioning gives less detail.

(d) Obedience [6]: Milgram (1963) shows high obedience to an authority figure, especially in the presence of status/uniform; Bocchiaro et al. (2012) found most people obeyed an unethical request and fewer disobeyed or blew the whistle, though people over-predicted how they would act. Suggestion: induct all staff, including agency staff, with a short scenario-based module stating that safety rules override any instruction, with an anonymous whistle-blowing line and a named safety officer, and supervisors briefed that they will be disciplined for unsafe orders. Evaluation: Milgram's artefacts and ethical issues; real hierarchy may still intimidate staff, so training alone may be insufficient.

(e) Children [6]: Bandura et al. (1961) showed children imitate the behaviour of an observed model, particularly same-sex models; Chaney et al. (2004) showed that features of the environment (a fun device) could change children's behaviour towards health goals. Suggestion: use teenage or young-adult staff or well-liked ambassadors to model walking on the stairs and putting litter in bins, and praise or reward (stickers) children who copy, plus colourful bins or a game attached to them. Evaluation: Bandura's findings were from short-term nursery-school lab sessions with mostly white American children, and the effect on real behaviour is uncertain; vicarious reinforcement helps.

(f) Training [6]: Grant et al. (1998) found recall was better when learning and recall contexts matched (silent-silent or noise-noise), showing context-dependent memory. Suggestion: run part of the emergency training on the real concourse, or play recorded concourse noise in the training room, so retrieval cues from the learning environment are present when the procedures are needed. Evaluation: noise may reduce initial learning; Grant's sample was small and used short passages so may not generalise to complex procedures; real concourse training disrupts passengers.

Total 35 marks: (a) 5, (b) 6, (c) 6, (d) 6, (e) 6, (f) 6. Questions are marked for AO2 (application to the source) and AO3 (evaluation/ justification) with AO1 for accurate knowledge.

Parts (b)-(f) (6 marks each), level of response:
Level 3 (5-6): Good. A clear, practical suggestion that is firmly in context; accurate and detailed use of named evidence (findings and/or method) to explain why it would work; good evaluation or justification of the suggestion (a strength or weakness, or why it might not work). Coherent and well-reasoned.
Level 2 (3-4): Reasonable. A suggestion in context with some accurate use of evidence; explanation or evaluation may be partial or generic.
Level 1 (1-2): Basic/limited. A vague or generic suggestion, or accurate description of a study with little or no link to the source.
0: No creditworthy content.

Part (a) (5 marks): Suggestion in context (1); named evidence, e.g. Moray or Simons and Chabris, with accurate finding (1-2); elaboration of why the suggestion would work in the station (1); strength or weakness of the suggestion (1).

Alternative approach: candidates may instead give two shorter suggestions; award by level of the better-developed suggestion and do not double-reward. Only the first suggestion is marked if more than one is given where "one" is specified (apply rubric to first suggestion only, but credit any developed second suggestion for evaluation only if relevant).

Indicative content (non-exhaustive, accept other appropriate studies and suggestions): (a) use of salient cues, visual-auditory duplication, personalised alerts (Moray; Simons and Chabris). (b) clear help points, signage, announcements naming roles to reduce diffusion of responsibility, visible staff (Piliavin). (c) neutral open questions, separated witnesses, avoiding leading verbs (Loftus and Palmer). (d) induction training, anonymous reporting line, empowered staff, supervisor accountability (Milgram; Bocchiaro). (e) positive peer/older role models, rewarding imitation (Bandura; Chaney). (f) training in matching context, or reinstating cues (Grant).

Caps/exclusions: A description of a study without application to the source is capped at Level 1. No credit for suggestions that rely only on common sense without any psychological link. Evidence from a study not on the specification list is acceptable if accurately used, since Section C is open. Do not credit unethical suggestions (e.g. deception of passengers) unless justified in context.

Indicative answer.

Strengths: (1) Context-dependent memory. Grant et al. (1998) found that participants who read a passage in silence and were tested in silence recalled more than those in mismatched conditions (noise at learning, silence at test or vice versa). Recall improves when external cues at learning match those at recall, so quizzing in the hall (same desks, clock, acoustics) provides matching cues for the exam. (2) Source evidence: the sports-hall group's mock average was a few marks higher and students described the hall as 'weirdly normal', suggesting familiarity. (3) Practical and cheap: using an existing room, with an easily operationalised change. (4) Retrieval practice via weekly quizzes is itself beneficial, and the design also lets students rehearse exam routines.

Weaknesses: (1) Confounding: the hall group also received extra handouts, so the higher average cannot be attributed to the venue (low internal validity). (2) Tiny, single-school, opportunity sample; difference of only a few marks, no statistical test, so it is hard to generalise. (3) Grant's study used a small sample of 39 and a short passage and a short-answer and multiple-choice test, with limited ecological validity; effects may be small compared with other factors, and other research suggests context effects are weaker for recognition than recall. (4) Individual differences and anxiety: one student felt tense at the desks; the Yerkes-Dodson idea suggests high arousal may impair performance, and repeated exposure may either habituate or sensitise. (5) Diaries are subjective and open to social desirability. (6) Practicality: hall availability, supervision and cost, and different exam venues may differ from the sports hall. (7) Alternative: mental reinstatement of context could achieve similar benefits.

Judgement: the suggestion is reasonable and supported by theory, but the evidence in the source is too weak to justify a whole-school change without a better-controlled trial (same handouts, larger random sample, repeated across groups).

10 marks, AO3 (evaluation, 10 marks); levels-of-response. Credit is for evaluation of the suggestion IN CONTEXT of the source, with supporting evidence.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Good evaluation. Several well-developed strengths and weaknesses, balanced, clearly applied to the source and supported by accurate psychological evidence (e.g. Grant et al. 1998) and reasoning. A supported judgement/conclusion is expected for the top of the level. Clear, relevant and logical.
Level 3 (5-7 marks): Reasonable evaluation. Some developed strengths and/or weaknesses with some use of the source and/or evidence; may be less balanced or lack a judgement.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Limited evaluation. Mostly undeveloped or generic points, little link to the source; evidence may be inaccurate or only outlined.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic. Isolated, undeveloped points or description of the suggestion only; little relevance.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses): matched cues and Grant et al. (1998); higher mock average and 'weirdly normal' diary entry; confounding by extra handouts; small, single-school, unrepresentative sample; subjective diary data; anxiety/individual differences (tense student); limited ecological validity or small effects in context research; practicality and cost; alternative of mental reinstatement; need for improved trial design.

Notes: Description of Grant et al. without link to evaluating the suggestion should not exceed Level 2. Points about the source must use detail from it to be credited as in context. Do not credit evaluation of a different suggestion. Quality of extended response (asterisk) is considered when placing within a level.

Choose two definitions, e.g. (1) Statistical infrequency: behaviour or characteristics are abnormal if they are statistically rare, i.e. fall at the extremes of a normal distribution (for example a very low IQ score), and are measured against a population average. (2) Deviation from social norms: behaviour is abnormal if it breaks the unspoken standards of acceptable behaviour in a society, such as talking to oneself loudly in public or showing no response to a bereavement. Limitation (either definition): statistical infrequency labels desirable rare traits, such as a very high IQ, as abnormal; deviation from social norms is culturally and historically relative, so what is abnormal in one society may be normal in another.

AO1 = 4 marks, AO3 = 1 mark. Award up to 2 marks for each definition (max 4): 1 mark for a limited or partial outline (e.g. 'behaviour that is rare'), 2 marks for an accurate outline with elaboration or an example. Award 1 mark for one valid limitation of either definition, which must be linked to the definition chosen (a generic criticism with no link scores 0). Creditworthy definitions include statistical infrequency, deviation from social norms, failure to function adequately, deviation from ideal mental health. Do not credit the same definition twice. Only the first two definitions outlined are credited; the limitation may be of either of them. Indicative content is non-exhaustive: accept other appropriate responses. A list of names of definitions without outline scores a maximum of 1 mark per definition. Examples may be used as elaboration but do not replace an outline.

Failure to function adequately: abnormality is judged by whether a person can cope with the demands of everyday life. Marcus cannot hold down work, maintain self-care or manage finances, so he is failing to function adequately. Deviation from social norms: abnormality is behaviour that breaks the unwritten rules of a society. Most adults are expected to wash, work and keep in contact with others, so Marcus's long-term withdrawal and self-neglect deviate from these norms. (Deviation from ideal mental health, e.g. lack of a realistic view of himself, or statistical infrequency may be credited instead.)

AO1/AO2. Maximum 4 marks: two definitions, each worth up to 2 marks.
For each definition: 1 mark for a correct outline of the definition (AO1); 1 mark for applying it in context to Marcus's behaviour (AO2).
Creditworthy definitions: failure to function adequately; deviation from social norms; deviation from ideal mental health; statistical infrequency. Accept other appropriate definitions.
A definition given without application scores a maximum of 1 mark. Application without a recognisable definition scores 0 for that definition. Only the first two definitions given are credited. Marcus's claim that he feels fine may be used as in-context elaboration (e.g. lack of insight is not required by the definitions) but is not required for full marks. Do not credit a diagnosis (e.g. depression) alone. Indicative content is non-exhaustive; allow other appropriate responses.

Gottesman et al. used Danish register data on over a million people born in Denmark. They found that the risk of developing schizophrenia and other psychiatric disorders was higher for people who had one affected parent than for those with none, and higher again for those with two affected parents, with a large proportion of the latter developing some disorder by middle age. This supports a genetic explanation because risk rises in line with the amount of genetic material shared with affected relatives (a dose-like effect), suggesting that vulnerability to mental illness is inherited. A reasoned limitation is that the findings are correlational and parents also provide a shared environment, so the findings do not prove that genes alone cause illness.

AO1 (findings) and AO3 (explanation of support). Maximum 4 marks.
Up to 2 marks for description of findings: e.g. risk of disorder higher with one affected parent than none (1); higher still with two affected parents (1); a substantial percentage of offspring of two affected parents developed a disorder by adulthood/middle age (1); risk applied to a range of disorders, not just the same disorder as the parent (1). Credit accurate figures if given, but they are not required.
Up to 2 marks for explanation: genetic risk increases with the number of affected parents/amount of shared genes (1); elaboration, e.g. this is what would be expected if vulnerability is inherited, a larger sample and register data give a reliable basis for the pattern (1).
Maximum 2 marks if only findings or only explanation are given. Do not credit general statements about the genetic explanation that are not linked to the study. Accept other appropriate responses.

The definition says behaviour is abnormal when a person cannot cope with the ordinary demands of daily life. Marta has stopped working, no longer looks after herself and has withdrawn from others, so she meets this criterion. A limitation is that Marta does not feel distressed or want help, so the judgement is made by others and is subjective; what counts as adequate functioning also differs between cultures and contexts.

AO2 (application) 2 marks, AO3 (evaluation) 1 mark.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; other appropriate responses creditworthy):
- 1 mark: identification of the definition in context, e.g. inability to cope with the demands of daily life / unable to maintain work or self-care.
- 1 mark: elaboration with reference to Marta, e.g. has not been to work for six weeks, no longer washes or cooks, withdrawn from social contact, so these show failure to function.
- 1 mark: one valid limitation, in context or not, e.g. who judges 'adequate' is subjective / Marta says she is not distressed so her own view conflicts with the judgement; cultural relativism in what is 'adequate'; some people with disorders function adequately (so false negatives); the definition does not explain the cause or distinguish disorders.

Rules: a generic definition with no reference to Marta gains a maximum of 1 mark for the application strand. Do not credit 'deviation from social norms' or other definitions of abnormality for the first two marks. If more than one limitation is given, credit the first only. Limitation needs development beyond a bare label such as 'subjective' for the mark.

(a) 45% of 60 = 0.45 x 60 = 27 pairs.
(b) MZ twins share 100% of their genes and DZ twins about 50%. The much higher concordance in MZ twins (45% against 15%) supports a genetic explanation. However, 55% of MZ pairs are not concordant even though they have identical genes, so non-genetic factors (e.g. stress, upbringing) must also play a part.

AO2 (quantitative) 1 mark, AO3 2 marks.

(a) 1 mark: 27 (accept 0.45 x 60 or 45/100 x 60 = 27 for the mark only if the answer 27 is shown or clearly implied). Answer alone of 27 gains the mark.

(b) 2 marks:
- 1 mark: conclusion linked to the data, e.g. MZ twins (identical genes) show higher concordance (45%) than DZ twins (15%), so genes play a role / supports the genetic explanation of the medical model.
- 1 mark: one reason the disorder is not purely genetic, e.g. concordance in MZ twins is less than 100%, so environmental factors must contribute; MZ twins may share more similar environments, so the difference could be environmental; diathesis-stress.

Rules: the conclusion must refer to the findings in this table, not generic statements about genes. Do not credit 'the sample is small' alone as it does not address the causal claim. Allow other appropriate responses.

A strong answer states what the findings show and then weighs how far they can be trusted. Conclusion: all pseudopatients were admitted on a single reported symptom and none was detected by staff, so diagnosis in these hospitals seemed unreliable and heavily influenced by the setting. In the follow-up, many genuine patients were judged to be impostors, so staff were also making errors in the other direction (false positives for 'sane'), suggesting that judgements depend on expectation rather than objective criteria. This supports the view that labels, once applied, shape how behaviour is interpreted. Limitations: only a small number of pseudopatients and twelve hospitals, all in the USA, limit generalisability. Pseudopatients were not genuinely ill and the reported symptom was a recognised one, so staff may have acted reasonably in admitting them. In the follow-up, no pseudopatients were actually sent, so the 'impostor' ratings are not true errors, and the study used covert observation by researchers who were also the participants, which risks bias. Diagnostic criteria have changed since the 1970s, which lowers the validity of the conclusion today. The deception of staff raises ethical concerns.

6 marks, AO3 (assessment/evaluation) with AO2 for application to the findings. Mark holistically using levels.

Level 3 (5-6 marks) Good: at least one clear, reasoned conclusion and at least one clear limitation, both explicitly linked to the findings given (admission of all pseudopatients, undetected sanity, impostor ratings in the follow-up). Assessment is balanced, well developed and uses appropriate terminology (e.g. reliability, validity, generalisability, labelling). 6 marks if both sides are developed with elaboration and supporting evidence; 5 marks if one side is less developed.

Level 2 (3-4 marks) Reasonable: a conclusion and/or a limitation with some elaboration, with reasonable link to the findings. May be one-sided but well developed (max 4), or both sides present but brief.

Level 1 (1-2 marks) Limited/basic: generic comment about the study or diagnosis with little or no link to the findings, or a list of undeveloped points.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Indicative content (not exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses): conclusions - diagnosis unreliable; context and labels bias interpretation; normal behaviour seen as symptomatic; expectation causes errors both ways; supports Szasz-style criticism of diagnosis. Limitations - small, unrepresentative sample/hospitals, USA only (ethnocentrism); pseudopatients not genuine patients; reported symptom was valid for admission; no real pseudopatients in follow-up, so ratings not true errors; researcher bias and covert observation; ecological validity of findings for modern diagnosis (DSM changes); ethical issues of deception.

Notes: Description of the study with no assessment capped at Level 1. Credit only points made about the findings quoted in the question or clearly linked to them. A response giving only conclusions or only limitations is capped at 4.

A good answer would define each approach briefly, then evaluate both.

Statistical infrequency: abnormality is behaviour that is statistically rare, for example scores in the extreme tails of a normal distribution. Strengths: objective, quantifiable and easy to apply (e.g. IQ below 70 is used as one indicator of intellectual disability); it can be used in diagnosis alongside other criteria. Weaknesses: rare positive characteristics (very high IQ) are not disorders; common conditions such as depression or anxiety may not be rare, so they would be missed; the cut-off point is arbitrary; it ignores the person's distress and ability to function; norms differ between cultures and eras.

Deviation from ideal mental health: abnormality is the absence of criteria such as autonomy, self-actualisation, accurate perception of reality and environmental mastery. Strengths: positive, holistic focus on wellbeing rather than only symptoms; gives a broad set of criteria that can guide therapy goals. Weaknesses: very few people would meet all criteria, so almost everyone would be classed as abnormal; criteria are hard to measure objectively; they are culturally biased (e.g. emphasis on autonomy and individual achievement is Western); ideals change over time.

Evidence: Rosenhan (1973) showed that the label 'abnormal' was applied to pseudo-patients by staff who failed to detect that they were sane, and that normal behaviour was then reinterpreted as pathological. This suggests that judgements about deviation are subjective and context-dependent, and that definitions and diagnosis can lack validity. Critics note that the study has issues of its own, e.g. deception and the lack of generalisability from a small number of hospitals.

Conclusion: neither approach is sufficient alone; most clinicians combine several criteria (including distress and dysfunction), which improves validity but does not remove cultural and historical bias.

AO1 = 3 marks (knowledge and understanding of the two definitions); AO3 = 7 marks (analysis, evaluation, evidence, judgement). Use levels of response; the asterisk means quality of extended response is also considered.

Level 4 (9-10 marks): Good. Both definitions are accurately outlined and evaluated in a balanced way, with relevant supporting evidence or examples (e.g. Rosenhan 1973, IQ cut-offs, ideal mental health criteria, cultural variation). Evaluation is developed, in context and reasoned, with a supported judgement or conclusion. Answer is clear, coherent and well organised; specialist terminology is used accurately.
Level 3 (6-8 marks): Reasonable. Both definitions are outlined with reasonable evaluation, though one may be less developed, or the evidence may be limited. Some elaboration of points; a conclusion may be partial. Mostly clear.
Level 2 (3-5 marks): Limited. Knowledge of at least one definition is shown; evaluation is limited, undeveloped or mostly assertion. Little or no supporting evidence. Some lack of clarity.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic. Some relevant knowledge of abnormality but evaluation is minimal or absent. Answer may be list-like or lack focus.
0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Caps and rules: if only one definition is addressed, maximum Level 2 (5 marks). A response that only describes with no evaluation is capped at Level 2 (4 marks). Definitions other than the two named (e.g. failure to function adequately) are not credited, unless used as a comparison that is explicitly linked to evaluating the named definitions.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses):
- Statistical infrequency: objective and quantifiable; used in diagnosis (e.g. IQ); fails to distinguish desirable from undesirable rarity; common disorders missed; arbitrary cut-off; ignores distress; cultural and historical norms.
- Deviation from ideal mental health: positive approach; holistic; criteria such as autonomy and environmental mastery; few meet all criteria; hard to measure; cultural bias; changes over time.
- Evidence: Rosenhan (1973) on subjectivity of labelling and validity of diagnosis; also its limitations (deception, ethics, small sample); other relevant research or real-world examples of cultural differences.
- Issues and debates: validity, reliability, ethnocentrism, usefulness, socially sensitive research, subjectivity versus objectivity.
- Conclusion: use of multiple criteria improves validity but problems remain.

Model answer outline. Procedure: Gibson and Walk placed infants aged 6 to 14 months on the centre board of a visual cliff, a glass-topped table with a patterned surface directly under the glass on the 'shallow' side and the same pattern several feet below the glass on the 'deep' side. The infant's mother called the infant from each side in turn. Findings: most infants crawled to the mother across the shallow side, but only a small minority crossed the deep side; many refused, or cried, and looked down through the glass. This suggests that depth perception is present once infants can crawl, so it appears to develop early and may be at least partly innate (although the infants had already had some visual experience, so learning cannot be ruled out). Application: the nursery could use the transparent-covered platform and the height changes as safe, mini visual-cliff experiences. Babies could be encouraged by a carer or parent calling or holding a toy at the far side of a drop or ramp, so that they explore depth cues such as texture gradient and relative size. Play should be supervised, with soft landing surfaces, and should be graded from shallow to deeper changes as babies gain crawling experience. Observing whether babies hesitate at edges can show who is using depth cues. Limitation: crawling babies already show avoidance, so the strategy mainly refines depth perception rather than creates it, and individual differences in crawling experience should be allowed for.

10 marks: AO1 = 4, AO2 = 6. Levels of response, marked holistically. Descriptions of the study must be accurate; application must be in context (the nursery, soft-play room, 6 to 12-month-olds).

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Good description of the procedure and findings (e.g. visual cliff apparatus, infants aged 6-14 months, mother calling from shallow and deep sides, most infants crawled across the shallow side but very few across the deep side) AND a well-developed, coherent play strategy applied to the soft-play room, clearly linked to the findings with reasoning (e.g. safe cliff-like drops, carer encouragement, graded height changes, supervision). Clear, relevant, accurate use of terminology.
Level 3 (5-7 marks): Reasonable description with some detail and a reasonable, contextualised strategy; the link between findings and strategy may be partly developed or one part is stronger than the other.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Limited description and/or a limited strategy that is only partly in context or only generally linked to the study.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, mostly general statements about depth perception or play, with little reference to the study or the nursery.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses): visual cliff apparatus; sample of 36 infants aged 6-14 months (accept approximate sample details); mother calling; most crawled on shallow side, few on deep side; depth perception present early/nature; avoidance suggests infants perceive depth. Application: graded drops/ramps, use of the transparent platform, calling or toys to encourage exploration, supervision and safety, observation of hesitation, varied textures and patterns for depth cues, evaluation of the strategy (e.g. babies already show depth avoidance; individual differences in crawling experience; ethics of distress). Credit supporting evidence beyond the study where relevant. Marks for the asterisked response also reflect quality of written communication within the level.

Model answer outline. Procedure: Lewis et al. studied people with Parkinson's disease who took part in social dance sessions. Their mood was measured with a self-report mood scale before and after the sessions, allowing a comparison of mood across time. Findings: mood was more positive after the dance sessions than before, for example lower negative mood such as tension and depression and greater positive mood. This suggests that exercise in a social, music-based form can improve psychological wellbeing in people with a movement-limiting condition. Application: the manager could run seated or low-impact dance sessions set to music, which are accessible to adults with limited movement. Because the adults are anxious about exercising alone, the group and social element is important: partner or circle formats, a friendly instructor and time for conversation might reduce anxiety and increase enjoyment and adherence. A regular weekly slot builds routine. Mood could be monitored with a short mood scale before and after each session, as in the study. Evaluation: the findings come from a specific clinical group and may not generalise; self-report mood measures may be affected by social desirability; it is hard to separate the effects of exercise, music and social contact, so the programme may work for more than one reason.

10 marks: AO1 = 4, AO2 = 6. Levels of response, marked holistically. Description must be accurate; application must be in context (older adults, low mood, limited movement, anxiety about exercising alone, weekly community centre programme).

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Good description of the procedure and findings (e.g. social dance sessions, people with Parkinson's disease, mood measured before and after sessions, mood improved) AND a well-developed, coherent exercise strategy for the community centre clearly linked to the findings with reasoning (e.g. low-impact/seated group dance, social element reducing anxiety, regular sessions, monitoring mood). Clear, relevant, accurate use of terminology.
Level 3 (5-7 marks): Reasonable description and a reasonable contextualised strategy; the link to the findings may be partly developed or one part is stronger than the other.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Limited description and/or a limited strategy only partly in context or generally linked to the study.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic, mostly general statements about exercise and mood, with little reference to the study or the centre.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; accept other appropriate responses): Lewis et al. - social dance, Parkinson's disease, repeated measures of mood before and after sessions, improvement in mood. Application: adapted/low-impact or seated dance, group format to reduce anxiety of exercising alone, music, regular schedule, monitoring mood, instructor trained for health conditions, social support. Evaluation of the strategy: generalisability from a clinical sample, social desirability in self-report, confounding of exercise with music and social contact, no long-term follow-up. Credit supporting evidence beyond the study where relevant. Do not credit detail about the study that is clearly incorrect. Marks for the asterisked response also reflect quality of written communication within the level.

A good answer evaluates the procedure rather than only describing it, using supporting evidence and in-context reference to the lambs and infants in the scenario.

Possible strengths: (1) Standardised, controlled apparatus (glass-covered patterned surface) gives high internal validity and allows replication. (2) The behavioural DV (side chosen, latency to cross) avoids the need for language, suitable for babies and animals. (3) Using non-human animals (e.g. chicks, kids, lambs, as in Gibson and Walk) allows testing at the very first opportunity, before learning, supporting a nativist view; this would be unethical in humans. (4) Evidence converges across species, adding support. (5) Quantitative data (percentage choosing the shallow side) are easy to compare.

Possible weaknesses: (1) Infants old enough to crawl (about 6 to 14 months) have had visual experience, so the findings cannot separate nature from nurture; later work with younger infants using heart rate suggested depth sensitivity but fear develops with locomotor experience. (2) Avoidance may reflect fear or poor motor skill, or reluctance to cross glass, not depth perception; construct validity is questionable. (3) Small, often opportunity, samples from one culture, limiting generalisability; animals may not generalise to humans. (4) Artificial laboratory, parent calling to the infant creates demand-type and social referencing effects, low ecological validity. (5) Ethical issues: distress to infants, restricted rearing and stress in animals, consent from parents only. (6) Reductionist and deterministic simplification of perception.

A judgement (e.g. useful for evidencing early depth perception but limited for separating innate from learned) should be reached.

15 marks: AO1 3, AO3 12 (non-exhaustive). Level descriptors, with the AO weighting applied across the answer:

Level 4 (good) 13-15: Detailed, accurate knowledge of the visual cliff and related infant/animal studies, used in context. Several well-developed evaluative points (at least both strengths and weaknesses) supported by evidence, with reasoned judgement/conclusion. Clear, logical, well-structured, accurate terminology.

Level 3 (reasonable) 9-12: Mostly accurate knowledge. Some developed evaluation, perhaps unbalanced, with some supporting evidence and some context. Some reasoning but conclusion limited.

Level 2 (limited) 5-8: Limited knowledge; evaluation is mainly stated points with little elaboration or evidence; little reference to context.

Level 1 (basic) 1-4: Basic, generic or descriptive statements; little or no evaluation; may be muddled.

0: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (see solution): standardisation/control, non-verbal DV, animals for ethical testing, nature-nurture confound, motor/fear confound, sample size/generalisability, ecological validity, ethics, reductionism. Other appropriate responses creditable. Description of the procedure with no evaluation caps at Level 2. Evidence must be psychological (e.g. Gibson and Walk findings, heart-rate studies); purely anecdotal evidence limits to Level 2. Credit only points relevant to perceptual development.

A good answer evaluates Lewis et al. (2014) as evidence for exercise and mental health, using findings and in-context reference to the health team's question.

Possible strengths: (1) Repeated measures (before and after each session) controls individual differences between participants. (2) The sample are people with Parkinson's disease, the target population for the health team's decision, so findings are relevant and have population validity for that group. (3) Standardised mood measures give quantitative data that are easy to compare and replicate. (4) Sessions took place in a real community setting, giving good ecological validity. (5) Findings that mood improved are consistent with wider research on exercise and mood (e.g. endorphin and neurotransmitter explanations), giving support. (6) Applied value: low-cost, accessible intervention for a vulnerable group.

Possible weaknesses: (1) Self-report is open to social desirability and demand characteristics; participants may report feeling better because they expect to. (2) No control group, so improvement cannot be attributed to exercise alone; social contact, music and enjoyment are confounding variables. (3) Only short-term change was measured, so long-term mental health benefits cannot be concluded. (4) Small sample of one condition limits generalisation to other disorders and cultures. (5) Ethical care is needed with vulnerable participants (consent, right to withdraw, fatigue). (6) Mood is not the same as clinical mental health measures.

A judgement should be reached, e.g. promising but limited evidence to justify funding without longer-term controlled research.

15 marks: AO1 3, AO3 12 (non-exhaustive). Level descriptors, with the AO weighting applied across the answer:

Level 4 (good) 13-15: Detailed, accurate knowledge of Lewis et al. (2014) (aim, design, sample, measures, findings) used in context. Several well-developed evaluative points, both strengths and weaknesses, supported by evidence, with a reasoned judgement. Clear, logical, accurate terminology.

Level 3 (reasonable) 9-12: Mostly accurate knowledge. Some developed evaluation, perhaps unbalanced, with some evidence and some link to context. Some reasoning; judgement limited.

Level 2 (limited) 5-8: Limited knowledge. Evaluation mostly stated with little elaboration or evidence; little context.

Level 1 (basic) 1-4: Basic, generic statements; little or no evaluation; may be muddled or describe only.

0: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (see solution): repeated measures, target-population sample, quantitative standardised measures, ecological validity, self-report bias, no control group/confounds, short-term only, sample size/generalisability, ethics, link to wider exercise research. Other appropriate responses creditable. Description only without evaluation caps at Level 2. Evaluation of a different study (not Lewis et al.) can be credited only where used as supporting evidence for an evaluative point; an answer entirely about other studies cannot exceed Level 2.

A good answer proposes one developed strategy (or several supported ones) that is specific to the nursery context and explains why it should work.

Example strategy: Create a low 'depth-play' zone. (1) A low platform (about 20 cm) topped with clear acrylic over a patterned fabric, so the child sees an apparent drop but is physically safe; staff sit on the 'deep' side and encourage crawling or walking across using favourite toys. (2) Patterned and textured mats of different sizes and contrasts placed at varying distances to give pictorial depth cues (texture gradient, relative size, interposition). (3) Ball-rolling and reaching games where balls of different sizes are rolled at different speeds/distances, with staff naming 'near' and 'far' to link the perception with action. (4) Gradual progression: start with shallow, familiar drops, increase difficulty as confidence rises; children who avoid the black tile are not forced but are shown adults and peers crossing (social referencing).

Justification: Gibson and Walk (1960) used the visual cliff with infants aged 6-14 months and found most would not cross the deep side even when their mother called, suggesting depth perception is present once infants can crawl; it therefore makes sense to use a visual-cliff-like set-up to give safe practice, and the hesitation seen at the platform edge fits with fear of drops developing with locomotor experience. Animal versions of the cliff (e.g. chicks, lambs, kittens) suggest the ability is partly innate but is refined by experience, supporting the use of play to strengthen it. Binocular cues, motion parallax and pictorial cues develop at different rates, so varied cues and moving objects are justified. Evaluation: the visual cliff measures avoidance, which may reflect fear or learning from experience rather than depth perception alone; strategy should therefore be gradual and not forceful; individual differences between children mean progress will vary.

AO1 (knowledge of perceptual development/research) = 3 marks; AO2 (application to the nursery scenario) = 4 marks; AO3 (justification/evaluation of the strategy) = 3 marks. Mark as a levelled response; award the level first, then the mark within it.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Good. A clear, workable and detailed play strategy that is fully in context (age group, platform, tile, ball-catching difficulties, safe/inexpensive materials). Accurate, detailed use of supporting research (e.g. Gibson and Walk, 1960, visual cliff; animal studies; depth cues; role of experience/locomotion) is used to justify how and why the strategy should work. Reasoning is coherent and any evaluative point (e.g. limits of the evidence, individual differences, safety/gradual exposure) is developed. Few or no errors.
Level 3 (6-7 marks): Reasonable. A sensible strategy with some contextual detail. Research is accurate and mostly relevant but justification is not fully developed, or application to context is partial.
Level 2 (3-5 marks): Limited. A generic strategy (e.g. 'play with balls and different surfaces') with limited links to the scenario OR research described with little link to the strategy. Some inaccuracy or lack of clarity.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic. Little more than a simple, undeveloped idea or isolated facts about perception; minimal relevance.
0 marks: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; other appropriate responses creditworthy): visual-cliff style transparent platform; varied textures/patterns to provide depth cues; ball-rolling/reaching games; graded exposure; adult encouragement/social referencing; Gibson and Walk (1960); animal studies; nature/nurture interplay; role of crawling/locomotor experience; cue development (binocular, kinetic, pictorial); ethical/safety considerations for children; evaluation of the research (validity, ethnocentrism, small samples, fear versus depth perception).

Rules: Do not credit unsafe strategies (e.g. real heights) unless safeguards are given. Research must be from relevant perceptual development evidence; unnamed but accurately described research is creditworthy. Strategies not linked to depth/distance perception (e.g. colour naming only) cap at Level 2. Quality of extended response is assessed within the levels.

A good answer gives a specific, realistic strategy for this group and explains why it should improve mental health.

Example strategy: Run three 45-minute group sessions per week for 12 weeks, mixing social dance and brisk, low-impact walking circuits in the hall. Begin at light-to-moderate intensity with 10-minute warm-ups and chair-based alternatives for those with joint pain, increasing duration and intensity gradually. Use music with a steady rhythm, partner or circle formats so people interact, and welcoming instructors in place of a gym setting to reduce self-consciousness. Attendees complete a brief mood rating before and after each session and a monthly wellbeing check to monitor progress and give feedback. Goals are set jointly to encourage adherence.

Justification: Lewis et al. (2014) found that social dance sessions improved mood in people with Parkinson's disease, suggesting that group dance can bring mood benefits to a group with physical limitations; the social and rhythmic elements may add to benefits beyond exercise alone. Biological explanations: exercise raises endorphin levels, increases serotonin and dopamine activity and reduces cortisol, which can reduce stress and low mood, so moderate-intensity, regular sessions are appropriate. Regularity and duration matter, so a 12-week plan with repeat sessions is justified. Evaluation: Lewis et al. used a clinical sample, so generalising to adults with low mood is limited; mood measures are self-report and subject to social desirability; improvement might be due to social contact rather than exercise; attendees chose to participate, so motivation may be higher than in the general population.

AO1 (knowledge of exercise/mental health research and explanations) = 3 marks; AO2 (application to the community-centre scenario) = 4 marks; AO3 (justification/evaluation) = 3 marks. Mark as a levelled response; award the level first, then the mark within it.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Good. A clear, detailed and workable exercise strategy that is in context (older adults, low mood/stress, limited experience, joint pain, self-consciousness, budget/hall, three months). Specifies features such as type, frequency, duration, intensity and progression. Accurate and detailed research and/or biological explanation (e.g. Lewis et al., 2014; endorphins, serotonin, cortisol) is used to justify each feature. Reasoning is coherent and includes developed evaluative comment. Few or no errors.
Level 3 (6-7 marks): Reasonable. A sensible strategy with some contextual detail and some specified features. Research/explanations are accurate and relevant but justification is less developed or evaluation is limited.
Level 2 (3-5 marks): Limited. A generic strategy (e.g. 'do more exercise') with few specified features, or research described with limited link to the strategy. Some inaccuracy or lack of clarity.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic. A simple, undeveloped idea or isolated facts; minimal relevance to the scenario.
0 marks: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content (non-exhaustive; other appropriate responses creditworthy): group social dance; walking; chair-based/low-impact adaptations; moderate intensity; 2-3 sessions per week; progression; social support and enjoyment; adherence strategies (goal setting, feedback); Lewis et al. (2014); endorphin, serotonin, dopamine and cortisol explanations; monitoring mood with self-report scales; evaluation (sample type, self-report bias, confounding social contact, correlation versus cause, individual differences).

Rules: Strategies must be exercise-based; purely non-exercise interventions (e.g. counselling only) cap at Level 1. Strategies that ignore the group's age/physical limits and give no justification cap at Level 2. Unnamed but accurately described research is creditworthy. Quality of extended response is assessed within the levels.