2026 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) Practice Paper with Answers

Participants in the doodling group received an A4 sheet with alternating rows of squares and circles (10 per row) and a pencil. They were asked to shade in the shapes and told that it did not matter how neatly or quickly they did this, or whether they completed the sheet, as it was just something to relieve their boredom while listening to the phone message.

1 mark per correct detail/instruction outlined (up to 2 marks).

- Asked to shade in printed shapes (circles and squares) (1)
- Told it did not matter how neatly / quickly they did it (1)
- Told it was simply something to relieve boredom (1)
- Instructed to listen to the tape recording / write down the names of people attending (1)

Note: Do not credit simply 'they were told to doodle' without elaboration.

In the computerised CID task, participants imagined themselves as the central figure displayed on a computer screen. An animated figure/stranger approached them from different directions (or the participant approached the figure), and the participant had to press a key (the spacebar) to stop the approach when they began to feel uncomfortable with the closeness. The percentage of remaining distance was calculated as the measure of preferred interpersonal distance.

1 mark for identifying the participant stopped the approaching figure / pressed a key (1).
1 mark for explaining that it measured the distance at which they felt uncomfortable / percentage of total distance remaining (1).

Male rhesus monkeys exhibited a strong and statistically significant preference for wheeled (masculine) toys over plush (feminine) toys. For instance, males had a significantly higher frequency of interactions with wheeled toys compared to plush toys, whereas females did not show a significant preference for plush toys over wheeled toys.

1 mark for stating that male monkeys preferred wheeled toys over plush toys (1).
1 mark for supporting data/operational detail (e.g. higher frequency of interaction / longer duration of contact / comparison to plush toys) (1).

Bandura et al. recorded specific verbal phrases uttered by the model as imitative verbal aggression when repeated by the children. These included phrases such as 'Sock him', 'Hit them down', 'Throw him in the air', 'Kick him', and 'Pow'.

1 mark per correct identified example of imitative verbal aggression (up to 2 marks).

Examples include:
- 'Sock him in the nose' / 'Sock him' (1)
- 'Hit him down' / 'Hit them down' (1)
- 'Throw him in the air' (1)
- 'Kick him' (1)
- 'Pow' (1)

Reject: Non-imitative verbal aggression (e.g., 'He keeps coming back for more', 'He's a tough fella') = 0.

The aim was to explore whether an 8-week Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programme would produce structural neuroplastic changes by examining longitudinal changes in regional grey matter concentration (such as in the hippocampus, temporo-parietal junction, cerebellum, and amygdala) compared to a waitlist control group.

1 mark for mentioning the 8-week mindfulness programme / MBSR intervention (1).
1 mark for identifying the investigation of structural brain changes / grey matter concentration changes (in specific regions like the hippocampus/amygdala) (1).

The Feelings Thermometer was a 9-point Likert-type rating scale (ranging from 0 to 8). A score of 0 indicated that the boy felt no distress or disgust toward the stimulus, while a score of 8 represented extreme distress/disgust. This hierarchy of distress allowed the researchers to assess his subjective ratings before, during, and after behavioural and disgust-related exposure sessions.

1 mark for identifying that it was a 9-point scale / ranged from 0 to 8 (1).
1 mark for explaining what the scale anchors represented (e.g., 0 = no distress/fear/disgust, 8 = extreme distress/fear/disgust) (1).

Dr Malik can apply the techniques from Saavedra and Silverman in the following ways:
1. Construct a subjective distress hierarchy / 'Feelings Thermometer': Dr Malik can ask the child to rate different balloon-related scenarios on a 9-point scale (from 0 to 8), such as looking at an uninflated balloon (low distress) up to holding a fully inflated balloon (high distress).
2. In vivo behavioural exposure with positive reinforcement: Dr Malik can gradually expose the child to the stimuli on the hierarchy, starting from the least distressing situation and providing praise/rewards (such as stickers or parental praise) for successfully handling the balloon.
3. Imagery exposure and cognitive restructuring: To address evaluative learning/disgust reactions, Dr Malik can instruct the child to imagine handling balloons while practicing pleasant visualisations and verbal self-talk (e.g. imagining balloons floating peacefully), which reduced distress significantly in the Saavedra and Silverman study.

1 mark per distinct point of application up to a maximum of 4 marks (2 marks for identification/description of relevant study feature/procedure, 2 marks for explicit application to the balloon phobia scenario).

Points can include:
- Developing a hierarchy of distress / Feelings Thermometer (0–8 scale) to rate balloon scenarios (1 mark description + 1 mark application).
- In vivo exposure to balloons paired with positive reinforcement from parents/therapist (1 mark description + 1 mark application).
- Imagery exposure / disgust-related cognitive restructuring involving imagining balloons without bursting (1 mark description + 1 mark application).
- Distinction between classical/expectancy fear and evaluative fear/disgust addressed through different treatment phases (1 mark description + 1 mark application).

Sonia can apply Andrade's findings in the following ways:

1. Encourage structured doodling during the audio calls:
Sonia could provide staff with pre-printed sheets containing simple geometric shapes (such as squares and circles) and ask them to shade or doodle while listening. In Andrade's study, doodling participants recalled 29% more information than the control group because doodling maintains cognitive arousal and prevents daydreaming during monotonous auditory tasks.

2. Keep the doodling task passive and non-demanding:
Sonia should ensure the doodling is not an elaborate or demanding drawing task, but rather structured shading. In Andrade's study, simple doodling served as a low-cognitive-load task that did not create dual-task interference with auditory verbal processing, allowing better retention of both monitored details (e.g. names/dates) and incidental information.

For each of two ways (2 marks each = 4 marks total):
- 1 mark: Identification/outline of a relevant finding or procedure from Andrade (e.g. doodling group recalled significantly more names/places; doodling prevents daydreaming / maintains arousal; structured shapes used).
- 1 mark: Explicit application to Sonia's audio conference calls / office meeting context.

Award 0 marks for suggestions that contradict Andrade (e.g. asking staff to draw complex pictures that cause visual-verbal interference).

1. Evidence for the 'nature' explanation:
In Hassett et al., male rhesus monkeys displayed a significant preference for wheeled toys (e.g. trucks/cars) over plush toys, mirroring human boys' preferences. Because monkeys are not exposed to human cultural gender stereotypes, parental reinforcement, or gender-targeted advertising, this preference suggests that sex-typed toy preferences have an innate biological basis, such as prenatal androgen exposure affecting activity levels.

2. Evidence and nuances related to 'nurture':
Female monkeys in Hassett et al. showed flexibility, interacting with both plush and wheeled toys without a single overwhelming preference. This indicates that while biological predispositions (nature) provide a baseline, human socialisation, cultural expectations, and gendered marketing (nurture) likely act upon this flexibility to further amplify and shape rigid sex-specific toy choices observed in older human children.

Level-based or point-based mark allocation (up to 4 marks):
- 1 mark for describing relevant findings from Hassett et al. (e.g. male monkeys preferred wheeled toys; female monkeys interacted with plush and wheeled toys / showed no significant preference).
- 1 mark for linking monkey findings to the nature argument (absence of human socialisation/advertising implies biological or hormonal predispositions).
- 1 mark for explaining the role of nurture / socialisation in human children (how marketing/parental reinforcement interacts with innate tendencies).
- 1 mark for clear evaluation/synthesis linking both nature and nurture perspectives to toy preferences.

The office designer can apply findings from Perry et al. in the following ways:

1. Account for empathy levels in desk spacing:
Perry et al. found that individuals with high empathy preferred significantly closer interpersonal distances (smaller comfortable distance) to people than individuals with low empathy. The designer could create flexible zones, offering open clusters for high-empathy/highly social employees and more generously spaced work bays for low-empathy workers who require a wider personal boundary.

2. Differentiate layouts based on relationship / familiarity:
In Perry et al., participants chose significantly larger personal space distances when approaching a stranger compared to a friend or authority figure. The designer should ensure that communal areas frequented by unfamiliar visitors or across-department staff provide wider walkways and larger physical separation, whereas close-knit project teams can be situated at closer shared tables.

For each point of application (up to 4 marks total, max 2 marks per area):
- 1 mark for identifying a specific finding from Perry et al. (e.g. high empathy leads to smaller preferred distance; oxytocin increases empathy effect; strangers require larger interpersonal distance than friends/authority figures).
- 1 mark for explicitly applying that finding to office desk layout / room design.

Max 2 marks if no reference is made to Perry et al.'s findings (pure common sense layout suggestions).

Recommendations based on Piliavin et al.:

1. Clearly frame passenger collapses as medical emergencies to reduce perceived bystander costs:
Piliavin et al. found that a victim carrying a cane (ill condition) received spontaneous help in 100% of trials with a median response time of 5 seconds, whereas a victim appearing drunk received help in only 73% of trials. The authority could launch information campaigns educating commuters to assume collapsed individuals are suffering a medical emergency rather than intoxication, reducing the perceived social cost/disgust of helping.

2. Provide visible early helper models (e.g. station ambassadors or trained commuters):
Piliavin et al. demonstrated that when a model intervened early (at 70 seconds), it had a stronger effect in prompting other bystanders to help than when the model waited longer (at 150 seconds). The railway authority should station visible staff trained to step forward immediately during an incident, as early action serves as a social cue that prompts nearby passengers to join in assisting.

For each of two recommendations (2 marks each = 4 marks total):
- 1 mark: Outlining a relevant finding from Piliavin et al. (e.g. ill vs drunk victim helping rates/speeds; early vs late model impact; same-race/opposite-race effects; cost-reward model).
- 1 mark: Clear, logical application providing a practical recommendation for the train platform scenario.

Do not award marks for suggestions based on diffusion of responsibility reducing group size, as Piliavin et al. found no diffusion of responsibility in their enclosed setting.

In the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), the mild aggression arousal procedure was conducted as follows:

1. Following the initial observation phase, each child was taken individually to a different room containing highly attractive toys (e.g., a fire engine, locomotive, doll set, and spinning top).
2. The child was permitted to engage and play with these attractive toys for approximately 2 minutes to establish a pleasurable involvement.
3. The experimenter then interrupted the child and told them that they could no longer play with these toys, explaining that they were the experimenter's very best toys and were being reserved for other boys and girls.
4. The child was told they could play with any of the toys in the adjoining room (the experimental test room) and was then escorted there.

Award 1 mark per distinct creditworthy point describing the procedure up to a maximum of 4 marks:

- The participant was taken to a separate room containing attractive toys (1)
- Specific example of attractive toys given (e.g. fire engine, jet fighter, doll set, spinning top, doll carriage) (1)
- The child was allowed to play with the toys for a short period of time / for 2 minutes (1)
- The experimenter told the child they had to stop playing / could not play with them anymore (1)
- The experimenter stated that these were her very best toys / she did not let just anyone play with them / they were reserved for other children (1)
- The child was told that they were allowed to play with any of the toys in the other/next room (1)

In the study by Bandura et al. (aggression), the mild aggression arousal procedure was conducted as follows:

1. Following the initial observation phase, each child was taken individually to a different room containing highly attractive toys (e.g., a fire engine, locomotive, doll set, and spinning top).
2. The child was permitted to engage and play with these attractive toys for approximately 2 minutes to establish a pleasurable involvement.
3. The experimenter then interrupted the child and told them that they could no longer play with these toys, explaining that they were the experimenter's very best toys and were being reserved for other boys and girls.
4. The child was told they could play with any of the toys in the adjoining room (the experimental test room) and was then escorted there.

Award 1 mark per distinct creditworthy point describing the procedure up to a maximum of 4 marks:

- The participant was taken to a separate room containing attractive toys (1)
- Specific example of attractive toys given (e.g. fire engine, jet fighter, doll set, spinning top, doll carriage) (1)
- The child was allowed to play with the toys for a short period of time / for 2 minutes (1)
- The experimenter told the child they had to stop playing / could not play with them anymore (1)
- The experimenter stated that these were her very best toys / she did not let just anyone play with them / they were reserved for other children (1)
- The child was told that they were allowed to play with any of the toys in the other/next room (1)

Similarity: Research Method / Data Collection Technique
Both studies used structured observation with predefined, operationalised behavioural categories to record quantitative data on interaction with objects:
- In Hassett et al., two observers coded videotaped outdoor trials using an ethogram with specific operational definitions of behaviours (such as holding, carrying, sitting on, sniffing, and destroying) and recorded the frequency and duration of interactions with wheeled toys versus plush toys.
- In Bandura et al., observers watched children through a one-way mirror and recorded behaviours at 5-second intervals using pre-categorised checklists, counting instances of imitative physical aggression (e.g., striking with the mallet, sitting on the Bobo doll), imitative verbal aggression (e.g., 'Pow', 'Sock him'), and non-imitative aggression.

Difference: Environment / Research Setting and Control of Extraneous Variables
Hassett et al. was conducted in an open outdoor social enclosure, whereas Bandura et al. was conducted in a highly controlled laboratory setting:
- In Hassett et al., the monkeys were observed in their normal, open-air 25 m x 25 m outdoor corral living area where other troop members could freely interact, meaning social interactions and environmental distractors could not be completely standardised across trials.
- In Bandura et al., the experiment took place in three separate, strictly controlled laboratory rooms (Room 1 for model exposure, Room 2 for aggression arousal, and Room 3 for test of delayed imitation), where variables such as the positioning of toys, room layout, and the exact 20-minute testing interval were fully standardised.

Level 4 (7–8 marks):
• Candidate explains one similarity and one difference in detail.
• Effective use of points from both studies is made for both the similarity and the difference.
• Clear comparison is maintained throughout.
• Follows all constraints (no credit given for comments on approaches or samples).

Level 3 (5–6 marks):
• Candidate explains one similarity and one difference.
• Good use of points from both studies is made for similarity and/or difference.
• Comparison is evident.

Level 2 (3–4 marks):
• Candidate attempts to explain one similarity and/or one difference.
• Points may be descriptive rather than comparative, or only one comparison point is developed effectively.

Level 1 (1–2 marks):
• Brief or generic points identifying a similarity/difference without contextual elaboration.

Level 0 (0 marks):
• No creditable response or entirely violates the negative constraints (e.g. only mentions approach/sample).

A directional hypothesis is a testable statement that predicts the specific direction of an outcome, such as stating that one group will score higher than another or that a relationship will be positive rather than negative.

1 mark for basic definition (e.g. predicting the specific direction/nature of the difference or correlation).
1 mark for elaboration/example (e.g. stating which group will perform better / higher/lower / positive or negative correlation rather than just a difference).

One disadvantage of an opportunity sample is that it is prone to sampling bias, as participants are selected solely based on their immediate availability in a specific place (e.g. university students on campus). This makes the sample unrepresentative and limits the generalisability of the findings to the wider target population.

1 mark for identifying unrepresentative/biased sample or limited generalisability.
1 mark for linked explanation (e.g. participants are drawn only from people present at that particular location/time, meaning key subgroups may be excluded).

In counterbalancing (often using an AB/BA format), the sample is split into two equal groups: one group performs Condition A first then Condition B, while the other performs Condition B first then Condition A. This ensures that any order effects (such as fatigue, boredom, or practice) affect both conditions equally rather than confounding only the second condition.

1 mark for explaining the procedure (e.g. half the participants do condition A then B, half do B then A / ABBA design).
1 mark for explaining the mechanism (e.g. balances out/evens out order effects like practice or fatigue across both conditions).

A Likert scale is a closed-question format used in questionnaires to measure attitudes or opinions. Participants respond to a statement by choosing from ordered options along a continuum, typically ranging from 'strongly agree' to 'strongly disagree'.

1 mark for basic definition (e.g. a rating scale measuring level of agreement/attitude along a continuum).
1 mark for detail/elaboration (e.g. structured options such as 1 to 5 / strongly agree to strongly disagree / produces quantitative data).

To assess inter-observer reliability, at least two observers watch the same participant behaviour simultaneously but independently, recording instances using the same predetermined behavioural checklist. Their scores are then correlated or compared for consistency (e.g. looking for high percentage agreement).

1 mark for describing independent observation using identical coding schemes/behavioural categories.
1 mark for describing the comparison/correlation of the observers' data to check for consistency/high level of agreement.

A researcher might choose the median because it is unaffected by extreme scores or anomalous outliers. When a data set is skewed, extreme values pull the mean away from the centre, whereas the median remains the true middle value and provides a more accurate reflection of central tendency.

1 mark for identifying that the median is unaffected/not distorted by extreme scores/outliers/skewed data.
1 mark for explaining that this makes it a more representative or accurate measure of typical performance than the mean when outliers exist.

Confidentiality is an ethical requirement ensuring that any data, scores, or personal identifying information collected from participants is stored securely, kept anonymous, and not revealed publicly. Privacy, by contrast, refers to respecting the physical and psychological boundaries of the individual, ensuring they are not observed or recorded in private spaces (such as bathrooms or private homes) without their consent.

1 mark for defining confidentiality (e.g. protecting participants' personal details/identity/data from being identified or shared).
1 mark for defining privacy (e.g. avoiding intruding on physical/psychological personal space or observing people where they expect not to be seen).

(a) A bar chart is used because the independent variable consists of discrete categories (Quiet Room vs Noisy Room) and the graph compares separate group means.

(b) Standard deviation measures the spread or dispersion of data points around the mean. The data shows that the standard deviation is higher in the Noisy Room (4.8) than in the Quiet Room (1.4). This means that recall scores were more spread out / varied widely between individuals in the noisy condition, whereas performance in the quiet condition was more consistent / clustered closely around the mean.

(a) [1 mark]:
1 mark for: Bar chart / bar graph.
(Do not accept histogram, scatter graph, or line graph).

(b) [2 marks]:
1 mark for identifying which condition had greater/lesser variation (e.g. scores in the Noisy Room were more spread out / Quiet Room were more consistent).
1 mark for linking this difference explicitly to the data/context (e.g. comparing 4.8 vs 1.4 or stating that individual differences in recall were greater when noise was present).

(a) A directional hypothesis must state the predicted direction of the difference between the two conditions of the independent variable with operationalised variables.
For example: 'Participants who complete anagram puzzles under bright white lighting will solve them in fewer seconds / faster than participants who complete them under warm yellow lighting.'

(b) Counterbalancing controls for order effects (such as practice or fatigue) in a repeated measures design using an ABBA or AB/BA group split.
Aris should randomly divide the student participants into two halves (e.g. Group A and Group B). Group A completes the anagram puzzle in condition 1 (bright lighting) first and then condition 2 (warm lighting), whereas Group B completes the anagram puzzle in condition 2 (warm lighting) first and then condition 1 (bright lighting).

(a) [2 marks]
1 mark for identifying a directional prediction (stating one condition will be better/faster than the other).
1 mark for fully operationalising both the IV (e.g. bright white vs warm yellow lighting) and the DV (e.g. time taken to complete anagram puzzles / number of anagrams solved per minute).

(b) [2 marks]
1 mark for outlining the principle of counterbalancing (e.g. AB/BA design / splitting the group).
1 mark for applying it explicitly to the context of Aris's lighting and anagram experiment.

(a) In a covert observation, participants do not know they are being observed. This increases ecological validity because commuters will behave naturally and not alter their prosocial actions due to social desirability or knowing an observer is recording them (reduced demand characteristics / Hawthorne effect).

(b) Ethical issues include informed consent or privacy. Because the observation is covert, commuters cannot give informed consent prior to being recorded. Talia must respect privacy by only observing public behaviours in open station areas where people expect to be seen, and keeping all recorded data anonymous.

(a) [2 marks]
1 mark for identifying a generic strength of covert observations (e.g. reduced demand characteristics / natural behaviour).
1 mark for contextualising to the train station / helping behaviour.

(b) [2 marks]
1 mark for identifying a relevant ethical issue (e.g. informed consent / privacy / right to withdraw).
1 mark for explaining how it applies to Talia's study in the railway station.

(a) To operationalise sleep quality using a self-report method, Dr. Chen could use a Likert scale or rating scale (e.g. asking teenagers 'Rate the quality of your sleep over the past week from 1 = completely restless to 7 = deeply restful') or a closed question asking for the estimated number of hours of uninterrupted sleep per night.

(b) Correlational research cannot establish cause-and-effect relationships because no independent variable is deliberately manipulated and extraneous variables are not controlled. For example, academic stress or late-night caffeine intake might lead to both increased screen use and disrupted sleep.

(a) [2 marks]
1 mark for suggesting a valid self-report measurement tool (e.g. rating scale, Likert scale, closed questionnaire item).
1 mark for operational details (e.g. scale anchors 1–10, specific wording, or measurable units).

(b) [2 marks]
1 mark for identifying the lack of causal relationship / presence of confounding third variables.
1 mark for explaining in the context of screen time and sleep quality.

(a) Closed questions restrict respondents to predetermined choices producing quantitative data (e.g. 'Rate your satisfaction with the uniform on a scale of 1 to 5'), whereas open questions allow respondents to write freely in their own words without restriction producing qualitative data (e.g. 'Describe how the new uniform fabric affects your comfort during lessons').

(b) Qualitative data provides in-depth, detailed explanations and meanings behind student attitudes. This allows Kieran to understand specific reasons why students support or oppose the policy (e.g. issues with cost, temperature, or style), giving higher validity to the students' true perspectives.

(a) [2 marks]
1 mark for stating the generic difference between open and closed questions (fixed options vs free response).
1 mark for providing a clear, linked example for either or both from Kieran's uniform study.

(b) [2 marks]
1 mark for identifying an advantage of qualitative data (e.g. depth, detail, richness, understanding underlying reasons).
1 mark for linking the advantage explicitly to students' attitudes towards school uniforms.

(a) Opportunity sampling involves selecting participants who are readily available and accessible at the time of the study. Beatrice can stand in the lobby or cafe of the sports centre and approach visitors who happen to be walking past or sitting down, asking them if they have 10 minutes to participate in her noun recall task.

(b) A key limitation is sample bias / lack of representativeness. People attending a sports centre at a given hour may share specific demographic characteristics (e.g. higher health consciousness, specific age groups, or similar routines) and exclude non-gym users, reducing the population validity and generalisability of the memory recall findings.

(a) [2 marks]
1 mark for defining/outlining opportunity sampling procedure (approaching those who are present/available).
1 mark for contextualising to Beatrice approaching individuals at the sports centre.

(b) [2 marks]
1 mark for identifying the limitation (e.g. unrepresentative sample / researcher bias / lack of generalisability).
1 mark for explaining why this applies to sampling from a sports centre for a memory recall experiment.

(a) A longitudinal study is a research design that follows and collects data from the same group of participants over a prolonged period of time (e.g. several months or years) to observe development or change.

(b) A major practical problem is participant attrition (drop-out). Over a 12-month period, employees might resign, move to another company, or become too busy to continue logging their stress levels and attending sessions. This leads to a reduced sample size and can introduce attrition bias (e.g. only the most motivated employees stay in the study), making the findings about the mindfulness programme less representative and valid.

(a) [1 mark]
1 mark for a clear definition mentioning data collection from the same participants over an extended time period.

(b) [3 marks]
1 mark for identifying a relevant practical problem (e.g. attrition / drop-out rate / high cost / keeping in contact).
1 mark for elaborating on how the problem arises in this 12-month study (e.g. employees leaving jobs, losing interest).
1 mark for explaining the methodological consequence (e.g. reduced sample size, biased final sample, reduced validity).

Plan for Laboratory Experiment:

1. Experimental Design and Conditions:
- Independent Measures Design: Participants will be randomly allocated to one of two conditions to prevent order effects such as fatigue or practice.
- Condition 1 (Low Noise/Silence): Participants complete the task wearing noise-cancelling headphones playing no audio (0–10 dB ambient level).
- Condition 2 (High Background Noise): Participants complete the task wearing headphones playing a standardized recording of busy open-plan office noise (e.g., typing, indistinct background chatter, phone ringing) calibrated to 70 dB using a sound level meter.

2. Dependent Variable and Task:
- The task consists of a proofreading test: identifying and circling deliberately placed spelling and grammatical errors in an unfamiliar 500-word factual article.
- The DV is operationalised as the total number of errors correctly identified out of 25 within a strict 5-minute time limit (quantitative data).

3. Controls and Standardisation:
- Setting: An isolated, sound-attenuated laboratory room with constant fluorescent lighting and temperature (21°C).
- Materials: All participants receive identical printed proofreading passages (same font, text length, and error density).
- Instructions: A standardised pre-recorded set of audio instructions explaining the task is played before the timer begins.
- Scoring: A standardised mark scheme is used to calculate the accuracy score (number of correct errors minus false positives).

4. Procedure:
- Step 1: The participant enters the quiet laboratory room and sits at a desk facing a blank wall.
- Step 2: The participant puts on headphones and listens to standardised instructions detailing that they have 5 minutes to spot and circle as many spelling/grammatical errors as possible.
- Step 3: Depending on the condition, the audio stream (either silent baseline or 70 dB office noise) is started simultaneously with a digital 5-minute countdown.
- Step 4: After exactly 5 minutes, a tone sounds, the participant stops writing immediately, and the test sheet is collected.
- Step 5: The score (out of 25) is calculated using the predefined answer key.

5. Reliability and Validity:
- Reliability is ensured through standardized duration (5 minutes), identical noise tracks and decibel levels, and objective scoring key ensuring high test-retest and internal consistency.
- Internal validity is maintained by controlling extraneous auditory and visual distractions and using random allocation to minimize participant variables across conditions.

Levels of Response Grid (10 marks):

Level 4 (8–10 marks):
- Description of the plan is detailed, well-organised, and clear.
- All key general and method-specific features are addressed and fully operationalised (IV, DV, experimental design, controls, procedure, data type, validity/reliability).
- The plan is realistic, replicable, and explicitly contextualised to testing the effect of background noise on task performance throughout.

Level 3 (5–7 marks):
- Description of the plan has some detail and structure.
- Several key features are addressed, but some may lack full operationalisation (e.g. noise levels described vaguely or task performance measurement not fully specified).
- The plan is mostly realistic and applied to the scenario.

Level 2 (3–4 marks):
- Description of the plan is basic or limited in scope.
- Few features are appropriately operationalised; key experimental elements are missing or vague.
- Contextualisation is weak or superficial.

Level 1 (1–2 marks):
- Description is very brief, muddled, or lacks methodological understanding of a laboratory experiment.
- Minimal creditworthy detail.

Level 0 (0 marks):
- No creditworthy response.

Negative Constraints Note:
- Do not credit descriptions of the sample, sampling technique, or ethical issues (as explicitly directed in the question prompt).

1 mark for identifying how covert observation improves validity (e.g. eliminates demand characteristics / observer effects / social desirability).
1 mark for contextual elaboration linked directly to the children's sharing behaviour in the nursery.

Example answer:
Conducting a covert observation prevents observer effects/demand characteristics because the children do not know they are being watched (1 mark). As a result, their sharing interactions during playtime will be natural and spontaneous rather than altered to gain praise from the adult observer (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying a generic methodological reason (e.g., reduces demand characteristics / reactivity / observer effect).
1 mark for linked application to the specific context of children sharing during play.

Award 0 marks for ethical issues (e.g., lack of informed consent) as the question asks specifically about validity.

1 mark for identifying a methodological strength of independent measures compared to repeated measures (e.g. eliminates order effects / practice effects / fatigue effects / prevents guessing the aim).
1 mark for contextual elaboration linked directly to memorising/recalling the word list across noise conditions.

Example answer:
An independent measures design eliminates order effects such as practice effects (1 mark). This ensures participants cannot simply remember words better in the second condition due to familiarity with the vocabulary list or memory strategy practice (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying a valid design strength (e.g., eliminates order effects / fatigue / practice / demand characteristics).
1 mark for linked application to the word-recall test or noise conditions.

Note: Do not credit simple definitions of independent measures without explaining why it is a strength in this specific context.