2024 AQA AS-Level Psychology (New) 7181 模擬試題連答案詳解

Consistency: Synchronic consistency is when all members of the minority group agree on the same message. Diachronic consistency is when the minority keeps saying the same thing over a long period of time. This makes the majority rethink their own position because it suggests stability and confidence.

Commitment: Minorities sometimes engage in extreme activities to draw attention to their cause. It is important that these activities present some risk to the minority because this demonstrates greater commitment. This is known as the augmentation principle; majority group members pay more attention and take the message more seriously.

Up to 2 marks for outlining consistency:
- 1 mark for explaining what consistency is (e.g., synchronic/diachronic consistency, or keeping the same message over time).
- 1 mark for explaining how it works to influence the majority (e.g., makes the majority rethink their views, draws attention over time).

Up to 2 marks for outlining commitment:
- 1 mark for explaining what commitment is (e.g., making personal sacrifices, engaging in extreme activities, or mentioning the augmentation principle).
- 1 mark for explaining how it works to influence the majority (e.g., shows dedication, makes the majority pay more attention or take them seriously).

The authoritarian personality, identified by Adorno et al., is a dispositional explanation suggesting that certain individuals are highly susceptible to obeying authority figures. Key characteristics include rigid adherence to conventional values, an inability to tolerate ambiguity, and extreme respect for/obedience to perceived authority, alongside contempt for those seen as lower status.

According to Adorno, this personality develops in childhood as a result of extremely harsh parenting, strict discipline, high expectations, and conditional love. The child experiences feelings of hostility and resentment towards their parents but cannot express them directly due to fear of punishment. Consequently, these feelings are displaced onto weaker outgroups or minority groups (scapegoating), while they remain submissive to authority figures.

Marks are awarded as follows:
- Up to 2 marks for outlining characteristics of the authoritarian personality (e.g., rigid beliefs, high respect for authority, submissiveness, contempt for weak, measured by F-scale).
- Up to 2 marks for explaining the development of the personality (e.g., strict parenting, conditional love, displacement of hostility onto scapegoats/weaker targets).

Maximum of 2 marks if only characteristics or only developmental origins are described.

Resistance to conformity: In situations involving conformity, the presence of an ally who does not conform breaks the unanimity of the majority. This social support reduces the normative pressure to fit in, providing the individual with the confidence to act on their own beliefs rather than conform.

Resistance to obedience: In situations involving obedience, the presence of a disobedient peer who refuses to obey commands acts as a role model. This social support challenges the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure's instructions and demonstrates that defiance is possible, freeing the individual to follow their own conscience and also disobey.

Marks are awarded as follows:
- Up to 2 marks for outlining how social support helps resist conformity (1 mark for explaining that an ally breaks unanimity, 1 mark for explaining the psychological effect, e.g., reducing pressure, giving confidence to act independently).
- Up to 2 marks for outlining how social support helps resist obedience (1 mark for explaining that a disobedient role model challenges authority legitimacy/acts as a model, 1 mark for explaining the psychological effect, e.g., freeing the individual to disobey/follow their own conscience).

Maximum of 2 marks if only conformity or only obedience is addressed.

Informational social influence (ISI) is driven by the cognitive need to be right. In this scenario, the student council can exploit this by providing students with factual information, such as signs detailing which items can be recycled or statistics on the positive impact of recycling. Students who are unsure of what to do will look to this information, accept it as correct, and conform by recycling.

1 mark for explaining informational social influence as being motivated by the desire to be right or the need for information. 1 mark for applying this explicitly to the recycling scenario (such as displaying recycling guides, facts, or statistics to show it is the correct action).

Flexibility is a key behavioral characteristic of minority influence. Instead of repeating the same arguments rigidly, a flexible minority is willing to adapt their point of view, listen to compromises, and accept reasonable counterarguments. This approach ensures they do not appear dogmatic, narrow-minded, or unreasonable, which helps in gradually winning over members of the majority.

2 marks: A clear, accurate and coherent outline of flexibility in minority influence, explaining both the concept (not being rigid or willing to compromise) and its purpose/effect (avoiding appearing dogmatic/unreasonable or helping to persuade the majority). 1 mark: A vague, partial or basic outline (e.g., simply stating that they must be prepared to compromise, without further expansion or clarity). 0 marks: Incorrect or completely irrelevant response.

### AO1: Description of Minority Influence Processes
* **Consistency:** The minority must maintain a stable position over time (diachronic consistency) and agreement must exist between members of the minority (synchronic consistency). This makes the majority rethink their own views.
* **Commitment:** The minority shows dedication to their cause, often by engaging in extreme activities or making personal sacrifices. This is known as the *augmentation principle*, which leads the majority to take them more seriously.
* **Flexibility:** Being rigid and dogmatic can alienate the majority. The minority must show flexibility by being prepared to compromise and adapt their point of view to reasonable counterarguments.
* **The Snowball Effect:** As more individuals transition from the majority to the minority view, the rate of conversion accelerates until the minority viewpoint becomes the new majority norm.

### AO2: Application to Amara
* **Consistency:** Amara shows diachronic consistency by repeatedly bringing up the issue of reducing paper waste at weekly meetings, preventing her colleagues from simply ignoring the issue.
* **Commitment:** Amara demonstrates commitment and the augmentation principle by spending her own personal free time setting up recycling bins, showing her colleagues she is genuinely dedicated and making personal sacrifices for the cause.
* **Flexibility:** Amara demonstrates flexibility rather than dogmatism by agreeing that some essential documents still need to be printed, which makes her colleagues more receptive to her ideas and willing to cooperate.
* **The Snowball Effect:** The transition of several colleagues over time to start supporting her initiative shows how the conversion process is gaining momentum and spreading.

### AO3: Evaluation of Minority Influence
* **Research Support for Consistency:** Moscovici et al. (1969) demonstrated that a consistent minority (calling blue slides green) was significantly more influential (8.42% of trials) than an inconsistent minority (1.25% of trials). This supports Amara's need to remain consistent in her meetings to be effective.
* **Research Support for Depth of Thought:** Martin et al. (2003) found that messages from a minority led to deeper processing and more lasting attitude changes compared to majority messages, suggesting that Amara's efforts are likely to lead to genuine internalisation among her colleagues.
* **Methodological Limitations:** Many studies into minority influence (such as Moscovici's slide study) involve artificial tasks that do not reflect the real-world complexity, social dynamics, or high-stakes nature of Amara's workplace environment.

**Marking Bands:**

* **Level 4 (7–8 marks):**
- AO1: Knowledge of minority influence processes (consistency, commitment, flexibility) is accurate, detailed, and well-structured.
- AO2: Application to Amara's behavior is clear, explicit, and accurate.
- AO3: Evaluation of minority influence is effective, using relevant research or criticisms.
- The response is well-written, with appropriate psychological terminology throughout.

* **Level 3 (5–6 marks):**
- AO1: Knowledge is mostly accurate, though some minor details of minority processes may be missing.
- AO2: Application to the scenario is appropriate, though perhaps slightly underdeveloped in parts.
- AO3: Evaluation is present but may lack depth or clarity.
- The answer has some structure and utilizes some psychological terminology correctly.

* **Level 2 (3–4 marks):**
- AO1: Knowledge is basic or limited to a couple of factors.
- AO2: Application is superficial or only links to one or two details of the scenario.
- AO3: Evaluation is very basic, absent, or relies on generic assertions.
- The answer lacks clear structure and has limited terminology.

* **Level 1 (1–2 marks):**
- AO1: Knowledge of minority influence is extremely weak or fragmented.
- AO2: Minimal or no application to the scenario.
- AO3: No evaluation is present.

* **Level 0 (0 marks):**
- No relevant content.

**AO Allocation:**
- **AO1 (3 marks):** Outline of minority influence concepts (consistency, commitment, flexibility).
- **AO2 (3 marks):** Application of these concepts directly to Amara's scenario.
- **AO3 (2 marks):** Evaluation of minority influence using research studies (e.g., Moscovici, Martin et al.) or methodological critiques.

According to Baddeley and Hitch's Working Memory Model (WMM), dual-task performance is successful when the two tasks utilize different components (slave systems) of working memory. Driving a car primarily involves visual and spatial processing, which is handled by the visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSSP). Listening to a podcast involves auditory/verbal processing, which is managed by the phonological loop (PL). Because the tasks use separate, specialized components rather than competing for the same limited-capacity subsystem, they can be performed simultaneously without significant interference.

Award 1 mark for identifying the correct option (B).
Award 0 marks for any other response, multiple responses, or blank answers.

Retroactive interference is a form of forgetting where newer memories disrupt the retrieval of older memories. This typically occurs when the two sets of information are similar. For example, if a student learns French vocabulary this week (new information), they might find it difficult to recall the Spanish vocabulary they learned last year (old information) because the new French words interfere with the retrieval of the older Spanish words.

Award 1 mark for defining retroactive interference as new learning or information disrupting or interfering with the recall of older or previously learned information. Award 1 mark for explaining the mechanism, such as how similarity between the two sets of information increases interference, or how the new information blocks retrieval of the older information. Award 1 mark for providing an appropriate, clear example of retroactive interference (e.g., learning a new phone number/postcode makes it hard to remember an old one).

To answer this question successfully, you must identify context-dependent forgetting (retrieval failure due to missing external cues) and directly apply it to Sonia's scenario. First, explain that retrieval failure occurs when the cues present during encoding are absent at the time of retrieval (context-dependent forgetting). Second, apply this by explaining that the mismatch between her study environment (the quiet, bright library) and her testing environment (the noisy, dim exam hall) means she lacks the environmental cues that would normally trigger her memory of the Spanish words.

1 mark for identifying context-dependent forgetting and explaining that cues present during learning/encoding are absent during retrieval. 1 mark for application to the scenario (e.g., explaining that the quiet, bright library provided environmental cues that are missing in the noisy, dim exam hall, which prevents her from accessing the memory). Credit can be given for a clear explanation of cue-dependent forgetting where the environment acts as a cue. Max 1 mark if there is no application to Sonia's scenario.

To answer this question successfully, you must identify context-dependent forgetting (retrieval failure due to missing external cues) and directly apply it to Sonia's scenario. First, explain that retrieval failure occurs when the cues present during encoding are absent at the time of retrieval (context-dependent forgetting). Second, apply this by explaining that the mismatch between her study environment (the quiet, bright library) and her testing environment (the noisy, dim exam hall) means she lacks the environmental cues that would normally trigger her memory of the Spanish words.

1 mark for identifying context-dependent forgetting and explaining that cues present during learning/encoding are absent during retrieval. 1 mark for application to the scenario (e.g., explaining that the quiet, bright library provided environmental cues that are missing in the noisy, dim exam hall, which prevents her from accessing the memory). Credit can be given for a clear explanation of cue-dependent forgetting where the environment acts as a cue. Max 1 mark if there is no application to Sonia's scenario.

**Expected Finding:**
The researcher would expect Group 1 to recall significantly fewer French words from List B than Group 2 (or Group 2 to recall more French words than Group 1).

**Why (Explanation & Application):**
* This is because Group 1 will experience **proactive interference**, which occurs when older, previously learned information interferes with the ability to recall newer, more recently learned information.
* In this study, the Spanish words (List A) that Group 1 learned first disrupt their ability to retrieve the newly learned French words (List B).
* Group 2 will not experience this proactive interference because they did not learn the Spanish words beforehand. The high similarity between the two language lists (Spanish and French) makes this interference effect even stronger for Group 1.

**4 marks** for a clear, coherent, and detailed explanation that correctly identifies the expected finding and explains it using proactive interference, fully applied to the scenario.
**3 marks** for an explanation that identifies the expected finding and explains it using proactive interference with some application, but lacks full clarity or detail.
**2 marks** for a basic explanation that identifies the finding and mentions interference, but lacks specific application or clear explanation of proactive interference.
**1 mark** for a very basic point (e.g., just identifying the correct group finding or mentioning proactive interference without application).

**Mark breakdown / Key points to look for:**
* **1 mark** for stating the expected finding: Group 1 will recall fewer French words than Group 2 (or Group 2 will perform better than Group 1).
* **1 mark** for identifying this as an example of **proactive interference**.
* **1 mark** for defining/explaining proactive interference: when older/previously learned memories/information disrupt/interfere with the recall of newer/more recently learned information.
* **1 mark** for linking/applying to the scenario: the previously learned Spanish words (List A) disrupt the retrieval of the newly learned French words (List B) due to the similarity of the tasks.

Marcus is experiencing retroactive interference. This happens when newer information (the Italian vocabulary learned this term) interferes with and disrupts the recall of older information (the Spanish vocabulary learned last year).

1 mark for correctly identifying retroactive interference. 1 mark for applying it to the scenario by explaining that learning the new language (Italian) has disrupted the recall of the previously learned language (Spanish).

According to the Working Memory Model, both listening to speech and reading text are language-based tasks that rely on the same component: the Phonological Loop. Because the phonological loop has a limited capacity, it cannot successfully process both streams of verbal/written information at the same time, leading to dual-task failure.

1 mark for identifying that both tasks require the phonological loop (or that this component has a limited capacity). 1 mark for applying this to the scenario: explaining that because both tasks require the processing of language/verbal information, they compete for the same limited resources, leading to difficulty.

A prominent limitation of the Working Memory Model is the lack of clarity surrounding the central executive. Psychologists criticize it for being a vague concept that is essentially synonymous with 'attention' without explaining how it actually functions. Eslinger and Damasio's study of patient EVR, who had a brain tumor removed, showed that he performed well on tests of reasoning (suggesting an intact central executive) but very poorly on decision-making tasks, suggesting that the central executive is not a single unified system but is made up of separate components.

Award 1 mark for identifying a valid limitation of the Working Memory Model (e.g., the central executive is vague or oversimplified, the model focuses only on short-term memory and ignores long-term processing, or reliance on clinical case studies has methodological flaws). Award 1 mark for explaining/elaborating on why this is a limitation (e.g., explaining that the central executive needs to be broken down into sub-components, or explaining why case study findings cannot be easily generalized to normal brain function).

AO1: Retrieval failure occurs when information is stored in long-term memory but cannot be accessed because the correct retrieval cues are missing. According to the encoding specificity principle (ESP) proposed by Tulving, if a cue is to be help us recall information, it must be present at encoding (when we learn) and at retrieval (when we recall). There are two main types of cue-dependent forgetting. Context-dependent forgetting occurs when external environmental cues are mismatching (e.g., learning in one room and recalling in another). State-dependent forgetting occurs when internal physical or mental state cues are mismatching (e.g., learning while alert and recalling while tired). AO3: A major strength of retrieval failure as an explanation is the wealth of supporting empirical evidence. Godden and Baddeley (1975) found that deep-sea divers who learned and recalled word lists in the same environment (either underwater or on land) recalled 40% more words than those who learned in one environment and recalled in the other, showing the influence of context-dependent cues. Carter and Cassaday (1998) found similar results for state-dependent cues using antihistamine drugs to alter internal states. However, a limitation is that context effects may not be as strong in real life. Baddeley argued that everyday contexts are rarely as different as land and water, meaning retrieval failure due to context change may not explain much everyday forgetting. Furthermore, the effect of retrieval cues depends on the type of memory test. When Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their diver study but used a recognition test instead of free recall, the context-dependent effect disappeared, showing that retrieval failure may only explain forgetting under specific testing conditions.

AO1 (4 marks): Award up to 4 marks for description of retrieval failure. 4 marks: Accurate and detailed explanation of the encoding specificity principle, context-dependent, and state-dependent forgetting with appropriate terminology. 3 marks: Mostly accurate explanation with minor omissions. 2 marks: Basic description of cue-dependent forgetting, lacking detail. 1 mark: Very limited or confused description. AO3 (4 marks): Award up to 4 marks for evaluation. 4 marks: Thorough and effective evaluation of retrieval failure using relevant evidence (e.g., Godden & Baddeley, Carter & Cassaday) and addressing limitations (e.g., ecological validity, recall vs recognition). 3 marks: Good evaluation, mostly clear and logical. 2 marks: Basic evaluation, potentially just describing studies without linking them to the validity of the explanation. 1 mark: Fragmented or superficial evaluation.

AO1: Retrieval failure occurs when information is stored in long-term memory but cannot be accessed because the correct retrieval cues are missing. According to the encoding specificity principle (ESP) proposed by Tulving, if a cue is to be help us recall information, it must be present at encoding (when we learn) and at retrieval (when we recall). There are two main types of cue-dependent forgetting. Context-dependent forgetting occurs when external environmental cues are mismatching (e.g., learning in one room and recalling in another). State-dependent forgetting occurs when internal physical or mental state cues are mismatching (e.g., learning while alert and recalling while tired). AO3: A major strength of retrieval failure as an explanation is the wealth of supporting empirical evidence. Godden and Baddeley (1975) found that deep-sea divers who learned and recalled word lists in the same environment (either underwater or on land) recalled 40% more words than those who learned in one environment and recalled in the other, showing the influence of context-dependent cues. Carter and Cassaday (1998) found similar results for state-dependent cues using antihistamine drugs to alter internal states. However, a limitation is that context effects may not be as strong in real life. Baddeley argued that everyday contexts are rarely as different as land and water, meaning retrieval failure due to context change may not explain much everyday forgetting. Furthermore, the effect of retrieval cues depends on the type of memory test. When Godden and Baddeley (1980) replicated their diver study but used a recognition test instead of free recall, the context-dependent effect disappeared, showing that retrieval failure may only explain forgetting under specific testing conditions.

AO1 (4 marks): Award up to 4 marks for description of retrieval failure. 4 marks: Accurate and detailed explanation of the encoding specificity principle, context-dependent, and state-dependent forgetting with appropriate terminology. 3 marks: Mostly accurate explanation with minor omissions. 2 marks: Basic description of cue-dependent forgetting, lacking detail. 1 mark: Very limited or confused description. AO3 (4 marks): Award up to 4 marks for evaluation. 4 marks: Thorough and effective evaluation of retrieval failure using relevant evidence (e.g., Godden & Baddeley, Carter & Cassaday) and addressing limitations (e.g., ecological validity, recall vs recognition). 3 marks: Good evaluation, mostly clear and logical. 2 marks: Basic evaluation, potentially just describing studies without linking them to the validity of the explanation. 1 mark: Fragmented or superficial evaluation.

Interactional synchrony is a form of caregiver-infant communication where the caregiver and infant reflect both the actions and emotions of the other, doing so in a coordinated and simultaneous way. Unlike reciprocity, which is characterised by turn-taking (like a conversation), interactional synchrony involves both parties mirroring each other's behaviors in unison (at the same time). For example, if a caregiver tilts their head and smiles, and the infant instantly mirrors this exact expression and movement simultaneously, they are showing interactional synchrony. This serves to sustain communication and helps lay the foundation for a secure attachment bond.

3 marks: A clear, coherent, and accurate description of interactional synchrony, explicitly identifying the simultaneous or coordinated 'mirroring' nature of the interaction and providing clear elaboration or an example. 2 marks: A description that has some detail and understanding but lacks complete clarity (e.g., confuses synchrony with turn-taking/reciprocity, or fails to provide an example/elaboration). 1 mark: A very basic or vague definition (e.g., 'when a baby and parent do things together').

First, the student must correctly identify Leo's attachment style as insecure-resistant (Type C). Second, they must apply features of this attachment type to the scenario. 1) High separation anxiety: This is demonstrated when Leo becomes 'extremely distressed' and cannot be easily calmed by nursery staff when his mother leaves. 2) Ambivalent reunion behavior: This is demonstrated when his mother returns; Leo seeks proximity by 'rushing towards her' but simultaneously shows resistance and anger by 'pushing her away' and resisting comfort.

Marks are awarded as follows: 1 mark for identifying Leo's attachment type as insecure-resistant (Type C). Up to 5 marks for application and explanation: Up to 2 marks for applying the concept of high separation anxiety to the scenario (e.g., identifying that Leo is extremely distressed when left and cannot be calmed). Up to 3 marks for applying the concept of ambivalent reunion behavior / resistance to the scenario (e.g., explaining that Leo shows conflicting desires by rushing to his mother for proximity but then pushing her away and resisting comfort). Note: A maximum of 3 marks can be awarded if there is no explicit application to the scenario of Leo.

The caregiver-infant interaction shown is reciprocity (1 mark).

This is illustrated in the scenario because Mia and Leo are engaging in active, two-way, turn-taking behaviour. For example, Leo makes a cooing noise which elicits a response from Mia (smiling and talking), and when Mia stops, Leo responds back with another sound to continue the 'conversation' (1 mark).

1 mark for correctly identifying 'reciprocity'. (Do not accept 'interactional synchrony').
1 mark for explaining how it applies to the scenario (must refer to the turn-taking nature of the interaction between Mia and Leo, or the action of one partner eliciting a response from the other).

The correct answer is the **asocial stage** (also referred to by some researchers as the pre-attachment stage). In this first stage of attachment formation, which occurs from birth to around 8 weeks, the infant's responses to people and objects are similar, although they show a slight preference for social stimuli such as faces.

Award 1 mark for any of the following correct terms:
- Asocial stage
- Asocial
- Pre-attachment stage

Do not accept: Indiscriminate attachment, Specific attachment, Multiple attachments.

AO1: The influence of early attachment on later relationships is conceptualized through Bowlby's concept of the Internal Working Model (IWM). This model acts as a cognitive schema and template for future relationships based on the child's primary attachment. A securely attached child develops an expectation that people are loving and reliable, facilitating healthy relationships. In contrast, insecure-avoidant children may become emotionally distant, and insecure-resistant children may become overly anxious or controlling. Research by Hazan and Shaver (1987) using the 'Love Quiz' supports this; they found a strong correlation between early attachment type and adult romantic style. Secure adults reported happy, trusting, and lasting relationships; avoidant adults feared intimacy; resistant adults experienced jealousy and anxiety. Furthermore, early attachment influences childhood friendships. Myron-Wilson and Smith (1998) found that secure children were unlikely to be involved in bullying, whereas insecure-avoidant children were likely to be victims and insecure-resistant children were likely to be bullies. AO3: A strength of this research is the support for intergenerational transmission of attachment styles. Bailey et al. (2007) assessed 99 mothers and found that the majority had the same attachment classification to both their own mothers and their babies, validating the predictive value of the Internal Working Model. However, a major limitation is the reliance on retrospective self-report measures. In studies like Hazan and Shaver's, adults had to recall childhood experiences, which are highly susceptible to memory distortion and social desirability bias, weakening the internal validity of the findings. Additionally, this research is correlational, meaning we cannot establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship. An alternative factor, such as temperament (Kagan's temperament hypothesis), may dictate both early attachment security and later relationship success. Finally, the Internal Working Model is criticized for being overly deterministic. It suggests that individuals with insecure early attachments are doomed to have poor adult relationships, which ignores human free will and the capacity for people to change through positive later-life experiences.

AO1: 6 marks, AO3: 6 marks. Marks are awarded according to AQA Level Descriptors. Level 4 (10-12 marks): Knowledge is accurate and detailed. Evaluation is effective, critical, and well-developed. The essay is structured logically with excellent use of psychological terminology. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Knowledge is mostly accurate with some detail. Evaluation is present but may lack depth or detail in parts. Clear structure. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Knowledge is limited and lacks precision. Evaluation is basic, superficial, or largely descriptive. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Knowledge is extremely sparse, disjointed, or incorrect. Evaluation is absent or invalid. AO1 credit can be given for: Detail of Bowlby's internal working model (IWM); Childhood peer relations/bullying (Myron-Wilson and Smith); Adult romantic relationships (Hazan and Shaver's Love Quiz); Adult parenting styles (Bailey et al.). AO3 credit can be given for: Criticism of retrospective self-reports (memory bias); Correlational nature of findings (temperament hypothesis as a confounding variable); Determinism versus free will / plastic nature of later-life changes; Conflicting evidence (e.g., Zimmerman's finding that infant attachment did not predict adolescent attachment security).

A schema is a mental framework of beliefs and expectations that is developed from experience. When Lara first starts learning to drive, her schema for 'driving' is undeveloped or non-existent. Because of this lack of a pre-existing mental framework, she must process every piece of sensory information and motor action individually and consciously, requiring significant cognitive effort. Over time, through repeated practice and exposure to driving situations, Lara's driving schema becomes highly developed, more detailed, and integrated. This well-developed schema allows her to process information about driving rapidly and automatically. As a result, she can perform actions like shifting gears and checking mirrors without conscious thought, freeing up her cognitive capacity for other tasks.

Award up to 4 marks for explaining Lara's experience using knowledge of schema:

- **1 mark** for defining schema (e.g., a mental framework or cognitive structure of information/beliefs developed through experience that helps us organize and interpret information).
- **1 mark** for application to Lara's early stage: Her driving schema is basic or undeveloped, meaning she has to rely on effortful, conscious processing of individual actions.
- **1 mark** for application to Lara's later stage: With repeated practice/experience, her driving schema becomes more complex, integrated, and well-established.
- **1 mark** for explaining the outcome/automaticity: The fully-developed schema allows her to process driving actions automatically and effortlessly, reducing her overall cognitive load.

One difference lies in the nature of the behavior involved: classical conditioning involves learning involuntary, automatic emotional or physiological responses (such as salivating or fear), whereas operant conditioning involves learning voluntary behaviors (such as pressing a lever or studying) that are active. Another difference is the mechanism of learning: classical conditioning occurs through the passive association of an unconditioned stimulus with a neutral stimulus to produce a conditioned response, whereas operant conditioning occurs through the consequences of an active behavior, such as reinforcement (which increases the likelihood of the behavior) or punishment (which decreases it).

Award up to 4 marks for outlining two differences.

**Difference 1 (2 marks):**
- **1 mark** for identifying a clear difference (e.g., voluntary vs involuntary behavior, or association vs consequences).
- **1 mark** for elaboration/explanation of how this difference applies to both types of conditioning.

**Difference 2 (2 marks):**
- **1 mark** for identifying a second clear difference.
- **1 mark** for elaboration/explanation of how this second difference applies to both types of conditioning.

*Possible differences include:*
- Type of response: Involuntary/reflexive (classical) vs voluntary/active (operant).
- How learning occurs: Through association of stimuli (classical) vs through consequences of behavior (operant).
- Role of the learner: Passive recipient of stimuli (classical) vs active agent interacting with the environment (operant).
- Timing of stimuli: Stimulus is presented before the behavior (classical) vs consequence is presented after the behavior (operant).

Introspection relies on individuals reporting their own internal, subjective conscious experiences (such as thoughts, sensations, and feelings). Because these mental processes are private and cannot be directly observed, they cannot be objectively measured or verified by an independent researcher. This lack of objective measurement and the difficulty in replicating the findings under identical conditions means the method lacks the scientific rigour of modern psychological approaches.

2 marks: A clear and coherent explanation of why introspection lacks scientific rigour, identifying the subjective/private nature of internal experiences and linking this to a lack of objective verifiability or replicability. 1 mark: A vague or incomplete explanation (e.g., stating only that thoughts are subjective, or that it cannot be seen, without explaining why this reduces scientific rigour). 0 marks: Inaccurate or irrelevant response.

Introspection relies on individuals reporting their own internal, subjective conscious experiences (such as thoughts, sensations, and feelings). Because these mental processes are private and cannot be directly observed, they cannot be objectively measured or verified by an independent researcher. This lack of objective measurement and the difficulty in replicating the findings under identical conditions means the method lacks the scientific rigour of modern psychological approaches.

2 marks: A clear and coherent explanation of why introspection lacks scientific rigour, identifying the subjective/private nature of internal experiences and linking this to a lack of objective verifiability or replicability. 1 mark: A vague or incomplete explanation (e.g., stating only that thoughts are subjective, or that it cannot be seen, without explaining why this reduces scientific rigour). 0 marks: Inaccurate or irrelevant response.

Vicarious reinforcement occurs when an individual observes another person (a model) being rewarded for performing a behavior. Although the observer does not experience the reward directly, seeing the model receive positive reinforcement increases the observer's expectation of similar rewards, thereby increasing the likelihood that they will imitate the behavior.

2 marks for a clear and accurate outline of vicarious reinforcement, showing understanding of both the observation of a model being rewarded and the increased likelihood of imitation. 1 mark for a vague or partial outline (e.g., just mentioning watching someone else get a reward without linking it to imitation, or vice versa).

Based on the biological structures and processes involved in synaptic transmission:
* **A** represents the **synaptic vesicles** (which store and transport neurotransmitters within the pre-synaptic terminal).
* **B** represents the **neurotransmitters** (the chemical messengers released into the synaptic gap to transmit signals).
* **C** represents the **synaptic cleft** (or synaptic gap, the physical space separating the two neurons).
* **D** represents the **receptors** (or receptor sites on the post-synaptic membrane where neurotransmitters bind to propagate the signal).

Award 1 mark for each correctly identified label up to a maximum of 4 marks:

* **A**: Synaptic vesicle (also accept 'vesicle')
* **B**: Neurotransmitter
* **C**: Synaptic cleft (also accept 'synaptic gap')
* **D**: Receptor (also accept 'receptor site' or 'post-synaptic receptor')

**Reject notes:**
* Do not accept general terms like 'sac' or 'bubble' for A.
* Do not accept 'chemical' for B unless qualified as 'neurotransmitter chemical'.
* Do not accept 'space' or 'gap' on its own for C without 'synaptic'.
* Do not accept 'receiver' or 'gate' for D.

AO1 Description of Social Learning Theory (4 marks): - Learning occurs indirectly through the observation and imitation of role models within a social context. - Modelling: Individuals (especially children) observe role models performing a behaviour and may later imitate this behaviour. - Vicarious Reinforcement: Observers are more likely to imitate a behaviour if they see the model being rewarded for it, rather than punished. - Mediational Processes: Four cognitive factors intervene in the learning process to determine whether a new response is acquired: Attention (the extent to which we notice the behaviour), Retention (how well the behaviour is remembered), Motor Reproduction (the ability of the observer to perform the behaviour), and Motivation (the will to perform the behaviour, often determined by rewards and punishments). AO3 Evaluation of Social Learning Theory (4 marks): - Strength: Recognition of cognitive factors. Unlike strict behaviorism, SLT acknowledges mediational processes, offering a more complete explanation of human learning by incorporating cognitive variables. - Strength: Practical applications. The theory has been highly useful in understanding real-world behaviours, such as the acquisition of gender roles or the impact of media violence on child development, leading to policy changes in television broadcasting. - Limitation: Underestimation of biological factors. Bandura's research consistently showed boys were more aggressive than girls, which could be better explained by biological differences, such as testosterone levels, which are not accounted for by SLT. - Limitation: Methodological issues. Much of the supporting evidence, such as Bandura's Bobo doll experiments, relied on laboratory settings which may lack ecological validity and suffer from demand characteristics, as children may have behaved aggressively simply because they believed they were expected to do so.

Level 4 (7-8 marks): Knowledge of the social learning theory approach is accurate and detailed. Evaluation is effective, well-focused, and clearly explained. The essay is well-structured and uses appropriate psychological terminology. Level 3 (5-6 marks): Knowledge of the social learning theory approach is mostly accurate. Evaluation is present and mostly effective, though some points may lack depth. The essay is reasonably structured and uses relevant terminology. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Knowledge of the social learning theory approach is basic or limited. Evaluation is superficial, overly brief, or descriptive rather than evaluative. The essay may lack structure. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Knowledge of the approach is extremely basic, fragmented, or contains major inaccuracies. Evaluation is absent, irrelevant, or highly flawed.

The correct option is B. Deviation from social norms is highly culturally relative and historically specific. What is considered acceptable behavior in one culture or era may be deemed abnormal in another (for example, homosexuality was once classified as a mental illness in Western psychiatry). This makes the definition susceptible to cultural bias and abuse as a means of social control. Option A refers to 'failure to function adequately', Option C refers to 'statistical infrequency', and Option D refers to 'failure to function adequately'.

2 marks for selecting the correct option (B). 0 marks for selecting A, C, or D.

To find the percentage of patients who did not show significant clinical improvement:

1. Calculate the number of patients who did not improve:
\(80 - 56 = 24\)

2. Calculate this number as a percentage of the total sample:
\(\frac{24}{80} \times 100 = 30\%\)

**Alternative method:**

1. Calculate the percentage of patients who did improve:
\(\frac{56}{80} \times 100 = 70\%\)

2. Subtract this percentage from 100%:
\(100\% - 70\% = 30\%\)

**1 mark** for correct workings. Correct workings include:
- \(\frac{24}{80} \times 100\)
- \(80 - 56 = 24\) and attempting to calculate a percentage
- \(100 - \left(\frac{56}{80} \times 100\right)\)

**1 mark** for the correct answer of **30%** (accept **30**).

*Note: Award full 2 marks for a correct final answer (30% or 30) even if no workings are shown.*

To earn both marks, the student must correctly identify and apply both characteristics from the scenario: 1. Behavioral characteristic (1 mark): Panic (such as screaming or running out of the room) or Avoidance (such as refusing to go back inside). 2. Emotional characteristic (1 mark): Anxiety or fear (such as feeling extremely anxious or experiencing a rapid heart rate).

1 mark for a correctly identified and applied behavioral characteristic (e.g., panic/avoidance linked to Sarah's behavior). 1 mark for a correctly identified and applied emotional characteristic (e.g., anxiety/fear linked to Sarah's physical/emotional state).

The two-process model proposed by Mowrer suggests that phobias are acquired through classical conditioning and maintained through operant conditioning.

1. Acquisition (Classical Conditioning):
- Before the incident, the dog was a Neutral Stimulus (NS) which produced no fear response.
- The large dog barking loudly and jumping acted as an Unconditioned Stimulus (UCS), producing an Unconditioned Response (UCR) of fear/anxiety.
- Through association of the NS (dog) with the UCS (barking/jumping), the dog becomes a Conditioned Stimulus (CS).
- Liam now experiences a Conditioned Response (CR) of fear when seeing dogs.

2. Maintenance (Operant Conditioning):
- Whenever Liam sees a dog, he avoids them by running away or choosing a different route.
- This avoidance behavior successfully reduces his feelings of fear and anxiety (negative reinforcement).
- Because this avoidance behavior removes an unpleasant stimulus (anxiety), the behavior is reinforced and repeated, preventing Liam from confronting his fear and thus maintaining the phobia.

Marks are awarded as follows:

- 5-6 marks: Clear, coherent, and detailed explanation of both how the phobia was acquired (classical conditioning) and maintained (operant conditioning), with explicit and accurate application to Liam's scenario.
- 3-4 marks: Explanation of both acquisition and maintenance with some application to Liam, or a detailed explanation of only one process (e.g., classical conditioning) fully applied to the scenario.
- 1-2 marks: Outline of the two-process model is very basic, lacking detail, or there is little to no application to Liam's case.

Key Application Points to look for:
- Classical Conditioning: NS (dog) + UCS (loud bark/jumping) -> UCR (fear/anxiety) leads to CS (dog) -> CR (fear).
- Operant Conditioning: Running away / changing route acts as avoidance behavior. This leads to negative reinforcement (reduction of anxiety), maintaining the phobia.

### AO1: Knowledge of Biological Explanations

**Genetic Explanations:**
- **Candidate Genes:** Specific genes are thought to create a vulnerability to OCD. For example, the COMT gene regulates dopamine production (lower activity of COMT leads to higher dopamine levels, linked to compulsive behaviours). The SERT gene is involved in the transport of serotonin; a mutation in this gene can lead to lower serotonin levels, linked to obsessive thoughts.
- **Polygenic Nature:** OCD is not caused by a single gene but is polygenic. Taylor (2013) found evidence that up to 230 different genes may be involved in OCD.
- **Aetiological Heterogeneity:** The genetic origin of OCD varies from person to person; one group of genes may cause OCD in one individual, while a different group causes it in another.

**Neural Explanations:**
- **Neurotransmitters:** Low levels of serotonin are associated with OCD, preventing normal transmission of mood-relevant information. High levels of dopamine are also associated with compulsive behaviours.
- **Brain Structure (The Worry Circuit):** Abnormalities in the frontal lobes and basal ganglia are linked to OCD. The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) sends worry signals to the thalamus. Usually, the caudate nucleus suppresses minor worry signals. If the caudate nucleus is damaged or malfunctioning, it fails to suppress these signals, and the thalamus becomes hyperactive, reinforcing worry and driving compulsive rituals.

### AO3: Evaluation of Biological Explanations

- **Supporting Evidence for Genetics:** Nestadt et al. (2010) reviewed twin studies and found a 68% concordance rate for OCD in identical (MZ) twins compared to 31% in non-identical (DZ) twins. This strongly supports a genetic basis for the disorder because MZ twins share 100% of their DNA.
- **Environmental Factors (Diathesis-Stress):** The genetic explanation is incomplete on its own. Cromer et al. (2007) found that over half of OCD patients in their sample had experienced a traumatic event in their past, and those with more traumas had more severe OCD. This suggests that a diathesis-stress model is more appropriate, where genetics provide the vulnerability, but environmental stressors trigger the onset.
- **Support for Neural Explanations:** The effectiveness of biological treatments supports neural explanations. Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs), which increase serotonin levels in the brain, are highly effective in reducing OCD symptoms, suggesting that serotonin levels play a key role in the disorder.
- **Correlation vs. Causation in Neural Explanations:** A limitation of neural explanations is the direction of cause and effect. Brain scans show abnormal activity in the OFC of OCD patients, but it is impossible to determine whether these neural differences cause OCD, or if the repetitive thoughts and behaviours of OCD cause changes in brain structure over time (neuroplasticity).

### Mark Scheme

| Level | Marks | Description |
|---|---|---|
| **Level 4** | **10-12** | Knowledge of biological explanations of OCD is accurate and detailed. Evaluation is highly effective, showing critical analysis. The answer is well-structured, coherent, and uses appropriate psychological terminology. |
| **Level 3** | **7-9** | Knowledge of biological explanations is mostly accurate with some detail. Evaluation is mostly effective, though some points may lack depth. The answer is generally clear and structured. |
| **Level 2** | **4-6** | There is some knowledge of biological explanations, but it may lack detail or contain inaccuracies. Evaluation is limited or basic. Structured remains adequate but lacks flow. |
| **Level 1** | **1-3** | Knowledge of biological explanations is extremely basic, fragmented, or inaccurate. Evaluation is minimal, absent, or irrelevant. The answer lacks structure. |
| **0** | **0** | No relevant content. |

### Content-Specific Guidance

**AO1 (6 marks):**
- Award up to 6 marks for detailed description of genetic factors (candidate genes, polygenic nature, twin studies) and neural factors (serotonin, dopamine, orbitofrontal cortex, caudate nucleus, worry circuit).

**AO3 (6 marks):**
- Award up to 6 marks for evaluation. Credit points relating to: support from twin/family studies (e.g., Nestadt); criticisms regarding environmental triggers (Cromer); support from drug therapies (SSRIs); issues of correlation vs. causation; and biological reductionism.

The researcher is using a **semi-structured interview**.

This is because she uses a set of pre-determined questions (which is characteristic of a structured interview) but also has the flexibility to ask unplanned follow-up questions based on the specific answers given by the participant (which is characteristic of an unstructured interview).

**1 mark** for identifying the correct type of interview: semi-structured interview (or semi-structured).

**1 mark** for explanation in context: explaining that it involves both pre-determined questions (e.g., asking how often they visit) and the freedom to ask unplanned follow-up questions depending on the participant's answers.

An exemplary directional hypothesis must clearly state the expected direction of the difference and fully operationalise both the Independent Variable (IV) and the Dependent Variable (DV).

- Independent Variable (IV): Studying in complete silence vs. studying while listening to white noise through headphones.
- Dependent Variable (DV): The number of words recalled (out of 30).

Example of a fully operationalised directional hypothesis (3 marks):
"Participants who study a list of 30 words in complete silence will recall significantly more words than participants who study the same list of words while listening to white noise through headphones."

3 marks: The hypothesis is directional, clear, and fully operationalised. It explicitly details both conditions of the Independent Variable (studying in complete silence vs. studying while listening to white noise through headphones) and the Dependent Variable (the number of words recalled from a list of 30).

2 marks: The hypothesis is directional but lacks full operationalisation of one of the variables (e.g., "Participants in silence will recall more words than those listening to white noise"), OR it is a fully operationalised non-directional hypothesis.

1 mark: The hypothesis is directional but very vague, with no operationalisation of the variables (e.g., "The silence group will do better than the noise group"), OR it is a non-directional hypothesis with partial operationalisation.

0 marks: The statement is not a hypothesis (e.g., it is written as an aim), or it is a null hypothesis.

An exemplary directional hypothesis must clearly state the expected direction of the difference and fully operationalise both the Independent Variable (IV) and the Dependent Variable (DV).

- Independent Variable (IV): Studying in complete silence vs. studying while listening to white noise through headphones.
- Dependent Variable (DV): The number of words recalled (out of 30).

Example of a fully operationalised directional hypothesis (3 marks):
"Participants who study a list of 30 words in complete silence will recall significantly more words than participants who study the same list of words while listening to white noise through headphones."

3 marks: The hypothesis is directional, clear, and fully operationalised. It explicitly details both conditions of the Independent Variable (studying in complete silence vs. studying while listening to white noise through headphones) and the Dependent Variable (the number of words recalled from a list of 30).

2 marks: The hypothesis is directional but lacks full operationalisation of one of the variables (e.g., "Participants in silence will recall more words than those listening to white noise"), OR it is a fully operationalised non-directional hypothesis.

1 mark: The hypothesis is directional but very vague, with no operationalisation of the variables (e.g., "The silence group will do better than the noise group"), OR it is a non-directional hypothesis with partial operationalisation.

0 marks: The statement is not a hypothesis (e.g., it is written as an aim), or it is a null hypothesis.

An appropriate closed-ended question must provide respondents with a predetermined set of response options (such as Yes/No, a Likert scale, or a numerical rating scale) to measure their enjoyment of wearing a uniform.

Examples of acceptable responses include:
- 'Do you enjoy wearing your school uniform? Yes / No'
- 'On a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is strongly dislike and 5 is strongly like, how much do you enjoy wearing your school uniform?'
- 'How happy are you to wear your school uniform? (Very Happy / Happy / Neutral / Unhappy / Very Unhappy)'

1 mark for a clearly formulated, appropriate closed-ended question relevant to the context of enjoying school uniforms.

- The question must offer predetermined options (e.g., Yes/No, a rating scale, or categorical choices).
- Do not award marks if the question is open-ended (e.g., 'Explain how you feel when wearing your school uniform') as this would produce qualitative rather than quantitative data.

Target Population: UK secondary school teachers (the wider group that the psychologist wants to study and generalise her findings to). Sample: The 45 Yorkshire secondary school teachers who volunteered to participate (the actual subgroup of the target population selected for the study).

0.75 marks for correctly identifying the target population in context (e.g., 'UK secondary school teachers'). 0.75 marks for correctly identifying the sample in context (e.g., 'the 45 volunteering secondary school teachers from Yorkshire'). Note: Maximum 0.75 marks total if answers are generic and not contextualised to this specific study.

Target Population: Young adults aged 18-25 in the UK (the overall group that the researcher wants to draw conclusions about). Sample: The 60 young adults who responded to the social media advertisement and were selected (the specific subset of the target population taking part in the study).

0.75 marks for correctly identifying the target population in context (e.g., 'young adults aged 18-25 in the UK'). 0.75 marks for correctly identifying the sample in context (e.g., 'the 60 young adult respondents who responded to the social media ad'). Note: Maximum 0.75 marks total if answers are generic and not contextualised to this specific study.

Operationalisation requires translating an abstract concept (concentration) into a concrete, measurable metric. In this scenario, concentration can be operationalised by measuring performance on a specific cognitive task. For example, the psychologist could record the score achieved on a 50-item word search puzzle completed in ten minutes, or count the number of grammatical errors correctly identified on a one-page document within a set time limit.

2 marks for a clear, fully operationalised explanation of concentration that is specific, measurable, and appropriate to the scenario (must include both a specific task and a clear measurement metric). 1 mark for a vague or partially operationalised explanation (e.g., 'give them a test' or 'measure how long they pay attention' without specifying both the metric and the task).

To deal with the lack of informed consent in a covert observation, the researcher can use retrospective consent and debriefing: 1. Identify the method (1 mark): The researcher can obtain retrospective consent during a debrief session after the observation has taken place. 2. Apply to the scenario (1 mark): As soon as the private study session ends, the researcher should approach the observed students, explain the true nature of the study (observing mobile phone use), and explain why covert observation was necessary. 3. Explain the consequence/rights (1 mark): The students must be given the right to withdraw their data, and if they do not consent, their data must be immediately destroyed and excluded from the study.

3 marks: A clear, coherent, and fully contextualised explanation of how the researcher can deal with the lack of informed consent, using a recognized method (such as retrospective consent) applied precisely to the school library and phone study. 2 marks: A partially contextualised explanation of how to address the consent issue, but missing either the clear link to the scenario or detail on the outcome (such as deleting data). 1 mark: A basic, non-contextualised explanation of how to address a lack of consent (such as 'the researcher could use retrospective consent by asking them afterwards'), or a very weak attempt at application. Possible points: Retrospective consent (approaching the students in the library after the observation to explain they were being watched and asking for permission to use their data); Right to withdraw (informing students during debriefing that they can have their data destroyed); Presumptive consent (asking a similar group of students if they would find this acceptable).

To calculate the percentage decrease from Condition A to Condition B:

1. Find the absolute decrease: \(15 - 12 = 3\)
2. Divide the decrease by the original value (Condition A): \(\frac{3}{15} = 0.2\)
3. Convert to a percentage: \(0.2 \times 100 = 20\%\)

1 mark for showing the correct workings: e.g., \(\frac{15 - 12}{15} \times 100\) or \(\frac{3}{15} \times 100\).

1 mark for the correct answer: 20% (accept '20' or '0.2').

In this scenario, a correlational design is the most appropriate choice for two main reasons: 1. Purpose of the study: The researcher is interested in finding a relationship or association between two continuous co-variables (hours of sleep and exam score), rather than establishing a direct cause-and-effect relationship. 2. Ethical considerations: In an experiment, the researcher would need to manipulate the independent variable (hours of sleep). Deliberately depriving some students of sleep before a high-stakes, real-life A-level exam is highly unethical as it would likely impair their performance and disadvantage them compared to their peers.

1 mark for explaining that a correlation is suitable because the study aims to find a relationship/association between two continuous co-variables (hours of sleep and exam score) rather than a difference. 1 mark for explaining the ethical/practical justification: it would be unethical to deliberately manipulate/deprive students of sleep before a real high-stakes exam, or it is difficult to naturally control this as an independent variable. Accept: references to the fact that both variables are naturally occurring and continuous.

Type of observation and justification:
- Naturalistic, non-participant, covert observation.
- Justification: Conducting a naturalistic observation in a public park ensures that the toddlers' behaviour is spontaneous and natural, as their environment is not manipulated. A covert observation (e.g., observing from a distance or bench) prevents parents or children from changing their behaviour due to knowing they are being watched (reducing demand characteristics/reactivity).

Operationalised behavioural category:
- Category: Solitary Play.
- Operationalisation: The child is observed playing alone with a toy or object (such as a spade, bucket, or ball), actively focusing on their own play activity, and making no verbal or physical contact with any other children or adults within a 1-metre radius for a continuous period of at least 5 seconds.

Assessing reliability:
- Inter-observer reliability should be established.
- Two observers would watch the same toddlers at the same time but record their observations independently using the same behavioural categories.
- The two sets of data would then be compared using a statistical correlation (e.g., Spearman's rho).
- A high positive correlation coefficient (usually \(+0.80\) or above) would indicate high inter-observer reliability.

Marks allocation: 6 marks

For 6 marks, the design must be coherent, appropriate, and cover all three bullet points with sufficient detail and clarity.

- Level 3 (5-6 marks): The design is detailed, appropriate and fully coherent. All three bullet points are addressed with clear, accurate details. There is a clear understanding of observational methodology, operationalisation, and reliability.
- Level 2 (3-4 marks): The design is mostly appropriate and structured. There is some detail for most of the bullet points, but there may be omissions or lack of clarity in some areas (e.g., the behavioural category is identified but not fully operationalised, or the description of establishing reliability is vague).
- Level 1 (1-2 marks): The design is basic or has significant omissions. The student may have only addressed one bullet point or provided very superficial/confused detail.
- 0 marks: No relevant content.

Guidelines for specific content:
- Type of observation (2 marks): Accept any appropriate type (e.g., naturalistic, covert, non-participant). Max 1 mark for just naming the type(s); 1 mark for a clear, relevant justification linked to the scenario (e.g., avoiding reactivity, natural setting).
- Behavioural category (2 marks): Must be a specific category of play behaviour (e.g., solitary play, cooperative play, parallel play, aggressive play). 1 mark for naming a relevant category; 1 mark for clear operationalisation (e.g., specific, observable actions rather than vague states of mind).
- Assessing reliability (2 marks): Must refer to inter-observer reliability. 1 mark for explaining the process (two or more observers recording independently). 1 mark for explaining how it is assessed/checked (correlating the data, expecting a correlation of \(+0.80\) or above).