2023 AQA GCSE Psychology 8182 模擬試題連答案詳解

Bartlett found that when participants recalled the Native American story 'War of the Ghosts', they reconstructed the memory to make sense of it. This process of rationalisation resulted in the story becoming shorter, simpler, and more aligned with the participants' own cultural schemas and expectations.

Award 1 mark for identifying the correct option (b). Award 0 marks for any other option.

The primacy effect refers to the higher recall probability of words from the beginning of a list. According to Murdock, this occurs because these early words are rehearsed more and therefore have been successfully transferred to long-term memory (LTM).

Award 1 mark for identifying the correct option (b). Award 0 marks for any other option.

The primacy effect is the tendency to recall earlier words in a list better than middle words. Because the first words are presented first, they receive more attention and verbal rehearsal. This rehearsal transfers these words from the limited-capacity Short-Term Memory (STM) into the Long-Term Memory (LTM). When it is time to recall, these words are retrieved directly from the LTM, which is why they are remembered well.

Award 1 mark for stating that the first words receive more attention/rehearsal. Award 1 mark for explaining that rehearsal transfers these words from STM to LTM. Award 1 mark for explaining that this allows them to be successfully retrieved from LTM during recall.

Bartlett's reconstructive theory of memory states that memory is active rather than a direct recording. When people encounter information that is culturally unfamiliar, they use their existing cultural schemas to reconstruct the memory so it makes sense to them. This leads to changes or distortions in recall, such as when participants in the War of the Ghosts study recalled 'canoes' as 'boats' or 'hunting seals' as 'fishing'.

Award 1 mark for explaining that unfamiliar information is adapted/changed to fit existing cultural schemas. Award 1 mark for explaining that schemas act as mental frameworks to make the memory make sense. Award 1 mark for providing a clear, relevant example (e.g., changing 'canoes' to 'boats' or 'hunting seals' to 'fishing' in Bartlett's study).

Context-dependency refers to the idea that the physical environment where learning occurs acts as a retrieval cue. If the context at recall matches the context at encoding, the environmental cues trigger the memory, making it easier to retrieve. This is supported by Godden and Baddeley's (1975) study, where divers who learned and recalled words in the same environment (underwater/underwater or land/land) showed significantly better recall than those whose learning and recall environments did not match.

Award 1 mark for explaining that the physical environment is encoded with the memory as an external cue. Award 1 mark for stating that matching encoding and recall contexts improves retrieval. Award 1 mark for referencing Godden and Baddeley's study and describing how matching environments (e.g., wet/wet or dry/dry) led to better recall than mismatching environments.

The student is holding information in their Short-Term Memory (STM) via maintenance rehearsal. The capacity of STM is limited to 7 plus or minus 2 items (5 to 9 items), which directly accounts for the student only being able to keep about 7 dates in mind. Furthermore, the duration of STM is limited to about 18 to 30 seconds, meaning information will be lost quickly if rehearsal is interrupted.

Award 1 mark for correctly identifying the store as Short-Term Memory (STM). Award 1 mark for stating the capacity of STM is 5 to 9 items (or 7 plus or minus 2) and linking it to the scenario. Award 1 mark for stating that the duration of STM is limited to approximately 18 to 30 seconds.

### Example Answer:

* **Variables:**
* **Independent Variable (IV):** Whether the participant recalls the list of words in the same environment (classroom) in which they learned them, or a different environment (school hall).
* **Dependent Variable (DV):** The number of words correctly recalled from a list of 20 words.

* **Experimental Design & Justification:**
* **Design:** Independent groups design.
* **Reason:** This prevents order effects, such as practice or fatigue, which would occur if participants had to learn and recall lists twice under both conditions.

* **Procedure:**
* Recruit 20 participants and randomly allocate 10 to Condition A (same environment) and 10 to Condition B (different environment).
* Give all participants 2 minutes to study a list of 20 common nouns in a quiet classroom. Then, immediately send Condition B to the school hall while Condition A stays in the classroom. Give both groups 3 minutes to write down as many words as they can recall, and then compare the average scores of both groups.

### Mark Scheme Breakdown

#### Part 1: Variables [2 marks]
* **1 mark** for a clearly operationalised Independent Variable (IV) (e.g., learning and recalling in the same room vs. learning in one room and recalling in a different room).
* **1 mark** for a clearly operationalised Dependent Variable (DV) (e.g., the number of words recalled correctly from a standardized list).

#### Part 2: Experimental Design & Justification [2 marks]
* **1 mark** for identifying a appropriate experimental design (e.g., independent groups or repeated measures).
* **1 mark** for a valid psychological justification relevant to memory testing (e.g., 'independent groups avoids order effects/participants guessing the aim of the study' or 'repeated measures controls for individual differences in natural memory capacity').

#### Part 3: Procedure [2 marks]
* **2 marks** for a clear, logical, and sequential description of the procedure that could easily be replicated by another researcher.
* **1 mark** for a vague or incomplete procedure that lacks key logical steps (e.g., does not mention how learning or recall is controlled, or is missing the context transition).

To earn full marks, the answer must provide both a strength and a weakness, explaining clearly how or why they evaluate the multi-store model.

**Possible Strengths:**
* **Supporting research evidence:** e.g., Murdock's serial position curve study demonstrates distinct primacy (LTM) and recency (STM) effects, supporting the existence of separate stores.
* **Clinical case studies:** e.g., HM's surgery left him with a functional STM but unable to form new LTMs, which supports the model's claim that the stores are structurally distinct.

**Possible Weaknesses:**
* **Oversimplification of STM:** The MSM describes STM as a single unitary store. However, other models and clinical cases (like KF, who could process visual info but not verbal info in STM) show that STM has multiple active subsystems.
* **Role of rehearsal:** The MSM suggests maintenance rehearsal is the main mechanism for transferring information to LTM, but in everyday life, we often remember meaningful information without rehearsal, and simple rehearsal does not always guarantee long-term storage.
* **Artificial tasks:** Many studies supporting the model (e.g., memorising word lists or consonant trigrams) lack ecological validity and do not represent how we use memory in real life.

**4 marks:** One strength and one weakness are clearly identified and fully explained in relation to the multi-store model of memory.
**3 marks:** One strength and one weakness are identified, but only one is fully explained, OR two strengths/weaknesses are explained but the other side is missing.
**2 marks:** One strength and one weakness are identified but neither is explained, OR only one strength or weakness is identified and fully explained.
**1 mark:** Only one strength or weakness is weakly identified with no explanation.
**0 marks:** No creditworthy content.

To earn full marks, the answer must provide both a strength and a weakness, explaining clearly how or why they evaluate the multi-store model.

**Possible Strengths:**
* **Supporting research evidence:** e.g., Murdock's serial position curve study demonstrates distinct primacy (LTM) and recency (STM) effects, supporting the existence of separate stores.
* **Clinical case studies:** e.g., HM's surgery left him with a functional STM but unable to form new LTMs, which supports the model's claim that the stores are structurally distinct.

**Possible Weaknesses:**
* **Oversimplification of STM:** The MSM describes STM as a single unitary store. However, other models and clinical cases (like KF, who could process visual info but not verbal info in STM) show that STM has multiple active subsystems.
* **Role of rehearsal:** The MSM suggests maintenance rehearsal is the main mechanism for transferring information to LTM, but in everyday life, we often remember meaningful information without rehearsal, and simple rehearsal does not always guarantee long-term storage.
* **Artificial tasks:** Many studies supporting the model (e.g., memorising word lists or consonant trigrams) lack ecological validity and do not represent how we use memory in real life.

**4 marks:** One strength and one weakness are clearly identified and fully explained in relation to the multi-store model of memory.
**3 marks:** One strength and one weakness are identified, but only one is fully explained, OR two strengths/weaknesses are explained but the other side is missing.
**2 marks:** One strength and one weakness are identified but neither is explained, OR only one strength or weakness is identified and fully explained.
**1 mark:** Only one strength or weakness is weakly identified with no explanation.
**0 marks:** No creditworthy content.

Gregory's constructive theory of perception proposes that perception is an active, top-down process. Because sensory information reaching the retina can be ambiguous, the brain must use existing knowledge, stored schemas, and past experiences to make guesses (hypotheses) about what is being perceived. This makes option B the correct answer. Option A describes Gibson's direct theory. Option C represents an extreme nativist view of perception. Option D is incorrect because Gregory believed visual illusions are caused by misinterpreted depth cues rather than physical damage to the sensory receptors.

1 mark for identifying option B as the correct statement. 0 marks for any other option selected.

To answer this question, you need to apply the definitions of sensation and perception to Maya's experience: 1. Sensation is the process of detecting raw physical stimuli from the environment through our sensory organs. In the scenario, Maya's sensation occurs when her eyes detect the patches of yellow, orange, and blue light. 2. Perception is the process of organizing and interpreting that sensory information so that it has meaning. In the scenario, Maya's perception occurs when she makes sense of those light waves and recognizes them as a sunset over a beach.

Apply the following criteria:
- 1 mark for explaining sensation in relation to the scenario (e.g., detecting the raw sensory input of yellow, orange, and blue light).
- 1 mark for explaining perception in relation to the scenario (e.g., interpreting or making sense of those colours/shapes as a sunset).

Note: If the candidate defines sensation and perception correctly but fails to apply them to Maya's scenario, award a maximum of 1 mark overall.

To calculate the percentage increase:
1. Find the difference (increase) in the number of participants: \(27 - 16 = 11\)
2. Divide this increase by the baseline number (Condition A): \(\frac{11}{16} = 0.6875\)
3. Multiply by 100 to convert to a percentage: \(0.6875 \times 100 = 68.75\%\)
4. Round to one decimal place: \(68.8\%\)

- 1 mark for correct working showing the calculation of the relative increase: \(\frac{27 - 16}{16} \times 100\) or \(\frac{11}{16} \times 100\).
- 0.5 marks for the correct final answer rounded to one decimal place: 68.8% (accept 68.8).

To find the simplified ratio:
1. State the initial ratio of Group 1 to Group 2: \(18:4\)
2. Find the highest common factor of both numbers, which is 2.
3. Divide both numbers by 2 to simplify the ratio: \(18 \div 2 = 9\) and \(4 \div 2 = 2\).
4. The simplified ratio is \(9:2\).

- 1 mark for identifying the correct baseline ratio of \(18:4\) or showing evidence of dividing both numbers by a common factor.
- 0.5 marks for the final correct simplified ratio of \(9:2\) (also accept '9 to 2').

To construct a correct histogram based on the provided grouped frequency data:
- **Axes Labels**: The Y-axis must be labeled 'Frequency' or 'Number of participants'. The X-axis must be labeled 'Recognition Time (ms)' or 'Recognition Time'.
- **Scale**: The Y-axis must have a uniform linear scale starting at 0 and going up to at least 8 (e.g., increments of 1 or 2).
- **Plotted Bars**: Four adjacent bars must be drawn with no gaps between them because the data is continuous. The heights must be exactly:
- 100–199: height of 3
- 200–299: height of 8
- 300–399: height of 6
- 400–499: height of 3

- **1 mark** for correct and clear labeling of both axes (X-axis: 'Recognition Time (ms)'/ 'Recognition Time' AND Y-axis: 'Frequency'/ 'Number of participants').
- **1 mark** for a suitable linear scale on the Y-axis starting at 0 and equal spacing of intervals on the X-axis.
- **1 mark** for drawing the bars with no gaps between them (essential feature of a histogram).
- **1 mark** for plotting all four bars accurately to the correct heights (3, 8, 6, 3). Deduct this mark if there are any errors in height plotting.

To gain full marks, the answer must provide an evaluation of Gregory's constructive theory of perception, including at least one strength and one limitation.

**Possible strengths:**
* Supported by research into visual illusions (e.g., Müller-Lyer, Ponzo) which demonstrate that we make mistaken hypotheses based on depth cues.
* Supported by cross-cultural studies (e.g., Hudson) which show that depth perception is a learned skill rather than innate, supporting top-down processing.
* Explains how perception is influenced by individual factors like motivation, expectation (perceptual set), and past experience.

**Possible limitations:**
* Relying on artificial 2D illusions means the theory may lack ecological validity, as everyday 3D perception rarely involves such ambiguous figures.
* It fails to explain why perception is so fast and highly accurate in real-life situations if we must constantly formulate and test hypotheses.
* Gibson's direct theory provides a strong alternative, showing that the optic array gives us immediate, direct perceptual information without needing top-down interpretation.

**Marking scheme:**
* **4-5 marks:** Clear, detailed evaluation with at least one well-explained strength and one well-explained limitation, using appropriate psychological terminology.
* **2-3 marks:** Reasonable evaluation with a strength and/or limitation, but lacking detail or clarity in the explanation.
* **1 mark:** Basic or superficial point of evaluation (e.g., just stating a strength or limitation without explaining why it is a strength or limitation).

**[1 mark]** for identifying a relevant strength (e.g., supported by illusions or cultural studies).
**[1 mark]** for explaining why this strength supports the theory.
**[1 mark]** for identifying a relevant limitation (e.g., lacks ecological validity / cannot explain speed of perception).
**[1 mark]** for explaining why this limitation weakens the theory.
**[1 mark]** for clear structure and effective use of specialist psychological vocabulary throughout the response.

**Part (a):**
* The mode is the most frequently occurring score in the data set.
* In this data set, the score **8** occurs twice, while all other scores occur only once.
* **Mode = 8**

**Part (b):**
* Step 1: Arrange the scores in ascending order:
$$4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10$$
* Step 2: Since there are an even number of values ($N = 8$), locate the two middle values (the 4th and 5th values).
The 4th value is $7$ and the 5th value is $8$.
* Step 3: Calculate the average (mean) of these two middle values:
$$\frac{7 + 8}{2} = \frac{15}{2} = 7.5$$
* **Median = 7.5**

**Part (a):**
* **[1 mark]** for correctly identifying the mode as **8**.

**Part (b):**
* **[1 mark]** for putting the data set in ascending or descending order: $4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 8, 9, 10$ (or reverse).
* **[1 mark]** for correctly identifying that the median lies between the two middle numbers ($7$ and $8$).
* **[1 mark]** for showing the calculation of the mean of these two numbers: $\frac{7 + 8}{2}$ or equivalent.
* **[1 mark]** for the correct final median value of **7.5**.

To gain full marks, the student must accurately describe the structural features required to construct a histogram for the provided continuous data set.

* **X-axis description:** The horizontal axis (x-axis) must represent the independent variable, which is the continuous measurement of reaction times divided into intervals (e.g., 100-199 ms, 200-299 ms, etc.).
* **Y-axis description:** The vertical axis (y-axis) must represent the frequency (number of participants) and be appropriately scaled (from 0 up to at least 18).
* **Bar characteristics:**
* The bars must be drawn touching each other (no gaps between bars) because the data (reaction time) is continuous.
* The bars must have equal width.
* The height of each bar must represent the exact frequency for that interval (e.g., the bar for 300-399 ms must reach 18 on the y-axis).

**[1 mark]** for stating that the x-axis must represent the continuous reaction time intervals.
**[1 mark]** for stating that the y-axis must represent the frequency (number of participants).
**[1 mark]** for explaining that the bars must touch (no gaps between them) because the data is continuous.
**[1 mark]** for stating that the bars must be of equal width.
**[1 mark]** for explaining that the height of each bar must correspond directly to the frequency values given in the table (or providing a specific example, such as the height of the 300-399 ms bar being 18).

The brainstem connects the brain to the spinal cord and controls automatic survival functions such as heart rate, breathing, and sleeping. Therefore, option C is correct. The cerebellum (A) is responsible for coordination and balance; the thalamus (B) acts as a hub for sensory information; and the cortex (D) is responsible for higher-level cognitive processing.

1 mark for identifying the brainstem (C) as the correct structure. No marks for incorrect responses.

According to Dweck's theory, individuals with a fixed mindset believe that intelligence and talent are innate and unchangeable. Consequently, they often avoid challenges to prevent failure, give up quickly when faced with obstacles, and view effort as fruitless. Option C correctly describes this behavior. Options A, B, and D describe characteristics of a growth mindset.

1 mark for identifying option C as the correct behavior associated with a fixed mindset. No marks for incorrect responses.

The Independent Variable (IV) is the variable that is manipulated or naturally differs between the groups. In this study, it is the age group of the children (3–4 years and 5–6 years). The Dependent Variable (DV) is the variable that is measured by the researcher to see the effect of the IV. In this study, it is whether the child can successfully hide the doll from the two policeman dolls.

1 mark for identifying the Independent Variable (IV): the age of the children / age group (accept 3-4 years vs 5-6 years).
1 mark for identifying the Dependent Variable (DV): whether the child successfully hid the doll / perspective-taking score (accept the ability to see from another person's point of view).

To carry out random allocation, the psychologist should ensure every participant has an equal chance of being in either group. First, they assign a number from 1 to 40 to each pupil. Second, they place all 40 numbers on identical, folded slips of paper into a container/hat and shake it. Third, they draw out 20 slips of paper. The pupils whose numbers are drawn are assigned to the growth mindset intervention group, and the remaining 20 pupils are assigned to the control group.

Apply the following marking criteria:
3 marks: A clear, accurate and sequential explanation of how random allocation would be achieved in this specific scenario.
2 marks: A mostly clear explanation of random allocation but lacking detail or specificity to the scenario.
1 mark: A weak or vague attempt to explain random allocation (e.g., 'draw names from a hat' without explaining the groups or the assignment process).

Key elements to look for:
- Assigning names/numbers to all 40 pupils (1 mark).
- Using a random method, e.g., drawing from a hat / random number generator (1 mark).
- Allocating the first 20 to one group and the remaining 20 to the other group (1 mark).

1. Identify the type of praise (1 mark): Mr. Davies is using effort praise (praising the process and hard work). 2. Effect on mindset (1 mark): This encourages a growth mindset, where Maya believes her skills can be developed through dedication. 3. Response to challenge (1 mark): Maya is more likely to view difficulty as a learning opportunity rather than a sign of low ability. 4. Effect on performance (1 mark): This leads to increased persistence and eventual improvement in her performance.

1 mark for identifying the type of praise as effort praise. 1 mark for explaining that this leads to a growth mindset (or the belief that ability can be developed). 1 mark for explaining how it influences her response to challenge (e.g., increased resilience, seeing mistakes as opportunities). 1 mark for explaining how this affects her performance (e.g., she will persist longer and improve her skills).

Dweck's mindset theory proposes that children can have either a fixed mindset (believing intelligence is innate) or a growth mindset (believing intelligence can be developed through effort). To evaluate this theory, students should consider the following points: 1. Practical Applications: The theory has been highly influential in school environments. It provides teachers with practical strategies, such as using effort-based praise ('you worked really hard') rather than person-based praise ('you are so smart'), to help children develop resilience and a love of learning. 2. Supporting Research: Empirical evidence supports the theory. For instance, Blackwell et al. (2007) found that students with a growth mindset showed an upward trajectory in motivation and math grades over time, and those who received a growth mindset intervention improved significantly compared to a control group. 3. Reductionist/Individualistic Focus: A major limitation is that the theory places the blame for failure entirely on the child's mindset. It ignores crucial external factors such as socioeconomic disadvantages, systemic inequalities, and the quality of teaching, which also heavily influence academic success. 4. Lack of Replicability: Recent large-scale systematic reviews and replication attempts have found that mindset interventions have very small, often negligible effects on academic outcomes, suggesting Dweck's original claims may be overstated.

For 5 marks: Candidates must provide a balanced evaluation of Dweck's mindset theory, offering both strengths and weaknesses with clear explanation and detail. For 3-4 marks: Candidates will offer evaluation points but they may lack detail or focus on only strengths or only weaknesses. For 1-2 marks: Candidates will list basic, undeveloped points. Mark breakdown: Level 3 (5 marks): Clear, coherent and detailed evaluation including at least one strength and one weakness, fully explained and linked back to the theory. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Explanation of at least two evaluation points (e.g., one strength and one weakness) but with some lack of clarity, or a detailed explanation of only strengths/weaknesses. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Superficial or isolated evaluation points with minimal detail. Rejection criteria: Descriptions of the theory rather than evaluation should not be awarded marks beyond Level 1.

### AO1: Description of Dweck's Mindset Theory

* **Fixed Mindset (Entity Theory):** Individuals believe that intelligence, talent, and ability are fixed traits that cannot be significantly changed. They focus on looking smart, tend to avoid challenges to prevent failure, and see effort as useless or a sign of low ability. When faced with setbacks, they easily give up.
* **Growth Mindset (Incremental Theory):** Individuals believe that intelligence and abilities can be developed through dedication, hard work, strategy, and learning from mistakes. They embrace challenges, persist in the face of setbacks, and view effort as the path to mastery.
* **The Role of Praise:** Dweck emphasizes how feedback shapes mindset. **Person praise** (e.g., "You are so smart!") reinforces a fixed mindset because it praises innate ability, leading to a fear of failure. **Process praise** (e.g., "You worked really hard on this math problem!") reinforces a growth mindset because it focuses on the effort and strategies used, encouraging resilience.

### AO3: Evaluation of Dweck's Mindset Theory

* **Strength: Practical Applications in Education.** The theory has high ecological validity and real-world utility. Teachers can adapt their classroom environments and grading feedback to focus on effort rather than absolute outcomes, helping students build academic resilience.
* **Strength: Empirical Support.** Research by Blackwell et al. (2007) showed that students taught a growth mindset (specifically that the brain is like a muscle that grows with effort) showed significant improvements in math motivation and grades compared to a control group.
* **Weakness: Exaggerated Impact/Replication Issues.** Large-scale systematic reviews and replication studies (e.g., Sisk et al., 2018) have found that while mindset interventions do help, their overall effect size on academic achievement is actually very small. This suggests Dweck's claims about the power of mindsets may be somewhat overstated.
* **Weakness: Risk of 'Blaming the Victim'.** Focusing solely on mindset can place the blame for low academic achievement entirely on the student's attitude. This ignores structural factors such as socioeconomic status, poor school funding, or learning difficulties, which also significantly impact development.

### Mark Allocation
* **AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding):** 4 marks
* **AO3 (Evaluation and Analysis):** 5 marks

### Level Descriptors

* **Level 3 (7-9 marks):**
* **AO1:** Detailed and highly accurate description of Dweck's mindset theory, clearly contrasting fixed and growth mindsets and the role of praise.
* **AO3:** Clear, logical, and well-developed evaluation. Covers at least one strength and one limitation with good depth. Specialist terminology is used effectively throughout.

* **Level 2 (4-6 marks):**
* **AO1:** Mostly accurate description of the theory, though some details about either mindset types or praise may be missing or slightly confused.
* **AO3:** Evaluation is present but may lack depth, or only focus on one side (e.g., only strengths). Some appropriate terminology is used.

* **Level 1 (1-3 marks):**
* **AO1:** Basic or fragmented knowledge of the theory. Confuses key terms (fixed vs. growth).
* **AO3:** Superficial or absent evaluation. Answer lacks structure and uses minimal specialist terminology.

### Guidance for Markers
* **Accept:** References to Dweck's specific terminology (entity vs. incremental theory), relevant classroom studies, and logical arguments about the nature vs. nurture debate in learning.
* **Reject:** General essays about cognitive development (e.g., Piaget) that do not explicitly link back to Dweck's mindset theory.

To find the simplified ratio of participants who helped (18) to those who did not help (12), we first write the ratio as \(18:12\). We then divide both numbers by their greatest common divisor, which is 6: \(18 \div 6 = 3\) and \(12 \div 6 = 2\). Therefore, the simplified ratio is \(3:2\).

1 mark for identifying the correct simplified ratio (B).

Closed questions limit participants to fixed responses. This is a limitation because participants cannot elaborate or explain their true thoughts and feelings, which can reduce the validity of the findings.

1 mark for identifying the correct limitation of closed questions (B).

To simplify the ratio of dim lighting to bright lighting: 1. Write the initial ratio as 45:15. 2. Find the greatest common divisor of both numbers, which is 15. 3. Divide both numbers by 15: \( 45 \div 15 = 3 \) and \( 15 \div 15 = 1 \). This gives a simplified ratio of 3:1.

1 mark for showing correct working (such as writing the unsimplified ratio of 45:15 or showing division by a common factor like 5 or 15). 1.25 marks for the final correct simplified ratio written clearly as 3:1.

The main difference lies in who collected the data and why. Primary data is original data collected directly by the researcher to address the specific aim of their study. Conversely, secondary data has already been gathered by a third party (such as in government statistics or previous peer-reviewed studies) for another purpose, and is merely reused by the researcher.

1 mark for accurately defining either primary data or secondary data. 1.25 marks for explaining the other data type and clearly contrasting the two to show a clear difference (e.g., first-hand vs second-hand collection).

Open questions allow participants to answer in their own words, producing descriptive, qualitative data. This is a weakness because analyzing qualitative data requires subjectively interpreting the text to find themes, which is much more time-consuming and difficult to compare or summarize quantitatively compared to closed questions.

1 mark for identifying a valid weakness of open questions (e.g., qualitative data is hard to analyze, time-consuming, or subjective). 1.25 marks for explaining this weakness clearly in the context of conducting research (e.g., making it difficult to compare responses or represent the findings in statistical graphs).

To calculate the percentage: 1. Divide the number of successful participants by the total number of participants: \( 56 \div 80 = 0.7 \). 2. Multiply this decimal by 100 to convert to a percentage: \( 0.7 \times 100 = 70\% \).

1 mark for showing correct mathematical working (e.g., \( \frac{56}{80} \times 100 \) or \( 56 \div 80 \)). 1.25 marks for the correct final percentage of 70% (accept 70).

To find the percentage of pedestrians who were not looking at their phones:

1. First, calculate the number of pedestrians who were not looking at their phones:
\(160 - 36 = 124\)

2. Next, calculate this number as a fraction of the total number of pedestrians:
\(\frac{124}{160}\)

3. Convert this fraction into a percentage:
\(\frac{124}{160} \times 100 = 0.775 \times 100 = 77.5\%\)

Alternatively:
1. Calculate the percentage of pedestrians looking at their phones:
\(\frac{36}{160} \times 100 = 22.5\%\)

2. Subtract this from 100% to find the percentage not looking at their phones:
\(100\% - 22.5\% = 77.5\%\)

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark for showing correct calculation of pedestrians not looking at phones (124) OR for calculating the percentage of pedestrians looking at phones (22.5%).
- 1 mark for setting up the calculation correctly, e.g., \(\frac{124}{160} \times 100\) or \(100 - 22.5\).
- 1 mark for the correct final answer: 77.5% (accept 77.5 without the % sign).

To express the ratio in its simplest whole-number form:

1. Write down the initial ratio of high-achieving to low-achieving students' hours:
\(112 : 42\)

2. Find a common factor to simplify the ratio. Both numbers can be divided by 2:
\(112 \div 2 = 56\)
\(42 \div 2 = 21\)
This gives \(56 : 21\).

3. Simplify further by dividing both numbers by their common factor of 7:
\(56 \div 7 = 8\)
\(21 \div 7 = 3\)
This gives the final simplified ratio of \(8 : 3\).

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark for identifying the correct starting ratio of \(112 : 42\) (or equivalent ratio representation).
- 1 mark for showing a correct intermediate step of simplification (e.g., dividing both parts of the ratio by 2 to get \(56 : 21\) or dividing both by 14).
- 1 mark for the correct final ratio in its simplest form: \(8:3\) (accept '8 to 3').

### 1. Completed Frequencies
By counting the occurrences of each value in the raw data:
- **5 hours**: 3 times (5, 5, 5)
- **6 hours**: 3 times (6, 6, 6)
- **7 hours**: 5 times (7, 7, 7, 7, 7)
- **8 hours**: 3 times (8, 8, 8)
- **9 hours**: 1 time (9)

### 2. Percentage Calculation
- **Step 1**: Find the total number of students who got 7 or more hours of sleep (7 hours, 8 hours, or 9 hours):
\(5 + 3 + 1 = 9\) students.
- **Step 2**: Divide this by the total number of students (15) and multiply by 100:
\(\frac{9}{15} \times 100 = 0.6 \times 100 = 60\%\)

### Part 1: Frequency Distribution (2 marks)
- **2 marks**: All 5 frequencies are correct (5 hours: 3; 6 hours: 3; 7 hours: 5; 8 hours: 3; 9 hours: 1).
- **1 mark**: Only 3 or 4 frequencies are correct.
- **0 marks**: 2 or fewer frequencies are correct.

### Part 2: Percentage Calculation (2 marks)
- **1 mark**: For showing correct workings (e.g., identifying 9 students slept 7+ hours, or writing the formula \(\frac{9}{15} \times 100\)).
- **1 mark**: For the correct final answer of **60%** (or **60**).

*Note: Allow an Error Carried Forward (ECF) from Part 1. If the candidate used their own incorrect frequencies to calculate the percentage but did the calculation correctly based on those values, award 1 mark for the correct method.*

### 1. Completed Frequencies
By counting the occurrences of each value in the raw data:
- **5 hours**: 3 times (5, 5, 5)
- **6 hours**: 3 times (6, 6, 6)
- **7 hours**: 5 times (7, 7, 7, 7, 7)
- **8 hours**: 3 times (8, 8, 8)
- **9 hours**: 1 time (9)

### 2. Percentage Calculation
- **Step 1**: Find the total number of students who got 7 or more hours of sleep (7 hours, 8 hours, or 9 hours):
\(5 + 3 + 1 = 9\) students.
- **Step 2**: Divide this by the total number of students (15) and multiply by 100:
\(\frac{9}{15} \times 100 = 0.6 \times 100 = 60\%\)

### Part 1: Frequency Distribution (2 marks)
- **2 marks**: All 5 frequencies are correct (5 hours: 3; 6 hours: 3; 7 hours: 5; 8 hours: 3; 9 hours: 1).
- **1 mark**: Only 3 or 4 frequencies are correct.
- **0 marks**: 2 or fewer frequencies are correct.

### Part 2: Percentage Calculation (2 marks)
- **1 mark**: For showing correct workings (e.g., identifying 9 students slept 7+ hours, or writing the formula \(\frac{9}{15} \times 100\)).
- **1 mark**: For the correct final answer of **60%** (or **60**).

*Note: Allow an Error Carried Forward (ECF) from Part 1. If the candidate used their own incorrect frequencies to calculate the percentage but did the calculation correctly based on those values, award 1 mark for the correct method.*

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

1. Weakness: The question is 'leading' because it prompts the respondent to agree that less sleep causes poor performance ('Do you agree that...'). This introduces response bias (acquiescence bias) and reduces the validity of the findings. Alternatively, it is a 'double-barrelled' question because it combines two different points in one item (performing poorly on tests and being too tired to concentrate), making it difficult for respondents to answer accurately.
2. Improvement: An objective formulation would be: 'How does sleeping for less than 8 hours affect your performance on memory tests?' or asking them to rate their memory performance and concentration levels on separate rating scales.
3. Calculation:
- Total questions = \(3 \text{ (open)} + 12 \text{ (closed)} = 15\)
- Percentage of closed questions = \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100 = 80\%\)

Part 1 (Weakness) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying that the question is leading, biased, or double-barrelled.
- 1 mark for explaining why this is a problem (e.g., leads participants to answer in a certain way, reduces validity, or makes it difficult to answer accurately).

Part 2 (Improvement) - [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for providing a neutral, non-leading alternative question.

Part 3 (Calculation) - [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for showing correct working: \(\frac{12}{15} \times 100\) or equivalent.
- 1 mark for the correct final answer of 80% (or 80).

The correct answer is B (Presence of others). In this scenario, Sania's behavior is influenced by the other people around her who are also ignoring the incident. According to social influence research, the presence of others can lead to diffusion of responsibility, where individuals feel less personally responsible to act because they assume someone else will, or pluralistic ignorance, where they look to others to determine how to react.

- Option A (Cost of helping) is a social factor but refers to the perceived effort, danger, or embarrassment of helping versus not helping.
- Options C and D (Similarity and Expertise) are dispositional (personal) factors rather than social factors.

1 mark for identifying 'B' as the correct option.
0 marks for any other option selected.

According to psychological theories of bystander intervention, when other people are present, the pressure to help is shared among the crowd. This is known as diffusion of responsibility. In a busy mall, Amira and the other shoppers feel less personally responsible for helping than if they were alone, leading to bystander apathy where nobody offers assistance.

1 mark for identifying diffusion of responsibility or crowd size as a factor. 1 mark for applying this to the scenario by explaining that because there are many shoppers, individuals feel less personal pressure or responsibility to help the person who slipped.

Obedience is influenced by the perceived legitimacy of the authority figure. The headteacher represents an official authority figure with high status and a formal uniform, making Toby feel obligated to obey. Conversely, a classmate is a peer who lacks any legitimate authority or power to give commands, so Toby does not feel any pressure to comply with their instruction.

1 mark for identifying legitimate authority or uniform/status as a key factor in obedience. 1 mark for explaining the difference in Toby's behaviour by showing that Toby complies with the headteacher due to high status/authority, but ignores the peer who lacks this authority.

A major ethical issue in replicating Milgram's study is the potential for psychological harm. Because participants believe they are delivering actual, painful shocks to another person, they are likely to experience severe distress, anxiety, and tension during the procedure. This violates the ethical guideline that participants should not experience greater psychological distress than they would in everyday life.

1 mark for identifying a valid ethical issue such as deception or protection from psychological harm. 1 mark for explaining how this issue affects participants in the context of this study by causing severe stress, guilt, or anxiety because they believe they are harming someone.

To plot these data on a scatter graph: 1. Label the horizontal X-axis as 'Number of bystanders' and use a scale from 0 to at least 8 with equal intervals. 2. Label the vertical Y-axis as 'Time taken to help (seconds)' and use a scale from 0 to at least 90 with equal intervals. 3. Plot a single mark (such as a dot or a cross) for each of the six participants at the point where their two scores intersect (for example, at 1 bystander on the X-axis and 15 seconds on the Y-axis). 4. Add a suitable title to the graph that refers to both variables, such as 'Scatter graph to show the relationship between the number of bystanders and the time taken to help'.

Award 1 mark for each of the following up to a maximum of 4 marks: - Correctly identifying the X-axis label as 'Number of bystanders' with an appropriate scale. - Correctly identifying the Y-axis label as 'Time taken to help (seconds)' with an appropriate scale. - Describing how to plot individual data points as coordinates (e.g., using crosses or dots at the intersection of the two variables for each participant). - Mentioning the inclusion of an appropriate title describing the relationship between the number of bystanders and the time taken to help.

To plot these data on a scatter graph: 1. Label the horizontal X-axis as 'Distance of instructor (metres)' and use a scale from 0 to 10 with equal intervals. 2. Label the vertical Y-axis as 'Obedience rating (1-10)' and use a scale from 0 to 10 with equal intervals. 3. Plot a single mark (such as a dot or a cross) for each of the five participants at the intersection of their distance and obedience values (for example, at 1 on the X-axis and 9 on the Y-axis). 4. Add a suitable title to the graph that mentions both variables, such as 'A scatter graph showing the relationship between distance of instructor and obedience rating'.

Award 1 mark for each of the following up to a maximum of 4 marks: - Correctly identifying the X-axis label as 'Distance of instructor (metres)' with an appropriate scale. - Correctly identifying the Y-axis label as 'Obedience rating' (or similar) with an appropriate scale. - Describing how to plot individual data points as coordinates (e.g., using crosses or dots at the intersection of the two values for each participant). - Mentioning the inclusion of an appropriate title describing the relationship between distance and obedience level.

To design this observational study: 1) Operationalise the IV: The independent variable is the bystander group size, which will be operationalised as two conditions: Condition A (a student walking down the school corridor entirely alone) and Condition B (a student walking in a group of three or more peers). 2) Operationalise the DV: The dependent variable is helping behaviour, operationalised as whether the student(s) actively bend down to help pick up the dropped books within 10 seconds of the spill. 3) Ethical Issue: A key ethical issue is the lack of informed consent, as students are unaware they are part of a psychological investigation in order to avoid demand characteristics and maintain ecological validity. 4) Addressing the Issue: This will be addressed by conducting an immediate debriefing session right after the incident, where the researcher explains the nature of the study, ensures no distress was caused, and obtains retrospective consent to use their observation data, offering them the absolute right to withdraw.

4 marks: A clear, coherent, and highly appropriate description of the study design addressing all parts of the prompt successfully. 3 marks: A design that covers most parts of the prompt but lacks detail or clarity in one area (e.g., vague operationalisation of the DV). 2 marks: A basic design that addresses only two parts of the prompt (e.g., operationalises variables but completely omits the ethical component). 1 mark: A weak attempt that identifies only one relevant element (e.g., only naming an ethical issue without explanation). Mark Breakdown: 1 mark for clear operationalisation of the IV (defining alone vs. group of 3 or more). 1 mark for clear operationalisation of the DV (measuring helping behaviour through a specific action and/or time limit). 1 mark for identifying a valid ethical issue (e.g., deception, lack of consent). 1 mark for explaining a practical way to address the ethical issue (e.g., retrospective consent, debriefing).

AO1 (Knowledge of ethical issues in Milgram's study):
- Deception: Participants were misled about the true nature of the study, believing it was an investigation into memory and learning. They were also deceived into thinking the electric shocks and the learner's reactions were real.
- Protection from Harm: Participants were exposed to extreme psychological distress. Many showed signs of severe tension, such as sweating, trembling, stuttering, and in three cases, uncontrollable seizures.
- Right to Withdraw: Although participants were technically free to leave, the experimenter used standardized verbal prods (e.g., 'The experiment requires that you continue') which actively discouraged them from exercising this right.

AO3 (Evaluation of ethical issues):
- Milgram defended his research by conducting a thorough debriefing. Participants were reunited with the unharmed learner (Mr. Wallace) and reassured that their behavior was normal.
- In a follow-up questionnaire, 84% of participants stated they were glad or very glad to have taken part, and a psychiatrist examined them a year later, concluding there was no evidence of long-term psychological damage.
- Cost-benefit analysis: The ethical costs to the participants must be weighed against the scientific benefits. The study provided critical, ground-breaking insights into why ordinary individuals comply with destructive orders, which helped explain historical atrocities such as the Holocaust.

Level 3 (5-6 marks):
- Clear, coherent, and detailed description of at least two ethical issues (AO1).
- Effective and well-developed evaluation of these issues (AO3), such as Milgram's defense (debriefing, follow-up) or cost-benefit analysis.
- Psychological terminology is used accurately throughout.

Level 2 (3-4 marks):
- Clear description of at least one ethical issue, or weaker descriptions of multiple (AO1).
- Some relevant evaluation points are made, but they may lack depth or detail (AO3).
- Some appropriate psychological terminology is used.

Level 1 (1-2 marks):
- Basic description of an ethical issue with little to no detail (AO1).
- Evaluation is absent or highly superficial (AO3).
- Little or no appropriate psychological terminology used.

The correct answer is B. Research into factors affecting personal space shows that: 1. Gender: Women generally prefer a smaller physical distance and stand closer to other women than men do to other men. 2. Status: People of equal or similar status feel more comfortable standing closer together than people of unequal status (where a greater distance is maintained to show respect or authority). Option B correctly identifies both of these established psychological findings.

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

The correct answer is B. Research into factors affecting personal space shows that: 1. Gender: Women generally prefer a smaller physical distance and stand closer to other women than men do to other men. 2. Status: People of equal or similar status feel more comfortable standing closer together than people of unequal status (where a greater distance is maintained to show respect or authority). Option B correctly identifies both of these established psychological findings.

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

According to Piaget, thought comes before language. A child must first understand a concept (develop a schema) before they can use the words to describe it. In the pre-operational stage (2-7 years), children are cognitively egocentric. This means they cannot understand viewpoints other than their own. This cognitive limitation is reflected in their language, as they often engage in 'egocentric speech'—talking to themselves or assuming others know what they are thinking. This demonstrates that their language is limited by and reflects their stage of cognitive thought.

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark: For stating that thought comes before language / language depends on cognitive development/schemas.
- 1 mark: For identifying that in the pre-operational stage, children's thought is egocentric / they cannot take another perspective.
- 1 mark: For explaining how this is reflected in their language (e.g., egocentric speech/monologues), showing that language development is driven by their cognitive stage.

To identify the independent variable, we must look at what the researcher is manipulating or comparing, which is the status of the employees (equal vs unequal status).

A directional hypothesis must state the expected direction of the difference. Research suggests that people of similar/equal status maintain closer personal space than those of unequal status.

- Independent Variable (IV): The status of the employees (equal status vs. unequal status).
- Directional Hypothesis: Pairs of employees of equal status will stand closer together (maintain smaller personal space distance) than pairs of employees of unequal status.

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark: For identifying the IV as the status of the employees / whether they are of equal or unequal status.
- 2 marks: For a clear, fully operationalised directional hypothesis (e.g., 'Employees of equal status will stand closer together than employees of unequal status').
- 1 mark: For a directional hypothesis that is partially operationalised (e.g., 'Equal status stands closer') OR a non-directional hypothesis (e.g., 'There will be a difference in the distance maintained by equal and unequal status employees').

To write a successful directional hypothesis, you must predict the direction of the difference and include both the Independent Variable (IV) and the Dependent Variable (DV) in an operationalised form. The IV is the gender of the pairs (male-male pairs compared to female-female pairs) and the DV is the personal space, operationalised as physical distance in centimetres. Acceptable 2-mark directional hypotheses include: 'Male-male pairs will stand a greater physical distance (in centimetres) apart than female-female pairs.' or 'Female-female pairs will stand a shorter physical distance (in centimetres) apart than male-male pairs.' A 1-mark hypothesis is directional but lacks full operationalisation, for example: 'Men will stand further apart than women.' A non-directional or null hypothesis receives 0 marks.

2 marks: For a clear, operationalised directional hypothesis that includes both levels of the IV (male-male vs female-female pairs) and the DV (physical distance in centimetres). 1 mark: For a directional hypothesis where variables are not fully operationalised, or the phrasing is slightly vague. 0 marks: For a non-directional hypothesis, null hypothesis, or an incorrect attempt.

To write a successful directional hypothesis, you must predict the direction of the difference and include both the Independent Variable (IV) and the Dependent Variable (DV) in an operationalised form. The IV is the gender of the pairs (male-male pairs compared to female-female pairs) and the DV is the personal space, operationalised as physical distance in centimetres. Acceptable 2-mark directional hypotheses include: 'Male-male pairs will stand a greater physical distance (in centimetres) apart than female-female pairs.' or 'Female-female pairs will stand a shorter physical distance (in centimetres) apart than male-male pairs.' A 1-mark hypothesis is directional but lacks full operationalisation, for example: 'Men will stand further apart than women.' A non-directional or null hypothesis receives 0 marks.

2 marks: For a clear, operationalised directional hypothesis that includes both levels of the IV (male-male vs female-female pairs) and the DV (physical distance in centimetres). 1 mark: For a directional hypothesis where variables are not fully operationalised, or the phrasing is slightly vague. 0 marks: For a non-directional hypothesis, null hypothesis, or an incorrect attempt.

### Part 1: Directional Hypothesis (2 marks)
* **Model Answer:** "Participants will stand at a significantly larger distance (in cm) from a high-status confederate than from an equal-status confederate."
* **Alternatively:** "The mean distance (in cm) at which participants stop will be greater when approaching a high-status person compared to an equal-status person."

### Part 2: Explanation of Results (3 marks)
* **Mean comparison (1 mark):** The mean distance was larger for the high-status confederate (85 cm) than the equal-status confederate (52 cm).
* **Conclusion/Interpretation of Mean (1 mark):** This indicates that status affects personal space, with people maintaining a larger physical distance from individuals of higher social status.
* **Standard Deviation comparison (1 mark):** The standard deviation is slightly higher for the equal-status condition (14.1) than the high-status condition (12.5), suggesting that there was greater variation (less consistency) in the distance participants chose to keep from someone of their own status compared to someone of higher status.

### Part 1 (2 marks):
* **2 marks:** Clear and fully operationalised directional hypothesis. It must include both levels of the Independent Variable (high-status vs equal-status) and the direction of difference on the Dependent Variable (distance/personal space in cm).
* **1 mark:** A directional hypothesis that is partially operationalised (e.g., missing specific reference to 'distance in cm' or slightly vague about the groups but direction is clear).
* **0 marks:** Non-directional hypothesis, null hypothesis, or an aim.

### Part 2 (3 marks):
* **1 mark** for stating that the mean distance is larger/greater for the high-status confederate (85 cm) than the equal-status confederate (52 cm) OR stating that this shows people stand further away from higher-status individuals.
* **1 mark** for linking this mean difference directly to the psychological conclusion that higher status increases personal space requirements.
* **1 mark** for interpreting the standard deviation: stating that the higher SD for equal-status (14.1 vs 12.5) shows there was greater variation/spread in individual distances chosen in the equal-status condition (or vice versa, i.e., more consistent distances for high-status).

### Model Essay Answer

**AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding):**
Jean Piaget's theory of language and thought proposes that **thought determines language** (cognition develops first, and language develops as a tool to express this thought). According to Piaget, a child cannot use language to express a concept until they have developed the underlying cognitive mental framework, or **schema**, for that concept.
* **Example:** A young infant in the sensorimotor stage must first acquire the concept of **object permanence** (realising that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen). Once this schema is formed, they can start using relational words like 'gone' or 'bye-bye'.
* **Developmental Stages:** Piaget also argued that the way children use language changes as their cognitive development progresses. For instance, in the pre-operational stage, a child's thinking is **egocentric** (they cannot see things from another's point of view). Consequently, their speech is also egocentric (e.g., talking aloud to themselves or not listening to others). Only when they transition to the concrete operational stage does their speech become truly socialised and communicative.

**AO3 (Evaluation):**
* **Strength (Supporting Evidence):** There is research evidence that supports the link between cognitive developments and language. For instance, studies have shown that children do not start using words that indicate disappearance (like 'gone') until they have achieved object permanence in their cognitive testing. This suggests cognitive milestones must be reached before specific language can emerge.
* **Weakness (Alternative Theories):** The **Sapir-Whorf hypothesis** directly opposes Piaget's view by arguing that language determines or influences thought (linguistic relativity). According to Whorf, without words for a concept, we cannot think about it, suggesting language comes first.
* **Weakness (Vygotsky's Critique):** Lev Vygotsky argued that Piaget underestimated the role of social interaction. Vygotsky proposed that language and thought develop independently in early childhood and then merge around age three. For Vygotsky, language is a vital tool for learning and actually drives cognitive development, rather than just being a reflection of it.
* **Weakness (Exceptional Cases):** Piaget's theory is challenged by evidence from developmental disorders like Williams syndrome. Children with Williams syndrome often have significant cognitive impairments but possess highly fluent, sophisticated language skills. This suggests that language and general cognitive development (thought) can be separate, contradicting Piaget's claim that language depends entirely on the level of cognitive schemas.

### Marking Scheme (9 Marks Total)

* **AO1 (4 marks):** Detail of knowledge and understanding of Piaget's theory of language and thought.
* **AO3 (5 marks):** Analysis and evaluation of Piaget's theory.

#### Level Descriptors

* **Level 3 (7–9 marks):**
* **AO1:** Detailed and accurate knowledge of Piaget's theory (thought precedes language, schemas, egocentric speech).
* **AO3:** Clear, well-structured, and coherent evaluation. At least two strong evaluation points (e.g., Sapir-Whorf comparison, Vygotsky, or Williams syndrome) are explained in depth.
* **Terminology:** Consistent and accurate use of psychological terminology throughout.

* **Level 2 (4–6 marks):**
* **AO1:** Reasonable knowledge and understanding of Piaget's theory, but may lack depth or contains minor inaccuracies.
* **AO3:** Some evaluation is present but may be brief or lacking in detailed explanation. For example, simply stating that Vygotsky disagreed without explaining why.
* **Terminology:** Generally accurate use of psychological terminology with occasional errors.

* **Level 1 (1–3 marks):**
* **AO1:** Basic or fragmented knowledge of the theory. Ideas are disorganized.
* **AO3:** Evaluation is missing, highly superficial, or generic.
* **Terminology:** Poor or absent use of psychological terms.

* **0 marks:** No relevant content.

The correct answer is B. The autonomic nervous system (ANS) is a subdivision of the peripheral nervous system (PNS) and is responsible for regulating involuntary bodily functions, such as heart rate, digestion, and respiratory rate, without conscious direction. Option A and C are incorrect because the autonomic nervous system is not part of the central nervous system (CNS). Option D is incorrect because sending sensory information from the skin to the brain is primarily a function of the somatic nervous system.

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

The scenario demonstrates the complementary actions of the sympathetic and parasympathetic divisions of the autonomic nervous system (ANS). Under stress (before the speech), Amelia's sympathetic nervous system is activated, triggering physiological changes such as an increased heart rate, decreased salivation, and rapid breathing to prepare her for action. After the stressor has passed (after the speech), her parasympathetic nervous system takes over to calm her body back down to a state of homeostasis, which decreases her heart rate and restores normal digestion and salivation.

Up to 4 marks are awarded: 1 mark (AO1) for outlining the function of the sympathetic division (initiating fight or flight / arousal). 1 mark (AO2) for applying this to Amelia's initial physical symptoms (e.g., fast heart rate, dry mouth, or shallow breathing). 1 mark (AO1) for outlining the function of the parasympathetic division (rest and digest / returning the body to a normal resting state). 1 mark (AO2) for applying this to Amelia's recovery phase (e.g., her heart rate slowing down or starting to produce saliva again).

The James-Lange theory of emotion argues that physiological arousal occurs first in response to a stimulus, and emotions are the cognitive interpretation of these physical changes. In Marcus's case, the growling noise (stimulus) leads to automatic physiological reactions (heart racing and trembling) via the autonomic nervous system. Marcus's brain interprets these bodily changes as they occur, which produces the subjective psychological feeling of fear. Without the physical sensations, Marcus would not experience the emotional feeling of fear.

Up to 4 marks are awarded: 1 mark (AO1) for stating that the James-Lange theory proposes physiological arousal/bodily changes occur before the cognitive experience of emotion. 1 mark (AO2) for applying this to Marcus's initial bodily reactions (e.g., hearing the growl triggers his heart to race and body to tremble first). 1 mark (AO1) for stating that the brain must interpret these specific physiological symptoms to produce an emotion. 1 mark (AO2) for applying this to Marcus's emotion (e.g., he feels afraid because his brain interprets the racing heart and trembling as fear).

Possible evaluation points:

**Weakness: The Cannon-Bard theory challenge**
A key limitation of the James-Lange theory is challenged by the Cannon-Bard theory, which argues that physiological changes and emotional experiences occur simultaneously, rather than sequentially. Cannon-Bard pointed out that different emotions (such as anger, fear, and excitement) often produce the exact same physiological responses (e.g., increased heart rate, sweating). Therefore, physiological arousal alone cannot be the sole cause of distinct emotional experiences, as the brain must interpret the context to decide which emotion is being felt.

**Weakness: Evidence from spinal cord injuries**
Further evidence against the theory comes from studies on individuals with spinal cord injuries. According to the James-Lange theory, if a person cannot receive feedback from their autonomic nervous system, their emotional experience should be reduced. However, research (such as studies by Hohmann) shows that many individuals with spinal cord injuries still experience intense emotions like anger and fear, even though they cannot feel bodily sensations below the neck. This directly contradicts the idea that physical feedback is necessary to experience emotion.

**Strength: Historical importance and focus on biology**
On the other hand, a strength of the James-Lange theory is its historical significance. It was one of the very first theories to propose a direct link between biological/physiological states and psychological/emotional states. By shifting the study of emotion from a purely philosophical perspective to a physiological one, it paved the way for modern biological psychology and inspired decades of subsequent objective scientific research.

**AO3 (6 marks)**

* **Level 3 (5-6 marks):** Evaluation is detailed, accurate, and highly relevant. Multiple points (at least two) are fully explained and coherent. The student shows a clear understanding of the implications of these points for the theory. Specialist terminology is used consistently and appropriately.
* **Level 2 (3-4 marks):** Evaluation points are present but may lack detail or clear explanation. There may be a mix of well-explained and weaker points, or only one point fully developed. There is some appropriate use of specialist terminology.
* **Level 1 (1-2 marks):** Evaluation is basic, superficial, or disjointed. Points are stated but not explained. Minimal or no use of specialist terminology.
* **0 marks:** No relevant content or answers do not address the question.

AO1 (4 marks):
- Hebb's theory explains learning through physical changes in the brain's neural networks (neuroplasticity).
- When we learn new information, synaptic connections are created or existing ones are strengthened.
- Hebb's rule states that if two neurons are active at the same time, the synapse between them is strengthened ('cells that fire together, wire together').
- Over time, these repeatedly active neurons form groups called 'cell assemblies' or neural pathways, which represent memories or learned behaviors.
- Synaptic pruning also occurs, where unused connections are lost to make the brain more efficient.

AO3 (5 marks):
- Strength: The theory is highly scientific and supported by modern neuroscience. For example, research into Long-Term Potentiation (LTP) has confirmed that repeated stimulation of synapses increases synaptic strength, validating Hebb's claims.
- Strength: Real-world application in education and rehabilitation. Hebb's theory implies that practicing skills and being in enriched environments can physically build and strengthen brain pathways, supporting the use of interactive learning environments and cognitive therapy.
- Weakness: It is biologically reductionist. By focusing solely on the cellular and synaptic level, the theory simplifies the complex nature of human learning and overlooks cognitive processes, motivation, and social interaction.

AO1: 4 marks, AO3: 5 marks.

Level 3 (7-9 marks):
- Knowledge of Hebb's theory (synaptic connections, cell assemblies) is accurate and detailed (AO1).
- Evaluation is clear, coherent, and well-developed, showing a balanced understanding of strengths and weaknesses (AO3).
- Answer is well-structured and uses psychology-specific terminology appropriately.

Level 2 (4-6 marks):
- Knowledge of Hebb's theory is present but may lack detail or contain minor inaccuracies (AO1).
- Evaluation is present but may be limited in depth, containing only one or two clear points (AO3).
- Some appropriate terminology is used.

Level 1 (1-3 marks):
- Knowledge of Hebb's theory is fragmented, basic, or highly generic (AO1).
- Evaluation is weak, absent, or merely lists points without explanation (AO3).
- Minimal use of psychological terminology.

The correct answer is C. According to classical conditioning, an addiction is maintained or triggered through cue reactivity (association). When a person repeatedly uses a substance in a particular environment, that cue (the conditioned stimulus, like a pub) becomes associated with the substance (the unconditioned stimulus). This cue then triggers conditioned responses, such as strong cravings.

Option A describes operant conditioning through positive reinforcement.
Option B describes Social Learning Theory through observation and imitation of a role model.
Option D describes operant conditioning through negative reinforcement (avoiding withdrawal symptoms).

Award 1 mark for the correct option: c.
Award 0 marks for selecting options a, b, or d.

The correct answer is C. According to classical conditioning, an addiction is maintained or triggered through cue reactivity (association). When a person repeatedly uses a substance in a particular environment, that cue (the conditioned stimulus, like a pub) becomes associated with the substance (the unconditioned stimulus). This cue then triggers conditioned responses, such as strong cravings.

Option A describes operant conditioning through positive reinforcement.
Option B describes Social Learning Theory through observation and imitation of a role model.
Option D describes operant conditioning through negative reinforcement (avoiding withdrawal symptoms).

Award 1 mark for the correct option: c.
Award 0 marks for selecting options a, b, or d.

To find the percentage of participants who improved: 1. Identify the part and the whole: Part = 84, Whole = 137. 2. Set up the division: \(\frac{84}{137} \approx 0.613138\). 3. Convert to a percentage by multiplying by 100: \(0.613138 \times 100 = 61.3138...\%\). 4. Round to 3 significant figures: \(61.3\%\).

1 mark for showing correct working/formula: \(\frac{84}{137} \times 100\) (or equivalent division shown).
1 mark for calculating the correct percentage prior to rounding: \(61.31...\%\).
1 mark for the final answer rounded correctly to 3 significant figures: 61.3% (accept 61.3).

First, find the number of clients who did not show improvement: 138 - 82 = 56. Next, calculate this as a percentage of the total number of clients: (56 / 138) * 100 = 40.57971...% Finally, round this value to 2 significant figures. The first two digits are 4 and 0. Since the third digit is 5, we round up the second digit to get 41%.

Up to 2.67 marks awarded as follows: 1 mark for calculating the correct number of patients who did not improve (56) OR for showing the correct fraction (56/138). 1 mark for calculating the correct percentage of 40.58% (or 40.6%). 0.67 marks for correctly rounding the final percentage to 2 significant figures (41%).

An advantage of quantitative questions is that they yield numerical data (such as rating scales) which can easily be represented in charts, averaged, and compared statistically. An advantage of qualitative questions is that they allow participants to describe their personal reasons for turning to addictive substances in their own words, yielding descriptive data that provides deep insight.

Up to 2.67 marks awarded: 1.33 marks for a clear, contextualised advantage of quantitative questions (e.g., allows numerical comparison of peer pressure levels). 1.34 marks for a clear, contextualised advantage of qualitative questions (e.g., provides deep insight into individual feelings or motivations behind addiction).

To maintain confidentiality, the researcher must not publish any identifying details. They can achieve this by assigning random participant numbers or codes (e.g., Twin Pair A1) to all data files. Confidentiality is highly important because addiction is a sensitive, stigmatised health issue. If a participant's identity and genetic predisposition to addiction were leaked, they could face social judgment, prejudice, or issues with employers.

Up to 2.67 marks awarded: 1.33 marks for explaining a valid method to ensure confidentiality (e.g., using codes/pseudonyms, keeping records locked). 1.34 marks for explaining why it is vital in the context of addiction (e.g., avoiding social stigma, preventing employment discrimination, protecting sensitive genetic/health information).

Operant conditioning explains Julian's video game addiction through the concepts of positive and negative reinforcement: 1. Positive reinforcement involves repeating a behaviour because it leads to a pleasant consequence. In Julian's case, he is positively reinforced by the praise he receives from his friends and the pleasure he gets from playing, making him want to play more. 2. Negative reinforcement involves repeating a behaviour because it removes or avoids an unpleasant state. In Julian's case, playing video games gives him a 'sense of escape', allowing him to avoid real-life stresses or negative feelings, which reinforces his playing behaviour.

Up to 4 marks are awarded for a description of operant conditioning applied to Julian's addiction. AO1 (Knowledge and understanding of operant conditioning): 1 mark for describing positive reinforcement. 1 mark for describing negative reinforcement. AO2 (Application to the scenario): 1 mark for applying positive reinforcement to Julian (e.g., the praise he gets from friends or the pleasure of playing). 1 mark for applying negative reinforcement to Julian (e.g., playing to get a 'sense of escape' from real-life/unpleasant feelings).

In Wiles et al.'s (2013) study, 469 participants who had treatment-resistant depression (meaning they had not recovered after taking antidepressants for at least 6 weeks) were studied. They were randomly allocated to one of two conditions: either continuing with their usual care alone (e.g., antidepressant medication) or receiving CBT in addition to their usual care. The CBT group was offered 12 to 18 sessions of cognitive behavioural therapy. The researchers measured depression levels at baseline, 6 months, and 12 months using the Beck Depression Inventory (BDI).

Apply the following bands: [4 marks] A clear and accurate description of the method containing details on the participants (treatment-resistant), random allocation, the two conditions (CBT + usual care vs usual care alone), and measurement of outcomes. [3 marks] A mostly clear description with minor omissions in detail. [2 marks] A basic description that mentions comparing CBT with usual care but lacks specific details of the trial. [1 mark] A vague or very limited description of the method. [0 marks] No creditworthy content.

Possible evaluation points:

- **Limitation (Self-Report Bias):** A weakness of the study is its reliance on self-report data. Participants completed questionnaires to rate the effectiveness of their CBT sessions. This is a problem because participants might give socially desirable answers or exaggerate their improvement to please the therapist, which reduces the validity of the results.

- **Limitation (No Control Group):** The study did not use a control group of internet addicts who did not receive therapy. Without a control group to compare the CBT group against, we cannot be certain that CBT was the actual cause of the improvement. The recovery could have been due to spontaneous remission (recovering naturally over time) or other lifestyle changes.

- **Strength (Long-Term Assessment):** A strength of the study is that it measured the long-term effectiveness of CBT. Young conducted a 6-month follow-up assessment and found that most participants maintained their improvement. This suggests that the skills learned in CBT provide lasting benefits rather than just a temporary solution.

- **Strength (Practical Applications):** The study has valuable real-world applications. It shows that CBT can be adapted effectively to treat modern technological addictions, giving healthcare providers a scientifically tested framework to help people struggling with internet addiction.

**Mark scheme:**

- **5 marks:** Clear, coherent, and detailed evaluation. At least two evaluation points are fully developed with clear links to the study and its implications. Specialist terminology is used effectively.
- **3-4 marks:** Mostly clear evaluation. Two points are identified with some explanation, or one point is explained in excellent detail. Some appropriate terminology is used.
- **1-2 marks:** Basic evaluation. One or two points are briefly mentioned but lack development or clarity. Specialist terminology is absent or used incorrectly.
- **0 marks:** No relevant content.

**Acceptable points include:**
- Evaluation of the use of self-report data / questionnaires (validity issues).
- Discussion of the lack of a control group (cause-and-effect issues).
- Discussion of the 6-month follow-up (durability/reliability of therapy).
- Real-world application of the findings to therapy.

*Note: Credit can be given for other valid evaluation points relating to Young's (2007) study (e.g., sample generalisability issues).*

Possible evaluation points:

- **Limitation (Self-Report Bias):** A weakness of the study is its reliance on self-report data. Participants completed questionnaires to rate the effectiveness of their CBT sessions. This is a problem because participants might give socially desirable answers or exaggerate their improvement to please the therapist, which reduces the validity of the results.

- **Limitation (No Control Group):** The study did not use a control group of internet addicts who did not receive therapy. Without a control group to compare the CBT group against, we cannot be certain that CBT was the actual cause of the improvement. The recovery could have been due to spontaneous remission (recovering naturally over time) or other lifestyle changes.

- **Strength (Long-Term Assessment):** A strength of the study is that it measured the long-term effectiveness of CBT. Young conducted a 6-month follow-up assessment and found that most participants maintained their improvement. This suggests that the skills learned in CBT provide lasting benefits rather than just a temporary solution.

- **Strength (Practical Applications):** The study has valuable real-world applications. It shows that CBT can be adapted effectively to treat modern technological addictions, giving healthcare providers a scientifically tested framework to help people struggling with internet addiction.

**Mark scheme:**

- **5 marks:** Clear, coherent, and detailed evaluation. At least two evaluation points are fully developed with clear links to the study and its implications. Specialist terminology is used effectively.
- **3-4 marks:** Mostly clear evaluation. Two points are identified with some explanation, or one point is explained in excellent detail. Some appropriate terminology is used.
- **1-2 marks:** Basic evaluation. One or two points are briefly mentioned but lack development or clarity. Specialist terminology is absent or used incorrectly.
- **0 marks:** No relevant content.

**Acceptable points include:**
- Evaluation of the use of self-report data / questionnaires (validity issues).
- Discussion of the lack of a control group (cause-and-effect issues).
- Discussion of the 6-month follow-up (durability/reliability of therapy).
- Real-world application of the findings to therapy.

*Note: Credit can be given for other valid evaluation points relating to Young's (2007) study (e.g., sample generalisability issues).*