2025 AQA IAL Psychology (9685) 模擬試題連答案詳解

The episodic buffer was added to the Working Memory Model by Baddeley in 2000. It acts as a temporary store for information, integrating visual, spatial, and verbal information from other components of working memory, and linking this to long-term memory. It has a limited capacity, estimated to be about four chunks.

- Option A is incorrect because the episodic buffer has a limited capacity.
- Option C describes functions of the phonological loop (specifically the articulatory process).
- Option D describes the role of the central executive.

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

The episodic buffer was added to the Working Memory Model by Baddeley in 2000. It acts as a temporary store for information, integrating visual, spatial, and verbal information from other components of working memory, and linking this to long-term memory. It has a limited capacity, estimated to be about four chunks.

- Option A is incorrect because the episodic buffer has a limited capacity.
- Option C describes functions of the phonological loop (specifically the articulatory process).
- Option D describes the role of the central executive.

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

Episodic memory and semantic memory are both types of explicit (declarative) long-term memory, but they differ in terms of content, time-stamping, and retrieval effort.

1. Content and Personal Relevance: Episodic memories are personal, subjective experiences (e.g., your 10th birthday party), whereas semantic memories are objective facts and shared general knowledge (e.g., knowing that a triangle has three sides).
2. Time-stamping: Episodic memories are 'time-stamped', meaning you remember when they happened. Semantic memories are not time-stamped; you usually do not remember the specific moment you learned a basic fact.
3. Example: An individual remembering their first driving lesson is using episodic memory, whereas knowing the rules of the highway code is using semantic memory.

Award 1 mark for a clear definition or characteristic of episodic memory (e.g., personal experiences/events, time-stamped, requires conscious effort to recall).
Award 1 mark for a clear definition or characteristic of semantic memory (e.g., shared facts/general knowledge, not time-stamped, less personal).
Award 1 mark for an appropriate example that clearly contrasts or illustrates both types of memory (e.g., remembering your first day of school vs knowing the name of your school).

In the Working Memory Model (WMM) proposed by Baddeley and Hitch, the central executive plays a vital supervisory role. Its main characteristics are:
- Attentional Control: It directs focus and filters incoming sensory information, deciding what to pay attention to.
- Limited Capacity: It has a very restricted processing capacity and cannot store data itself.
- Task Allocation: It coordinates the activities of the three 'slave' sub-systems (the phonological loop, the visuospatial sketchpad, and the episodic buffer) by delegating cognitive tasks to them.

Award 1 mark for stating that the central executive acts as an overall attentional controller / monitors and directs attention to tasks.
Award 1 mark for stating that it has a very limited processing capacity (and does not store information itself).
Award 1 mark for explaining its role in allocating processing resources/tasks to the subordinate (slave) systems (the phonological loop, visuospatial sketchpad, or episodic buffer).

According to retrieval failure theory, forgetting occurs when we lack the necessary cues to access a memory, despite the information still being stored in our long-term memory. Context-dependent forgetting is a specific form of this, where the external environment acts as a cue.

- Encoding: When the student was revising in the quiet library, the external environmental cues (such as the silence, specific layout, or lighting) were encoded alongside the psychological concepts.
- Retrieval Failure: In the noisy sports hall, the external environment was completely different. The absence of the quiet, library-based cues meant the student experienced retrieval failure during the exam.
- Cue-dependent Recall: When the student returned to the quiet library, the environmental cues were present again. This triggered the activation of the memory pathways, allowing instant recall of the information.

Award 1 mark for identifying/defining context-dependent forgetting (forgetting occurs when the external environment at retrieval is different from the environment at encoding/learning).
Award 1 mark for applying the concept of encoding cues to the scenario (the quiet library environment provided environmental cues that were encoded alongside the psychology facts during revision).
Award 1 mark for explaining the retrieval failure/subsequent recall (the noisy sports hall lacked these quiet library context cues leading to retrieval failure, but returning to the library provided the correct cues to trigger recall).

### AO1: Description of the Working Memory Model (WMM) (8 Marks)

The Working Memory Model (Baddeley and Hitch, 1974) is an active multi-component store of short-term memory (STM) that deals with both temporary storage and manipulation of information. It consists of four main components:

1. **Central Executive (CE):** The most important component, acts as an attentional controller. It has a very limited capacity, monitors incoming data, makes decisions, and allocates slave systems to specific tasks.
2. **Phonological Loop (PL):** Deals with auditory/verbal information and preserves the order in which information arrives. It is divided into:
- *Phonological Store ('Inner Ear'):* Stores the words you hear for a brief duration (1–2 seconds).
- *Articulatory Control Process ('Inner Voice'):* Allows sub-vocal rehearsal of information to keep it in the loop (capacity of about 2 seconds' worth of speech).
3. **Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad (VSS):** Processes visual and spatial information (e.g., planning a route). Logie (1995) subdivided it into:
- *Visual Cache:* Stores visual data (shape and colour).
- *Inner Scribe:* Records the arrangement of objects in the visual field and transfers info to the central executive.
4. **Episodic Buffer:** Added by Baddeley (2000). A temporary, general-purpose store with a limited capacity of about four chunks. It integrates spatial, visual, and verbal information from other components and links working memory to long-term memory (LTM).

---

### AO3: Evaluation of the Working Memory Model (12 Marks)

* **Strength: Support from Dual-Task Studies**
Baddeley et al. (1975) demonstrated the dual-task effect. Participants had difficulty performing two visual tasks simultaneously (tracking a light and describing the letter F) compared to performing a visual and verbal task together. This supports the existence of separate, independent slave systems (the VSS and PL) that have limited, dedicated processing capacities.

* **Strength: Clinical Evidence from Brain-Damaged Patients**
The case of patient KF provides strong support. Following a motorcycle accident, KF suffered brain damage resulting in a severely restricted STM capacity for verbal information but a normal STM capacity for visual information. This suggests his phonological loop was damaged while his visuo-spatial sketchpad remained intact, supporting the model's structure of distinct cognitive sub-systems.

* **Limitation: Lack of Clarity regarding the Central Executive**
Cognitive psychologists argue that the central executive is the most vital yet least understood component of the model. Simply describing it as 'attention' is too vague. Some evidence suggests it may have sub-components; for example, Eslinger and Damasio (1985) studied patient EVR, who had a brain tumor removed. He performed well on tests of reasoning (suggesting his CE was intact) but had poor decision-making skills (suggesting his CE was partially damaged). This indicates the CE is more complex than initially formulated.

* **Strength: Neuroimaging Evidence**
Brain scanning studies provide physiological validity for the model. For instance, Braver et al. (1997) gave participants tasks that activated the central executive while they had a fMRI scan. The researchers found greater activity in the prefrontal cortex as the difficulty of the task increased, demonstrating a physical brain region corresponds to the demands of the Central Executive.

### AO1: Description (8 Marks)

* **7–8 marks (Level 4):** Knowledge of the working memory model is accurate and detailed. Explanations of all key components (Central Executive, Phonological Loop, Visuo-Spatial Sketchpad, and Episodic Buffer) are clear, coherent, and highly precise.
* **5–6 marks (Level 3):** Knowledge is mostly accurate with some detail. Most components are described clearly, though there may be minor omissions or slight lack of precision.
* **3–4 marks (Level 2):** Knowledge is basic and lacks detail. Descriptions may focus on only one or two components, or contain inaccuracies about their capacities and functions.
* **1–2 marks (Level 1):** Knowledge is very limited, fragmented, or highly inaccurate. Significant confusion is present.

### AO3: Evaluation (12 Marks)

* **10–12 marks (Level 4):** Evaluation is thorough, balanced, and highly effective. Evidence (e.g., dual-task studies, clinical case studies, brain imaging) is integrated seamlessly to support or challenge the model. The analysis is mature and shows deep psychological understanding.
* **7–9 marks (Level 3):** Evaluation is mostly effective. A range of evaluation points are present with appropriate detail, though the link between the evidence and the implications for the model may not always be fully developed.
* **4–6 marks (Level 2):** Evaluation is limited and lacks depth. Points may be presented as lists of strengths and weaknesses without explanation, or focus excessively on description rather than critical analysis.
* **1–3 marks (Level 1):** Evaluation is superficial, incorrect, or highly generalized with little to no relevance to the Working Memory Model.

The two explanations for resistance to social influence are: 1. Social support, which involves the presence of a non-conforming or disobedient peer who acts as an ally, reducing the pressure to conform or obey. 2. Locus of control, which is a personality dimension representing the extent to which individuals believe they have control over their own lives, with an internal locus of control being linked to greater resistance.

Award 1 mark for naming social support (accept ally / presence of an ally). Award 1 mark for naming locus of control (accept Rotter's locus of control / internal locus of control).

The two explanations for resistance to social influence are: 1. Social support, which involves the presence of a non-conforming or disobedient peer who acts as an ally, reducing the pressure to conform or obey. 2. Locus of control, which is a personality dimension representing the extent to which individuals believe they have control over their own lives, with an internal locus of control being linked to greater resistance.

Award 1 mark for naming social support (accept ally / presence of an ally). Award 1 mark for naming locus of control (accept Rotter's locus of control / internal locus of control).

Social support helps individuals resist conformity because the presence of an ally breaks the unanimity of the majority. This decreases the pressure to fit in with the group (normative social influence) and validates the individual's own perspective, thereby giving them the confidence to act independently and voice their own opinion.

2 marks: A clear and accurate outline explaining how social support reduces conformity pressure (e.g., breaking group unanimity) and the psychological outcome of this (e.g., increasing confidence/independent behavior). 1 mark: A vague or partial outline that mentions having an ally but does not clearly explain the mechanism of breaking unanimity or the resulting increase in independent behavior.

The agentic state is a mental state where an individual feels no personal responsibility for their behavior because they believe themselves to be acting for an authority figure, as their agent. This frees them from the demands of their conscience. In the scenario, Amara's initial discomfort indicates she is in an autonomous state, where she feels responsible for her own moral actions. When Mr. Davis, who represents a legitimate authority figure within the store's hierarchy, explicitly states that he will take 'full responsibility', Amara undergoes an agentic shift. She now perceives Mr. Davis as responsible for the consequences, allowing her to obey the order to overcharge the customer because she sees herself merely as the tool of his wishes.

2 marks for a clear and accurate explanation of the agentic state (concept of acting as an agent, shifting responsibility, autonomous state vs agentic shift). 2 marks for clear application to the scenario (identifying Amara's transition from autonomy/discomfort, the role of Mr. Davis as the authority figure taking responsibility, and how this enables her obedience). Maximum of 2 marks if there is no application to Amara/Mr. Davis.

Social support aids resistance to social influence (conformity) by breaking the unanimous consensus of the majority group. When an individual observes an ally disobeying or non-conforming, it demonstrates that resistance is possible, reduces the normative pressure to fit in, and validates the individual's own independent thoughts. In Julian's case, his group of friends acts as a majority exerting pressure on him to skip class. Maya provides social support by acting as a non-conforming ally when she states she is staying to study. Maya's action breaks the group's unanimity, which decreases the social pressure on Julian, giving him the confidence to follow his own wishes and resist the pressure to skip.

2 marks for outlining the psychological mechanism of social support (breaking unanimity, role of an ally, reducing conformity pressure). 2 marks for application to the scenario (identifying the friends as the majority pressure, Maya as the ally providing social support, and explaining how this allows Julian to resist and stay). Maximum of 2 marks if there is no application to Julian/Maya.

One limitation of Moscovici et al.'s research is that the task used lacks ecological validity. Discerning the color of blue-green slides in a controlled laboratory environment is trivial and artificial. In real-world social movements (such as the suffragette movement or climate activism), minority influence involves deep-seated personal values, political convictions, and potential social/physical risks. Therefore, the findings from this laboratory study may not reliably generalise to how minority influence operates in real-life situations.

Another limitation is the issue of population validity. Moscovici used an all-female sample of students. Research suggests that females may conform or react to social pressure differently than males, and students may not represent the wider, more diverse general population. This gender bias (gynocentrism) and demographic limitation restrict the generalisability of the findings to males and other age groups.

Marks are awarded as follows:

- **Level 3 (5-6 marks)**: Two limitations are clearly identified and fully explained with excellent detail, accuracy, and psychological terminology. The discussion directly relates to Moscovici's study.
- **Level 2 (3-4 marks)**: Two limitations are identified but one or both lack detailed explanation, OR one limitation is exceptionally well-discussed. There is some accurate use of psychological terminology.
- **Level 1 (1-2 marks)**: The response is superficial, perhaps only naming limitations (e.g., 'it was an artificial lab study') without explanation, or containing significant inaccuracies.

**Possible limitations include:**
- Artificiality of the task/low ecological validity.
- Population validity / gender bias (all-female sample).
- Ethical issues (deception involved in using confederates).

### AO1: Knowledge and Understanding (6 marks)

#### Social Support
* **Resisting Conformity:** The presence of a non-conforming ally (dissenting peer) breaks the unanimity of the majority. This reduces the normative social influence pressure to conform, allowing the individual to feel more confident in their own judgment. In Asch's research, when a confederate gave the correct answer instead of the majority, conformity rates dropped from 32% to 5.5%.
* **Resisting Obedience:** The presence of a disobedient peer acts as a model for the individual to copy, showing them that it is possible to challenge authority. In one of Milgram’s variations, when the real participant was joined by two disobedient confederates who refused to continue administering shocks, obedience to the maximum 450V level fell from 65% to 10%.

#### Locus of Control (LOC)
* Proposed by Rotter (1966), Locus of Control refers to an individual's perception of personal control over their own life and the events that happen to them.
* **Internal LOC:** Individuals believe that they are responsible for their own actions and that events are a direct result of their choices and efforts. They are more self-confident, have higher intelligence, and feel less need for social approval, which makes them more resistant to social influence.
* **External LOC:** Individuals believe that events are determined by external factors, such as luck, fate, or powerful others. They are more likely to conform or obey because they feel they have little personal agency.

---

### AO3: Critical Evaluation (6 marks)

#### Strength of Social Support: Empirical Evidence
* There is research support for the role of social support in resisting pressure. For example, **Allen and Levine (1971)** conducted an Asch-like study where they introduced a dissenter. Even when the dissenter wore thick glasses and clearly had poor vision (invalid social support), conformity decreased. When the dissenter had normal vision (valid social support), conformity decreased even more. This demonstrates that any form of dissent frees individuals from majority pressure, but valid dissent is particularly effective.
* **Gamson et al. (1982)** found strong evidence for social support in resisting obedience. In their study, participants were asked to help a corporate oil company frame a local petrol station manager. Since participants were in groups, they could discuss the injustice. 29 out of 33 groups (88%) rebelled against the instructions, showing that peer support is a powerful tool in resisting authority.

#### Strength of Locus of Control: Research Evidence
* **Holland (1967)** replicated Milgram’s obedience study and measured whether participants were internals or externals. He found that 37% of internals refused to continue to the highest shock level (resisted), compared to only 23% of externals. This difference supports the idea that internals possess greater independence and a higher capacity to resist obedience.

#### Limitation of Locus of Control: Contradictory Historical Trends
* **Twenge et al. (2004)** conducted a meta-analysis of American locus of control studies over a 40-year period (1960 to 2002). They found that over time, people have become more resistant to obedience, but they have also become more *external* in their locus of control. If resistance were causally linked to an internal LOC, we would expect people to have become more internal. This challenges the validity of LOC as the primary explanation for resistance.

#### Limitation of Locus of Control: Situational Limits
* Rotter himself pointed out that LOC only influences behaviour in novel situations. In familiar situations, our past experiences of conforming or obeying are far more influential than our dispositional locus of control. This suggests that LOC has limited explanatory power in real-world, everyday scenarios where people have prior experience.

### Mark Scheme Breakdown

* **AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding):** 6 marks
* **AO3 (Evaluation and Analysis):** 6 marks

| Level | Marks | Description |
|---|---|---|
| **Level 4** | 10–12 | Knowledge of both social support and locus of control is accurate and detailed. Evaluation is clear, coherent, and well-structured, using appropriate psychological evidence. Specialized terminology is used effectively throughout. |
| **Level 3** | 7–9 | Knowledge of both explanations is present, though one may be more detailed than the other. Evaluation is mostly clear with some appropriate use of evidence. Structural errors may be present, but the overall argument remains coherent. |
| **Level 2** | 4–6 | Knowledge is basic, superficial, or contains minor inaccuracies. Evaluation is limited, perhaps lacking clear links to how it demonstrates resistance. The use of psychological terminology is limited or occasionally incorrect. |
| **Level 1** | 1–3 | Knowledge is extremely brief, fragmented, or highly inaccurate. Evaluation is virtually absent or lacks relevance. Little to no appropriate psychological terminology is used. |
| **0** | 0 | No relevant content. |

### Content-Specific Guidance

* **For AO1:**
* Candidates must outline **both** social support (influence of a dissenter/model) and locus of control (internal vs. external construct).
* Accept descriptions of Asch or Milgram variations as AO1 outline if they directly explain *how* social support operates as an explanation.
* Credit detailed descriptions of Rotter's LOC continuum.

* **For AO3:**
* Evaluation must focus on the *resistance* aspect of social influence, not just generic evaluations of conformity/obedience.
* Accept studies such as Holland (1967), Twenge et al. (2004), Allen and Levine (1971), and Gamson et al. (1982) as effective evaluative evidence.
* Credit discussion of individual differences (e.g., gender, locus of control interacting with situation).

To treat Farah's phobia using systematic desensitisation, the therapist must guide her through three main phases:
1. Relaxation training: The therapist teaches Farah deep relaxation techniques, such as progressive muscle relaxation or controlled breathing, to counteract anxiety.
2. Designing an anxiety hierarchy: Farah and the therapist collaboratively create a stepped list of situations involving dogs, ordered from least anxiety-provoking (e.g., reading a book about dogs) to most anxiety-provoking (e.g., being in a room with an unleashed dog).
3. Gradual exposure: Farah is exposed to the situations on her hierarchy starting from the bottom. She applies her relaxation techniques at each stage, only progressing to the next step once she feels completely calm at the current one (reciprocal inhibition).

Award 1 mark for each of the following components applied to Farah's phobia of dogs (up to 3 marks):
- 1 mark for describing relaxation training: Teaching Farah relaxation techniques (e.g., breathing exercises or muscle relaxation) to help her manage her anxiety response.
- 1 mark for describing the anxiety hierarchy: Designing a step-by-step ladder of dog-related situations from least frightening to most frightening.
- 1 mark for describing the exposure process: Gradually exposing Farah to the steps of the hierarchy while she practices relaxation, moving up only when calm.

Beck's cognitive triad consists of three types of negative automatic thoughts that contribute to depression. In Jordan's case:
1. Negative view of the self: This is represented by Jordan's belief that he is 'completely incompetent'.
2. Negative view of the world (current experiences): This is represented by his feeling that 'the world is a cruel place with no opportunities for him'.
3. Negative view of the future: This is represented by his conviction that he 'will never find employment again'.

Award marks as follows:
- 1 mark for correctly identifying and applying 'Negative view of the self' to Jordan's belief that he is incompetent.
- 1 mark for correctly identifying and applying 'Negative view of the world' to Jordan's feeling that the world is a cruel place.
- 1 mark for correctly identifying and applying 'Negative view of the future' to Jordan's belief that he will never get a job again.

**Behavioural characteristic:**
- Identification: Compulsive behaviour (checking) / repetitive actions performed to reduce anxiety.
- Application: Amira spends up to two hours every morning checking that all electrical appliances are switched off before she leaves.

**Emotional characteristic:**
- Identification: High levels of anxiety, distress, or dread.
- Application: Amira feels an overwhelming sense of dread and anxiety that her house will catch fire.

**Cognitive characteristic:**
- Identification: Obsessive thoughts / intrusive thoughts / cognitive coping strategies / realization that thoughts are irrational.
- Application: Amira cannot stop herself from thinking about catastrophic fires, or she knows her repetitive checking behavior is extreme/unreasonable.

For each of the three characteristics (Behavioural, Emotional, Cognitive):
- 1 mark for correctly identifying the characteristic of OCD.
- 1 mark for clearly explaining/linking it to the detail in the scenario.

**Behavioural (Max 2 marks):**
- 1 mark for identifying compulsive behavior / compulsions are repetitive / compulsions reduce anxiety.
- 1 mark for linking to Amira checking her electrical appliances for two hours before leaving.

**Emotional (Max 2 marks):**
- 1 mark for identifying anxiety / distress / dread.
- 1 mark for linking to Amira's feelings of dread/anxiety about her house catching fire.

**Cognitive (Max 2 marks):**
- 1 mark for identifying obsessive/intrusive thoughts OR the cognitive realization that the anxiety is irrational.
- 1 mark for linking to Amira constantly thinking about catastrophic fires OR Amira knowing her checking is extreme and unreasonable.

*Note: Do not credit generic definitions of characteristics that are not applied to the scenario.*

One limitation of using deviation from social norms to define abnormality is cultural relativism. Social norms vary greatly across different societies and cultures. For example, hearing voices is considered a positive spiritual experience in some cultures, whereas in Western societies, it is often viewed as a symptom of mental illness. This means the definition is culturally specific and cannot be applied globally as a universal standard of abnormality.

1 mark for identifying a valid limitation of the 'deviation from social norms' definition (e.g., cultural relativism, temporal validity/norms change over time, susceptibility to abuse/social control, context-dependent behavior). 1 mark for explaining or elaborating on why this is a limitation.

A behavioral characteristic of OCD is compulsion (such as repetitive washing of hands or checking locks) or avoidance of situations that trigger anxiety. A cognitive characteristic of OCD is obsessive thoughts (intrusive, unwanted thoughts of contamination or harm) or cognitive coping strategies (like counting or praying silently to reduce distress).

1 mark for identifying a correct behavioral characteristic (e.g., repetitive compulsions, compulsions that reduce anxiety, avoidance). 1 mark for identifying a correct cognitive characteristic (e.g., obsessive/intrusive thoughts, cognitive coping strategies, insight/awareness of excessive anxiety).

According to Mowrer's two-process model, phobias are acquired by classical conditioning and maintained by operant conditioning.

1. Acquisition (Classical Conditioning): Maya initially had no fear of water (neutral stimulus). However, struggling to breathe (unconditioned stimulus, UCS) naturally caused panic and fear (unconditioned response, UCR). Through association, water became paired with this traumatic event. Now, water acts as a conditioned stimulus (CS) producing the conditioned response (CR) of fear.

2. Maintenance (Operant Conditioning): Maya's phobia is maintained because she avoids water. This avoidance behavior successfully prevents her from experiencing fear, leading to a reduction in anxiety (negative reinforcement). Because this reduction in anxiety feels rewarding (relief), the behavior of avoiding water is reinforced and repeated, preventing the extinction of the phobia.

Award up to 4 marks for a clear and applied explanation of both acquisition and maintenance.

- 1 mark for outlining how classical conditioning leads to acquisition (association between neutral stimulus and unconditioned stimulus).
- 1 mark for applying classical conditioning to Maya (associating water/swimming with struggling to breathe, resulting in fear).
- 1 mark for outlining how operant conditioning leads to maintenance (negative reinforcement via avoidance).
- 1 mark for applying operant conditioning to Maya (avoiding water reduces her anxiety/fear, which reinforces the avoidance behavior).

Beck's cognitive theory suggests that depressed individuals possess a negative triad, which consists of three interconnected pessimistic belief systems:

1. Negative view of the self: The individual sees themselves as worthless or inadequate. This is shown when Leo thinks, 'I am completely incompetent' after getting a low grade.
2. Negative view of the world: The individual interprets their current surroundings and experiences negatively. This is shown when Leo thinks, 'This university is a terrible environment for me'.
3. Negative view of the future: The individual anticipates failure and hardship ahead. This is shown when Leo thinks, 'I am never going to pass this degree'.

Award marks as follows:

- 1 mark for defining or explaining Beck's negative triad (comprising pessimistic views of the self, the world, and the future).
- 1 mark for accurately linking the negative view of the self to Leo's thought: 'I am completely incompetent'.
- 1 mark for accurately linking the negative view of the world to Leo's thought: 'This university is a terrible environment for me'.
- 1 mark for accurately linking the negative view of the future to Leo's thought: 'I am never going to pass this degree'.

One strength of systematic desensitisation (SD) is its demonstrated clinical effectiveness. Research, such as that by Gilroy et al. (2003), tracked 42 patients treated for spider phobia in three 45-minute sessions. At both 3 and 33 months, the SD group was less fearful than a control group treated by relaxation without exposure, showing that the treatment produces long-lasting effects. Another strength is its suitability for a diverse range of patients. Unlike flooding or cognitive therapies, SD does not cause extreme trauma and does not require complex cognitive reflection, making it highly appropriate for children or individuals with learning difficulties. Additionally, SD has low attrition rates. Because it is a gradual process where patients maintain control, fewer patients drop out compared to flooding, making it a highly acceptable and cost-effective treatment option.

6 marks: Evaluative points are clear, coherent, and highly detailed. Demonstrates a thorough understanding of the strengths and/or limitations of systematic desensitisation as a treatment for phobias. 4-5 marks: Evaluative points are mostly clear and structured, though some elaboration may be lacking. Demonstrates good understanding of the treatment's evaluation. 2-3 marks: Limited or superficial evaluation. Points are identified but not fully explained, or only one strength/limitation is discussed in detail. 1 mark: Answer is basic, with minimal or vague evaluative comments.