2023 AQA IAS-Level Psychology (9685) 模擬試題連答案詳解

According to Baddeley and Hitch's Working Memory Model (WMM), working memory consists of several temporary processing stores.
- Reading a recipe book utilizes the visuo-spatial sketchpad (VSS) for processing visual and spatial information.
- Listening to an audiobook utilizes the phonological loop (PL) for processing auditory/verbal information.
Because these two tasks utilize completely different slave systems, they do not compete for the same limited resources, allowing Maya to perform both tasks simultaneously with ease.
In contrast, reading a recipe book and reading a text message both rely heavily on visual processing, meaning they both compete for the limited capacity of the visuo-spatial sketchpad. Because the VSS has a very limited capacity, attempting to perform both visual tasks at once leads to overload and performance decline.

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark: For identifying the components of the WMM involved in the first scenario (reading uses the visuo-spatial sketchpad and listening uses the phonological loop).
- 1 mark: For explaining that performing these two tasks simultaneously is successful because they use different, independent slave systems with separate capacities.
- 1 mark: For explaining that reading the recipe and reading text messages both compete for the same component (visuo-spatial sketchpad), which exceeds its limited capacity and leads to cognitive overload/struggle.

This question requires identifying specific types of long-term memory (LTM) described in Tulving's theory.
- Patient A is unable to remember what they had for breakfast, which is a personal event tied to a specific time and context. This represents an impairment in episodic memory (while their procedural memory for riding a bicycle remains intact).
- Patient B is unable to remember general knowledge/facts like the capital of France. This represents an impairment in semantic memory (while their episodic memory for their birthday party remains intact).
- A difference between episodic and semantic memory is that episodic memories are explicitly 'time-stamped' (we remember when they happened) and require conscious effort to recall, whereas semantic memories are not time-stamped (we rarely remember the exact moment we learned a general fact) and consist of shared, objective knowledge.

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark: For correctly identifying that Patient A has impaired episodic memory.
- 1 mark: For correctly identifying that Patient B has impaired semantic memory.
- 1 mark: For outlining a clear, accurate difference between episodic and semantic memory (e.g., episodic memory is personal/time-stamped/context-dependent, whereas semantic memory is factual/not time-stamped/shared knowledge).

The technique used by the police officer is 'reversing the order' (or 'recalling in reverse order').
This technique helps improve eyewitness accuracy in two main ways:
1. It disrupts the influence of schema: When witnesses recall events in chronological order, they often unconsciously fill in gaps in their memory using their pre-existing mental schemas (expectations of what 'usually' happens in a robbery). Recalling events backwards forces them to focus purely on actual sensory details, reducing schema-driven errors.
2. It prevents fabrication: Reversing the order of events is cognitively demanding. This makes it significantly harder for witnesses to maintain or invent a dishonest, fabricated story, leading to more truthful and accurate accounts.

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark: For correctly identifying the technique as 'reversing the order' (or changing chronological order / reverse order recall).
- 1 mark: For explaining that this technique prevents expectations, schemas, or pre-existing stereotypes from filling in memory gaps.
- 1 mark: For explaining that recalling in reverse order is cognitively demanding, which reduces the possibility of dishonesty/lying or encourages a more detailed focus on actual events.

Retrieval failure occurs when information is stored in long-term memory but cannot be accessed due to the absence of appropriate retrieval cues (the encoding specificity principle proposed by Tulving).

In Liam's case, he is experiencing context-dependent forgetting:
- During revision (encoding), the quiet, calm environment of the school library acted as an environmental/external cue.
- During the exam (retrieval), the physical context changed significantly to a large, noisy sports hall.
- Because the external cues present at the time of learning (quietness, specific library surroundings) were absent at the time of testing, Liam is unable to retrieve the stored key terms, resulting in forgetting.

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark: For explaining the concept of retrieval failure / encoding specificity principle (the idea that cues present at encoding/learning must be present at retrieval for successful recall).
- 1 mark: For applying this to Liam's encoding phase (the quiet library environment acted as a context-dependent cue during revision).
- 1 mark: For applying this to Liam's retrieval phase (the noisy sports hall represents a mismatch in context, meaning the necessary external cues are missing, causing him to forget).

This study provides evidence for the features of short-term memory (STM) as described in the Multi-Store Model:
1. Capacity: The participant's struggle to recall lists longer than 7 letters supports the view that STM has a limited capacity. Specifically, it aligns with Miller's research suggesting the capacity of STM is about 7 items (or 7 plus or minus 2).
2. Coding: The participant's confusion of letters that sound similar (like 'B' and 'V') rather than those that look similar (like 'O' and 'Q') demonstrates that STM is coded acoustically (by sound). Even though the stimulus was visual, the brain converted it into acoustic form for storage in STM, leading to acoustic confusion errors.

Up to 3 marks awarded as follows:
- 1 mark: For stating that STM has a limited capacity (specifically 7 +/- 2 items, or between 5 and 9 items), linked to the participant struggling to recall more than 7 letters.
- 1 mark: For stating that STM is coded acoustically (or auditorily / by sound).
- 1 mark: For explaining that acoustic coding is evidenced by the participant making acoustic confusion errors (confusing letters that sound similar like B and V) rather than visual confusion errors (like O and Q), showing the letters were stored by sound.

AO1 Knowledge and Understanding: The cognitive interview (CI) was developed by Geiselman et al. to improve the accuracy of eyewitness testimony based on psychological theories of memory. The four key techniques are: 1. Report everything: Witnesses are encouraged to include every single detail, even if it seems irrelevant or if they lack confidence in it. This can trigger other, more important memories. 2. Reinstate the context: The witness mentally returns to the scene of the crime, imagining the environment (e.g., weather, layout) and their emotional state. This utilizes context-dependent and state-dependent retrieval cues. 3. Reverse the order: The witness is asked to describe the event in a different chronological sequence, such as from the end to the beginning. This prevents expectations or mental schemas from filling in gaps. 4. Change perspective: The witness recalls the event from another person's physical viewpoint (e.g., another witness or the perpetrator). This also disrupts schema-based expectations. AO3 Evaluation: One strength of the cognitive interview is empirical research support. A meta-analysis by Kohnken et al. (1999) found an 81% increase in correct information recalled when using the CI compared to standard police interviews, showing its real-world effectiveness. However, a limitation is that the CI also increases the recall of incorrect information. Kohnken et al. found a significant increase in inaccurate details, meaning police must verify all leads carefully. Another limitation is that the CI is highly time-consuming and expensive. It requires specialized training that many police forces do not have the resources to provide, and it takes much longer to conduct than standard interviews. Finally, research by Milne and Bull (2002) suggests that not all components are equally useful; they found that combining 'report everything' and 'reinstate the context' produced the most significant recall gains, suggesting police could save time by focusing on these two core elements.

Level 4 (10-12 marks): Knowledge of the four cognitive interview techniques is accurate and highly detailed. Evaluation of the cognitive interview is thorough, well-reasoned, and clearly focused on its effectiveness and limitations. The answer is well-structured and uses appropriate psychological terminology. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Knowledge of the cognitive interview techniques is mostly accurate and detailed. Evaluation is present and mostly effective, though some points may lack depth. The answer is generally structured and clear. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Knowledge of the cognitive interview is present but lacks detail or contains some inaccuracies. Evaluation is basic, superficial, or heavily one-sided. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Knowledge is very basic, incomplete, or inaccurate. Evaluation is absent or extremely weak. Answer lacks structure and psychological terminology.

Social support acts as a situational explanation for resisting conformity by breaking the group's unanimity. In this scenario, Chloe acts as a social supporter or ally. By speaking up and refusing to shoplift, Chloe breaks the unanimous pressure of the peer group. This decreases the normative social influence (the pressure to conform to fit in) felt by Elena. Furthermore, Chloe serves as a behavioral model of resistance, demonstrating that non-conformity is a viable option, which ultimately gives Elena the confidence to resist the group pressure and say no.

Award up to 3.6 marks for a clear explanation applied to the scenario: 1 mark for identifying Chloe as an ally/social supporter who breaks the unanimity of the majority. 1 mark for explaining that breaking unanimity reduces the social pressure (normative/informational influence) on the individual. 1 mark for explaining that the ally acts as a model of resistance, showing that non-conformity is possible. 0.6 marks for applying these concepts directly to the scenario (e.g., Elena is able to say no once Chloe's refusal reduces the pressure to conform).

Marcus exhibits an internal locus of control (LoC). Individuals with an internal LoC believe that they are responsible for their own actions and outcomes, rather than attributing them to external factors such as authority figures. Because Marcus takes personal responsibility, he is less likely to enter the agentic state—where an individual abdicates personal responsibility and sees themselves merely as an agent executing someone else's order. This internal belief system fosters greater personal autonomy and confidence, helping him resist the obedient pressure from his manager.

Award up to 3.6 marks: 1 mark for identifying Marcus as having an internal locus of control. 1 mark for defining internal locus of control (the belief that outcomes are determined by one's own efforts and actions). 1 mark for explaining that internals are less likely to enter the agentic state because they accept personal responsibility for their actions. 0.6 marks for applying this specifically to Marcus (e.g., Marcus resists the manager's order because he knows he cannot shift the blame and would be personally accountable).

Asch investigated task difficulty by making the comparison lines much closer in length, which made the correct answer less obvious. He found that conformity increased under these conditions. When a task is difficult or ambiguous, individuals feel less confident in their own judgments and look to others for guidance. This is an example of informational social influence (ISI), where people conform to be correct. This finding is supported by research such as Lucas et al. (2006), who found that students conformed more on hard math problems than on easy ones, particularly if they had low confidence in their mathematical ability.

Award up to 3.6 marks: 1 mark for outlining how Asch manipulated task difficulty (making lines more similar in length) and the corresponding effect (conformity increased). 1 mark for explaining the psychological mechanism (ambiguity leads to informational social influence / desire to be correct). 1.6 marks for evaluation (e.g., citing support from Lucas et al. showing math task difficulty increased conformity, or discussing how task difficulty interacts with individual factors like self-efficacy).

One key difference is that social support is a situational explanation, whereas locus of control is a dispositional explanation. Social support depends on external environmental factors, specifically the presence of an ally who breaks the unanimity of the majority. If the ally is removed, resistance often drops. In contrast, locus of control is an internal, stable cognitive style and personality trait. An individual with an internal locus of control resists social influence due to their personal belief in self-agency and high self-confidence, making their resistance consistent across different social contexts regardless of whether others agree with them.

Award up to 3.6 marks: 1 mark for identifying the key difference (situational vs. dispositional). 1 mark for explaining social support as a situational factor (relying on external allies to break group pressure). 1 mark for explaining locus of control as a dispositional factor (relying on stable internal personality traits). 0.6 marks for contrasting the stability/context-dependence of the two explanations.

To succeed using minority influence, the students must apply consistency and flexibility. First, consistency means the student group must maintain the same message over time (diachronic consistency) and agree amongst themselves (synchronic consistency). By consistently arguing that single-use plastics damage the environment, they force the student council to take them seriously and reassess their views. Second, the students must show flexibility by not appearing dogmatic or rigid, which can alienate the majority. They should be willing to compromise, for instance, by proposing a gradual six-month phase-out of plastic bottles rather than demanding an immediate, total ban. This cooperative approach makes the minority appear reasonable and increases their chance of persuading the council.

Award up to 3.6 marks: 1 mark for explaining consistency in minority influence (maintaining the same message over time and agreeing as a group). 1 mark for applying consistency to the scenario (students repeatedly presenting the same argument in meetings). 1 mark for explaining flexibility in minority influence (willingness to compromise to avoid appearing dogmatic). 0.6 marks for applying flexibility to the scenario (students accepting a realistic compromise like a phased ban rather than an immediate one).

AO1: Social support helps people resist social influence because the presence of a non-conforming peer breaks the unanimity of the majority. This reduces both normative and informational social influence, allowing the individual to act more independently. Locus of control (LOC) is a cognitive style and personality dimension representing the degree to which individuals believe they have control over their own lives. High internals believe their own actions and decisions dictate outcomes, making them more self-confident, achievement-oriented, and resistant to social pressure. High externals believe their outcomes are decided by external factors such as luck, fate, or powerful others, making them more likely to conform or obey. AO2: Amara is exhibiting resistance to social influence due to social support. Her colleague Clara acts as a dissenting ally, breaking the group consensus and giving Amara the social support needed to voice her disagreement. Ben is exhibiting an internal locus of control. His belief that he is 'solely responsible' for his own career choices shows he believes he has personal agency, reducing his susceptibility to group pressure and obedience to the trainer's authority. AO3: Support for social support comes from Asch's variations, where adding a dissenting partner who disagreed with the majority caused conformity rates to drop from 33% to 5.5%. Similarly, in one of Milgram's variations, obedience dropped from 65% to 10% when the participant was joined by two disobedient peers. Support for locus of control comes from Holland (1967), who repeated Milgram's baseline procedure and found that 37% of internals refused to continue to the highest shock level, compared to only 23% of externals. However, a limitation of LOC is that its influence may be overstated. Rotter (1982) pointed out that LOC is only influential in novel situations; in familiar situations, our past experiences are a much more powerful predictor of our behavior than our locus of control.

AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding): 6 marks. AO2 (Application): 2 marks. AO3 (Evaluation): 4 marks. Level 4 (10-12 marks): Accurate and detailed knowledge of both social support and locus of control. Evaluation is balanced, well-developed, and uses appropriate evidence. Application to Amara and Ben is explicit, accurate, and well-integrated. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Mostly accurate knowledge of both explanations. Evaluation is present but may lack depth in some areas. Application to the scenario is clear but may be brief. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Basic or limited knowledge of one or both explanations. Evaluation is superficial or heavily reliant on description. Application to the scenario is weak or absent. Max 6 marks if only one explanation is addressed. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Answer is disorganized and contains major inaccuracies. Evaluation is absent or highly flawed. No useful application.

The correct answer is **b**.

* **Treatment 1** describes **Systematic Desensitisation (SD)**, which involves relaxation training, an anxiety hierarchy, and gradual exposure.
* **Treatment 2** describes **Flooding**, which involves immediate and prolonged exposure to the phobic stimulus without gradual steps.

**Evaluation of treatments:**
* **b is correct** because systematic desensitisation is far less traumatic for patients compared to flooding. Because patients find SD more tolerable, it has lower attrition (drop-out) rates compared to flooding, where patients often withdraw before the treatment is complete.
* **a is incorrect** because the names of the treatments are reversed (Treatment 1 is SD, and Treatment 2 is flooding).
* **c is incorrect** because flooding is highly effective and often faster and more cost-effective than systematic desensitisation for specific phobias; it is not inherently 'less clinically effective' for all phobias.
* **d is incorrect** because behavioural therapies like systematic desensitisation are generally less effective for social phobias that have a strong cognitive component, whereas flooding is highly effective for specific phobias.

**[2 marks]** for selecting option b.
**[0 marks]** for any other option selected.

To gain full marks, the student must correctly identify one behavioral and one emotional characteristic of phobias, and explicitly link each one to Kiara's behaviour in the scenario.

- **Behavioral characteristic**: Avoidance or active escape. In the scenario, Kiara shows avoidance by actively avoiding high-rise locations altogether, and she shows escape by immediately leaving the building when confronted with the height.
- **Emotional characteristic**: Extreme anxiety or fear/panic. In the scenario, Kiara experiences intense panic and begins to cry, which are emotional responses disproportionate to the actual danger posed by the height.

**Behavioral characteristic (2 marks):**
- **1 mark** for identifying a correct behavioral characteristic (e.g., avoidance / active escape / flight).
- **1 mark** for applying this to Kiara (e.g., she leaves the building immediately or avoids high-rise buildings).

**Emotional characteristic (2 marks):**
- **1 mark** for identifying a correct emotional characteristic (e.g., extreme anxiety / unreasonable fear / panic).
- **1 mark** for applying this to Kiara (e.g., she experiences intense panic and cries when on a high floor).

**Strength:**
One strength of systematic desensitisation (SD) is that it is highly acceptable to patients, leading to low attrition (dropout) rates. Because SD involves gradual exposure through an anxiety hierarchy paired with relaxation techniques, patients find it much less traumatic than therapies like flooding. This makes them more likely to complete the treatment program.

**Limitation:**
One limitation of systematic desensitisation is that it may not be effective for all types of phobias, particularly those with an evolutionary survival basis or complex cognitive elements (e.g., social phobia). SD assumes that phobias are acquired purely through classical conditioning. However, phobias with strong cognitive components may require cognitive therapies (like CBT) rather than simple behavioral desensitisation.

**Strength (2 marks):**
- **1 mark** for identifying a valid strength (e.g., high acceptability, low dropout rates, suitable for a diverse range of patients such as children).
- **1 mark** for explaining why this is a strength (e.g., because it is a gradual process involving relaxation rather than immediate extreme exposure, meaning patients do not experience high levels of trauma).

**Limitation (2 marks):**
- **1 mark** for identifying a valid limitation (e.g., takes longer than flooding, may not be effective for complex/evolutionary phobias, only treats symptoms rather than the root cause/symptom substitution).
- **1 mark** for explaining why this is a limitation (e.g., because phobias with a strong cognitive element, such as social anxiety, require cognitive restructuring rather than just classical conditioning of behavioral relaxation responses).

### AO1 (6 marks): Knowledge of Characteristics and Treatments
- **Characteristics of Phobias**:
- **Behavioral**: Avoidance of the phobic stimulus, panic behaviors (screaming, freezing, crying).
- **Emotional**: Excessive, unreasonable fear, high levels of anxiety and dread.
- **Cognitive**: Cognitive distortions (irrational beliefs), selective attention to the stimulus, recognition that the fear is exaggerated.
- **Behavioral Treatments**:
- **Systematic Desensitisation (SD)**: Based on classical conditioning (counterconditioning). Uses reciprocal inhibition (cannot feel anxious and relaxed simultaneously). Steps include: relaxation training (deep breathing, progressive muscle relaxation), constructing an anxiety hierarchy, and gradual exposure (in vivo or in vitro) starting from the least fearful to the most fearful scenario.
- **Flooding**: Direct, immediate, and prolonged exposure to the extreme phobic stimulus without gradual steps. Prevents avoidance behavior, forcing the patient to realise that the stimulus is harmless once adrenaline levels naturally subside (extinction).

### AO2 (4 marks): Application to Sasha
- **Behavioral application**: Sasha's crying and freezing represent panic behaviors. Her refusal to enter the garden shed is an example of active avoidance, which reinforces her phobia.
- **Emotional application**: Sasha experiences a state of dread and extreme anxiety when thinking about or encountering spiders, reflecting the emotional distress characteristic of phobic disorders.
- **Cognitive application**: Sasha's belief that spiders are highly venomous and intend to harm her is an irrational belief (cognitive distortion) that is not supported by reality.
- **Treatment application**: In SD, Sasha would start by looking at a cartoon spider while relaxed, moving up to holding a spider. In Flooding, Sasha would be placed in a room with spiders immediately until her panic subsides.

### AO3 (10 marks): Evaluation of Treatments
- **Systematic Desensitisation**:
- *Strength*: Highly effective. Research (e.g., McGrath et al., 1990) shows about 75% of patients with phobias respond well to SD.
- *Strength*: Low attrition rates. Patients prefer SD as it is significantly less traumatic than flooding, making them more likely to complete the therapy.
- *Strength*: Suitable for a wide range of patients, including children or individuals with learning difficulties who may struggle with the cognitive demands or trauma of flooding.
- **Flooding**:
- *Strength*: Cost-effective and rapid. Flooding can often cure a phobia in a single session lasting 2-3 hours, making it highly efficient for healthcare services.
- *Limitation*: Highly traumatic. It causes extreme psychological stress, which raises ethical concerns regarding protection from harm.
- *Limitation*: High attrition rates. If a patient drops out mid-session, this can actually worsen the phobia (sensitisation) because they escaped the stimulus while their anxiety was at its peak.
- *Limitation*: Less effective for complex phobias (such as social phobias) which have cognitive components that behavioral treatments do not address directly.

### Mark Bands (20 marks total)

**Level 4 (16-20 marks):**
- Clear, accurate, and detailed knowledge of the characteristics of phobias and both behavioral treatments (SD and flooding).
- Excellent application to Sasha, explicitly linking her behaviors, thoughts, and emotions to phobic characteristics.
- Evaluation of both treatments is thorough, balanced, and well-argued with clear strengths and limitations (e.g., ethics, attrition, suitability, effectiveness).
- The answer is well-structured, coherent, and uses precise psychological terminology.

**Level 3 (11-15 marks):**
- Mostly accurate knowledge of phobia characteristics and treatments, though some details may be lacking.
- Good application to Sasha, with most of her symptoms correctly mapped to characteristics.
- Evaluation is present for both treatments, though it may lack depth or balance (e.g., focusing much more on one treatment than the other).
- The answer is structured and generally easy to follow, using appropriate terminology.

**Level 2 (6-10 marks):**
- Basic knowledge of characteristics and/or treatments, containing some inaccuracies or omissions.
- Limited or superficial application to Sasha's scenario.
- Evaluation is brief, descriptive, or relies on generic evaluative points.
- The answer may lack structure or clarity.

**Level 1 (1-5 marks):**
- Very limited, fragmented, or inaccurate knowledge of phobias or treatments.
- Minimal or no application to Sasha.
- Evaluation is absent or highly flawed.
- Poor structure and use of terminology.

**0 marks:** No relevant content.

Information from the right visual field (the 'apple') is projected to the left hemisphere of the brain. Since the left hemisphere contains the primary language centres (Broca's and Wernicke's areas), the patient is able to verbally identify and say the word 'apple'. Conversely, information from the left visual field (the 'key') is projected to the right hemisphere. The right hemisphere controls motor function on the left side of the body, allowing the patient to physically select the key using their left hand, even though they cannot verbally name it.

1 mark for identifying the correct option (B).
0 marks for any other option selected.

During synaptic transmission, neurotransmitters bind to receptor sites on the postsynaptic membrane. Excitatory neurotransmitters (such as glutamate) depolarise the postsynaptic membrane by causing an influx of positive ions, which increases the likelihood that an action potential will be triggered. In contrast, inhibitory neurotransmitters (such as GABA) hyperpolarise the membrane by making the charge inside the cell more negative, which decreases the likelihood of an action potential. The summation of these opposing signals determines whether the postsynaptic neuron will fire.

1 mark for explaining that excitatory neurotransmitters cause depolarisation (positive charge) in the postsynaptic neuron. 1 mark for stating that excitation increases the likelihood of an action potential firing. 1 mark for explaining that inhibitory neurotransmitters cause hyperpolarisation (negative charge) in the postsynaptic neuron. 1 mark for stating that inhibition decreases the likelihood of an action potential firing. 0.25 marks for the accurate use of scientific terminology (e.g., postsynaptic, depolarisation, hyperpolarisation, summation).

In split-brain research (such as Sperry's studies), patients with a severed corpus callosum were presented with visual stimuli. When a word or object was shown in the right visual field, the image was processed by the left hemisphere. Because key language areas (like Broca's area) are located in the left hemisphere, patients were able to describe or name the object verbally. Conversely, when stimuli were shown to the left visual field (processed by the non-verbal right hemisphere), they could not name it verbally but could select it with their left hand. This demonstrates that speech and language processing are lateralised to the left hemisphere.

1 mark for explaining that information from the right visual field is processed by the left hemisphere. 1 mark for stating that the left hemisphere contains language and speech production centers. 1 mark for describing the experimental finding (patients can describe objects seen in the right visual field). 1 mark for contrasting this with the left visual field condition (objects cannot be verbally named because information cannot cross to the left hemisphere). 0.25 marks for explicitly linking these experimental findings back to the concept of hemispheric lateralisation.

Sensory neurons and motor neurons have distinct roles in the nervous system. Sensory neurons carry action potentials from sensory receptors (located in sensory organs and the skin) towards the central nervous system (CNS). Structurally, they have long dendrites and short axons, with the cell body positioned along the axon. On the other hand, motor neurons transmit impulses away from the CNS to effectors, such as muscles or glands, to trigger a physical response. Structurally, motor neurons have short dendrites, long axons, and their cell body is located at one end of the neuron.

1 mark for explaining that sensory neurons carry signals from receptors to the CNS. 1 mark for explaining that motor neurons carry signals from the CNS to effectors (muscles/glands). 1 mark for identifying a structural difference (e.g., length of dendrites/axons or location of cell body). 1 mark for using comparative language to clearly contrast the two types of neurons. 0.25 marks for the accurate use of anatomical terms (e.g., receptors, effectors, CNS, axon, dendrite).

The somatic nervous system (SNS) and the autonomic nervous system (ANS) are two main divisions of the peripheral nervous system. The SNS is responsible for voluntary actions, carrying motor commands from the CNS to skeletal muscles and bringing sensory information back to the CNS. In contrast, the ANS regulates involuntary, automatic processes of internal organs and glands (e.g., heart rate, digestion, pupil dilation). Additionally, the ANS is further subdivided into the sympathetic and parasympathetic branches to manage homeostatic and emergency (fight-or-flight) responses, whereas the SNS does not have these subdivisions.

1 mark for stating that the somatic nervous system controls voluntary movement and skeletal muscles. 1 mark for stating that the autonomic nervous system controls involuntary processes/internal organs. 1 mark for explaining that the SNS is involved in relaying external sensory input, while the ANS is involved in maintaining internal homeostasis. 1 mark for noting that the ANS is subdivided into sympathetic and parasympathetic branches while the SNS is not. 0.25 marks for presenting a clear, coherent contrast between the two systems.

### AO1: Description of Hemispheric Lateralisation and Split-Brain Research

* **Hemispheric Lateralisation:** Refers to the idea that the two halves (hemispheres) of the brain are functionally different and that certain mental processes and behaviors are mainly controlled by one hemisphere rather than the other (e.g., language is lateralised to the left hemisphere, while visuospatial skills are lateralised to the right hemisphere).
* **Split-Brain Research (Sperry and Gazzaniga):**
* **Participants:** A unique group of individuals who had undergone a commissurotomy (surgical severing of the corpus callosum and other commissures) to treat severe, drug-resistant epilepsy. This severed the communication pathway between the two hemispheres.
* **Procedure:** Sperry used a tachistoscope to project visual stimuli to either the left visual field (LVF) or the right visual field (RVF) for a fraction of a second (typically 1/10th of a second). Because the visual fields are cross-wired to the contralateral hemispheres (LVF to the right hemisphere, RVF to the left hemisphere) and the corpus callosum was severed, information presented to one visual field could not be shared with the other hemisphere.
* **Findings (Describing what was seen):** When an image was shown to the RVF (processed by the left hemisphere), patients could easily describe it in speech or writing. When shown to the LVF (processed by the right hemisphere), patients reported seeing nothing or could not name it, because the left hemisphere (language center) had no access to the visual information.
* **Findings (Tactile tasks):** Although they could not verbally identify an object placed in their left hand (processed by the right hemisphere), patients could easily select a matching object from a bag using their left hand, demonstrating that the right hemisphere understood what the object was but lacked the verbal capability to name it.

### AO3: Evaluation of Hemispheric Lateralisation and Split-Brain Research

* **Methodological Strengths:** Sperry's research used highly standardized and controlled laboratory procedures. The rapid presentation of stimuli (1/10th of a second) prevented participants from moving their eyes, ensuring that the visual information went strictly to one hemisphere. This high internal validity allowed Sperry to draw firm causal conclusions about hemispheric specialization.
* **Generalizability Issues (Sample Limitations):** The split-brain patients used in Sperry's research represented an extremely small and unique sample (often only 11 participants intensively studied). Crucially, all of these patients had a history of severe epilepsy and had been taking anti-epileptic drugs, which may have caused atypical brain organization or damage prior to surgery. This makes it difficult to generalize the findings to healthy, 'normal' brains.
* **Oversimplification of Lateralisation:** Modern neuroscientists argue that the distinction between the 'logical' left brain and 'creative' right brain is highly oversimplified. In a healthy brain, tasks are rarely completed by one hemisphere in isolation; instead, both hemispheres constantly interact and communicate via the corpus callosum to perform complex cognitive functions.
* **Plasticity and Compensation:** Research has shown that the brain is highly plastic and can adapt after injury. In some cases of split-brain patients, the right hemisphere has been observed to develop some language capabilities over time, suggesting lateralisation is not fixed or absolute.

### Mark Breakdown (AO1: 6 marks, AO3: 6 marks)

| Level | Marks | Description |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| **Level 4** | **10–12** | **Excellent knowledge and evaluation:** The description of hemispheric lateralisation and split-brain research is accurate, detailed, and well-structured. The evaluation is thorough, balanced, and highly relevant. Psychological terminology is used effectively throughout. |
| **Level 3** | **7–9** | **Good knowledge and evaluation:** The description of hemispheric lateralisation and split-brain research is mostly accurate with reasonable detail. Evaluation points are clearly stated but may lack depth or balance. Terminology is generally appropriate. |
| **Level 2** | **4–6** | **Basic knowledge and evaluation:** The answer demonstrates some basic understanding of lateralisation or split-brain studies, but contains omissions or inaccuracies. Evaluation is limited, superficial, or lacks focus. |
| **Level 1** | **1–3** | **Minimal knowledge and evaluation:** The response is disorganized, highly inaccurate, or very brief. Evaluation is absent or largely irrelevant. |
| **0** | **0** | No relevant content. |

### Marking Guidance
* **AO1 (6 marks):** Award marks for describing the concept of hemispheric lateralisation (e.g., contralateral control, language in the left hemisphere) and Sperry's split-brain methodology (use of tachistoscope, 1/10th second exposure, severing of the corpus callosum) and findings (verbal naming vs. tactile identification).
* **AO3 (6 marks):** Award marks for evaluating the strengths (highly controlled experimental design, minimized extraneous variables) and limitations (small/atypical clinical sample, brain plasticity/compensation, modern evidence showing interconnectedness instead of strict dichotomy).

Baillargeon's VOE method relies on the principle that infants look longer at things they find surprising or unexpected. First, infants are habituated to a standard event (e.g., a toy car rolling down a track behind a screen). Then, they are shown a possible event (an obstacle placed off the track) or an impossible event (the obstacle is placed directly on the track, but the car still passes through it due to experimental trickery). If infants have an innate physical reasoning system and understand object permanence, they will show surprise by looking significantly longer at the impossible event. This suggests they know the object still exists behind the screen and cannot be passed through.

1.33 marks: Explanation of the procedural setup (habituation to a control scene followed by possible and impossible/violating events). 1 mark: Identification of the primary dependent variable (measurement of looking time/gaze duration). 1 mark: Interpretation of results (longer looking times at the impossible event indicate surprise, demonstrating early cognitive expectations of the physical world).

According to Piaget, cognitive development occurs through schema adaptation. In this scenario: 1) Assimilation: Tariq experiences a new stimulus (the calf) and attempts to incorporate it into his pre-existing schema for a four-legged, furry animal ('doggy'). 2) Disequilibrium: Tariq's mother corrects him, which creates cognitive conflict (disequilibrium) because the new information ('calf', 'moo') does not fit his dog schema. 3) Accommodation: To resolve this, Tariq must modify his existing schema or form a new schema specifically for a 'calf'. This adjustment allows him to return to a state of cognitive balance (equilibration).

1 mark: Clear explanation and application of 'assimilation' (Tariq labeling the calf as a doggy based on existing schemas). 1 mark: Explanation and application of 'disequilibrium' (the cognitive conflict caused by the mother's corrective feedback). 1.33 marks: Clear explanation and application of 'accommodation' (modifying existing structures or creating a new schema for the calf to restore cognitive balance/equilibration).

The Sally-Anne task is a false-belief task used to determine if children have developed a Theory of Mind (the ability to attribute mental states to others). In the task, children are shown two dolls: Sally (who has a basket) and Anne (who has a box). Sally puts a marble in her basket and leaves the room. Anne moves the marble to her box. Sally returns, and the child is asked the belief question: 'Where will Sally look for her marble?' Children with a fully developed Theory of Mind will answer 'in the basket' because they understand Sally has a false belief. Children with autism typically fail this task, answering 'in the box' because they struggle to appreciate that Sally's internal knowledge and beliefs differ from their own objective knowledge of the marble's location.

1 mark: Description of the false-belief task procedure (the movement of the marble from the basket to the box in Sally's absence). 1 mark: Identification of the critical test question (asking where Sally will look for her marble when she returns). 1.33 marks: Explanation of the performance of children with autism (they answer that she will look in the box where the marble actually is, demonstrating an inability to attribute a false belief and indicating a deficit in Theory of Mind).

### AO1: Knowledge and Understanding of Piaget's Theory of Cognitive Development

**Key Concepts of Cognitive Development:**
* **Schemas:** Mental structures or representations of the world that organize and interpret information. Infants start with innate physical schemas (like sucking and grasping), which become more complex and abstract through experience.
* **Assimilation:** The cognitive process of fitting new experiences or information into existing schemas.
* **Accommodation:** The process of altering existing schemas, or creating entirely new ones, when new information cannot be assimilated.
* **Equilibration:** The motivational driving force behind cognitive growth. When a child's schemas can explain their environment, they are in cognitive equilibrium. When new information causes a mismatch, they experience disequilibrium (cognitive conflict), which they resolve through accommodation to achieve equilibration.

**Stages of Intellectual Development:**
1. **Sensorimotor Stage (0–2 years):** Focuses on physical interactions with the world. The key milestone is developing *object permanence*—understanding that objects continue to exist even when out of sight (typically around 8 months).
2. **Pre-operational Stage (2–7 years):** Characterized by a lack of logical thought. Children display *egocentrism* (inability to see from another's perspective, demonstrated by the Three Mountains Task), lack *conservation* abilities (failing to understand that quantity remains the same despite changes in physical appearance), and struggle with *class inclusion* (understanding sub-categories within larger categories).
3. **Concrete Operational Stage (7–11 years):** Children develop logical reasoning, but only when applied to physical (concrete) objects. They master conservation, lose egocentrism, and perform class inclusion tasks successfully.
4. **Formal Operational Stage (11+ years):** Children develop abstract thinking and systematic hypothesis testing (scientific reasoning). They can think hypothetically without needing physical representations.

---

### AO3: Evaluation and Discussion

**Comparison with Vygotsky’s Theory:**
* **Social vs. Individual Learning:** Piaget viewed the child as an 'independent scientist' exploring the physical world alone to construct knowledge. Conversely, Vygotsky emphasized the social context, viewing the child as an 'apprentice' who develops cognitively through interactions with more knowledgeable others (MKO).
* **The Role of Language:** Piaget argued that language is a byproduct of cognitive development (thought comes first). Vygotsky argued that language is the primary tool for cognitive development, shifting from social speech to private speech, and finally to inner thought.
* **Instructional Implications:** Piaget’s work led to child-centered 'discovery learning' in classrooms, where children explore individually. Vygotsky’s theory paved the way for collaborative learning, scaffolding, and peer tutoring within the Zone of Proximal Development (ZPD).

**Comparison with Baillargeon’s Infant Cognition Research:**
* **Underestimation of Infant Abilities:** Piaget claimed infants do not have object permanence until around 8 months. However, Baillargeon used the *violation of expectation (VOE)* paradigm (e.g., the drawbridge study or the tall/short rabbit study) to show that infants as young as 3–4 months show surprise when an impossible physical event occurs. This suggests infants possess a primitive, innate *physical reasoning system (PRS)*, challenging Piaget’s constructive view of learning.

**Methodological and General Critiques of Piaget:**
* **Flawed Methodology:** Many of Piaget's tasks were overly complex or confusing for young children. When researchers like Margaret Donaldson simplified the tasks (e.g., using the 'Naughty Teddy' for conservation or the 'Policeman Doll' task for egocentrism), younger children demonstrated cognitive abilities far earlier than Piaget predicted.
* **Sample Bias:** Piaget’s original sample was small and relied heavily on his own children, which limits the generalizability of his developmental milestones.

### Marking Scheme Assessment Criteria

**AO1: Knowledge and Understanding (8 Marks)**
* **7–8 Marks (Level 4):** Accurately and clearly describes key components of Piaget's theory, including both cognitive processes (schemas, assimilation, accommodation, equilibration) and the stages of intellectual development (sensorimotor, pre-operational, concrete operational, formal operational) with appropriate detail.
* **5–6 Marks (Level 3):** Good knowledge and understanding of Piaget's theory. Most key terms and stages are described clearly, though there may be minor omissions or a slight lack of detail in one of the areas.
* **3–4 Marks (Level 2):** Basic or superficial knowledge of Piaget's theory. Some processes or stages are correctly identified, but descriptions are limited, simplified, or contain minor inaccuracies.
* **1–2 Marks (Level 1):** Very weak or fragmented knowledge. Only isolated terms are mentioned without coherent explanation.
* **0 Marks:** No creditworthy material.

**AO3: Evaluation and Discussion (12 Marks)**
* **10–12 Marks (Level 4):** Evaluation is highly detailed, analytical, and effective. The candidate draws sophisticated comparisons with Vygotsky's socio-cultural theory and/or Baillargeon's infant cognition studies. Methodological criticisms of Piaget's work (e.g., Hughes, Donaldson) are presented with clear implications for the validity of his stages. The structure is logical and coherent throughout.
* **7–9 Marks (Level 3):** Good evaluation. Comparisons with Vygadeskey or Baillargeon are clearly explained. Points of comparison/critique are logical and well-developed, with minor limitations in depth or critical analysis.
* **4–6 Marks (Level 2):** Limited or descriptive evaluation. The candidate may list differences between Piaget and Vygotsky without fully exploring their significance, or provide simplistic evaluative points with little analytical detail.
* **1–3 Marks (Level 1):** Extremely weak evaluation. Assertions are made without support, or evaluation is highly superficial, lacking any meaningful comparison or critique.
* **0 Marks:** No creditworthy evaluation.

To write a directional operationalised hypothesis, the direction of the effect must be stated (e.g., 'more' or 'higher'), and both variables must be fully operationalised. Independent Variable: Caffeinated tea (drinking 250ml of caffeinated tea) versus a control (drinking 250ml of water). Dependent Variable: Memory recall (number of words recalled correctly from a list of 20 words). Directional prediction: One specific group will perform better than the other.

1 mark for stating a clear directional prediction (e.g. 'will recall more words' or 'will perform better'). 1 mark for fully operationalising the independent variable (drinking 250ml of caffeinated tea versus 250ml of water). 1 mark for fully operationalising the dependent variable (the number of words recalled correctly from a list of 20).

To deal with deception, researchers use retrospective ethical measures, primarily debriefing. During debriefing, the researcher must reveal the true nature of the conformity experiment and explain the necessity of the cover story (to avoid demand characteristics). They must also offer the participants the right to withdraw their data if they feel uncomfortable after learning the truth, and provide reassurance or support if needed.

1 mark for identifying full retrospective debriefing as the method to address deception. 1 mark for explaining what the debriefing must entail in this context (revealing the true conformity aim and explaining why deception was used). 1 mark for mentioning the right to withdraw data post-study or offering psychological support if required.

A scattergraph is used to display correlational data. It requires: 1) A clear, informative title stating the relationship between the two variables (e.g., 'A scattergraph showing the relationship between hours spent on social media and exam scores out of 50'). 2) Two labelled axes with appropriate scales (X-axis for hours spent on social media, Y-axis for exam scores out of 50). 3) Plotted points (crosses or dots) representing the paired scores of each of the 10 students, without lines connecting the points.

1 mark for describing a suitable descriptive title containing both variables (hours on social media and exam scores). 1 mark for describing clearly labelled axes (X and Y) with appropriate scales. 1 mark for describing the plotting of individual data points (as dots or crosses) representing the paired data of the 10 participants, without connecting lines.

Step 1: Calculate the absolute increase: \(18 - 15 = 3\). Step 2: Divide the increase by the original value: \(3 / 15 = 0.2\). Step 3: Multiply by 100 to get the percentage: \(0.2 \times 100 = 20\%\).

1 mark for showing correct formula or partial working: \(\frac{18 - 15}{15}\) or \(\frac{3}{15}\). 1 mark for calculating the fraction as 0.2 or showing \(0.2 \times 100\). 1 mark for the correct final answer of 20% (accept 20).

In developmental psychology, individual differences (such as cognitive ability, age, or socioeconomic status) can act as confounding variables. A matched pairs design matches participants on these key variables before assigning them to different conditions. This controls for participant variables (unlike independent groups), ensuring differences in the dependent variable are due to the independent variable, while also avoiding the order effects (like practice or fatigue) that occur in a repeated measures design.

1 mark for identifying the control of participant variables or individual differences (e.g., cognitive ability). 1 mark for explaining how matching works in this context (pairing participants on a key characteristic and splitting them across conditions). 1 mark for linking this to increased internal validity (ensuring changes are due to the IV and not baseline differences) or comparing to the limitation of order effects.

To conduct systematic sampling: 1) Determine the sampling interval (k) by dividing the population size by the sample size: \(200 / 20 = 10\). Thus, every 10th person will be chosen. 2) Select a random starting number between 1 and 10 (e.g., 4) using a random number generator. 3) Select that student (e.g., student 4) and every 10th student thereafter (e.g., 14, 24, 34, 44... up to 194) until the full sample of 20 is acquired.

1 mark for calculating the sampling interval (k = 10) by dividing the total population (200) by the desired sample size (20). 1 mark for explaining that a random starting point must be selected between 1 and 10. 1 mark for explaining the systematic selection of every 10th student thereafter from the directory (e.g., providing an illustrative sequence like 4, 14, 24...).

The mean is calculated by summing all values and dividing by the total number, meaning it is highly sensitive to extreme scores (outliers). For instance, if one participant in Group A had an extremely slow reaction time of 1500ms due to distraction, this outlier would artificially inflate the mean. The median simply uses the middle value of ordered data and is not affected by the actual numerical size of extreme scores, making it a more representative measure of the central tendency for typical performance.

1 mark for explaining that the mean is calculated using all scores and is therefore skewed or distorted by extreme outliers. 1 mark for explaining that the median only uses the middle value of the ranked data set and is unaffected by extreme scores. 1 mark for linking explicitly to the context (e.g., explaining how a very slow reaction time outlier would inflate the mean reaction time but not the median).

Peer review involves independent scientific experts in the same field critically evaluating a research manuscript before publication. This process serves several vital functions: 1) Quality control: Experts check the validity of the methodology, research design, and statistical analyses to ensure conclusions are justified. 2) Prevention of flawed research: It prevents incorrect, poorly controlled, or fraudulent work from being published. 3) Suggestions for improvement: Reviewers provide constructive feedback to improve the study's clarity or suggest additional controls before it is accepted.

1 mark for identifying that independent experts in the same field evaluate the quality, validity, or methodology of the research. 1 mark for explaining that peer review acts as a filter to prevent flawed, biased, or fraudulent findings from being published. 1 mark for explaining that it ensures scientific credibility or helps allocate funding or suggest improvements to the research before publication.

A fully operationalised directional hypothesis clearly states the expected direction of the difference and operationalises both the independent variable (IV) and the dependent variable (DV).

- The IV is operationalised as 'studying while listening to classical music' versus 'studying in silence'.
- The DV is operationalised as 'scores on a 20-item comprehension test' (or any specific test measure).
- The direction is stated as doing better/higher scores for the classical music group.

3 marks: A clearly written, directional hypothesis where both the independent variable (IV) and dependent variable (DV) are fully operationalised.
2 marks: A directional hypothesis where only one of the variables is operationalised, or the operationalisation is slightly vague.
1 mark: A basic directional hypothesis where neither variable is operationalised (e.g., 'Participants who listen to music do better than those who do not').
0 marks: The hypothesis is non-directional, null, or entirely inappropriate.

A pilot study is a small-scale trial run of the main research design. In studies with children, it is vital to check if the instructions are clear and understandable, and if the cognitive tasks are age-appropriate. By doing so, researchers can identify and resolve design flaws (such as ceiling or floor effects) to save time and resources in the actual experiment.

3 marks: A clear and well-explained reason that is explicitly applied to the context of cognitive development and children.
2 marks: A clear reason is identified and explained, but the application to children/cognitive development is weak or generic.
1 mark: A basic reason is identified but not explained or applied (e.g., 'to see if there are any errors in the procedure').
0 marks: Inappropriate or incorrect response.