2023 Cambridge IAL Psychology (9990) 模擬試題連答案詳解

The Revised Eyes Test addressed several limitations of the original version: 1) Increased choices: The original test had only two choices (a target and a foil), which created a high probability of guessing correctly (50%). This was increased to four choices (one target and three foils) to reduce the effect of guessing. 2) Increased number of target stimuli: The number of items was increased from 25 pairs of eyes to 36 pairs of eyes to enhance the test's psychometric power and range. 3) Vocabulary support: A glossary with definitions of all complex emotional terms used in the test was provided to ensure that performance reflected theory of mind/empathising rather than linguistic ability.

1 mark per change outlined, up to a maximum of 3 marks. - 1 mark: Increasing response options from 2 to 4. - 1 mark: Increasing the number of items/stimuli from 25 to 36. - 1 mark: Introducing a glossary with definitions of the terms. - 1 mark: Equalizing the ratio of male and female faces depicted (18 male, 18 female). - 1 mark: Replacing overly simple/basic emotional terms with more complex mental state terms.

The Distress Rating Scale was a 9-point self-report scale (0-8) designed to quantify the boy's feelings of disgust and fear toward buttons. Prior to behavioral exposure, the boy created a hierarchy of stimuli based on these ratings (with large denim buttons at the bottom and small clear plastic buttons at the top). During exposure therapy sessions, the therapist used this scale to track the boy's distress levels in response to touching or handling different buttons. The therapy progressed systematically from the least distressing stimuli to the most distressing stimuli as the boy's ratings decreased over time.

- 1 mark for identifying the scale range (0-8 rating scale / 9-point scale). - 1 mark for explaining that it was used to create a hierarchy of stimuli or track subjective distress during actual exposure to buttons. - 1 mark for explaining how the ratings guided the therapeutic progression (moving from lower-rated/less distressing buttons to higher-rated/more distressing buttons as ratings declined).

The model conditions differed primarily by the elapsed time before they offered assistance: 1) In the 'early' condition, the model waited 70 seconds after the victim collapsed to intervene and offer help. 2) In the 'late' condition, the model waited 150 seconds after the victim collapsed to intervene. In both conditions, the model's physical behavior was standardized: they helped the victim to his feet and stood by him for the remainder of the trial.

- 1 mark for identifying 70 seconds as the timing for the 'early' condition. - 1 mark for identifying 150 seconds as the timing for the 'late' condition. - 1 mark for describing the physical behavior (helping the victim to his feet and staying with him until the train stopped).

Milgram recorded several qualitative indicators of tension to show that participants were not acting callously but were experiencing conflict: 1) Sweating: Many participants broke out in a sweat as they were instructed to administer higher voltage shocks. 2) Trembling/shaking: Participants showed physical agitation, such as shaking hands and stuttering. 3) Nervous laughing fits: 14 out of 40 participants exhibited nervous laughing or smiling, with some experiencing full-blown, uncontrollable seizures of laughter. Other acceptable signs include biting lips, groaning, and digging fingernails into their palms.

1 mark per distinct physical sign of stress identified, up to a maximum of 3 marks: - 1 mark: Sweating. - 1 mark: Trembling/shaking/stuttering. - 1 mark: Groaning/sighing. - 1 mark: Biting lips. - 1 mark: Digging fingernails into flesh. - 1 mark: Nervous laughing fits/uncontrollable smiling. - 1 mark: Seizures/convulsions.

Andrade proposed that when individuals are bored or under-stimulated, they tend to daydream. Daydreaming is a highly demanding cognitive activity that consumes significant resources from the central executive, thereby reducing attention allocated to the primary task (listening to the telephone call). Doodling, on the other hand, is a simple visuo-spatial task that requires very little cognitive effort. It provides enough physical and mental arousal to keep the brain focused and prevent mind-wandering, thereby preserving more cognitive capacity for monitoring and recalling information from the audio recording.

- 1 mark for explaining that doodling prevents daydreaming/mind-wandering. - 1 mark for explaining that daydreaming uses up significant cognitive/central executive resources. - 1 mark for explaining that doodling requires very little cognitive capacity while maintaining an optimal level of arousal/focus.

To ensure inter-rater reliability during the pre-assessment of aggression: 1) Two independent observers (the nursery teacher who knew the children well and one of the experimenters) rated the children's aggressive behavior in their nursery school environment. 2) The observers rated each child on four distinct 5-point rating scales assessing: physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression towards inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition. 3) The ratings of the two observers were correlated using a statistical test, yielding an exceptionally high correlation coefficient (r = 0.89), demonstrating that the ratings were highly reliable and consistent.

- 1 mark for stating that the children were rated by two independent observers (the nursery school teacher and an experimenter). - 1 mark for stating they used four distinct 5-point rating scales (for physical, verbal, object aggression, and inhibition). - 1 mark for explaining that the observers' ratings were correlated, resulting in a very high reliability coefficient (approx. 0.89).

For the nurture debate (3 marks): Bandura et al. demonstrated that children who observed an aggressive adult model displayed significantly more physical and verbal aggression identical to the model compared to those in the non-aggressive or control conditions. This provides clear evidence that aggressive behavior is not purely innate (nature) but is learned through observation and imitation of role models in the environment (nurture). For the real-world application (3 marks): One application is in media regulation and parental guidance. Because the findings show that children readily copy physical and verbal aggression from adult models, policy makers can implement age restrictions or watershed hours on television to prevent children from observing violent media characters. Alternatively, parents and teachers can act as positive, non-aggressive role models, knowing that pro-social behaviors are equally likely to be imitated.

Nurture debate (3 marks): 1 mark for stating that aggression was learned or imitated from the model. 1 mark for referencing specific experimental evidence (e.g., comparing aggressive model to non-aggressive/control groups). 1 mark for linking the imitation directly to the nature vs nurture debate (showing the environment shapes behavior over innate factors). Real-world application (3 marks): 1 mark for identifying a clear application (e.g., media certification, parenting styles, teacher modeling). 1 mark for explaining how the application functions based on Bandura's findings (e.g., restricting exposure to aggressive models or promoting positive ones). 1 mark for explaining the expected outcome of this application (e.g., reducing learned aggression in children).

Strength (2 marks): Doodling itself is a natural task with high mundane realism, as it is a common behavior that people spontaneously perform in everyday life when they are bored or listening to a telephone call. This helps to ground the experiment in a realistic cognitive habit. Weakness (2 marks): The task lacked ecological validity because listening to a pre-recorded, monotonous tape-recording of names and places in a quiet laboratory environment is highly artificial. In real life, conversations are interactive, and information is rarely delivered in such an artificial, controlled manner, meaning the task does not reflect normal cognitive processing in everyday contexts. Redesign (2 marks): To improve ecological validity, the study could be conducted in a naturalistic setting such as a real school classroom or an office training meeting. Participants could be observed doodling naturally during a real lecture, and their subsequent spontaneous recall of the lecture details could be assessed, ensuring a realistic context and authentic motivation.

Strength (2 marks): 1 mark for identifying a realistic feature of the task (e.g., doodling or listening to a phone message). 1 mark for explaining why this provides mundane realism or supports ecological validity. Weakness (2 marks): 1 mark for identifying an artificial element of the procedure (e.g., monotone pre-recorded tape, sterile laboratory). 1 mark for explaining how this artificiality reduces ecological validity. Redesign (2 marks): 1 mark for proposing a specific, naturalistic setting (e.g., a real lecture or office meeting). 1 mark for explaining how the task would be realistically implemented and measured in that setting.

Ethical guidelines broken (4 marks): 1. Informed consent was violated because the participants were ordinary subway passengers who did not choose to take part in the study and were completely unaware they were being observed. 2. Protection from psychological harm was violated because seeing a person collapse is a highly stressful event that could cause anxiety, fear, or subsequent guilt if they chose not to help, and they were not debriefed after the trial ended. Advantage of field experiment (2 marks): By using a real New York subway train, the research was conducted in a natural environment. This gave the study high ecological validity, as passengers behaved naturally and realistically because they believed the emergency was genuine, thus completely eliminating demand characteristics.

Ethical guidelines (4 marks): Max 2 marks per guideline. For each guideline: 1 mark for identifying a valid guideline (e.g., informed consent, protection from harm, deception, debriefing). 1 mark for explaining how it was breached specifically in the context of Piliavin's subway study. Field experiment advantage (2 marks): 1 mark for identifying a generic advantage (e.g., high ecological validity, lack of demand characteristics, natural behavior). 1 mark for explaining this advantage in direct relation to the subway setting or bystander responses.

Strength 1: High levels of control. Hassett et al. used a highly standardized procedure in a controlled outdoor enclosure. For example, they counterbalanced the left/right placement of the wheeled and plush toys during trials to prevent side preferences from biasing the results. They also utilized two independent coders to score video recordings of the trials, achieving high inter-rater reliability (above 0.90). This standardization increases internal validity by ensuring that toy interactions were measured consistently. Strength 2: Objective quantitative data. The researchers gathered numeric data on several measures, including frequency of interactions, duration of interactions, and a preference score. This allowed for objective statistical comparisons between male and female rhesus monkeys. For example, they could statistically demonstrate that male monkeys had a significant preference for wheeled toys over plush toys. This eliminates researcher bias and increases the reliability of the findings. Weakness 1 (Issue/Debate: Nature vs. Nurture): Generalizability and nature/nurture limits. While the study suggests that toy preferences have a biological basis (nature) since monkeys are not socialized by human gender roles, generalizing these animal findings to human children is problematic. Human gender development is highly complex and heavily influenced by social, cultural, and cognitive factors (nurture). Therefore, the study cannot fully explain the relative contributions of nature and nurture in human gender-typed play. Weakness 2: Low ecological validity. Although the rhesus monkeys lived in a social group in a semi-natural outdoor area, the presentation of human-manufactured toys (wheeled vehicles and plush animals) is highly artificial. These objects do not occur in their natural habitat, and their responses to these novel objects may not reflect natural wild behaviors, reducing the ecological validity of the findings.

Marks are awarded out of 10 using the following levels: Level 4 (8-10 marks): Detailed evaluation of two strengths and two weaknesses, with at least one issue or debate appropriately integrated. The response shows excellent understanding of Hassett et al. and applies evaluative points directly to the study with clear, balanced arguments. Level 3 (5-7 marks): Good evaluation containing strengths and weaknesses (may be slightly unbalanced, e.g., 2 strengths and 1 weakness). At least one issue or debate is present but may lack depth or detail in its application. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Limited evaluation with basic points identified. The response may only focus on strengths or only on weaknesses, or lack specific references to the study by Hassett et al. Issues/debates are either absent or poorly applied. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic or muddled points that show minimal evaluation or understanding. Level 0 (0 marks): No response worthy of credit.