2024 Cambridge IAL Psychology (9990) 模擬試題連答案詳解

In Dement and Kleitman's study, dream recall was measured using a standardized procedure:
1. Participants were awoken during different stages of sleep using a loud electric doorbell near their bed.
2. They were required to immediately speak into a recording device (dictaphone/tape recorder) next to the bed.
3. The participant first had to state clearly whether or not they had been dreaming.
4. If they reported dreaming, they had to describe the content of their dream. They were only considered to have recalled a dream if they could provide a coherent, relatively detailed description of the dream content.

1 mark for each of the following points, up to a maximum of 4:
- Awoken by a loud electric doorbell.
- Spoke immediately into a tape recorder next to the bed.
- Stated first whether they had been dreaming or not.
- Described the content of the dream (insisted on a coherent/detailed account, not just a vague feeling).

To control for participant expectancy and demand characteristics:
1. Single-blind design: Participants were not informed before awakening whether they were in REM or NREM sleep, preventing them from guessing what the experimenter expected to hear.
2. Varied awakening schedules: The researchers used different schedules of awakenings (e.g., random, three-REM/three-NREM pattern, or deceptive instructions where they were told they would be awoken in REM but were awoken in NREM) to prevent participants from predicting their sleep stage.
3. Minimal experimenter interaction: The experimenter did not enter the room or communicate with the participant before they began recording their dream to avoid giving verbal or non-verbal cues.
4. Strict criteria for dream recall: Dreams had to be recalled with specific details rather than just guessing, reducing the influence of compliance.

1 mark for each point up to a maximum of 4:
- Use of a single-blind design/participants not knowing which sleep stage they were in when awoken (1 mark).
- Prevents demand characteristics/expectancy bias where participants feel forced to report a dream because they think they are in REM (1 mark).
- Use of varied awakening patterns (e.g., random, predetermined sequences, or deception) so they could not predict the pattern (1 mark).
- Minimal interaction/the experimenter did not speak to them before they recorded their report (1 mark).

In Andrade's study, the monitoring loads were set up as follows:
1. Auditory load (same for both groups): Participants listened to a pre-recorded mock telephone conversation about a party, which lasted for 2.5 minutes and played at a comfortable volume.
2. Writing task (same for both groups): All participants were instructed to write down the names of people who were coming to the party.
3. Doodling/Visual load (Doodling group): Participants were given an A4 sheet containing rows of alternating shapes (10 circles and 10 squares per row) with a wide margin. They were told to shade these shapes while listening to the message.
4. Control group visual load: Participants were given a standard sheet of lined paper and simply wrote down the names of people attending.

1 mark for each point up to a maximum of 4:
- Both groups listened to the same pre-recorded telephone message lasting 2.5 minutes (auditory load).
- Both groups had to write down the names of people who were attending the party.
- The doodling group was given a specialized sheet of paper with shapes (circles and squares) to shade (visual load).
- The control group was given plain/lined paper to write down the names without any shapes to shade.

Using a mock telephone message was advantageous for two main reasons:
1. Standardization and Reliability: Every participant heard the exact same recording with the same voice, speed of speaking (approx. 110 words per minute), and tone. This ensured that the auditory task was completely identical across all participants and groups, making the procedure highly standardized and replicable.
2. Control over Extraneous/Confounding Variables: In a live telephone call, the speaker's delivery might vary (e.g., they might pause, hesitate, mispronounce a name, or change their pacing in response to the participant's actions). Using a pre-recorded mock tape eliminated these potential confounding variables, ensuring that any differences in memory performance were solely due to the independent variable (doodling vs. control).

Up to 4 marks total. 2 marks per explained reason:
- 1 mark for identifying/describing a benefit (e.g., consistency/standardization, control of voice variations).
- 1 mark for explaining why it is an advantage in the context of this study (e.g., ensures internal validity, avoids confounding variables like live mistakes, allows identical task difficulty for doodlers and controls).

In the study by Pozzulo et al.:
1. Participants (children and adults) watched a short, 2-minute video clip of a cartoon (such as Dora the Explorer or Go, Diego, Go!) where a target character committed a mild mock-crime (e.g., taking a toy).
2. For the target-present line-up task, participants were shown a set of 4 photographs simultaneously.
3. This line-up consisted of the target character (the actual cartoon character from the video) and 3 foils (similar-looking decoy characters).
4. Participants were asked whether the person who took the toy was in the line-up, and if so, they had to point to them or state if they were not present.

1 mark for each point up to a maximum of 4:
- Participants watched a short cartoon video (approx. 2 minutes) where a target character committed a mild mock-crime/took something.
- The target-present line-up consisted of 4 photographs shown simultaneously.
- The line-up included the actual target character and 3 foils (similar looking distractors).
- Participants had to indicate if the target was present and point to them (or indicate if they were not there).

In the target-absent line-up condition of the Pozzulo et al. study, several key differences were found between children and adults:
1. Correct rejection rate: Adults were significantly better at correctly identifying that the target was not present in the line-up compared to children (who had a much lower rate of correct rejections).
2. False identification rate: Children were far more likely than adults to choose a foil (incorrectly identify a distractor) in the target-absent line-up.
3. Susceptibility to pressure: Children showed a strong bias or tendency to select a photograph, likely reflecting a cognitive expectation that the culprit 'must be' in the line-up or a social desire to please the adult experimenter.
4. Cognitive differences: Adults demonstrated superior cognitive control to resist making a choice when the target was absent, whereas children's decision-making in the target-absent condition was highly inaccurate.

1 mark for each point up to a maximum of 4:
- Children had a lower rate of correct rejections than adults (or adults had higher correct rejection rates).
- Children were more likely to make false identifications/select a foil than adults.
- Children showed a social or cognitive bias to make a choice even when the target was not there.
- Adults demonstrated a better ability to resist choosing a foil when the target was absent.

In Fagen et al.'s study on learning in elephants, the training process involved:
1. Secondary reinforcer: A high-pitched whistle was used as a secondary reinforcer (also known as a 'bridge' or 'secondary reward'). This whistle signal marked the exact moment the elephant performed the desired behavior correctly.
2. Primary reward pairing: The whistle was paired with a primary reinforcer (food treats, such as bananas) so the elephant understood that the whistle sound meant food was coming.
3. Session duration: Training sessions were designed to be short, lasting only about 10 to 12 minutes per session.
4. Session frequency: Sessions were conducted either once or twice a day (e.g., morning and afternoon), ensuring the young elephants remained motivated and did not suffer from physical or mental fatigue.

1 mark for each point up to a maximum of 4:
- Use of a high-pitched whistle as a secondary reinforcer/bridge.
- The whistle was paired with a primary reinforcer (food rewards/bananas).
- Training sessions were kept short, lasting around 10–12 minutes.
- Training was scheduled once or twice per day to avoid fatigue/keep elephants motivated.

In Milgram's standard procedure, the feedback from the learner (Mr. Wallace) followed a highly standardized, escalating pattern:
1. Silence at lower shocks: Up to 300 volts, the learner made no vocal complaints and answered the questions normally.
2. 300-volt level: At 300 volts, the learner kicked or pounded loudly on the wall of the room, which could be easily heard by the participant in the adjacent room.
3. Cessation of answers: After 300 volts, the learner's answers ceased to appear on the blue signal box, indicating that he was no longer participating.
4. 315-volt level and silence: At 315 volts, the learner pounded on the wall once more. After 315 volts, no further sounds or feedback were heard from the learner, remaining completely silent for the rest of the experiment (simulating unconsciousness or death).

1 mark for each point up to a maximum of 4:
- Up to 300 volts, there was no vocal or physical feedback/complaints from the learner.
- At 300 volts, the learner pounded/kicked the wall.
- After 300 volts, the learner stopped answering/no longer responded on the signal box.
- At 315 volts, the learner pounded the wall again, and after that, remained completely silent (did not provide any further responses or noise).

To evaluate both studies in terms of the nature versus nurture debate, candidates should address how biological factors (nature) and environmental factors (nurture) explain the findings of both Dement and Kleitman, and Hassett et al. For Dement and Kleitman: Nature is supported by the physiological processes of sleep. The EEG and EOG recorded objective, universal biological patterns of brain activity and eye movements that characterize REM and NREM sleep across all participants. The correlation between REM duration and dream duration estimation suggests an innate biological mechanism for tracking time during sleep. Nurture is supported by dream content. The specific dream narratives (e.g., throwing tomatoes, driving a car, looking at a cliff) are learned behaviors and memories derived from the participant's unique environment and personal life experiences. For Hassett et al.: Nature is supported by the sex differences in toy preferences in rhesus monkeys. Male monkeys preferred wheeled toys, which is hypothesized to be due to innate, biologically-driven cognitive styles (e.g., preference for motion/mechanics due to prenatal androgen exposure). Since these monkeys had no exposure to human advertising or gender socialization, these preferences must have an evolutionary or biological origin. Nurture is supported by the fact that female monkeys showed no statistically significant preference between plush and wheeled toys, playing with both, which indicates flexibility. Furthermore, individual differences in play and the social dynamics of the troop (such as dominance hierarchies influencing toy access) represent environmental and situational factors shaping behavior.

Level 4 (10-12 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive, detailed, and balanced between both studies. The comparison is explicitly linked to both sides of the nature versus nurture debate using accurate terminology. Specific examples from both studies are used effectively. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Evaluation of both studies is present, but may be slightly unbalanced (one study in more detail than the other). The link to the debate is mostly clear but could be more explicit in places. Good use of psychological terminology and examples. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Evaluation is limited. The response might describe the studies without explicitly evaluating them in terms of the debate, or only focus on one study or one side of the debate. Limited use of terminology and examples. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Response is basic, disorganized, or anecdotal. Minimal reference to the studies or the debate. Level 0: No creditworthy response.

Ecological Validity: Strengths: The study was conducted at the Tiger Tops Elephant Camp in Nepal, which was the elephants' familiar, natural husbandry environment. This increases ecological validity because the physical environment was realistic, and the training occurred in the same context where actual husbandry tasks (like veterinary care) would take place. Weaknesses: The training tasks were highly structured, utilizing systematic positive reinforcement training (PRT) with secondary reinforcers (whistles) and primary reinforcers (bananas). This highly controlled operant conditioning setup is artificial and does not reflect how elephants naturally learn behaviors in the wild. Ethics/Animal Welfare: Strengths: The primary aim of the study was to test a humane training method (PRT) as an alternative to traditional, abusive methods (such as the physical 'crush' or using an ankus/bullhook). This represents a major positive contribution to animal welfare. Elephants were trained using a 'protected contact' system, meaning they could choose to walk away from the training session at any point without punishment, ensuring voluntary participation. No physical pain, distress, or deprivation of basic needs was inflicted. Weaknesses: To ensure motivation, highly preferred food rewards (bananas) were restricted only to the training sessions, which could be argued to be a mild form of food manipulation/deprivation, though their standard nutritional intake was fully maintained.

Level 4 (9-10 marks): Evaluation of both ecological validity and ethical issues is detailed and balanced. Outstanding understanding of the study is shown, with explicit examples from Fagen et al. used effectively to support points. Level 3 (7-8 marks): Both issues are evaluated but one is in more detail than the other, or both are evaluated in reasonable detail. Good understanding of the study with appropriate examples. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Evaluation is limited or unbalanced (e.g., only discussing one issue in detail, or both very superficially). Limited use of examples from the study, or the response is largely descriptive rather than evaluative. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Very basic discussion of one or both issues. Shows minimal understanding of the study, or consists almost entirely of description with no evaluation. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

(a) Identify and justify:
- State: Correlation [1 mark].
- Justification: There are two co-variables (duration of REM sleep and dream vividness rating) being measured to see if there is a relationship between them; there is no manipulation of an independent variable [1 mark].

(b) One strength:
- Allows quantitative data to be collected, which is easy to analyze statistically [1 mark].
- This means the researcher can easily run a correlation test (like Spearman's rho) to determine if a significant relationship exists [1 mark].

(c) One validity issue:
- Subjectivity/Individual differences in scale interpretation: A rating of '5' might represent a moderate vividness for one person but high vividness for another, meaning the scale does not measure dream vividness objectively across all participants [1 mark].

(a)
- 1 mark for identifying 'correlation'.
- 1 mark for explaining that there are two measured co-variables (or no manipulated IV / no cause-and-effect).

(b)
- 1 mark for identifying a strength of rating scales (e.g., quantitative data, ease of statistical analysis, standardization).
- 1 mark for linking the strength directly to the scenario (dream vividness or REM sleep duration).

(c)
- 1 mark for explaining a threat to validity (e.g., subjective interpretation of the scale, social desirability, or lack of qualitative depth).

(a) Identify two controls:
- Exclusion of caffeine/alcohol on the day of the experiment [1 mark].
- The use of a quiet, dark laboratory room to sleep in [1 mark].
- Waking up participants using a doorbell [1 mark].
- Standardizing the time of arrival (just before normal bedtime) [1 mark].
(Any two of the above, maximum 2 marks)

(b) Explain how it increased internal validity:
- By controlling caffeine/alcohol: Ensures that sleep cycles/REM duration are not artificially modified by stimulants/depressants [1 mark]. This means the researcher is measuring natural sleep patterns, increasing internal validity by eliminating confounding variables [1 mark].
- Alternatively, controlling the laboratory environment (quiet/dark) ensures that participants are not woken up by external noises [1 mark], meaning any awakenings or EEG patterns recorded are due to natural sleep stages rather than external disturbances [1 mark].

(c) One disadvantage of EEG/physiological apparatus:
- It is invasive/uncomfortable (electrodes on scalp/face) which may cause participants to sleep differently from how they would at home, leading to unnatural sleep patterns [1 mark].

(a)
- 1 mark per identified controlled situational variable from Dement and Kleitman (maximum 2 marks).

(b)
- 1 mark for identifying the impact of the control on the study's measurements.
- 1 mark for explaining how this directly prevents confounding variables/ensures accuracy of the sleep measurements (internal validity link).

(c)
- 1 mark for a valid disadvantage (e.g., discomfort affecting sleep quality, artificial setting, technical limitations).

(a) One advantage of opportunity sampling:
- Convenience/Efficiency: It is quick and easy to recruit participants who are already present and available [1 mark].
- Link: Andrade's participants were already attending another study, so she could recruit them immediately without having to advertise or wait for responses, making the data collection process highly efficient [1 mark].

(b) One disadvantage of opportunity sampling:
- Unrepresentative/Bias: The sample may suffer from bias because it only includes people who are available at that specific time and place [1 mark].
- Link: The participants were recruited from a university panel, meaning they may be more motivated, highly educated, or younger than the general population, which limits the generalizability of the findings on doodling and concentration [1 mark].

(c) Alternative sampling technique:
- Volunteer sampling / Self-selecting sampling [1 mark].
- Random sampling [1 mark].
- Systematic sampling [1 mark].
(Any one valid technique)

(a)
- 1 mark for a generic advantage of opportunity sampling (e.g., fast, easy, cheap).
- 1 mark for linking the advantage to Andrade's study or research context.

(b)
- 1 mark for a generic disadvantage of opportunity sampling (e.g., bias, lack of representativeness).
- 1 mark for linking the disadvantage to Andrade's study or research context.

(c)
- 1 mark for naming any alternative psychological sampling technique (e.g., random, volunteer, systematic).

(a) Operationalisation of concentration:
- Must provide a clear, measurable way of assessing concentration.
- E.g., The number of errors made on a proofreading task containing 100 spelling mistakes [1 mark] during a 10-minute period [1 mark].
- E.g., The accuracy percentage on a computerized reaction time task where participants must press a key when a specific cue appears [2 marks].

(b) Advantage of quantitative data:
- Objectivity and ease of comparison: Quantitative scores (e.g., number of target symbols identified) are numerical and objective, reducing researcher bias [1 mark].
- This allows the researcher to easily calculate averages (mean scores) for the white noise vs. silence conditions and perform a statistical test to establish significance [1 mark].

(c) Disadvantage of quantitative data:
- Lack of depth/meaning: It does not provide insights into the reasons behind the concentration level, such as whether a participant was tired, stressed, or how they personally experienced the white noise [1 mark].

(a)
- 1 mark for a basic behavioral/numerical measure of concentration (e.g., test scores, errors).
- 1 mark for adding specific detail/clarity to show how it is operationalized (e.g., time limits, specific task details).

(b)
- 1 mark for identifying a general advantage of quantitative data (objective, easy to compare, statistical analysis).
- 1 mark for linking this advantage to the study on concentration/noise.

(c)
- 1 mark for identifying a generic disadvantage of quantitative data (no qualitative insight, reductive, lacks detail) applied to the context.

(a) Why repeated measures was used:
- Controls participant variables: It ensures that individual differences in cognitive abilities, such as memory capacity or attention to detail, are kept constant across both the target-present and target-absent conditions [1 mark].
- Requires fewer participants overall, making it easier to recruit child and adult samples [1 mark].

(b) Ethical issue with child participants:
- Protection from harm/distress: Children may feel anxious, intimidated, or experience a sense of failure if they cannot identify the correct face, or they may feel pressured by adult researchers [1 mark].
- Informed consent: Young children cannot fully understand the nature of a research study to give fully informed consent themselves, requiring parental/guardian consent [1 mark].
(Any one described in detail for 2 marks)

(c) How to address the ethical issue:
- For protection from harm: Use child-friendly language, a warm and supportive examiner, and explicitly tell the child that it is okay if they do not know the answer/the person is not there [1 mark].
- For consent: Obtain formal written informed consent from parents/guardians, while also obtaining verbal assent from the child [1 mark].

(a)
- 1 mark for identifying a reason (e.g., controlling participant variables, participant economy).
- 1 mark for explaining this benefit in the context of the target-present/absent line-ups.

(b)
- 1 mark for identifying a valid ethical issue (e.g., protection from harm, informed consent, right to withdraw).
- 1 mark for contextualizing the ethical issue specifically to children viewing line-ups/crimes.

(c)
- 1 mark for a practical, appropriate solution to address the identified ethical issue in children.

(a) Definition of inter-rater reliability:
- The extent to which two or more observers agree in their recordings/observations of the same behavior [1 mark].

(b) How to establish it:
- Step 1: Create a standardized coding scheme/behavioral checklist with clear operational definitions of target behaviors (e.g., 'touching wand with trunk') [1 mark].
- Step 2: Have two observers independently observe and record the same elephant session, then correlate their findings using a statistical test (e.g., Spearman's rho or Cohen's kappa) to ensure a high correlation coefficient (e.g., 0.80+) [1 mark].

(c) Why it is important:
- Ensures objectivity: Animal behaviors can be rapid or ambiguous; having multiple agreeing observers minimizes subjective bias [1 mark].
- Enhances replication and scientific credibility: It demonstrates that the training progress recorded (e.g., learning a task) is a genuine phenomenon rather than observer error, making the study's conclusions trustworthy [1 mark].

(a)
- 1 mark for a clear definition of consistency/agreement between observers.

(b)
- 1 mark for a step involving standardization (e.g., clear behavioral categories/definitions).
- 1 mark for a step involving independent observation and statistical comparison (correlation/agreement test).

(c)
- 1 mark for explaining a general reason for reliability (e.g., reducing subjectivity, proving accuracy).
- 1 mark for linking it to animal behavior/training sessions.

(a) Benefit of standardising the prods:
- Consistency: Ensures that all participants are subjected to the exact same experimental conditions and verbal pressure [1 mark].
- This prevents experimenter bias (where the experimenter might encourage some participants more than others) and increases the internal validity/reliability of the replication [1 mark].

(b) High experimental/psychological realism:
- Although the task of shocking someone is not a normal everyday occurrence (low mundane realism), the study engaged the participants completely, making them feel real emotions [1 mark].
- This is shown by their extreme physical tension and distress (sweating, stuttering, groaning, digging fingernails into their flesh), demonstrating they fully believed the situation was real [1 mark].

(c) Feature of environment:
- The realistic shock generator with switches labeled from 15 to 450 volts [1 mark].
- The prestigious Yale University setting which lent authority and credibility [1 mark].
- The presence of the experimenter in a grey lab coat [1 mark].
(Any one feature)

(a)
- 1 mark for identifying a benefit of standardisation (e.g., control of confounding variables, reliability, replication).
- 1 mark for linking it specifically to the experimenter's behavior/prods in Milgram's study.

(b)
- 1 mark for explaining what made the experience feel highly 'real' to the participant (psychological realism / experimental involvement).
- 1 mark for providing evidence of this realism from the study (e.g., physical stress behaviors, sweating, tension).

(c)
- 1 mark for identifying any valid environmental/procedural detail that enhanced believability (shock generator, Yale setting, lab coat).

(a) Outline how a Likert scale is used:
- Participants are presented with a series of statements/questions about aspects of their job satisfaction [1 mark].
- They indicate their level of agreement on a multi-point scale, typically 5 or 7 options ranging from 'Strongly Disagree' to 'Strongly Agree' [1 mark].

(b) Weakness of self-report in a workplace:
- Social desirability bias / fear of repercussions: Employees may lie or exaggerate how happy they are because they are worried their manager might see their answers and it could affect their job security or promotion opportunities [1 mark].
- Response bias/set: Employees might rush through the survey and simply tick 'Agree' for all statements without reading them carefully [1 mark].

(c) How to reduce social desirability bias:
- Keep all questionnaires completely anonymous so employees cannot be identified [1 mark].
- Use a neutral online platform or drop-box managed by an independent external researcher [1 mark].
(Any one valid method)

(a)
- 1 mark for explaining the format (statements/questions).
- 1 mark for explaining the scale options (e.g., strongly disagree to strongly agree rating scale).

(b)
- 1 mark for identifying a relevant weakness of questionnaires (e.g., social desirability, lack of qualitative depth, response set).
- 1 mark for linking the weakness directly to the workplace/job satisfaction context (e.g., fear of management, career impact).

(c)
- 1 mark for offering a practical, valid solution to reduce social desirability (e.g., anonymity, confidential submission, filler questions).

(a) The two variables are:
1. The amount of control over work schedule (measured as the number of hours of flexible working per week).
2. The level of job satisfaction.

(b) One strength is that questionnaires provide greater anonymity than face-to-face interviews. Because employees do not have to answer directly to an interviewer, they are more likely to be honest about negative aspects of their job satisfaction without fearing repercussions from their employer, which increases the validity of the data. Alternatively, distributing questionnaires to 100 office workers is far more time-efficient and less resource-intensive than conducting 100 individual face-to-face interviews.

(c) Dr Aris could ensure complete anonymity by instructing participants not to write their names, department, or any identifying details on the questionnaire, which reduces the pressure to present their employer-employee relationship in a socially desirable way.

Part (a) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying variable 1: Number of hours of flexible working / control over schedule.
- 1 mark for identifying variable 2: Level of job satisfaction.

Part (b) [2 marks]:
- 1 mark for identifying a valid strength of questionnaires compared to interviews (e.g., anonymity, efficiency, reduced researcher bias).
- 1 mark for applying this strength specifically to the context of the study (e.g., linking anonymity to honest reporting of work satisfaction without fear of boss, or linking 100 workers to time efficiency of distribution).

Part (c) [1 mark]:
- 1 mark for a practical suggestion to reduce social desirability bias (e.g., complete anonymity, confidential return boxes, using filler questions to disguise the aim).

Part (a) Sample Design:
- Participant: A single 28-year-old female diagnosed with Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD).
- Materials: The participant is provided with a blank 'doodle diary' notebook and a black pen to keep with her at all times.
- Quantitative Data Collection:
1. Daily Anxiety Rating: Every evening, the participant rates her overall anxiety level for the day on a scale of 1 (extremely calm) to 10 (panic/severe anxiety).
2. Doodle Frequency: The researcher counts the total number of distinct doodles produced each day.
- Qualitative Data Collection:
1. Weekly Semi-Structured Interviews: Dr Aris interviews the participant weekly to discuss the context of her drawings (e.g., what she was doing, thinking, or feeling when doodling).
2. Doodle Style Analysis: Two independent raters analyze the visual characteristics of the doodles. They classify them based on predefined criteria: geometric/structured shapes (e.g., squares, neat patterns) vs. organic/chaotic shapes (e.g., sharp scribbles, heavy shading, dark ink patches).
- Procedure: This naturalistic observation and weekly interview cycle is maintained consistently over a 6-month period to compare drawings from days rated high-anxiety (scores 8-10) against low-anxiety (scores 1-3).

Part (b) Ethical Decisions:
1. Protection from Psychological Distress: Discussing personal anxiety levels and specific periods of high stress during weekly interviews can cause distress. To address this, Dr Aris (a trained clinical psychologist) conducts the interviews and ensures the participant is reminded of her right to refuse to answer any specific question or skip a diary entry if it causes discomfort.
2. Confidentiality and Identity Protection: Because case studies involve a highly detailed, unique individual account, there is a high risk of the participant being identified. To protect her identity, her real name, occupation, and location are omitted. All drawings and transcripts are assigned a code name ('Participant Alpha') and stored securely on an encrypted drive.

Part (a) [10 marks]
- Level 3 (8-10 marks): The design is highly detailed, appropriate, and clearly operationalizes a case study (longitudinal, single-subject, triangulated methods). Quantitative measures (anxiety scale, doodle frequency) and qualitative measures (interviews, visual style analysis) are clearly explained. The study is fully replicable.
- Level 2 (5-7 marks): The design is appropriate but lacks detail. It may describe a basic observation or experiment rather than a rich case study, or fail to explain how the doodles and anxiety are measured or compared over time.
- Level 1 (1-4 marks): The design is weak, highly disorganized, or uses an inappropriate methodology (e.g., a lab experiment with multiple participants instead of a case study).

Part (b) [4 marks]
- 1 mark: Identifying a specific ethical issue relevant to this case study (e.g., distress during interviews, confidentiality of unique drawings/records).
- 1 mark: Explaining how this issue is resolved in the design (e.g., clinical support, right to skip questions, anonymizing materials).
- 1 mark: Identifying a second specific ethical issue relevant to this case study (e.g., informed consent over a long period, potential distress from daily anxiety tracking).
- 1 mark: Explaining how this second issue is resolved in the design (e.g., periodic re-consent checks, secure storage, pseudonym use).