2025 Cambridge IAL Psychology (9990) 模擬試題連答案詳解

To measure dream recall, Dement and Kleitman (1957) woke up participants using a loud door bell at various times during the night. Upon awakening, participants had to speak immediately into a recording device. They first stated whether they had been dreaming or not (yes/no), and if they had, they narrated the content of their dream in as much detail as possible without any communication with the experimenter.

1 mark for waking up participants using a door bell.
1 mark for asking participants to state whether they were dreaming or not (yes/no choice).
1 mark for recording the description of the dream content into a tape recorder.

Hassett et al. (2008) categorized the toys into two types: 'plush toys' (soft, stuffed plush animals like Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, or Scooby Doo) and 'systemising toys' (toys with wheels or mechanical parts that can be rolled or manipulated, such as a truck, wagon, or car). Each type of toy was positioned in specific locations in the testing area to record the preferences of male and female rhesus monkeys.

1 mark for defining plush toys as soft/stuffed OR systemising toys as wheeled/manipulable.
1 mark for identifying at least one plush toy example (e.g., Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Ann, Scooby Doo).
1 mark for identifying at least one systemising toy example (e.g., truck, wagon, car).

In the subway Samaritan study, several features of the victims were standardised to control for extraneous variables. These included: (1) Gender: all victims were male; (2) Age: they were all between 26 and 35 years old; (3) Dress: they all wore identical casual clothing consisting of Eisenhower jackets, old trousers, and no tie.

1 mark for each standardised feature of the victim identified, up to a maximum of 3 marks:
- They were all male.
- They were aged between 26 and 35.
- They wore identical clothing (Eisenhower jacket, old trousers, no tie).
- They stood near the pole in the critical area.
- They collapsed forward onto the floor after 70 seconds of travel.

The boy and his mother constructed a 9-point disgust/fear hierarchy using a scale from 0 (no distress) to 8 (most distress). Various types of buttons were rated on this scale. Large denim buttons were rated as least distressing (scoring 2), whereas small plastic buttons (both clear and coloured) were rated as most distressing (scoring 8).

1 mark for explaining the scale structure (9-point scale / ranging from 0 to 8).
1 mark for identifying the lowest distressing button type (large denim buttons, scoring 2).
1 mark for identifying the highest distressing button type (small plastic buttons, clear or coloured, scoring 8).

The shock generator used in Milgram's study was designed to look highly authentic. It consisted of a large instrument panel featuring 30 toggle switches in a horizontal line. Each switch was labeled with a voltage level, starting at 15 volts and going up to 450 volts, with a step increase of 15 volts between each switch. There were also descriptive verbal labels accompanying groups of switches, ranging from 'Slight Shock' to 'Danger: Severe Shock' and culminating in 'XXX' next to the final switches.

1 mark for stating it had 30 lever/toggle switches ranging from 15 to 450 volts.
1 mark for noting the 15-volt increments between switches.
1 mark for mentioning the verbal descriptive labels (e.g., 'Slight Shock', 'Danger: Severe Shock', or 'XXX').

Pozzulo et al. (2011) compared children's and adults' witness identification performance using two line-up conditions. In the 'target-present' condition, the photo of the actual culprit (target) who was seen in the video clip was included in a 6-photo array alongside 5 foils. In the 'target-absent' condition, the culprit was completely removed from the line-up and replaced by a similar-looking foil (the target replacement), making a total of 6 foils, which meant the correct response was to state that the target was not present.

1 mark for describing the target-present line-up (the actual culprit/target is included with 5 foils).
1 mark for describing the target-absent line-up (the culprit is missing and replaced by a foil).
1 mark for stating the correct decision required for either condition (e.g., target-present requires identifying the culprit; target-absent requires stating the culprit is not there/rejecting the line-up).

Hölzel et al. (2011) investigated the structural brain changes associated with mindfulness meditation. They utilized Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanners to obtain anatomical scans of the participants' brains. To analyze these scans, they applied Voxel-Based Morphometry (VBM), which is a neuroimaging analysis technique that allows for the quantitative measurement and comparison of gray matter concentration/density in specific regions of interest (such as the hippocampus).

1 mark for identifying Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) brain scans.
1 mark for identifying Voxel-Based Morphometry (VBM) as the analysis technique.
1 mark for specifying what VBM measured (changes in gray matter concentration/density/volume).

In Perry et al.'s study, personal space was assessed using a computerized version of the Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm. Participants were asked to imagine themselves in the center of a room shown on a computer screen. An animated figure (representing a friend, a stranger, an authority figure, or a non-human object) approached them from one of eight directions. Participants were instructed to press the spacebar to stop the approaching figure at the exact point they began to feel uncomfortable with its proximity, measuring the distance in pixels.

1 mark for describing the visual setup (computer display of a room where participants imagine being at the center).
1 mark for stating that a figure (e.g., friend, stranger, or object) approaches them on the screen.
1 mark for explaining that the participant stops the figure's movement (by pressing a key/spacebar) when they feel uncomfortable, measuring the distance.

### Sample Band 4 Answer (10–12 marks):

Physiological measures refer to objective, biological metrics used to assess human state, structure, or function, such as brain wave activity or structural brain density. Both Dement and Kleitman (sleep and dreams) and Hölzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans) utilize advanced physiological apparatuses to ground psychological concepts (dreaming and mindfulness, respectively) in objective science.

**Strengths of Physiological Measures:**

1. **High Objectivity and Scientific Rigor:**
- In **Dement and Kleitman**, the use of the Electroencephalograph (EEG) and Electrooculargraph (EOG) allowed researchers to measure brain wave frequency/amplitude and rapid eye movements objectively. This eliminated participant bias or guess-work about whether they were in REM or NREM sleep, providing a reliable, scientific indicator of sleep state before waking them to ask for dream recall.
- Similarly, **Hölzel et al.** used Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scans to measure gray matter concentration (using Voxel-Based Morphometry, or VBM). This physiological measure is completely objective and cannot be manipulated by social desirability or participant demand characteristics, unlike self-report measures of stress or mindfulness.

2. **High Standardisation and Reliability:**
- **Dement and Kleitman** standardised the measurement of physiological states (e.g., electrodes attached to the scalp and near the eyes, wires gathered into a ponytail, and specific criteria for defining REM sleep). This ensures that the study can be replicated easily to test for consistency.
- **Hölzel et al.** utilised a standardised MRI scanning protocol (e.g., using a 3 Tesla Magnetom Trio scanner, specific imaging parameters, and automated VBM software). This level of technological standardisation minimizes human error in measuring brain structure changes, ensuring highly consistent measurements across pre-test and post-test sessions.

**Weaknesses of Physiological Measures:**

1. **Reductionism and Correlation-to-Experience Issues:**
- In **Dement and Kleitman**, attempting to map the complex, subjective, and highly qualitative experience of dreaming onto simple physiological patterns (EEG voltage changes and EOG eye movements) is reductionist. It may oversimplify the rich cognitive process of dreaming, and cannot fully explain *why* certain dream contents occur, only *when* they occur.
- In **Hölzel et al.**, finding a physical change in gray matter concentration in the hippocampus or temporoparietal junction via MRI does not automatically explain *how* or *why* the psychological experience of mindfulness produces this structural change. It tells us that a change occurred, but must still rely on self-report questionnaires (such as the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire) to correlate structural changes with subjective psychological improvements.

2. **Artificiality and Participant Discomfort (Low Ecological Validity):**
- In **Dement and Kleitman**, participants had to sleep in a laboratory with multiple electrodes glued to their faces and heads, and were repeatedly awoken by a loud doorbell. This highly artificial setup could disrupt natural sleep architecture, meaning the physiological readings obtained might not accurately reflect a person's typical, natural sleep cycles at home.
- In **Hölzel et al.**, undergoing an MRI scan requires lying completely still inside a narrow, noisy metal tube, which can cause anxiety, claustrophobia, or physical discomfort. Although they measured structural changes (which are less affected by immediate state anxiety than functional MRI scans), the demanding physical nature of the measure may deter certain participants or introduce stress, potentially acting as a confounding variable.

### Marking Scheme (Total: 12 Marks)

This essay should be marked using the following Levels of Response grid:

**Level 4 (10–12 marks):**
- Demonstrates detailed and accurate knowledge of both Dement & Kleitman and Hölzel et al.
- Evaluation is balanced, discussing both strengths and weaknesses of using physiological measures in relation to both studies.
- Analysis is well-structured, coherent, and uses appropriate psychological terminology throughout.
- Explicitly compares and links the physiological measures to methodological concepts (e.g., reliability, validity, reductionism, ecological validity).

**Level 3 (7–9 marks):**
- Demonstrates good knowledge of both studies, but may lack some detail.
- Evaluation is present for both studies but may be slightly unbalanced (e.g., stronger focus on Dement & Kleitman than Hölzel et al., or more strengths than weaknesses).
- Structure is mostly clear and terminology is used appropriately.

**Level 2 (4–6 marks):**
- Demonstrates basic knowledge of the studies.
- Evaluation of physiological measures is limited, superficial, or may focus primarily on general strengths/weaknesses of the studies overall rather than focusing on the physiological measures specifically.
- May only focus on one study in detail.

**Level 1 (1–3 marks):**
- Demonstrates very limited, fragmented knowledge of the studies.
- Little or no attempt to evaluate. Points are highly descriptive or irrelevant.
- Poor structure and minimal psychological terminology.

**Level 0 (0 marks):**
- No creditworthy response.

### Content Guidelines:
- **Dement & Kleitman:** Physiological measures include EEG (brain waves/sleep stages) and EOG (eye movements/REM). Strengths: high control, objective verification of sleep state, standardization. Weaknesses: reductionism (reducing dreams to physical signals), low ecological validity (sleeping in a lab with wires).
- **Hölzel et al.** Physiological measures include MRI scans and Voxel-Based Morphometry (VBM) (gray matter density). Strengths: highly objective anatomical measurement, pre- vs post-test comparison over 8 weeks, high standardisation. Weaknesses: stressful environment (MRI tube), cannot explain the subjective mechanism/experience of mindfulness without self-report measures.

Example points for an essay response:

1. **Ecological Validity (Named Issue):**
- **Weakness (Low Ecological Validity):** The measurement of the dependent variable (gray matter concentration) occurred in a highly artificial laboratory environment. Participants had to undergo structural MRI scans, which require lying completely still inside a narrow, loud, and intimidating machine. This environment is highly unnatural and stressful, which does not reflect the relaxed, natural settings where mindfulness is designed to be experienced.
- **Strength (High Ecological Validity):** Conversely, the actual independent variable—the Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program—was integrated into the participants' daily lives. They practiced exercises like the body scan, mindful yoga, and sitting meditation in their normal home environments using audio recordings. This means the therapeutic intervention itself possessed high ecological validity.

2. **Other Strength: Objective Quantitative Data (Measurement):**
- The study collected highly precise quantitative biological data using MRI voxel-based morphometry (VBM) to measure gray matter concentration. This represents a major strength because it is highly objective and free from researcher bias or participant demand characteristics. The findings showed a clear physical increase in gray matter in the left hippocampus, confirming biological changes rather than relying solely on self-reported stress levels.

3. **Other Weakness: Sample Limitations (Generalisability):**
- The sample was small, consisting of only 16 participants in the mindfulness group and 17 in the control group. Furthermore, participants were self-selected (responding to advertisements), right-handed, healthy, and relatively highly educated. This homogeneous sample limits the generalisability of the findings to the wider public, such as left-handed individuals, or clinical populations experiencing severe anxiety or depression who might show different neurological patterns or responses to mindfulness.

**Levels of Response Marking Grid (10 marks total):**

- **Level 4 (8-10 marks):**
- Evaluation is comprehensive, detailed, and extremely well-structured.
- Both sides of the named issue (ecological validity) are thoroughly discussed, with explicit links to Hölzel et al.
- At least one other strength or weakness is discussed in detail and with equal clarity.
- Use of psychological terminology is accurate and consistent throughout.

- **Level 3 (5-7 marks):**
- Evaluation is detailed and structured.
- The named issue (ecological validity) is discussed, but may focus heavily on only one perspective (e.g., only the artificiality of MRI).
- Another strength or weakness is included, but may lack depth or direct application to the study's details.
- Psychological terminology is mostly accurate.

- **Level 2 (3-4 marks):**
- Evaluation is limited or basic.
- The response may discuss ecological validity or other issues in a superficial way, with minimal detail from the Hölzel et al. study.
- May read more like a description of the study rather than an evaluation.

- **Level 1 (1-2 marks):**
- Little or no evaluative detail.
- The response shows extremely limited understanding of the study or the evaluation issues raised.

- **Level 0 (0 marks):**
- No response worthy of credit.

Part (a): Demand characteristics are cues in an experiment that tell the participant what behavior is expected. In this study, because a distinctive lemon scent is used in one condition, participants might notice it, guess that the researcher is investigating the impact of smell on memory, and consciously alter their effort to recall words, thereby biasing the results. Part (b): To reduce demand characteristics, the psychologist could employ deception. For example, she could tell participants that the study is investigating the impact of background lighting on task performance while keeping the light constant, making the lemon scent a hidden independent variable. Alternatively, a single-blind procedure could be used where participants do not know which scent condition is being tested or that scent is the independent variable.

Part (a): 1 mark for clear definition of demand characteristics (e.g., cues that lead participants to guess the aim). 1 mark for direct application to the context of the lemon scent and memory experiment. Part (b): 1 mark for appropriate method identified to reduce demand characteristics (e.g., deception/filler task, single-blind). 1 mark for explanation of how this method works specifically in this lemon scent study.

Part (a): To operationalise 'kleptomania symptoms', the researcher can use a validated self-report tool such as the Kleptomania Symptom Assessment Scale (K-SAS). This provides a quantitative measure of symptom severity based on a score out of 44, reflecting factors like urges, thoughts, and behaviors associated with stealing. Part (b): Operationalising variables ensures that the study is highly replicable, which increases its reliability. In the context of impulse control disorders, having a specific, measurable definition (like a K-SAS score) allows future researchers to repeat the study with different clinical populations to verify the consistency of the findings.

Part (a): 1 mark for identification of a valid operational measure (e.g., K-SAS scale score, frequency of urges per week). 1 mark for specific details of how it is measured/quantified in the context of kleptomania. Part (b): 1 mark for identification of a strength (e.g., replicability, reliability, objectivity). 1 mark for application to the context of impulse control disorders.

Part (a): To obtain an opportunity sample, the researcher would select participants who are easily available and present in the supermarket at the time the study is conducted. For example, the researcher could stand in a specific supermarket aisle during their designated research hours and ask any shoppers who pass by if they would be willing to participate. Part (b): The main weakness of opportunity sampling is biased selection, which leads to a lack of generalisability. The shoppers available at a particular time of day (e.g., midday on a weekday) are unlikely to represent the wider population of consumers, as they may exclude full-time working individuals who typically shop in the evenings or on weekends.

Part (a): 1 mark for definition of opportunity sampling (choosing people who are available at the time). 1 mark for explicit application to the supermarket context (e.g., approaching shoppers in the aisle). Part (b): 1 mark for identification of a weakness (e.g., lack of generalisability, bias). 1 mark for link to the context of supermarket shopping or consumer behaviour.

Part (a): A structured observation is an observational method where researchers use a pre-determined checklist of behavioral categories to record observations. In this replication, the observers would have specific categories of aggression (e.g., punching the toy, shouting at the toy, or gentle play) and would tick these off at set intervals. Part (b): An advantage is that structured observations yield quantitative data (frequencies of aggressive acts), which allows for easy statistical comparison between the children who watched the aggressive model and those who did not. It also ensures higher inter-rater reliability as different observers use the exact same criteria.

Part (a): 1 mark for definition of structured observation (use of a checklist, coding frame, or predefined categories). 1 mark for applied example to the aggression/child play context. Part (b): 1 mark for identification of an advantage (e.g., quantitative data for easy comparison, higher reliability). 1 mark for explanation of why this advantage is useful in the context of measuring aggression/child play.

Part (a): To check inter-rater reliability, the two observers must independently code the same sample of child responses (e.g., video clips of line-up interactions) using the identical coding scheme. The researcher then correlates the two sets of data (using a test like Cohen's Kappa or Spearman's correlation). If the correlation coefficient is highly positive (typically +0.80 or above), inter-rater reliability is established. Part (b): This is important because children's responses in line-ups can be ambiguous or non-verbal (e.g., pointing, whispering, or saying 'I think maybe him'). Observers might interpret these behaviors differently based on their own subjective biases. Inter-rater reliability ensures that the classification of responses (such as a correct rejection versus an incorrect identification) is highly objective and consistent, which increases the internal validity of the study.

Part (a): 1 mark for outline of the process (independent coding of the same data/video by two observers). 1 mark for mention of correlation/statistical comparison (e.g., calculating a correlation coefficient or aiming for a high agreement percentage). Part (b): 1 mark for identification of a reason (e.g., reducing subjectivity, preventing observer bias, ensuring consistency). 1 mark for application to the context of child eyewitness responses or line-up decisions.

Part (a): Quantitative data: The ratings of fear and disgust on the 'Feelings Thermometer' (a 0-8 scale), which decreased from 8 to 3 over the course of the cognitive behavioral therapy. Qualitative data: The boy's descriptions of why he found buttons disgusting (e.g., that they dirty his clothes, or his accounts of the school incident where buttons fell on him). Part (b): The main benefit is triangulation, which increases the overall validity of the clinical case study. The quantitative data allows the researchers to objectively track and measure the reduction of phobic symptoms over time (showing clear treatment efficacy), while the qualitative data provides rich, detailed insight into the boy's psychological experience, fears, and cognitive changes during therapy.

Part (a): 1 mark for correctly identifying a piece of quantitative data from Saavedra and Silverman (e.g., Feelings Thermometer ratings, number of sessions). 1 mark for correctly identifying a piece of qualitative data (e.g., explanation of the origin of the phobia, descriptions of how buttons felt/smelled). Part (b): 1 mark for stating a general benefit of mixed data (e.g., triangulation, completeness, combining objectivity with depth). 1 mark for applying this benefit specifically to Saavedra and Silverman's study on button phobia (e.g., tracking treatment success quantitatively while understanding cognitive changes qualitatively).

Part (a): In this study, a double-blind procedure would mean that neither the participants (the GAD patients) nor the researchers who interact with them or evaluate their anxiety levels know which app (the active CBT app or the control placebo app) the participant has received. This is done to prevent researcher bias and participant expectancy effects. Part (b): It is difficult to achieve because of the nature of psychological interventions. It is very hard to design a placebo app that mimics the interaction of CBT without actually delivering therapeutic content. Participants can easily compare notes, search CBT techniques online, or notice the absence of therapeutic exercises, thereby realizing they are in the placebo group.

Part (a): 1 mark for explanation of 'double-blind' (neither participant nor researcher/assessor knows the condition). 1 mark for applied directly to the GAD mobile app study (referring to active CBT app and placebo app). Part (b): 1 mark for identification of a difficulty (e.g., hard to make a convincing active placebo psychological control). 1 mark for application to this study (e.g., participants realizing the difference in features/tasks between the CBT app and placebo app).

Part (a): Two standardised aspects of Milgram's study include: 1. The pre-planned, exact verbal prods used by the experimenter whenever the participant resisted (e.g., 'Please go on', 'The experiment requires that you continue'). 2. The exact sequence of responses/complaints from the victim (the learner), which were pre-recorded and played at specific shock levels (e.g., pounding on the wall at 300 volts). Part (b): Standardisation ensures high internal validity by controlling extraneous variables. By making sure every participant faced the identical experimental environment, Milgram ensured that variations in obedience levels (the dependent variable) were due directly to the situational factors being studied (the authoritative pressure) rather than differences in how the experimenter behaved or how the learner cried out.

Part (a): 1 mark for identifying one standardised aspect (e.g., prods, learner's taped vocal responses, layout of the room, shock machine labels). 1 mark for identifying a second standardised aspect. Part (b): 1 mark for explaining that standardisation controls extraneous variables / ensures consistency. 1 mark for explaining that this means any change in the DV (obedience) is due solely to the situation/IV, ensuring internal validity.

Example response:

**Research Design:** Field Experiment
**Independent Variable (IV):** The presence of a sign stating 'LIMITED STOCK: ONLY 3 REMAINING' placed on a display stand of winter coats, compared to a control condition where the same winter coats are displayed with no stock-related signage.
**Dependent Variable (DV):** The speed of decision-making, operationalised as the exact time in seconds from the moment a customer first touches any coat on the display stand to the moment they make a decision (defined as either walking away from the display or picking up a coat and walking towards the cash register with it).

**Sample and Sampling Technique:**
The sample will consist of 80 adult shoppers (estimated 40 per condition) who naturally approach and touch the winter coat display at a large department store. The sampling technique will be an opportunity sample, selecting individuals who happen to browse the display during the store's operating hours (10:00 AM to 6:00 PM) over a one-week period.

**Procedure:**
1. The study takes place at a real clothing store. A display of a single type of unisex winter coat is set up. The stock level on the hangers is always maintained at exactly five coats at the start of each observation block to ensure consistency.
2. On alternating days (Monday, Wednesday, Friday for the 'limited stock sign' condition; Tuesday, Thursday, Saturday for the 'no sign' control condition), the signage is either present or absent.
3. A researcher acts as a covert observer, standing nearby pretending to fold clothes or arrange merchandise. This prevents demand characteristics.
4. When a customer approaches and touches a coat, the observer starts a concealed digital stopwatch.
5. The observer stops the stopwatch once the customer either places the coat back and walks out of a 2-metre radius of the display, or walks directly to the checkout queue with the coat. The time is recorded discreetly on a smartphone notes app.

**Controls:**
- The physical layout, lighting, and price of the coats ($120) remain identical in both conditions.
- To control for temperature/weather variations affecting shopping speed, the experiment will run only on days with similar forecast temperatures (between 5 and 10 degrees Celsius).
- Retail staff are instructed not to approach or speak to customers browsing the target display.

**Assessing Reliability and Validity:**
- **Reliability:** To assess inter-rater reliability, a second observer will independently time 20 of the customer decisions. Their timed recordings will be compared using a Spearman's rank correlation test. A correlation coefficient of r >= 0.80 will indicate high inter-rater reliability.
- **Validity:** Ecological validity is high because the study is conducted in a real retail environment where participants exhibit natural shopping behaviour. To maintain internal validity, covert observation ensures participants do not experience demand characteristics.

This question is marked out of 14 using a levels-of-response marking grid.

**Level 3: 10–14 marks**
- The design is appropriate, fully described, and highly replicable.
- All key aspects of the prompt are addressed: IV/DV operationalisation, sample/sampling technique, procedure/controls, and reliability/validity.
- Effective use of research methods terminology (e.g., covert observation, demand characteristics, inter-rater reliability).
- No ethical guidelines are discussed.

**Level 2: 5–9 marks**
- The design is mostly appropriate and described with some detail, but may lack replication capability in certain parts.
- Some key aspects of the prompt are addressed, but others are weak or omitted (e.g., sample is described but sampling technique is omitted, or reliability/validity is poorly explained).
- Some psychological terminology is used correctly.

**Level 1: 1–4 marks**
- The design is basic and lacks critical details.
- Important elements (like controls or operationalisation of the DV) are missing or extremely vague.
- Shows limited understanding of the field experimental method.

**0 marks**
- No creditable response or discusses a laboratory/questionnaire study instead of a field experiment.

An obsession is a cognitive symptom characterized by recurrent, persistent, and intrusive thoughts, images, or impulses that cause significant distress (e.g., fear of contamination). A compulsion is a behavioral symptom consisting of repetitive, physical actions or mental rituals (e.g., handwashing, counting) that an individual feels compelled to perform in response to an obsession, designed to reduce anxiety. The key distinction is that obsessions are internal, distressing cognitive events, while compulsions are actions (physical or mental) executed to alleviate that distress.

2 marks: Detailed explanation of obsessions (1 mark for describing as intrusive/anxiety-provoking thoughts, 1 mark for an example or elaboration such as fear of contamination). 2 marks: Detailed explanation of compulsions (1 mark for describing as repetitive behaviors/mental acts, 1 mark for an example or elaboration such as handwashing to reduce anxiety). Max 2 marks if no clear distinction is made between thoughts/cognitive vs actions/behavioral.

The anchoring heuristic is a cognitive shortcut where consumers over-rely on the first piece of information seen (e.g., an original retail price of $100) when making subsequent judgments (e.g., viewing a sale price of $50 as an excellent deal). In contrast, the representativeness heuristic involves consumers making judgments based on similarity, comparing a product or brand to a mental prototype (e.g., assuming a store-brand cola is of high quality because its red packaging closely resembles Coca-Cola). The key difference is that anchoring is based on numerical or initial reference points, whereas representativeness is based on category membership and visual/conceptual similarity.

2 marks: Explanation of the anchoring heuristic with a consumer-related example (1 mark for description involving initial reference point, 1 mark for consumer example). 2 marks: Explanation of the representativeness heuristic with a consumer-related example (1 mark for description involving similarity to a prototype, 1 mark for consumer example). To get full marks, the distinction between numerical/initial bias (anchoring) and similarity-based bias (representativeness) must be clear.

The feeling-state theory, proposed by Miller (2010), explains impulse control disorders (ICDs) as a result of an intense connection formed between a highly positive emotion and a specific behavior. For example, a person shoplifting might experience an overwhelming sense of thrill or power. This psychological and physiological state is cataloged as a 'feeling-state'. Because the individual desires to re-experience this powerful feeling-state, they repeatedly perform the behavior, leading to compulsive actions. Therapy aims to identify and dismantle this link.

1 mark for identifying that ICDs result from a link between intense positive feelings and a specific behavior. 1 mark for explaining the concept of a 'feeling-state' (a blend of emotions, cognition, and physical sensations). 1 mark for explaining how this leads to repetitive/compulsive cycles to recreate the feeling. 1 mark for mentioning the therapeutic goal of breaking this association (e.g., through EMDR/Impulse Control Disorder Protocol).

Satisficing is a decision-making strategy where consumers choose an option that is 'good enough' rather than optimal. Under bounded rationality, consumers recognize they have finite time, information, and energy. Instead of comparing every single available option (maximizing), they set threshold criteria. They then look at choices one by one, selecting the very first option that satisfies all their minimum requirements. This strategy balances decision quality with cognitive resource management.

1 mark for explaining 'bounded rationality' or limits on time/information that prevent maximizing. 1 mark for stating that consumers set a minimum threshold of acceptability (criteria). 1 mark for explaining the sequential evaluation of products. 1 mark for explaining that the first product meeting these criteria is selected (satisfying + sufficing).

Covert sensitisation is a cognitive-behavioral therapy used to treat impulse control disorders (such as kleptomania) by pairing the unwanted impulsive behavior with an unpleasant, imagined stimulus (classical conditioning).

In the case study by Glover (2011):
- The participant was a 56-year-old woman with a 20-year history of daily shoplifting (kleptomania).
- During sessions, the therapist helped her relax and then instructed her to imagine the chain of events leading up to shoplifting (e.g., approaching a rack, reaching for an item).
- At the moment of maximum anticipation, she was told to imagine an extremely aversive physical sensation, specifically feeling intensely nauseous, vomiting all over herself, the item, and the floor, and experiencing public embarrassment from onlookers.
- She then imagined walking away from the store without stealing, which was paired with a feeling of relief and cleanliness (negative reinforcement).
- This treatment consisted of 4 sessions over a period of 8 weeks. Homework was assigned where she practiced these imagery exercises daily.
- At the 19-month follow-up, the woman remained free of shoplifting behaviors and reported a significant increase in self-esteem.

6 marks available:
- 1-2 marks: Basic outline of covert sensitisation with limited or no reference to Glover (2011). Description lacks technical detail.
- 3-4 marks: Clear description of covert sensitisation as a conditioning-based treatment, with some specific details of how it was applied in Glover's study (e.g., mentioning the female shoplifter and the use of vomiting imagery).
- 5-6 marks: Highly detailed and accurate description of covert sensitisation, demonstrating excellent understanding. Thoroughly integrates specific details of Glover's case study (including details of the process: pairing anticipation with nausea, the release of tension upon leaving, the 4-session format, homework, and/or long-term success at the 19-month follow-up).

Exposure and Response Prevention (ERP) is a cognitive-behavioral therapy designed to break the cycle of OCD. It involves exposing the patient to the anxiety-inducing stimulus (exposure) and preventing them from performing their typical compulsive ritual (response prevention) to demonstrate that the anxiety will naturally decrease without the compulsion.

In the study by Lehmkuhl et al. (2008):
- The patient was Jason, a 12-year-old boy diagnosed with both OCD and high-functioning autism (Asperger's syndrome), who had a severe fear of contamination and associated hand-washing rituals.
- The therapy involved exposing Jason to contaminated objects (e.g., school papers, door handles, toilet seats) for prolonged periods.
- He was prevented from hand-washing for increasingly longer durations after exposure, which forced him to tolerate the anxiety until it naturally subsided.
- Some adaptations were made to accommodate his autism, such as using shorter therapy sessions and using highly visual aids (like a visual thermometer to rate anxiety levels) instead of abstract verbal descriptions.
- After 16 sessions, Jason's OCD symptoms decreased significantly (his Y-BOCS score dropped from a clinical score of 18 to a non-clinical score of 3), and these improvements were maintained at a 3-month follow-up.

6 marks available:
- 1-2 marks: Basic description of ERP (defining exposure and response prevention) with minimal or no reference to the study by Lehmkuhl et al.
- 3-4 marks: Good description of ERP, with some clear links to how it was applied to Jason (such as targeting his fear of contamination, or mentioning the adjustments made for his autism).
- 5-6 marks: Detailed and accurate description of ERP and its specific application in the Lehmkuhl et al. study. Clear references to Jason (12-year-old with autism), the exposure stimuli (door handles, etc.), the prevention of hand-washing, the use of visual aids/shorter sessions, and the successful outcome (reduction in Y-BOCS scores or maintenance at follow-up).

An excellent response should cover the following points:

1. Overview of Explanations:
- Biochemical: Focuses on the role of dopamine as a 'reward' chemical and the deficiency of serotonin leading to impulsive behaviors. (Mainly individual)
- Behavioural: Explains impulse control disorders through operant conditioning, where the behavior (e.g., stealing or gambling) is reinforced by a reward/thrill. (Both individual and situational)
- Cognitive: Miller's feeling-state theory, which suggests that impulse control disorders are created when intense positive feelings are linked with specific behaviors to form a state-dependent memory. (Mainly individual)

2. Named Issue: Individual versus Situational Explanations:
- Individual explanation: Biochemical and cognitive explanations strongly support this side. They suggest that the disorder stems from internal factors (brain chemistry or cognitive distortions/feeling-states) unique to the individual. For instance, a genetic predisposition to low serotonin is purely individual.
- Situational explanation: Behavioural explanations incorporate situational elements. The availability of opportunities (e.g., being in a casino or near flammable materials) and the environmental reinforcement (e.g., winning money or escaping stress) act as situational triggers. However, why some individuals develop an addiction while others in the same environment do not suggests that situational factors alone are insufficient.

3. Other Evaluation Points:
- Reductionism vs. Holism: Biochemical explanations can be seen as reductionist as they simplify complex behaviors to neurotransmitter levels, whereas feeling-state theory attempts a slightly more holistic integration of cognition and arousal.
- Determinism vs. Free Will: Biological explanations lean towards determinism (behavior is dictated by biology), whereas cognitive-behavioural approaches allow for some free will by suggesting individuals can learn to reframe their thoughts and choose alternative behaviors.
- Practical Application: Understanding these explanations allows for targeted treatments (e.g., SSRIs for biochemical issues, CBT or covert sensitisation for cognitive/behavioural issues).

Level 4 (8-10 marks):
- Evaluation is detailed and shows a thorough understanding of the explanations.
- The named issue (individual vs situational) is fully addressed, balanced, and integrated throughout the response.
- The argument is well-structured, coherent, and uses psychological terminology accurately.

Level 3 (6-7 marks):
- Evaluation is good but may lack depth or balance in some areas.
- The named issue is discussed, but may not be fully integrated or balanced with other points.
- Structure is mostly clear with appropriate use of terminology.

Level 2 (3-5 marks):
- Limited evaluation of the explanations.
- The named issue is mentioned but not well-developed or integrated into the main arguments.
- The answer may be descriptive rather than evaluative.

Level 1 (1-2 marks):
- Very basic or confused response.
- Little or no evaluation, and the named issue is largely ignored or misunderstood.
- Minimal use of psychological terminology.

An excellent response should cover the following points:

1. Overview of Choice Heuristics:
- Anchoring: The tendency to rely heavily on the first piece of information offered (the 'anchor') when making decisions.
- Framing: How choices are presented (e.g., 90% fat-free vs. 10% fat) alters consumer preferences.
- Representativeness & Availability: Judging probability based on similarity to stereotypes or how easily examples come to mind.

2. Named Issue: Ecological Validity:
- Strengths: Some research utilizes field experiments or real-world consumer observations (e.g., monitoring actual purchases under different anchor prices in supermarkets), which have high ecological validity because consumers are in their natural shopping environments.
- Weaknesses: Much foundational research (e.g., Kahneman & Tversky) relies on laboratory experiments or hypothetical scenarios. Participants are asked to make choices on paper without spending real money or experiencing real-life consequences. This lacks mundane realism and may not accurately reflect actual purchasing behavior under real-world pressures (e.g., budget constraints, time pressure, social influence).

3. Other Evaluation Points:
- Usefulness/Application: Extremely useful for marketers and retailers to design pricing strategies, advertisements, and store layouts to nudge consumer choices.
- Determinism: Suggests consumers are predictably irrational and can be easily manipulated by cognitive shortcuts, neglecting the role of conscious, rational free-will in decision-making.
- Cultural Bias: Much of the research is conducted in Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) societies, which may not generalize to consumer decision-making in collectivist cultures.

Level 4 (8-10 marks):
- Evaluation is detailed and shows a thorough understanding of choice heuristics.
- The named issue (ecological validity) is fully addressed, balanced, and integrated throughout the response.
- The argument is well-structured, coherent, and uses psychological terminology accurately.

Level 3 (6-7 marks):
- Evaluation is good but may lack depth or balance in some areas.
- The named issue is discussed, but may not be fully integrated or balanced with other points.
- Structure is mostly clear with appropriate use of terminology.

Level 2 (3-5 marks):
- Limited evaluation of the research/theories.
- The named issue is mentioned but not well-developed or integrated into the main arguments.
- The answer may be descriptive rather than evaluative.

Level 1 (1-2 marks):
- Very basic or confused response.
- Little or no evaluation, and the named issue is largely ignored or misunderstood.
- Minimal use of psychological terminology.

Covert sensitisation is an application of classical conditioning where an undesirable behavior is paired in the imagination with an unpleasant stimulus (such as nausea, vomiting, or electric shocks) to reduce the frequency of that behavior.
In the case study by Glover (2011), a 56-year-old woman with kleptomania was treated using this approach:
1. Concept: The therapist taught the patient to associate the urge to steal with an extremely unpleasant imaginary scenario (covert punishment).
2. The Procedure: During sessions, she was asked to imagine herself in a shopping situation (e.g., looking at shoes). As she reached to steal them, she was told to imagine a disgusting sensation starting in her stomach, rising to her throat, and resulting in her vomiting all over the shoes, the shop assistant, and herself. She was instructed to imagine people staring at her in disgust, causing intense humiliation.
3. Relief/Reinforcement: She then imagined leaving the shop without the stolen item, at which point the sickness immediately vanished, providing relief (negative reinforcement for leaving).
4. Practice and outcome: She practiced these visualization exercises at home, and the therapy successfully eliminated her shoplifting urges over a 19-month follow-up period.

Marks are allocated as follows:
- Up to 1.5 marks for a clear, general explanation of covert sensitisation (pairing an unwanted behavior with an imagined unpleasant stimulus/consequence to create an aversion).
- Up to 3.0 marks for describing the specific details of Glover's (2011) procedure with the 56-year-old patient (1 mark for the setup/urge to steal; 1 mark for the detailed imagery of nausea/vomiting/humiliation; 1 mark for the ending of the scenario where she leaves and experiences relief/extinction of the urge).

Accept:
- Accurate descriptions of the imaginary vomiting and public humiliation.
- References to the target objects like shoes.
- Discussion of the long-term effectiveness (19-month follow-up) as part of the procedure/outcome description.

Reject:
- Descriptions of systematic desensitisation (which involves relaxation, not aversion).
- In vivo sensitisation (covert sensitisation is purely imaginary).

Wansink et al. (1998) explored how anchoring heuristics influence quantity decisions in retail environments.

Methodology (2.5 marks):
- Setting: A real-world field experiment in grocery stores (supermarkets) selling Campbell's soup.
- Independent Variable: The purchase quantity limit displayed on point-of-purchase signs. There were three conditions: 1. No limit per customer. 2. A limit of 4 cans per customer. 3. A limit of 12 cans per customer.
- Control: The price of the soup was discounted identically across all conditions (e.g., 79 cents instead of 89 cents) to isolate the anchoring effect of the limit.
- Dependent Variable: The actual number of cans of soup purchased by individual shoppers, recorded unobtrusively by researchers.

Findings (2 marks):
- When there was no limit, shoppers bought an average of 3.3 cans.
- When there was a limit of 4, shoppers bought an average of 3.5 cans.
- When there was a limit of 12, shoppers bought an average of 7.0 cans (nearly double the amount purchased in the no-limit or low-limit conditions).
- This demonstrates that a higher external anchor (a limit of 12) shifts the shopper's internal anchor upwards, leading to significantly higher volume purchases.

Marks are allocated as follows:
- Up to 2.5 marks for explaining the experimental design (1 mark for identifying it as a field experiment with Campbell's soup at a discount; 1 mark for outlining the conditions: no limit, limit of 4, limit of 12; 0.5 marks for identifying the DV as the number of cans purchased per shopper).
- Up to 2.0 marks for outlining one or more findings from the study (1 mark for stating that higher limits led to more purchases; 1 mark for providing specific quantitative data, such as average purchases of 3.3 cans for no limit vs. 7.0 cans for a limit of 12).

Accept:
- Mention of either the exact averages (3.3, 3.5, 7.0) or approximate figures demonstrating the massive increase under the limit of 12.

Reject:
- Descriptions of other experiments in the Wansink et al. paper (e.g., multiple-unit pricing or suggestive selling) unless directly related to purchase quantity limits.

Applied tension (–st et al., 1989) is a specialized behavioral intervention designed to prevent fainting during exposure to blood-injury-injection stimuli.

The Technique (2.5 marks):
- Muscle Contraction: Patients are taught to tense the large muscle groups in their arms, legs, and torso as hard as possible for 10 to 15 seconds, creating a sensation of warmth.
- Release: They then release the tension back to a normal state (not complete relaxation) for 20 to 30 seconds.
- Repetition: This cycle is repeated about 5 times.
- Exposure: Once mastered, patients apply this physical technique while being progressively exposed to fear-inducing stimuli (e.g., photos of blood, real blood, syringes, actual injections).

Why it is used instead of Systematic Desensitisation (2 marks):
- Unique Physiological Response: Most phobias produce an increase in sympathetic arousal (raised heart rate/blood pressure). However, blood-injury-injection phobia features a unique biphasic response: an initial spike in arousal followed quickly by a rapid decrease in blood pressure and heart rate (vasovagal syncope), leading to dizziness or fainting.
- Role of Relaxation: Systematic desensitisation relies on progressive muscle relaxation. Applying relaxation to a patient with blood phobia would further decrease their blood pressure, significantly increasing the likelihood of fainting.
- Role of Tension: Applied tension actively elevates blood pressure, directly counteracting the vasovagal response and keeping the patient conscious during exposure.

Marks are allocated as follows:
- Up to 2.5 marks for describing the applied tension technique (1 mark for explaining the physical tensing of major muscle groups for 10-15 seconds; 1 mark for the release phase of 20-30 seconds; 0.5 marks for stating that this is practiced in conjunction with gradual exposure to blood/needles).
- Up to 2.0 marks for explaining why it is used instead of systematic desensitisation (1 mark for describing the biphasic/vasovagal response of blood-injury phobia leading to fainting; 1 mark for explaining that relaxation reduces blood pressure further, whereas applied tension raises blood pressure to prevent fainting).

Accept:
- Use of the term 'vasovagal syncope' or 'biphasic response'.
- Accurate descriptions of the physiological mechanism (blood pressure drop).

Reject:
- Descriptions of systematic desensitisation alone without comparing it to applied tension's blood pressure elevating mechanism.

Auty and Lewis (2004) investigated the impact of product placement in films on children's subsequent brand choices.

Research Design (2.5 marks):
- Design: Laboratory experiment with an independent measures design.
- Participants: Two age cohorts of children: 6-7 years old and 11-12 years old.
- Conditions: 1. Experimental Group: Watched a 10-minute clip from Home Alone where the family eats pizza and a child spills a bottle of Pepsi (prominent product placement). 2. Control Group: Watched a similar clip from the same movie where the family drinks milk instead of Pepsi.
- Behavioral Choice (DV): After watching, the children were led to another room and offered a choice of drink (Pepsi or Coca-Cola) alongside some crisps.
- Cognitive Measure (DV): The researchers also interviewed the children to assess their implicit and explicit recall of the brand from the film.

Ethical Consideration (2 marks):
- Vulnerability of Minors: Because the participants were young children, they are highly impressionable. They might not fully grasp the concept of advertising, raising concerns about commercial manipulation.
- Informed Consent: Parents/guardians had to provide written informed consent, and children had to give verbal assent to participate.
- Deception/Demand Characteristics: The children were initially told they were testing movie clips and snacks, hiding the true focus on brand influence to avoid bias. Therefore, they had to be debriefed sensitively in a way they could understand after the session.
- Confidentiality: The children's personal information and individual choices had to be kept strictly confidential.

Marks are allocated as follows:
- Up to 2.5 marks for describing the research design (1 mark for identifying the experimental/independent measures design with two age groups; 1 mark for explaining the two conditions—viewing a Pepsi clip vs. a milk clip; 0.5 marks for explaining the behavioral choice measure of Pepsi vs. Coca-Cola).
- Up to 2.0 marks for explaining one relevant ethical consideration (1 mark for identifying an appropriate ethical issue, e.g., informed consent for minors, avoidance of harm/manipulation of young minds, or deception/debriefing; 1 mark for applying it specifically to the context of Auty and Lewis's study with children and brand choice).

Accept:
- Detailed discussions of informed consent from schools/parents.
- Issues around the psychological manipulation of children's dietary preferences (sugary drinks).

Reject:
- Generic ethical discussions that are not applied to the study or are factually incorrect regarding the study's protocol.

### Part (a): Design of the Study (10 marks)

* **Methodology:** Laboratory experiment using an independent measures design.
* **Participants:** A sample of 100 participants aged 45–55 recruited via opportunity sampling from local community centers. This age range is chosen because they were teenagers/young adults in the 1980s, making them susceptible to 1980s music nostalgia.
* **Independent Variable (IV):** The type of background music in the commercial, with two levels:
1. Nostalgic Music: A popular, emotional hit song from 1985.
2. Modern Music: A current chart-topping pop song from 2024.
* **Dependent Variable (DV):** Self-reported purchase intent, operationalized using a 3-item questionnaire on a 7-point Likert scale (e.g., 'How likely are you to purchase this product the next time you shop?' from 1 = Extremely Unlikely to 7 = Extremely Likely).
* **Procedure:** Participants are randomly allocated to either Condition 1 or Condition 2. They are seated individually in a quiet testing booth and told they are participating in a media-evaluation study. They watch a 30-second television commercial for a new smart toaster. The visual content, product details, and voiceover are completely identical; only the background soundtrack differs. Immediately after watching, they complete the purchase intent questionnaire on a computer.
* **Controls:** The visual footage, screen brightness, headphone volume, and length of the commercial are standardized. The testing environment is kept constant for all participants.

### Part (b): Explanation and Justification (14 marks)

* **Methodological Decisions:**
* *Independent Measures:* Chosen over a repeated measures design because if participants watched the same commercial twice with different soundtracks, they would easily deduce the aim of the study (demand characteristics), reducing internal validity.
* *Quantitative DV:* The 7-point Likert scale provides numerical data, which allows for direct statistical comparison (e.g., a t-test) to establish a significant difference between conditions, ensuring high reliability and objectivity.
* *Standardization:* Keeping the voiceover and visuals identical ensures that any difference in purchase intent is solely due to the music (IV) and not confounding variables like product appeal or spokesperson voice quality.
* **Psychological Decisions:**
* *Nostalgia and Conditioning Theory:* This study is built on the psychological principles of classical conditioning. Nostalgic music acts as an unconditioned stimulus that naturally triggers positive autobiographical memories and warm emotions (unconditioned response). Through pairing, these positive emotions are transferred to the advertised product (conditioned stimulus), increasing purchase intent.
* *Sample Targeting:* The age bracket of 45-55 is psychologically justified. Nostalgia is highly dependent on life stage and generational identity. Music from the 1980s would not trigger nostalgic associations in 18-year-olds; thus, selecting a specific demographic ensures the independent variable is psychologically active.

### Part (a) Marking Scheme [10 marks]
* **9–10 marks:** Excellent design. The study is fully replicable, containing precise details of the IV, DV, controls, sample, and specific procedural steps. All choices are highly appropriate for the scenario.
* **6–8 marks:** Good design. Most key elements (IV, DV, sample, procedure) are present, but one aspect may lack complete operationalization or detail.
* **3–5 marks:** Basic design. The study has omissions or lacks detail on crucial elements like controls or sampling.
* **1–2 marks:** Weak design. The proposed method is vague or highly flawed.

### Part (b) Marking Scheme [14 marks]
* **11–14 marks:** Outstanding justification. Both methodological decisions (e.g., experimental design, controls, measurement) and psychological decisions (e.g., theoretical basis of nostalgia, age cohort relevance) are thoroughly explained and linked back to validity, reliability, and consumer behavior theories.
* **7–10 marks:** Good justification. Explains multiple decisions well, but may focus heavily on methodology while neglecting the underlying psychological theory, or vice versa.
* **4–6 marks:** Basic justification. Describes what was done rather than justifying *why* it was done using psychological principles.
* **1–3 marks:** Very limited or purely descriptive response with minimal justification.