2023 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) 模擬試題連答案詳解

In the computerized CID paradigm used by Perry et al., participants were shown a digital representation of a room with themselves at the center. They watched a figure (such as a friend, acquaintance, stranger, or object) approach them from eight different directions. The participants had to press a key (the space bar) to stop the figure as soon as they felt uncomfortable. The distance from the center to the stopped figure was measured as a percentage of the total distance.

1 mark for describing the visual setup on screen (e.g., participant in the center with a figure approaching from different angles). 1 mark for describing how the participant responded (e.g., pressing the space bar to stop the figure when feeling uncomfortable).

The four standard verbal prods used by the experimenter in Milgram's study were: Prod 1: Please continue, or Please go on. Prod 2: The experiment requires that you continue. Prod 3: It is absolutely essential that you continue. Prod 4: You have no other choice, you must go on. Any two of these are correct.

1 mark for each correct standardized prod identified, up to a maximum of 2 marks.

Dement and Kleitman instructed participants to avoid drinking caffeine (such as coffee, tea, or cola) and alcohol on the day of the experiment. This was a control designed to ensure that the physiological effects of these stimulant/depressant substances did not alter or disrupt the participants' normal sleep cycles, brain wave (EEG) patterns, or dreaming behavior, which would otherwise confound the results.

1 mark for identifying that caffeine/alcohol are stimulants/depressants or can affect sleep/EEG/dreams. 1 mark for linking this to experimental control (e.g., to prevent confounding variables, ensuring internal validity, or ensuring normal sleep patterns).

Bandura et al. ensured inter-rater reliability by having two observers independently code the aggressive behaviors of the children through a one-way mirror. One observer rated all children, while a second observer independently rated a subset of the children (without knowing which condition they were in). The scores of the two observers were then compared using a correlation coefficient, which yielded very high reliability (e.g., r = 0.89 for physical aggression).

1 mark for mentioning independent observations by two raters (or one observer rating and another blind/second rater). 1 mark for stating that these ratings were correlated/compared and showed high agreement/correlation (or mentioning the high correlation coefficient, e.g., 0.89).

In classical conditioning, an individual associates a neutral stimulus with an unconditioned stimulus that leads to a physiological expectation of threat or danger (e.g., expecting pain). In contrast, evaluative learning is a form of classical conditioning where the person forms a cognitive association between the stimulus and negative evaluations (such as disgust or fear), without necessarily expecting any physical danger or negative consequences from the object itself.

1 mark for defining classical conditioning in terms of expecting a physical response/danger/threat. 1 mark for defining evaluative learning in terms of cognitive evaluation/disgust/negative feelings without expecting physical danger.

A target-present line-up contains the actual target person (the individual who was seen in the video clip, such as the culprit) along with three foils who match the target's description. In contrast, a target-absent line-up does not contain the actual target person at all; instead, the target is replaced by a target-substitute foil, meaning all members of the line-up are foils.

1 mark for describing a target-present line-up (contains the actual culprit/target). 1 mark for describing a target-absent line-up (contains only foils / does not contain the target person).

Participants in the doodling condition were given a sheet of paper containing alternating rows of squares and circles, with a wide margin. They were instructed to use a pencil to shade in these shapes while listening to the telephone call. They were told that it did not matter how neatly or how quickly they shaded the shapes, as the task was simply meant to relieve boredom.

1 mark for describing the physical activity/materials (shading in squares and circles on the provided sheet). 1 mark for describing the constraint/instruction (told that neatness or speed did not matter / designed to relieve boredom).

The researchers categorized the toys based on their physical and functional properties. Systemizing (wheeled) toys were those that had physical/mechanical motion characteristics, such as vehicles (e.g., a toy wagon or truck). Empathizing (plush) toys were soft toys with animate features, such as eyes or a face, which could be held, cuddled, or nurtured (e.g., a Winnie the Pooh plush toy).

1 mark for defining systemizing/wheeled toys (mechanical movement, wheels, e.g., trucks/wagons). 1 mark for defining empathizing/plush toys (animate features, soft, cuddly, e.g., doll/plush).

The description should cover the following key details of the MRI scanning procedure:
1. Timing: Scans were conducted at two points—pre-course (~2 weeks before MBSR) and post-course (~2 weeks after MBSR).
2. Equipment: A 1.5 Tesla Siemens Magnetom Avanto scanner was used.
3. Image Type: High-resolution T1-weighted magnetization-prepared rapid gradient echo (MPRAGE) sequence.
4. Location: Center for Morphometric Analysis / Massachusetts General Hospital.
5. Control: Head movement was minimized using foam padding and head restraints.

Award 1 mark for each descriptive point up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- Award 1 mark for specifying the two scanning intervals/timeframes (pre-course ~2 weeks before and post-course ~2 weeks after).
- Award 1 mark for identifying the MRI scanner model or strength (1.5 Tesla / Siemens Magnetom Avanto).
- Award 1 mark for detailing the scan sequence type (T1-weighted / MPRAGE).
- Award 1 mark for mentioning controls used during scanning (e.g., foam padding/head restraint to reduce movement).
- Award 1 mark for mentioning the location (Center for Morphometric Analysis).

The secondary reinforcer (the whistle) was established using classical conditioning, specifically pairing it with the primary food reward (bananas/sugarcane) to 'charge' it. During training, the whistle was blown immediately when the correct action occurred, serving as an acoustic bridge before the food reward was hand-delivered to the elephant.

Award 1 mark for each descriptive point up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- Award 1 mark for identifying the secondary reinforcer (the whistle) and primary reinforcer (food/bananas/sugarcane).
- Award 1 mark for describing the process of 'charging the bridge' (pairing the whistle sound with food repeatedly before active training).
- Award 1 mark for explaining that the whistle was sounded at the exact moment the target behavior was performed.
- Award 1 mark for explaining that the whistle functioned as a 'bridge' or signal to the elephant that food would follow.

The categorization split toys into wheeled (masculine) and plush (feminine), with specific examplars for each. Preferences were measured using operationalized contact behaviors (hold, touch, proximity) and recorded in terms of both frequency (interaction counts) and duration (time spent in seconds).

Award 1 mark for each descriptive point up to a maximum of 5 marks:
- Award 1 mark for stating the two categories of toys: wheeled (masculine) and plush (feminine).
- Award 1 mark for providing correct examples of both wheeled toys (e.g., truck, wagon) and plush toys (e.g., Winnie the Pooh, Raggedy Andy).
- Award 1 mark for identifying the operationalized interactive behaviors recorded (hold, touch, and/or proximity).
- Award 1 mark for stating that duration (the time spent interacting in seconds) was measured.
- Award 1 mark for stating that frequency (the total number of contacts/interactions) was measured.
- Award 1 mark for noting that behavior was coded using video recordings/by multiple observers to establish reliability.

The target-present line-up contains the target and 3 foils, and a correct decision is identifying the target. The target-absent line-up does not contain the target (it has 4 foils), and a correct decision is rejecting the line-up by stating the target is absent.

Award 1 mark for each point up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- Award 1 mark for describing the target-present line-up composition (contains the perpetrator/target and 3 foils).
- Award 1 mark for defining a correct decision in the target-present condition (correctly identifying/choosing the perpetrator).
- Award 1 mark for describing the target-absent line-up composition (does not contain the perpetrator; contains 4 foils/a replacement foil instead).
- Award 1 mark for defining a correct decision in the target-absent condition (correctly rejecting the line-up/stating the perpetrator is not present).

The computer CID task featured a schematic room with the participant in the center. An external figure (friend, acquaintance, stranger, or ball/box) approached from 8 different directions. The participant pressed a key (spacebar) to stop the figure when they felt uncomfortable, and the distance remaining was recorded.

Award 1 mark for each descriptive point up to a maximum of 5 marks:
- Award 1 mark for describing the visual setup (a schematic room with a central figure representing the participant).
- Award 1 mark for identifying the types of approaching figures used (friend, acquaintance, stranger, or a non-human object/box/ball).
- Award 1 mark for describing the movement of the figures (approaching the center from 8 different angles/directions/entrances).
- Award 1 mark for describing the participant's physical response (pressing the spacebar/button to stop the moving figure).
- Award 1 mark for describing the instruction/trigger for stopping the figure (when they began to feel uncomfortable with the distance).
- Award 1 mark for describing how the dependent variable was measured (the percentage of total distance remaining between the figures).

Ecological Validity: Strengths include the fact that the study was conducted at the Mae Sa Elephant Camp in Thailand, which is a familiar physical environment for the elephants, reducing the artificiality of a laboratory setting. However, weaknesses include the artificial nature of the tasks required for the target training. Elephants do not naturally learn to touch wooden blocks with their feet, trunk, or ears in response to whistle blows or clicker sounds, which limits how reflective these training tasks are of natural elephant behaviour. Ethics (Animal Welfare): Strengths include that the study used Secondary Positive Reinforcement (SPR) which is a highly humane, reward-based training method. This served as a direct alternative to traditional, punitive training methods like 'the crush' or the use of ankus (bullhooks), thus promoting animal welfare. The elephants were also never food or water deprived; their rewards (such as bananas and sugar cane) were highly valued treats given in addition to their daily maintenance diet. Elephants were not forced to participate and could walk away. Weaknesses include that the elephants were still housed in a captive tourist camp rather than the wild, and they were kept in chains during the training sessions for safety, which represents a form of physical restraint.

Level 3 (7-9 marks): Evaluation is detailed and balanced between ecological validity and ethics. Explanations are sophisticated, and multiple relevant examples from Fagen et al. are fully integrated. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Evaluation is present but may focus heavily on one area (e.g., only ethics) or contain less detailed explanations. Some relevant examples are used, but they may lack specificity. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Answer is superficial or shows limited understanding of the study. Examples are absent or inaccurate. Level 0 (0 marks): No response worthy of credit.

Generalisability: Strengths include the use of a relatively large sample of rhesus monkeys (82 monkeys met the inclusion criteria across the social groups), which ensures that the toy preferences observed were representative of the troop rather than an anomaly of a few individuals. Weaknesses include the difficulty in generalising findings from rhesus monkeys directly to human children. While monkeys lack the gender-typed socialisation (such as toy advertisements) that human children experience, human cognitive complexity and cultural expectations surrounding gender are far more complex than the biological predispositions found in monkeys. Standardized Procedures: Strengths include the highly controlled and standardised trial setup. Toys were explicitly categorized into 'wheeled' (masculine) and 'plush' (feminine) based on predetermined characteristics, and they were always presented in consistent pairings. The placement of the toys in the outdoor area was systematic, and the coding of specific behaviors (e.g., hold, sit on, drag) was clearly defined and video-recorded. This allowed for a second observer to code the footage, resulting in high inter-rater reliability (Cohen's kappa of 0.94 for toy selection). Weaknesses include that the structured, paired-choice presentation of toys is an artificial situation that does not reflect how primates encounter objects in their natural environment, potentially introducing an element of novelty-seeking behavior.

Level 3 (7-9 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive and balanced, addressing both generalisability and standardized procedures with clear strengths and weaknesses. Explicit and accurate details from Hassett et al. are used to support points. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Evaluation is present but may be unbalanced or lack depth in one of the evaluation areas. Examples from the study are present but may be general. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Answer shows a basic understanding of evaluation concepts but lacks specific application to Hassett et al. Examples are missing or incorrect. Level 0 (0 marks): No response worthy of credit.

To earn full marks, the definition must include both the prediction of no effect/difference and the reference to chance.
1 mark for stating that it predicts no difference, relationship, or effect between the variables being tested.
1 mark for stating that any observed difference is due to chance or random factors.

1 mark: Stating that the null hypothesis predicts no difference / no relationship / no effect between variables.
1 mark: Stating that any differences or relationships found are due to chance / random error.

1 mark for identifying a valid advantage of a semi-structured interview (e.g., flexibility, depth, ability to explore unexpected areas).
1 mark for explaining or elaborating this advantage, specifically in contrast to the limitations of a structured interview (e.g., where questions are fixed and cannot be changed).

1 mark: Identifying a valid advantage of semi-structured interviews (e.g., flexibility, allows follow-up, produces qualitative depth).
1 mark: Contextual elaboration / contrasting with structured interviews (e.g., which limits respondents to preset questions, preventing them from elaborating).

1 mark for each correct characteristic stated up to a maximum of 2 marks. Features can include: naturally occurring IV, lack of researcher manipulation of the IV, inability to randomly allocate participants, typically higher ecological validity, or lower control over extraneous variables.

1 mark per correct characteristic of a natural experiment, up to a maximum of 2 marks.
- The independent variable is naturally occurring (not manipulated by the researcher).
- Researchers study pre-existing groups / cannot randomly allocate participants to conditions.
- Takes place in the participants' natural environment (typically).
- Higher ecological validity than laboratory experiments.
- Less control over extraneous variables.

1 mark for identifying a general disadvantage of time sampling (e.g., missing behaviors outside the interval, not knowing the duration of a behavior).
1 mark for contextualizing/linking this disadvantage specifically to Bandura's study (e.g., missing specific instances of physical/verbal aggression shown by the children).

1 mark: Basic disadvantage of time sampling (e.g., behaviours occurring outside the observation interval are missed / does not capture the overall duration of behaviour).
1 mark: Linked explicitly to Bandura's study (e.g., missing specific aggressive acts such as imitative physical aggression like hitting the Bobo doll, or verbal aggression).

1 mark for describing the target population (the complete group of interest).
1 mark for describing the sample (the actual subset participating in the study) to illustrate the difference.

1 mark: Correct description of the target population (e.g., the wider group of people from whom the sample is drawn / to whom the researcher wants to generalise results).
1 mark: Correct description of a sample (e.g., the specific group of people who actually take part in the research).

1 mark for a clear definition of standardisation (keeping instructions/procedures identical for all participants).
1 mark for a relevant, correct example from Andrade's study (e.g., the same mock telephone message, the same instructions to shade the shapes, the same comfortable volume, or the same sheet of paper).

1 mark: Defining standardisation as ensuring the procedure/experience is identical for all participants / can be replicated.
1 mark: Providing a correct example from Andrade (e.g., the pre-recorded telephone message played to everyone, the instruction to shade the shapes, the use of A4 paper with printed shapes, or playing the tape at a comfortable volume).

1 mark for identifying a valid strength of qualitative data (e.g., depth, detail, high validity, understanding the 'why' behind behaviour).
1 mark for explaining or elaborating on why this is a strength (e.g., because it doesn't restrict participants to fixed-choice options and allows them to express themselves fully).

1 mark: Identifying a strength of qualitative data (e.g., provides rich, detailed, in-depth data / increases validity / allows understanding of motives or feelings).
1 mark: Explaining the identified strength (e.g., it allows participants to express themselves in their own words rather than being forced to choose pre-determined numerical options).

1 mark for identifying that a correlation measures naturally occurring co-variables rather than manipulating an independent variable.
1 mark for explaining the practical/ethical issue specific to this context (e.g., it is unethical or highly difficult to force participants to deprive themselves of sleep or deliberately induce high stress levels experimentally).

1 mark: Stating that a correlation allows the measurement of co-variables as they naturally occur without manipulating an IV.
1 mark: Explaining the practical/ethical reason in this context (e.g., it would be unethical to intentionally deprive participants of sleep to measure stress levels / it is easier to gather natural self-reports of sleep hours).

A participant observation involves the researcher actively joining the group of participants and taking part in their activities while observing them. Conversely, in a non-participant observation, the researcher does not join the group or participate in their activities, instead observing their behaviour from an external, detached position.

1 mark for explaining participant observation in a comparative way.
1 mark for explaining non-participant observation in a comparative way.

Example:
- In a participant observation, the observer is part of the group being studied (1 mark), whereas in a non-participant observation, the observer remains outside the group and does not interact with them (1 mark).

The quantitative data is numerical and represents a quantity, which is the number of errors made on the proofreading task. The qualitative data is descriptive and non-numerical, which is the participants' written paragraphs describing their feelings during the task.

1 mark for identifying the quantitative data correctly from the scenario.
1 mark for identifying the qualitative data correctly from the scenario.

- Quantitative data = number of errors (1 mark)
- Qualitative data = paragraphs describing feelings (1 mark)

Researchers sometimes deceive participants about the true aim of a study so that participants do not guess the hypotheses. This prevents demand characteristics and ensures that their behaviour is natural and spontaneous, thereby increasing the internal validity of the study's findings.

1 mark for identifying a valid reason (e.g., to prevent demand characteristics / to avoid participants changing their behaviour).
1 mark for explaining the benefit/consequence of doing so (e.g., to ensure natural behaviour / to increase the validity of the results).

(a) Dr. Aris could operationalize helping behavior with the following categories:
1. Opening or holding a door open for another library visitor.
2. Helping someone pick up dropped items (e.g., books or papers).

(b) Event sampling involves recording every occurrence of the target behaviors (helping) during the entire observation period. A key advantage here is that helping behaviors in a library are likely to be infrequent or rare. If Dr. Aris used time sampling (e.g., observing for 1 minute every 10 minutes), he might completely miss these rare helping events if they occur outside the active observation windows. Event sampling ensures all instances of helping are captured, leading to more valid and complete data.

(a)
1 mark for each distinct, operationalized, and observable behavioral category appropriate to a library setting.
- Suggestion 1: e.g., picking up dropped books. (1 mark)
- Suggestion 2: e.g., giving directions or holding open a door. (1 mark)

(b)
- 1 mark for explaining how event sampling works (recording every instance of the behavior).
- 1 mark for contextualizing to this study (helping behaviors in a quiet library may be rare/infrequent).
- 1 mark for explaining the benefit (ensures rare behaviors are not missed, which could happen with time sampling).

(a) Demand characteristics are cues that might tip off participants about the aim of the study, causing them to alter their behavior. Because Chloe is using a repeated measures design, participants experience both conditions (quiet and noisy). Experiencing both conditions makes it highly obvious that the level of noise is being tested. Consequently, participants might guess the hypothesis and intentionally perform worse in the noisy condition or try harder to overcome the noise, making the results less valid.

(b) Chloe can use counterbalancing by splitting her participant sample randomly into two groups: Group 1 and Group 2. Group 1 would complete the recall test in the quiet condition first, followed by the noisy condition. Group 2 would complete the recall test in the noisy condition first, followed by the quiet condition. This systematically distributes any order effects (such as fatigue from the first test, or practice effects) equally across both conditions, neutralizing their impact on the final average recall scores.

(a)
- 1 mark for defining/explaining demand characteristics (guessing the aim and altering behavior).
- 1 mark for applying it to this study (e.g., experiencing both conditions makes the independent variable of noise obvious to the participants).

(b)
- 1 mark for explaining the split of participants (e.g., dividing the sample into two groups/halves).
- 1 mark for describing the order of conditions for each group (Group 1: Quiet then Noisy; Group 2: Noisy then Quiet).
- 1 mark for explaining the benefit (distributes practice/fatigue/boredom effects equally across conditions to prevent them from confounding the results).

(a)
Open question: 'How do you feel when traveling on public transport alone at night?' (allows participants to respond in their own words with detail).
Closed question: 'Do you feel safe on the subway? Yes or No.' (limits the participant's response to fixed choices).

(b)
A semi-structured interview uses a set of core questions but allows the interviewer the flexibility to ask spontaneous follow-up questions. A strength of this approach is that if a participant reveals an unexpected concern—such as a specific poorly-lit station or a fear of ticket barriers—Noah can ask them to elaborate on it immediately. This allows Noah to gather deeper, more nuanced qualitative data about public concerns that a rigid structured interview (with fixed questions) would completely miss.

(a)
- 1 mark for a valid, clear open question appropriate to the topic.
- 1 mark for a valid, clear closed question appropriate to the topic.

(b)
- 1 mark for identifying the key feature of semi-structured interviews (the flexibility to ask follow-up questions/probe further).
- 1 mark for linking to the context of public transport safety (e.g., investigating specific passenger fears, locations, or incidents).
- 1 mark for explaining the outcome/strength (obtaining richer, more detailed qualitative insights that would be restricted by a pre-set list of questions).

**(a) Operationalisation:**
* **Independent Variable (IV):** This could be operationalised by establishing two distinct conditions: a 'noisy condition' where participants read while white noise is played through speakers at \( 75\text{ dB} \), and a 'silent condition' where participants read in a completely quiet room at \( 0\text{ dB} \).
* **Dependent Variable (DV):** This could be operationalised as the score achieved (out of 10) on a standardised multiple-choice reading comprehension test completed immediately after reading a selected text for 10 minutes.

**(b) Limitation and Solution:**
* **Limitation:** A major practical limitation of using a repeated measures design here is **order effects** (specifically practice or fatigue effects). If participants complete the reading task under the noisy condition first and then the quiet condition, they may perform better in the second trial simply because they are familiar with the style of the comprehension questions (practice effect), or worse because they are tired (fatigue effect).
* **How to overcome:** Dr. Sterling can overcome this by using **counterbalancing** (an AB/BA design). He should randomly split the participants into two equal groups: Group 1 completes the noisy condition first followed by the quiet condition, while Group 2 completes the quiet condition first followed by the noisy condition. This ensures any order effects are balanced equally across both conditions.

**(a) Operationalisation [3 marks]**
* 1 mark: Clear operationalisation of the independent variable (e.g., specific decibel levels of noise vs. quiet).
* 1 mark: Clear operationalisation of the dependent variable (e.g., score on a 10-item comprehension test).
* 1 mark: Contextualisation (both variables are explicitly linked to the reading and noise scenario).

**(b) Repeated Measures Limitation & Solution [4 marks]**
* 1 mark: Correct identification of a repeated measures limitation (e.g., order effects / practice effects / fatigue).
* 1 mark: Clear explanation of this limitation in the context of the reading comprehension task.
* 1 mark: Suggestion of an appropriate solution (e.g., counterbalancing or equivalent alternative tests).
* 1 mark: Detailed explanation of how this solution works to overcome the limitation in context (e.g., describing how counterbalancing distributes the practice effect across both conditions).

**(a) Variables:**
* **Independent Variable (IV):** The presence or absence of the charity collection bucket near the supermarket exit (Condition 1: bucket present; Condition 2: bucket absent).
* **Dependent Variable (DV):** Whether shoppers donate money (operationalised as the percentage of shoppers passing the exit who place money into the bucket, or the total amount of money donated per hour).

**(b) Practical Limitation:**
* One practical limitation of a field experiment compared to a laboratory experiment is the **lack of control over extraneous environmental variables**. For example, the flow of foot traffic or weather conditions cannot be controlled. If it is raining heavily, shoppers might rush past the exit without noticing the bucket, which would confound the results as their behavior is influenced by the weather rather than the presence of the bucket.

**(c) Controlling an Extraneous Variable:**
* **Extraneous Variable:** The time of day when observations are conducted (as different types of shoppers, such as rushed commuters vs. relaxed retirees, shop at different times, which affects their likelihood of donating).
* **Control:** The researcher should control this by conducting all testing sessions at the exact same time of day on the same days of the week (e.g., between 2:00 PM and 4:00 PM on successive Tuesdays and Wednesdays).
* **How it improves validity:** This ensures that the demographic makeup and rush level of the shoppers are relatively consistent across both conditions, meaning any difference in donation rates is more likely due to the presence of the bucket (IV) rather than confounding shopper characteristics.

**(a) Variables [2 marks]**
* 1 mark: Correct identification of the IV (presence vs. absence of the charity bucket).
* 1 mark: Correct identification of the DV (e.g., donation rate / percentage of shoppers who donate).

**(b) Practical Limitation [2 marks]**
* 1 mark: Correct identification of a limitation of field experiments (e.g., lack of environmental control, extraneous variables, or difficulties in standardisation).
* 1 mark: Application of this limitation directly to the context of the supermarket/donation scenario (e.g., weather, crowding, noise influencing shopper behavior).

**(c) Controlling an Extraneous Variable [3 marks]**
* 1 mark: Identification of a relevant extraneous variable (e.g., time of day, day of the week, position of the bucket, collector's behaviour).
* 1 mark: Suggestion of a specific and plausible control method (e.g., keeping testing hours constant, keeping the bucket's exact location identical, ensuring the collector remains silent and neutral).
* 1 mark: Explanation of how this control improves the internal validity of the study (e.g., ensuring differences in the DV are due to the IV and not the extraneous variable).