2024 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) 模擬試題連答案詳解

(a) Group 3 was recruited via opportunity/convenience sampling. They were all undergraduate students studying at Cambridge University (excluding those studying psychology/neuroscience). (b) A limitation of this student sample is that it lacks population validity / generalisability. Cambridge University undergraduates likely have higher cognitive abilities, specific educational backgrounds, or higher-than-average IQs, which do not represent the general population's performance on the Eyes Test. (c) The mean Eyes Test score was: Group 1 (AS/HFA): 21.9 (accept 22) OR Group 3 (Students): 28.0 (accept 28).

(a) 1 mark for identifying opportunity sampling / Cambridge University undergraduate students. (b) 1 mark for outlining a limitation (e.g., bias in IQ / educational level / unrepresentative nature), and 1 mark for explaining why this is a limitation in the context of the study (e.g., cannot generalise performance/abilities to the wider general public). (c) 1.75 marks for correctly identifying one mean score (21.9 for Group 1 OR 28.0 for Group 3; allow rounding to 22 or 28).

(a) The boy was most distressed by small, clear plastic buttons (rated 8 on the distress scale) and large/medium colored plastic buttons. (b) Distress was measured using the 'Feelings Thermometer', which is a 0-8 subjective rating scale. The boy rated his distress in response to imagining or holding different types of buttons.

(a) 1 mark for each correct button type identified (up to 2). (b) 1.75 marks for detailing the scale (9-point/0-8 Feelings Thermometer) and 1 mark for explaining that it was a self-report measure used to rate his distress/disgust during exposures.

(a) The MBSR program was structured as 8 weekly group sessions of 2.5 hours each, an all-day class of 6.5 hours during week 6, and daily home practice of 45 minutes using audio recordings. (b) Increased grey matter was found in the left hippocampus, posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), and cerebellum.

(a) 1 mark for specifying the 8 weekly meetings / 2.5 hours, 1 mark for the all-day session/retreat, and 0.75 marks for specifying the 45 minutes daily home practice. (b) 1 mark for each correct brain region identified (up to 2).

(a) The shapes were circles and squares on an A4 piece of paper. (b) The instructions were: 'It doesn't matter how neat or quickly you do it, it is just to pass the time.' They were asked to shade the circles and squares while listening. (c) The monotonous message was used to induce boredom and encourage mind-wandering or daydreaming, which provided a baseline of low cognitive engagement to test if doodling would help maintain focus.

(a) 1.75 marks for identifying circles and squares (both must be present for full marks, partial marks of 1 if only one is correct). (b) 1 mark for mentioning 'to pass the time' and 1 mark for 'doesn't matter how neat or quickly'. (c) 1 mark for stating that the monotonous message was meant to induce boredom or test attention maintenance under boring conditions.

(a) The victims were all male, aged 26-35, and wore identical informal clothing consisting of an Eisenhower jacket, old trousers, and no tie. (b) The 'ill' condition was operationalised by having the victim carry a black cane and appear sober. The 'drunk' condition was operationalised by having the victim smell of alcohol, carry a bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag, and behave in an intoxicated manner.

(a) 1 mark for specifying male / age range, 1 mark for specifying the clothing (Eisenhower jacket, old trousers, no tie). (b) 1.75 marks for describing the 'ill' condition operationalisation (black cane, sober appearance) and 1 mark for describing the 'drunk' condition operationalisation (smelled of liquor, carried brown bag with bottle).

(a) The experiment took place at Yale University, in a laboratory room. It was chosen because Yale is a highly prestigious institution, which lent credibility and authority to the study, thus encouraging participants' obedience. (b) The learner was strapped into a chair with bands/straps. This was done to prevent him from moving or escaping the chair when receiving shocks, adding to the realism and keeping the learner in place. Electrode paste was also applied to his wrist to 'avoid blisters or burns'.

(a) 1 mark for identifying Yale University and 1 mark for explaining the role of prestige/authority in promoting obedience. (b) 1.75 marks for describing how the learner was strapped into the chair (to prevent movement/escaping), and 1 mark for explaining the realistic reason given to the participant (e.g., to prevent burns or to look authentic).

(a) The Comfortable Interpersonal Distance (CID) paradigm was administered on a computer. Participants saw a schematic drawing of a room. They were asked to imagine themselves in the center of the room. A figure representing another entity (e.g., a friend, stranger, authority figure, or ball) would approach them from one of eight directions. Participants pressed a key to stop the figure when they felt the distance became uncomfortable. (b) The study found that oxytocin's effect depended on empathy levels. For highly empathic participants, oxytocin decreased the preferred interpersonal distance (they preferred closer contact), particularly with a close friend. In contrast, for low-empathy participants, oxytocin actually increased the preferred interpersonal distance (they preferred more space).

(a) 1 mark for stating it was a computer task with a schematic room layout, 1 mark for explaining that a figure approached from different directions, and 0.75 marks for explaining that the participant pressed a button when they felt uncomfortable. (b) 1 mark for explaining the finding for high-empathy participants (closer distance / decreased preferred space with friend), and 1 mark for explaining the finding for low-empathy participants (increased distance).

(a) The toys were categorized into: 1. Wheeled toys, which have moving parts and are typically preferred by males (e.g., a toy truck, a police car, or a wagon). 2. Plush toys, which are soft and lack moving parts (e.g., a rag doll, a teddy bear, or a Winnie the Pooh toy). (b) An ethical concern is social isolation. Rhesus monkeys are highly social animals that live in complex groups. Isolating them during research can lead to extreme stress, self-harming behaviors, and depression. Therefore, researchers must house them in social pairs or groups to maintain their mental health and social development, in line with primate welfare guidelines.

(a) 1 mark for identifying the two categories ('wheeled' and 'plush'), 1 mark for giving a correct wheeled example (e.g., truck, car), and 0.75 marks for giving a correct plush example (e.g., doll, teddy bear). (b) 1 mark for identifying the issue of social deprivation/isolation, and 1 mark for explaining the impact on primate well-being (e.g., severe distress, psychological harm) or the necessity of social pairing/group housing.

Introduction: Validity refers to the accuracy of measurement in psychological research—whether a tool actually measures the psychological construct it claims to measure. Both Saavedra and Silverman (evaluative learning and disgust/fear in button phobia) and Hölzel et al. (neuroplasticity and mindfulness) employ a combination of subjective and objective measurements, balancing internal and ecological validity.

Strength 1: High construct and internal validity of objective measurements.
In Hölzel et al., the use of high-resolution MRI scans (Voxel-Based Morphometry) provides a highly objective, physical measurement of gray matter density changes. Unlike self-reports, brain scans cannot be consciously manipulated by participants, eliminating demand characteristics and social desirability bias. This ensures high internal validity regarding structural brain changes.
In Saavedra and Silverman, direct behavioral observations of the boy's ability to handle buttons (e.g., successfully completing exposure tasks such as putting buttons in his mouth or hugging his mother while she wore buttons) provided objective evidence of behavioral desensitization, complementing his subjective reports.

Weakness 1: Threats to validity in subjective self-reports.
In Saavedra and Silverman, the 9-point Feelings Thermometer was used to measure distress. Although this allowed researchers to track changes in cognitive evaluations over time, it is highly subjective. The boy may have displayed demand characteristics, reporting lower distress scores toward the end of treatment to please the researchers or his mother.
In Hölzel et al., the Five Facet Mindfulness Questionnaire (FFMQ) was used to measure subjective mindfulness levels. Since this relies on self-assessment, participants' ratings might be affected by social desirability (wanting to appear more mindful) or response bias, which limits the construct validity of the mindfulness measure.

Strength 2: Triangulation of measurements.
Both studies enhanced validity by combining qualitative/quantitative measurements or subjective/objective assessments. Hölzel et al. correlated physical changes in gray matter density (MRI scan data) with psychological shifts in mindfulness (FFMQ scores), validating that self-reported changes corresponded with physiological changes. Saavedra and Silverman paired subjective distress ratings (Feelings Thermometer) with qualitative clinical interviews and overt behavioral indicators of fear, ensuring a comprehensive and valid assessment of the boy's phobic symptoms.

Weakness 2: Ecological validity of measurement environments.
In Hölzel et al., the physical measurement of brain structure requires participants to remain perfectly still inside a noisy, cramped, and artificial MRI scanner environment. This stressful environment is low in ecological validity and might affect baseline physiological states, potentially confounding measures of brain activity.
In Saavedra and Silverman, while the therapeutic measurements took place in a controlled clinical environment which allowed for standardized tracking, this setting may not represent the child's true response to buttons in natural, chaotic environments such as a school cafeteria, meaning the clinical measurements may lack ecological validity.

Marks are awarded using a level-based marking grid (0–12 marks):

Level 4 (10–12 marks):
- Evaluation is detailed and shows a thorough understanding of the validity of measurements.
- Excellent use of examples from both Saavedra and Silverman and Hölzel et al.
- The argument is balanced, presenting both strengths and weaknesses of objective and subjective measurements.
- Structure is logical and psychological terminology is used accurately throughout.

Level 3 (7–9 marks):
- Evaluation is good, but may lack a complete balance of strengths and weaknesses.
- Examples from both studies are present, though one may be described in more detail than the other.
- Some psychological terminology is used appropriately.

Level 2 (4–6 marks):
- Basic evaluation of the validity of measurements.
- Discussion may focus heavily on description of the studies rather than analyzing their measurement validity.
- Limited or unbalanced use of examples from the studies.

Level 1 (1–3 marks):
- Little or no evaluation of measurement validity.
- Explanations are highly descriptive, superficial, or contain significant inaccuracies.
- Minimally relevant to the question asked.

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

Strength 1: High level of standardization and control. Holzel et al. utilized a highly standardized Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) program consisting of eight weekly group meetings, a full-day retreat, and guided audio recordings for home practice. Furthermore, the MRI scans were conducted using identical scanning parameters pre- and post-intervention for all participants, and a matched control group was used to control for the passage of time. This ensures high reliability and internal validity. Strength 2: Quantitative, objective measurement. The use of voxel-based morphometry (VBM) allowed for precise, automated quantitative measurements of grey matter concentration. This eliminated human subjectivity or researcher bias in assessing brain structure changes, making the findings highly objective and scientifically credible. Weakness 1 (Ecological Validity): The study has low ecological validity. While mindfulness is typically practiced in a quiet, natural, and comfortable environment, the brain changes were measured while participants lay completely motionless inside an MRI scanner. The scanner is a noisy, confined, and highly artificial environment that can cause anxiety or claustrophobia, which is unrepresentative of real-life mindfulness practice. This means the physiological state of the brain during scans may have been influenced by the stressful scanner environment itself. Weakness 2: Sample generalizability. The sample was self-selected, consisting of individuals who were actively seeking stress reduction and had signed up for the MBSR course. These individuals may have been uniquely motivated to practice and respond positively, which may not represent the wider population. Additionally, the final experimental sample was small (16 participants), limiting the generalizability of the findings.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive and shows a deep psychological understanding. Discusses four points (two strengths, two weaknesses) in detail. At least one point specifically and accurately evaluates ecological validity in the context of Holzel et al. The discussion is balanced and well-structured. Level 3 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is good, showing sound psychological knowledge. Discusses at least three points (with at least one strength and one weakness) with some detail, or four points more briefly. May address ecological validity but lack depth, or have unbalanced arguments. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Evaluation is limited, showing basic psychological knowledge. Discusses one or two points, or multiple points superficially. Ecological validity may not be addressed or is highly generic. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Evaluation is superficial and shows very little understanding. Points are extremely brief, highly generic, or mostly descriptive of the study rather than evaluative. Level 0 (0 marks): No response or completely irrelevant response. Accept/Reject Notes: Candidates must focus on Holzel et al. (mindfulness and brain scans). Generic evaluation points not applied to the study should be restricted to lower levels. Ecological validity must explicitly refer to aspects of the study such as the MRI scanner environment or the artificial nature of the scanning process to gain top marks.

Strength: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a strength (e.g., standardisation, high reliability, ease of analysis) and 1 mark for linking it to the context of children's sharing behavior in a schoolyard. Weakness: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a weakness (e.g., lack of detail, missing behaviors not on the checklist) and 1 mark for linking it to the context of children's sharing behavior.

Strength: [2 marks] 1 mark for generic strength of structured observation (e.g., allows for objective quantitative data to be collected easily). 1 mark for application to child sharing (e.g., tallying specific actions like 'passing a toy to another child'). Weakness: [2 marks] 1 mark for generic weakness (e.g., rigid categories might lack detail). 1 mark for application (e.g., missing subtle cooperative play behaviors that don't fit the exact code of 'sharing').

2 marks: 1 mark for describing a strength of qualitative data (e.g., depth, detail, understanding 'why'). 1 mark for linking it to the specific context of public speaking anxiety (e.g., explaining specific fears like forgetting lines or shaking). Another 2.44 marks can be awarded for explaining how it complements the quantitative data (e.g., giving a complete picture of anxiety).

Max 4.44 marks: Up to 2 marks for explaining the value of qualitative data (detail/meaning/validity) and up to 2.44 marks for applying this specifically to the scenario of public speaking anxiety (e.g., explaining specific thoughts like 'forgetting the script' or physical reactions, showing how this explains a simple numerical anxiety scale score).

First guideline: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying the guideline broken (protection from harm) and 1 mark for detail from the study (seizures, extreme tension, guilt). Second guideline: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying the guideline broken (right to withdraw) and 1 mark for detail from the study (prods like 'Please go on' or 'You have no other choice' preventing them from stopping easily).

Guideline 1 (Protection from Harm): 2 marks (1 mark generic, 1 mark applied to Milgram's specific signs of distress like sweating/trembling). Guideline 2 (Right to Withdraw): 2 marks (1 mark generic, 1 mark applied to the verbal prods that pressured them to continue).

Strength: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a strength of a quasi-experiment (investigating naturally occurring groups) and 1 mark for applying it to Baron-Cohen (e.g., comparing autistic adults to neurotypical adults). Weakness: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a weakness (lack of control over participant variables / no random allocation) and 1 mark for applying it to Baron-Cohen (e.g., potential IQ differences or other developmental differences between the AS/HFA group and the control groups).

Strength: [2 marks] 1 mark for identifying that it allows study of pre-existing traits. 1 mark for linking to AS/HFA vs Control. Weakness: [2 marks] 1 mark for explaining that participants cannot be randomly assigned, meaning confounding variables could exist. 1 mark for linking to potential differences like cognitive ability or educational background.

Strength: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a strength of case studies (rich qualitative detail, longitudinal depth) and 1 mark for linking to the boy's phobia or therapy process. Weakness: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a weakness (generalisability, researcher bias) and 1 mark for linking to the specific participant (9-year-old boy, unique button phobia).

Strength: [2 marks] 1 mark for explaining the depth/detail of case studies. 1 mark for applying to Saavedra and Silverman (e.g., tracking thoughts and feelings about buttons over multiple therapy sessions). Weakness: [2 marks] 1 mark for explaining low generalisability. 1 mark for applying to the unique nature of this child's phobia (buttons) or demographic background.

Control 1: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a control (e.g., tape speed of 220 wpm, monotone voice, specific doodling sheets with shapes vs lined paper). 1 mark for explaining how it improved internal validity (e.g., standardized task difficulty across conditions). Control 2: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying another control (e.g., quiet room, standard instructions, surprising them with the memory test). 1 mark for explaining how it improved internal validity (e.g., controlled for situational variables, prevented rehearsal).

Control 1: [2 marks] 1 mark for naming a specific control (e.g., the monotone voice recording at 220 wpm). 1 mark for explaining how it ensures that participant attention was not influenced by speaker enthusiasm/variation. Control 2: [2 marks] 1 mark for naming another control (e.g., using a sheet with geometric shapes of 1 cm diameter for the doodling group). 1 mark for explaining how this prevented differences in doodling style/effort from becoming a confounding variable.

2 marks for explaining Group A's standard deviation (low standard deviation means consistency, scores are close to the mean). 2 marks for explaining Group B's standard deviation (high standard deviation means high variation, scores are widely dispersed). Maximum of 4.44 marks.

Group A Interpretation: [2 marks] 1 mark for identifying that 1.2 is a small standard deviation. 1 mark for explaining that Group A participants responded very similarly to the therapy (scores are tightly clustered). Group B Interpretation: [2 marks] 1 mark for identifying that 5.8 is a large standard deviation. 1 mark for explaining that Group B participants had highly varied outcomes/experiences (scores are widely spread out).

Strength: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a strength of MRI (high resolution, objective structural data, non-invasive). 1 mark for linking to Hölzel's study (measuring gray matter density in the hippocampus/amygdala). Weakness: 2 marks. 1 mark for identifying a weakness of MRI (claustrophobia, noise, high cost, movement sensitivity). 1 mark for linking to the study (e.g., participants might feel stressed/uncomfortable in the scanner, affecting validity, or movement during scans could ruin the images).

Strength: [2 marks] 1 mark for structural precision/objectivity. 1 mark for application (measuring precise changes in gray matter concentration pre- and post-mindfulness course). Weakness: [2 marks] 1 mark for environmental discomfort/claustrophobia/noise. 1 mark for application (anxiety caused by the tight scanner might interfere with the calm states associated with mindfulness, or movement might affect scan quality).

To answer this question successfully: For (a), identify a clear, observable, and specific action that defines helping. Avoid vague terms like 'being nice'. For (b), describe the training process (using a standardized checklist/coding scheme) and the process of checking agreement between observers (e.g., using a pilot run and calculating a correlation coefficient). For (c), explain how a real-world environment allows for natural behavior and reduces demand characteristics, which directly increases ecological validity.

(a) 1 mark for a clear, operationalised helper behavior. Examples: picking up dropped items, offering directions, holding a gate open. Reject: 'acting friendly' (not measurable). (b) 2 marks total: 1 mark for describing a training step (e.g., using a standardized checklist, watching a pilot recording) and 1 mark for explaining how agreement is checked/quantified (e.g., calculating correlation coefficient, checking for 80%+ agreement). (c) 1 mark for explaining how the natural setting increases ecological validity (e.g., participants are in their natural environment doing everyday activities, which minimizes demand characteristics and ensures authentic behavior).

An example of a high-quality response:

**Independent Variable (IV) and Manipulation:**
The IV is the presence of green plants in the workspace. This will have two levels:
1. Plant Condition: The laboratory room will have 10 leafy green potted plants (e.g., Boston ferns and peace lilies) arranged around the room and on the desk.
2. No-Plant Condition: The same laboratory room will have no plants at all.

**Dependent Variable (DV) and Measurement:**
The DV is the productivity of the administrative workers, measured objectively. Participants will be given a standard data entry task (transcribing 100 printed addresses and phone numbers into a database). Productivity will be operationalised as:
1. The time taken (in seconds) to complete the entire data entry task (measured using a digital stopwatch).
2. The number of errors made (e.g., typos, missed numbers) in the database.

**Experimental Design:**
An independent measures design will be used to prevent order effects (such as fatigue or practice on the data entry task). Participants will be randomly allocated to either the Plant Condition or the No-Plant Condition by drawing a condition slip from a sealed envelope.

**Control of an Extraneous Variable:**
To control for the extraneous variable of environmental distraction or comfort, both conditions will be conducted in the exact same room, at the same temperature (21°C), with identical lighting and computer equipment. This ensures that any difference in productivity is due to the presence of the plants and not due to physical comfort or environmental differences.

Marking Scheme (Total 10 marks):

**Level 3 (9-10 marks):**
- The design is highly detailed, clear, and can be easily replicated.
- All required aspects are explicitly and accurately addressed in the context of the scenario (plants, office/administrative productivity, lab setting).
- Shows excellent methodological understanding of the IV, DV, experimental design, and control.

**Level 2 (5-8 marks):**
- The design is described with reasonable detail and could be replicated with some minor clarifications.
- Most of the required aspects are addressed in context.
- Some methodological terminology is used correctly, though there may be minor omissions.

**Level 1 (1-4 marks):**
- The design is basic, lacks detail, or has major omissions.
- Few required aspects are addressed in context.
- Weak methodological understanding shown.

**Guidance on specific elements:**
- **Independent Variable (2 marks):** 1 mark for identifying the IV (presence vs absence of plants), 1 mark for operationalising how it is manipulated (e.g., 10 green plants in the room vs no plants).
- **Dependent Variable (2 marks):** 1 mark for identifying productivity, 1 mark for operationalising it (e.g., time to complete a data entry task or number of errors).
- **Experimental Design (2 marks):** 1 mark for identifying an appropriate design (e.g., independent measures), 1 mark for explaining why it is used or how it is implemented in this study.
- **Control of Extraneous Variable (2 marks):** 1 mark for identifying a plausible extraneous variable (e.g., noise, lighting, room temperature), 1 mark for explaining how it will be kept constant across conditions.
- **Contextualisation (2 marks):** 2 marks for a fully contextualised answer throughout (referring to administrative tasks, office setup, plants, etc.). Deduct marks if the answer is generic and could apply to any study.

Weakness (1 mark): Self-report questionnaires are prone to social desirability bias, where participants might downplay their anxiety levels to appear more confident or relaxed. Improvement (1 mark): Dr. Aris could instead measure objective physiological indicators of anxiety, such as using a wearable heart rate monitor or measuring skin conductance levels, which cannot be consciously controlled or faked by the participant.

1 mark for identifying and explaining a valid weakness of self-reporting anxiety in this specific study (e.g., social desirability bias, response bias, subjective scale interpretation). 1 mark for proposing a practical, realistic improvement to how anxiety is measured (e.g., using physiological measures like heart rate, or using structured behavioral observations of anxiety cues).

Problem (1 mark): In a busy preschool field setting, the researcher cannot easily control for extraneous environmental variables, such as background noise or sudden interruptions by other children, which could distract the participant during the modeling phase. Improvement (1 mark): The researcher could overcome this by using a quiet, partitioned-off 'research room' within the preschool, ensuring that only the active participant and the model are present, and scheduling sessions during quiet times of the school day.

1 mark for explaining a valid control problem linked directly to the preschool field setting (e.g., peer distractions, background noise, varying staff behaviors). 1 mark for suggesting a practical, realistic improvement to control the identified variable without destroying the field nature of the study.