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

1. The participant was shown a diagram of a room with a central circle representing themselves. 2. An approaching figure (represented by a name or label) moved inward from 8 different angles. 3. The participant pressed the space bar to stop the figure at their preferred distance. 4. The social figures included a close friend (whose real name was programmed into the system based on prior questionnaire answers) and a stranger (unfamiliar name/label).

Award up to 4.75 marks total:
- Up to 2.75 marks for describing the CID task procedure (e.g., 1 mark for the schematic central circle representing themselves, 1 mark for the approaching figure/angle, 0.75 marks for the mechanism of pressing the spacebar to stop it).
- Up to 2.0 marks for explaining the operationalisation of the social figures (1 mark for explaining that the 'close friend' used the participant's actual friend's name, and 1 mark for explaining the 'stranger' representation).

Masculine toys: wagon, truck/car. Feminine toys: Raggedy Ann doll, plush toy (e.g., Winnie the Pooh). Interaction was operationalised as physical contact with the toy (e.g., dragging, holding, carrying, touching with hands/mouth, pushing) and excluding non-interactive behaviors like sitting on it without touching or accidental contact.

Award up to 4.75 marks total:
- 1 mark for identifying two correct masculine toys (0.5 marks each).
- 1 mark for identifying two correct feminine toys (0.5 marks each).
- Up to 2.75 marks for detailing the operationalisation of 'interaction' (1 mark for active physical contact/touching/manipulating, 1 mark for examples such as pushing/holding/carrying, and 0.75 marks for specifying exclusions like accidental contact or passive proximity).

1. Target-present line-up: contains the actual target person/character seen in the encoding clip plus foils. 2. Target-absent line-up: the target is not present; they are replaced by another foil (all-foil lineup). 3. Encoding phase: Participants watched a short (6-second) video clip of a cartoon character (Dora the Explorer or Go, Diego, Go!) where the character was clearly visible.

Award up to 4.75 marks total:
- 1.5 marks for explaining a target-present line-up (clearly stating that the actual target is included among foils).
- 1.5 marks for explaining a target-absent line-up (clearly stating that the target is excluded/replaced by another foil, leaving only foils).
- 1.75 marks for describing the presentation of the cartoon character during encoding (e.g., 0.75 marks for identifying the 6-second video format, 1 mark for specifying that the character, such as Dora or Diego, was shown clearly performing a neutral action).

Behavioral exposure used physical buttons and positive reinforcement (mother's praise) to desensitize the boy to touch/handling buttons. Imagery exposure used mental images (e.g., imagining buttons falling on him, their smell) and cognitive restructuring/relaxation to target internal feelings of disgust and cognitive appraisals.

Award up to 4.75 marks total:
- Up to 2.25 marks for detailing the behavioral exposure (1 mark for mentioning the use of actual/physical buttons in a hierarchy, 1 mark for referencing positive reinforcement/mother's praise, 0.25 marks for its focus on physical handling/fear).
- Up to 2.25 marks for detailing the imagery exposure (1 mark for explaining it involved mental visualization of buttons/imagining scenarios like buttons falling, 1 mark for referencing the focus on disgust appraisals/relaxation techniques, 0.25 marks for contrasting it with physical exposure).
- 0.25 marks for explicit contrasting language (e.g., 'In contrast', 'whereas').

The scanning technique was Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI). The brain regions with a significant increase in grey matter density/concentration were: the left hippocampus, the posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), the temporoparietal junction (TPJ), and the cerebellum.

Award up to 4.75 marks total:
- 1 mark for identifying the scanning technique as Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI or structural MRI).
- 3.75 marks for identifying the brain regions (0.93 marks per region, up to 4 correct regions: left hippocampus, posterior cingulate cortex/PCC, temporoparietal junction/TPJ, and cerebellum/brainstem. Award 1 mark per region up to 3 regions, with 0.75 marks for the fourth, to total exactly 3.75).

Paper design: A4 paper with rows of alternating shapes (circles and squares, 10 per row) and a margin to write down names. Instructions: Shade the shapes, neatness/speed did not matter, explained as a task to relieve boredom while listening.

Award up to 4.75 marks total:
- Up to 2.25 marks for describing the sheet of paper (1 mark for mentioning alternating shapes/squares and circles, 1 mark for specifying the margin for writing names, 0.25 marks for specifying it was A4 size).
- Up to 2.5 marks for describing the instructions given (1 mark for explaining they were asked to shade the shapes, 1 mark for mentioning they were told neatness/speed did not matter, 0.5 marks for mentioning that it was described as a way to relieve boredom/tension).

Aspects of setting: Yale University's prestige (lent authority and trust), professional lab/shock generator. Variation: Relocated the study to a rundown commercial office building in Bridgeport, Connecticut, under a private firm name to remove the institutional prestige of Yale.

Award up to 4.75 marks total:
- 2.0 marks for describing two aspects of the setting (1 mark for mentioning Yale University's prestige/legitimacy; 1 mark for mentioning the scientific/credible appearance of the laboratory/shock generator).
- 2.75 marks for explaining the Bridgeport variation (1 mark for identifying the relocation to a rundown office building/Bridgeport, 1 mark for specifying the removal of any association with Yale University/using a fictitious private firm, and 0.75 marks for explaining that this tested whether the lack of prestigious institutional backing would decrease obedience levels).

Matching purpose: To control for confounding participant variables (baseline aggression) so that individual differences wouldn't skew the results. Scales: Four 5-point rating scales measuring physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition.

Award up to 4.75 marks total:
- Up to 2.0 marks for explaining the reason for matching (1 mark for identifying the need to control participant variables/baseline aggression, and 1 mark for explaining that it prevents this confounding variable from skewing the differences between conditions).
- Up to 2.75 marks for describing the scales (0.75 marks for mentioning four 5-point scales rated by both a teacher and experimenter, and 2.0 marks for identifying the dimensions: 0.5 marks each for physical aggression, verbal aggression, aggression toward inanimate objects, and aggressive inhibition).

To answer this question effectively, candidates should compare and contrast the two studies on the nature-nurture spectrum. 1. Nature explanation in Hassett et al.: The study found that male rhesus monkeys showed a strong preference for wheeled toys over plush toys, while female monkeys showed a more variable preference but engaged significantly with plush toys compared to males. Since these monkeys had zero exposure to human socialization or gender-typed marketing, this supports the 'nature' side, suggesting sex-typed toy preferences are biologically pre-programmed (e.g., through hormonal or cognitive-evolutionary mechanisms). 2. Nature explanation in Bandura et al.: Despite learning being the focus, Bandura found that boys were overall significantly more physically aggressive than girls across almost all conditions. This suggests a biological predisposition (nature) toward physical expression of aggression, possibly mediated by testosterone. 3. Nurture explanation in Bandura et al.: This study strongly supports the 'nurture' side. Children exposed to an aggressive model imitated specific physical (e.g., sitting on the Bobo doll, hitting it on the nose) and verbal (e.g., 'Kick him', 'Pow') behaviors that they had never displayed before. This demonstrates that complex social behaviors can be acquired entirely through environmental observation and imitation. 4. Nurture explanation in Hassett et al.: While primarily biological, Hassett et al. noted that female monkeys showed highly variable toy preferences, suggesting that individual environmental interactions or social dynamics within the troop might influence toy selection. Evaluation of Nature: A strength is that biological explanations are highly objective and can be tested using scientific, controlled methods (e.g., examining physiological or evolutionary traits). A weakness is that it can be reductionist, ignoring the highly plastic and learned nature of primate and human behavior. Evaluation of Nurture: A strength is that demonstrating environmental influences allows for practical interventions, such as monitoring media violence (Bandura) or designing neutral educational settings. A weakness is that it can be deterministic and ignore biological constraints, such as the inherent sex differences in physical aggression and toy interaction observed across species.

Level 4 (10-12 marks): Evaluation is comprehensive, showing a balanced and detailed discussion of both nature and nurture. Explicit and effective comparisons are made between Hassett et al. and Bandura et al. with excellent use of specific details and examples from both studies. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Evaluation is good, discussing both sides of the debate but perhaps lacking balance or depth. Examples from both studies are present but may lack detail. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Evaluation is basic or limited. The candidate may focus heavily on one side of the debate or on one study, with limited or superficial examples. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Answer shows little or no evaluation. Comments are very brief, superficial, or fail to link effectively to the studies. Level 0 (0 marks): No creditable response.

One major strength of the study is the high level of control implemented by the researchers. For example, the placement of the toys was systematically counterbalanced (swapping left and right positions) across trials to prevent any confounding side preferences from affecting which toys the monkeys chose. This standardization ensures that the monkeys' interactions were genuinely driven by toy characteristics rather than location bias. Additionally, the researchers utilized video recording and had independent observers code the interactions, achieving an exceptionally high inter-rater reliability (Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.97 for duration), which greatly enhances the objectivity of the quantitative data collected. A second strength relates to the use of animals as participants. By using rhesus monkeys, Hassett et al. were able to investigate sex differences in toy preferences free from the complex gender socialization, parental expectations, and media advertisements that inevitably shape human children's toy choices. This allowed for a much cleaner test of evolutionary and biological predispositions towards certain object categories. However, a key weakness of the study is the low active sample size and participation rate. Although the troop consisted of many monkeys and 82 met the initial criteria, only 34 monkeys (23 females and 11 males) actually interacted with the toys on more than five occasions to be included in the primary data analysis. This very small and unequal sample size limits the statistical power of the findings and means the behavior of a few highly active monkeys could have disproportionately skewed the results. A second weakness is the problem of anthropomorphism when interpreting animal behavior. Although the observers used operationalized definitions of behaviors (such as 'holding', 'sitting on', or 'carrying' the toys), it is difficult to definitively prove that a monkey interacting with a wheeled toy is experiencing the same cognitive or functional interest that a human boy does. Furthermore, because rhesus monkeys are biologically distinct from humans and live in captive enclosures at research centers, the ecological validity of using manufactured human toys (like dump trucks and plush dolls) is low, making it difficult to generalize these results directly to human child development.

Level 4 (8-10 marks): Evaluation is detailed, showing a thorough understanding of the study's design. Both strengths and weaknesses (two of each) are discussed, including the named issue of using animals. Points are well-contextualized with specific details from the Hassett et al. study. Balance is maintained. Level 3 (5-7 marks): Evaluation is structured but may lack detail or fail to fully contextualize all points with specific study details. Contains a mix of strengths and weaknesses, including the named issue. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Limited evaluation. Points are superficial, generic, or lack clear connection to Hassett et al. May omit the named issue or fail to provide both strengths and weaknesses. Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic points are made. Very little psychological terminology or understanding of the study is demonstrated.

(a) Establishing inter-rater reliability ensures that both observers are recording aggressive behaviors consistently. High reliability demonstrates that the behavioral coding categories are objective and that the collected data is free from individual observer bias. (b) Dr. Aris can have both observers independently watch and code the same child's behavior. He can then correlate their recorded scores using a statistical test like Spearman's rho or calculate percentage agreement. A correlation coefficient of +0.80 or higher indicates strong inter-rater reliability. (c) Dr. Aris must ensure observers are blind to the child's experimental condition (i.e., whether the child watched the aggressive or non-aggressive model) so that subjective expectations do not influence how they record the behaviors.

(a) 1 mark for explaining consistency/reliability of data. 1 mark for linking to reducing observer bias or ensuring objective coding categories. (b) 1 mark for describing independent observation/recording of the same behavior by both observers. 1 mark for explaining the use of correlation/percentage agreement with a high threshold (e.g., +0.80). (c) 1 mark for identifying a valid control (e.g., double-blind design/blind observers). 0.75 marks for explaining how this prevents cognitive expectations from biasing results.

(a) Strength: Closed questions produce quantitative data which is easy to analyse statistically, allowing the researcher to directly compare empathy scores between neurotypical and autistic groups. Weakness: Closed questions lack detail, which means participants cannot explain the reasoning behind their choices, lowering the construct validity of the measure. (b) The researcher could show a photograph of eyes and ask: 'Describe the specific emotions you see in this face and explain what facial features led you to this choice.' This allows teenagers to respond in their own words, providing rich qualitative data about their cognitive strategies.

(a) 1.5 marks for strength (1 mark general explanation, 0.5 marks contextualized to empathy/groups). 1.5 marks for weakness (1 mark general explanation, 0.5 marks contextualized to lack of explanation/choices). (b) 1 mark for proposing an appropriate open question. 1 mark for linking it to emotion recognition. 0.75 marks for explaining how it yields qualitative depth/reasoning.

(a) A negative correlation. This is because as empathy scores increase (closer to 50), the preferred physical distance decreases (fewer centimeters). (b) The data can be plotted on a scattergraph where the x-axis is labeled 'Empathy Score (1-50)' and the y-axis is labeled 'Preferred Distance (cm)'. Individual data points representing each participant's empathy score and distance would be plotted at their intersection, showing the overall trend line. (c) A correlation only shows a relationship, not cause-and-effect. A third variable, such as extroversion or cultural background, might independently influence both a person's empathy level and their comfort with physical closeness.

(a) 1 mark for identifying a negative correlation. 1 mark for explaining it using both variables in opposite directions. (b) 1 mark for naming a scattergraph with correct axis labels. 1 mark for explaining how individual data points are plotted at the intersection of the two variables. (c) 1 mark for identifying the third variable issue/direction of effect. 0.75 marks for explaining how a specific variable (e.g., extroversion) could confound the relationship.

(a) Strength: It controls for participant variables, ensuring that individual differences in natural memory capacity or baseline concentration do not confound the results. Limitation: It creates the risk of order effects; participants might experience boredom or fatigue by listening to a second lecture, or perform better due to practice. (b) The researcher can use counterbalancing by splitting the participants into two groups. Group 1 does the doodling condition first, followed by the control condition. Group 2 does the control condition first, followed by the doodling condition. This ensures that any order effects (such as fatigue) are distributed equally across both experimental conditions.

(a) 1.5 marks for strength (1 mark general explanation, 0.5 marks context of concentration/individual differences). 1.5 marks for limitation (1 mark general explanation of order effects, 0.5 marks context of listening to multiple lectures). (b) 1 mark for outlining the mechanics of counterbalancing (AB/BA split). 1 mark for linking it to the two conditions (doodling vs control). 0.75 marks for explaining how this cancels out or distributes order effects.

(a) Advantage: Participants are highly motivated to attend and participate, reducing attrition rates since they active chose to sign up. Disadvantage: It creates a volunteer bias; individuals who volunteer may be more cooperative, compliant, or uniquely motivated by the $10 reward, making the sample unrepresentative. (b) People who frequent libraries and are motivated by a $10 reward may have distinct demographic or psychological profiles (e.g., lower income, higher free time). If their baseline deference to authority differs from the general public, the study's findings on obedience cannot be easily generalised to real-life authority dynamics, lowering the study's ecological validity.

(a) 1.5 marks for advantage (1 mark general, 0.5 marks contextualized to participation). 1.5 marks for disadvantage (1 mark general bias, 0.5 marks contextualized to financial incentive/compliance). (b) 1 mark for identifying a specific sample characteristic (e.g., library-goers/financial motivation). 1 mark for linking this characteristic to a difference in obedience behavior. 0.75 marks for explaining how this limits ecological validity/generalisability.

(a) Passengers are using public transit and do not know they are part of a psychological study. Because they are not asked for permission beforehand, they cannot give informed consent. (b) The researcher can use a mild, low-stress emergency scenario (dropping groceries rather than a medical collapse). This ensures passengers do not experience severe anxiety, distress, or physical danger, protecting them from psychological harm. (c) In a field environment like a city bus, passengers will get off at different stops throughout the route. It is practically impossible for researchers to stop and debrief every individual passenger before they leave the bus.

(a) 1 mark for defining informed consent breach. 1 mark for linking to the public/unaware passenger context. (b) 1 mark for suggesting a low-stress intervention. 1 mark for explaining how this minimizes psychological distress/harm. (c) 1 mark for identifying the practical issue of participants exiting/dispersing. 0.75 marks for explaining how this prevents a complete debrief.

(a) Independent Variable: Whether participants complete a standardized 4-week yoga course or act as a waiting-list control group. Dependent Variable: The change in grey matter density in the amygdala, measured in cubic millimeters via structural MRI scans. (b) MRI scans provide highly objective, quantitative data. This is a strength because it cannot be manipulated by participant bias or social desirability, unlike self-reports where participants might exaggerate or hide their stress levels to please the researcher. (c) The amount of sleep participants get prior to each scan must be controlled, as acute sleep deprivation can affect brain perfusion and temporarily confound structural density measurements.

(a) 1 mark for operationalising the IV (yoga vs. control). 1 mark for operationalising the DV (change in density via MRI). (b) 1 mark for identifying a strength of objective data (scientific, free from bias). 1 mark for explaining this in comparison to self-report limitations (social desirability). (c) 1 mark for identifying a plausible confounding variable (e.g., sleep, caffeine, other exercise). 0.75 marks for explaining how it could affect the DV measurements.

(a) 'Interaction' can be operationalised into discrete, observable categories: 'Holding' (physically grasping the toy with hands/feet), 'Mouth contact' (biting or licking the toy), and 'Pushing' (shoving the toy away). (b) Housing: Researchers must ensure the rhesus monkeys are housed in compatible social groups and provided with species-specific environmental enrichment (e.g., climbing structures, foraging opportunities) to prevent psychological distress. (c) If observers expect male monkeys to prefer active manipulation and females to prefer passive contact, they may unconsciously miscategorise ambiguous behaviors to fit these gendered assumptions, which reduces the validity of the results.

(a) 1 mark for identifying at least two distinct, observable behaviors. 1 mark for providing clear operational definitions for them. (b) 1 mark for identifying a valid animal welfare housing guideline (social housing/enrichment/space). 1 mark for linking it to preventing animal distress. (c) 1 mark for defining observer bias (expectation/assumptions). 0.75 marks for explaining how this distorts data collection and lowers validity.

Part (a) Sample Design:
- Independent Variable (IV): The presence of a natural green plant (e.g., a 1-metre tall potted Swiss cheese plant placed on the desk 50cm from the participant) versus the absence of any plants (a completely bare desk).
- Dependent Variable (DV): Concentration, operationalised as the score out of 50 on a 10-minute standardized proofreading task (identifying spelling and grammatical errors in a business report).
- Experimental Design: Independent measures design. Participants are randomly allocated to either the 'plant' condition or the 'no plant' condition. This design is chosen to prevent order effects (such as fatigue or practice on the proofreading task) that would occur if the same participants did both conditions.
- Controls: The temperature of the room is kept constant at 21 degrees Celsius, and the lighting is kept identical using artificial fluorescent ceiling lights to ensure that physical comfort does not influence concentration levels. The proofreading task is identical for both groups.
- Sample & Procedure: A volunteer sample of 40 office workers from a local business. Each participant is brought individually to a simulated office room. They are told to sit at the desk and complete the proofreading task. Depending on their group, the plant is either present on the desk or completely removed.

Part (b) Validity Analysis:
- Threat to Validity: Demand characteristics. Participants might guess the aim of the study if they notice a large, unusual plant on the desk and work harder because they think they are expected to be more productive.
- Effect on Results: This would artificially inflate the concentration scores in the plant condition, meaning the study measures the participants' desire to please the researcher rather than the actual physiological/psychological effect of the plant.
- Overcoming the Threat: Use a single-blind procedure with a filler task. Explain to participants that the study is investigating 'general clerical skills in various workspace layouts' and include several unrelated decorative items (e.g., folders, a lamp) in both rooms so the plant does not stand out as the sole independent variable.

Part (a): [10 marks total]
- 1-3 marks: Operationalisation of IV and DV (1 mark for IV, 1 mark for DV, 1 mark for explicit operationalisation of both in context).
- 1-2 marks: Control of extraneous variables (1 mark for identifying a logical variable, 1 mark for explaining a precise control method in context).
- 1-2 marks: Experimental design (1 mark for identifying independent/repeated/matched, 1 mark for a valid contextual justification).
- 1-3 marks: Procedural details, sample, and general research flow (clear, logical, and replicable structure).

Part (b): [4 marks total]
- 1 mark: Identifying a valid threat to internal or external validity (e.g., demand characteristics, individual differences, ecological validity).
- 1 mark: Explaining how this threat specifically affects/biases the results of this study.
- 1 mark: Proposing a clear, practical solution/modification to overcome the threat.
- 1 mark: Explaining how this solution restores or improves validity in context.