2026 Cambridge IAS-Level Psychology (9990) 模擬試題連答案詳解

In Andrade's study, participants in the doodling group were given an A4 sheet with printed squares and circles. They were asked to shade in the shapes while listening to the recording, told that neatness or speed did not matter, told that the task was simply to relieve boredom, and instructed to write down the names of people attending the party.

1 mark per distinct instruction outlined (max 2 marks):
- Asked to shade in / colour the printed shapes (squares and circles);
- Told it did not matter how neatly / quickly they did it;
- Told it was just something to relieve boredom / stop them getting bored;
- Told to write down the names of people attending the party (and ignore those who could not attend).

When awakened by an electric doorbell, participants were required to state immediately into an audio recording device placed beside the bed whether they had been dreaming. If they reported dreaming, they were asked to describe the dream narrative in detail.

1 mark per creditworthy point (max 2 marks):
- Awakened by a (loud) doorbell / buzzer;
- Spoke into a tape recorder / recording device (placed by the bedside);
- Stated whether they had been dreaming or not;
- Related the content / narrative of the dream in detail;
- Experimenter only entered room after recording if brief clarification was needed.

The Feelings Thermometer was a 9-point self-report scale (0 to 8). A rating of 0 indicated no distress at all, whereas 8 indicated the highest level of distress. It was used by the boy to rate various button stimuli and create a hierarchy of fear/disgust.

1 mark per descriptive point (max 2 marks):
- It was a 9-point scale / rated from 0 to 8;
- 0 represented no distress / fear (or lowest severity);
- 8 represented maximum distress / very strong fear / disgust;
- Used to construct a hierarchy of feared stimuli / monitor distress during exposure sessions.

The victim conditions differed in cues: the ill victim carried a black cane, while the drunk victim carried an alcoholic beverage wrapped in a brown paper bag and smelled of liquor. Both collapsed on the floor after the train departed the station.

1 mark per distinct difference (max 2 marks):
- Cane (ill) vs bottle wrapped in a brown paper bag (drunk);
- Smelled of liquor / alcohol (drunk) vs did not smell of liquor / alcohol (ill);
- Staggered / acted intoxicated (drunk) vs collapsed with a cane / appeared physically infirm (ill).

The revised version improved upon the original by increasing the choice of mental state terms from 2 to 4 (forced choice), increasing the total item count from 25 to 36 pairs of eyes, including a glossary of definitions for participants, and balancing the number of male and female faces.

1 mark per modification outlined (max 2 marks):
- Response options increased from two words (forced choice) to four words;
- Total number of items / photographs increased from 25 to 36;
- Provided a glossary / definition sheet of words for participants to check meanings;
- Balanced the number of male and female eye pairs across the test;
- Excluded items where gaze direction gave away the emotion / made emotions more subtle.

Application 1 (MBSR structure and stress reduction):
- What: The company can offer a structured 8-week mindfulness course comprising weekly group meetings and daily home practice.
- How/Link: In Hölzel et al., participants who completed the 8-week MBSR course (averaging ~27 minutes of daily practice) showed a significant reduction in perceived stress (PSS scores) and a positive correlation with decreased grey matter density in the right amygdala. By replicating this time frame and practice routine, employees' physiological and subjective stress responses can be systematically reduced.

Application 2 (Specific mindfulness techniques and emotion regulation):
- What: The programme should include specific guided practices such as 'body scanning', mindful yoga/stretching, and sitting meditation during the working day.
- How/Link: Hölzel et al. demonstrated that these combined practices led to increased grey matter concentration in the hippocampus and temporo-parietal junction (TPJ), areas responsible for emotional regulation, memory, and perspective taking. Providing employees with dedicated quiet spaces and audio-guided body scans can directly facilitate these adaptive neuroplastic changes to improve coping.

Award up to 2 marks for each practical application (2 marks × 2 = 4 marks total).

For each application:
- 1 mark for identifying a clear practical idea ('what').
- 1 mark for explaining how it works with explicit link to Hölzel et al.'s findings/procedures/brain structures ('how').

Application 1 (e.g. course duration / amygdala / perceived stress):
- 1 mark: The company can run an 8-week course where workers practise guided meditation daily / for around 30 minutes a day;
- 1 mark: Hölzel et al. found that an 8-week MBSR course reduced perceived stress scores and reduced grey matter density in the amygdala (which is involved in the fight-or-flight / stress response).

Application 2 (e.g. specific components / emotion regulation / hippocampus / TPJ):
- 1 mark: The company could provide guided body scan sessions or mindful movement/yoga during lunch breaks;
- 1 mark: Hölzel et al. found that engaging in body scan and yoga increased grey matter density in brain areas linked to emotion regulation / perspective taking / learning (e.g. hippocampus / TPJ / cerebellum / PCC).

Notes:
- Do not credit generic stress management advice that lacks specific linkage to Hölzel et al. (0 marks).
- 1 mark maximum per suggestion if no psychological link to the study (e.g. brain changes, MBSR protocol, or PSS reduction) is provided.

Application 1 (Conditioned reinforcement / secondary reinforcers):
- What: Sanctuary staff can introduce an acoustic secondary reinforcer (such as a clicker or short whistle blast) paired with a primary reward (e.g. chopped fruit/vegetables).
- How/Link: In Fagen et al., a clicker or whistle served as a conditioned bridge that precisely marked the exact moment the elephant performed the desired action (e.g. lifting the foot), signalling that a food treat was imminent. This allows trainers to deliver immediate feedback without delay, rapidly establishing the target behavioural response.

Application 2 (Shaping and behavioural chaining):
- What: Staff should break the target behaviour (presenting a limb steadily through an opening) into small, sequential sub-steps and reward successive approximations.
- How/Link: Fagen et al. utilised shaping and distinct behavioural chains (with unique verbal cues like 'foot' and visual hand gestures). The sanctuary can first reward the animal simply for approaching the barrier, then for lifting the limb, then for placing it onto a stand, and finally for holding it still during contact, ensuring stress-free compliance without physical force.

Award up to 2 marks for each application (2 marks × 2 = 4 marks total).

For each application:
- 1 mark for identifying a clear practical idea/technique ('what').
- 1 mark for explaining how it is implemented with explicit link to Fagen et al.'s findings/techniques/operant conditioning principles ('how').

Application 1 (e.g. secondary reinforcement / bridging stimulus):
- 1 mark: Use a clicker / whistle as a secondary reinforcer paired with high-value food treats;
- 1 mark: In Fagen et al., the acoustic marker served as a bridge between the animal performing the behaviour and receiving the primary reinforcer (food), providing precise temporal feedback.

Application 2 (e.g. shaping / successive approximations / behavioural chaining):
- 1 mark: Break down the limb presentation into smaller steps and reward each successive approximation (shaping);
- 1 mark: Fagen et al. trained elephants through step-by-step behavioural chains (e.g. touch cue, lift foot, place on box, hold still) paired with distinct verbal cues and gestures before moving to the next stage.

Other creditworthy ideas: positive reinforcement only / absence of punishment (PRT) to maintain voluntary compliance; short, consistent training sessions to avoid fatigue/stress.

Notes:
- Generic training tips without reference to operant conditioning / Fagen et al.'s methodology receive 0 marks.
- Max 1 mark per point if only a general suggestion is made without explaining the mechanism/link to the study.

(a) Ethical guideline followed:
- Identification of ethical guideline: The researchers avoided using deprivation, punishment, or aversive stimuli / minimized harm and distress.
- Contextual detail from the study: Elephants were trained exclusively through positive reinforcement (rewards of praise and sliced bananas for completing sequential trunk movements) and were not deprived of normal daily food or water rations to motivate them.

(b) Application to everyday life:
- What the application is: Facilitating non-invasive veterinary care and routine health screenings in captive elephants (e.g. testing for tuberculosis via trunk washes).
- How the findings are applied: Keepers and veterinarians can apply positive reinforcement training (PRT) and behavioral chaining to teach elephants to perform complex medical procedures willingly.
- Why this is beneficial: Voluntary participation reduces psychological distress, physical struggle, and the necessity of risky general anesthesia/sedation, substantially increasing welfare and handler safety.

(a) 2 marks:
1 mark for identifying an appropriate animal ethical guideline (e.g. reward/deprivation, minimizing harm/distress, housing/procedures).
1 mark for linking it explicitly to the procedure of Fagen et al. (e.g. use of primary/secondary rewards like chopped bananas/whistle rather than food deprivation or physical punishment).

(b) 3 marks:
1 mark for identifying a clear everyday application (e.g. veterinary care/trunk washing for disease detection in zoos/sanctuaries).
1 mark for explaining HOW the study's technique/findings are applied (e.g. using positive reinforcement training / shaping / secondary reinforcers to gain voluntary cooperation).
1 mark for explaining WHY this is beneficial/effective in practice (e.g. reduces stress and avoids the hazards of immobilizing drugs or physical restraint for both animal and keeper).

(a) Informed consent:
- Formal informed consent was obtained from the boy's mother, who signed consent forms permitting the assessment and exposure therapy sessions.
- Assent was also obtained from the 9-year-old boy himself, ensuring he agreed to take part in the treatment and assessments.

(b) Nature versus nurture debate:
- Definition / identification of nurture in context: The nurture side asserts that human behavior and emotions are learned through environmental experiences and interaction with external stimuli rather than being genetically predetermined.
- Evidence from phobia acquisition: The boy developed his specific button phobia after a traumatic environmental event (a bowl of buttons fell on him in kindergarten during an art activity), demonstrating classical conditioning and evaluative learning.
- Evidence from phobia treatment: The phobia was extinguished through structured environmental interventions, including behavioural exposure and disgust-imagery restructuring, proving learned associations can be modified by environmental experiences.

(a) 2 marks:
1 mark for stating that parental/maternal informed consent was obtained (written consent from the mother).
1 mark for stating that assent/agreement was also obtained from the child (the boy).

(b) 3 marks:
1 mark for demonstrating understanding that nurture refers to environmental learning/experiences.
1 mark for explaining how the phobia was learned/acquired through an environmental event (the incident in school where buttons fell on him at age 5).
1 mark for explaining how the phobia was treated/unlearned through environmental exposure therapy (in vivo exposure / imagery exposure with cognitive restructuring).

Award 1 mark for each valid point describing the background to the study, up to a maximum of 5 marks.

• Mindfulness is defined as open, non-judgmental awareness of present-moment experiences / sensations / thoughts (1 mark);
• Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) programs had established clinical evidence for reducing stress, anxiety, and improving emotional regulation / well-being (1 mark);
• Prior cross-sectional neuroimaging studies had identified differences in grey matter structure / cortical thickness between experienced/long-term meditators and control participants (1 mark);
• These previous cross-sectional studies could not establish a causal relationship (i.e. whether meditation induced brain changes or whether individuals with pre-existing brain differences were drawn to meditation) (1 mark);
• There was a lack of longitudinal research investigating the underlying neurobiological mechanisms / neuroplasticity following a standard short-term course (e.g. 8-week MBSR) in meditation-naïve individuals (1 mark);
• Voxel-Based Morphometry (VBM) via MRI allowed for objective, automated measurement of changes in grey matter concentration throughout the brain (1 mark).

Apply point-based marking:
- 1 mark for each creditworthy point describing the background to the study.
- Maximum 5 marks total.

Indicative content:
- Definition / concept of mindfulness (non-judgmental present-moment awareness);
- Evidence of MBSR improving psychological well-being / reducing stress;
- Cross-sectional findings showing brain differences in expert/experienced meditators;
- Limitations of cross-sectional designs (inability to demonstrate causality / direction of effect);
- Need for longitudinal prospective studies in meditation-naïve participants;
- Brain plasticity / neuroplasticity occurring within a standard short-term intervention (8 weeks);
- Use of VBM/MRI to detect grey matter concentration changes.

Notes:
- Do not credit descriptions of the procedure, sample demographics, or results of the Hölzel et al. study itself unless explicitly framed as an unanswered background question/rationale.

In the study by Pozzulo et al. (line-ups), after viewing each video clip, participants completed the identification phase under the following procedure:
1. Participants were presented with four line-up tasks in total: familiar target-present, familiar target-absent, unfamiliar target-present, and unfamiliar target-absent.
2. Each line-up consisted of six colour head-and-shoulder photographs presented simultaneously (in a 2 × 3 array).
3. In target-present line-ups, one photograph was the target and five were matched foils; in target-absent line-ups, all six photographs were foils.
4. Standardised instructions were read aloud to the participants stating that the person from the video may or may not be in the line-up.
5. Participants were instructed to point to or identify the number of the target if they saw them, or state 'not there' / point to a designated silhouette/box if the target was not present.
6. The researcher recorded whether the participant made a correct identification, a foil selection, or a correct/incorrect rejection.

Award 1 mark per procedural point described, up to a maximum of 4 marks:
- Participants were presented with four different line-up conditions / target-present and target-absent line-ups (for familiar and unfamiliar targets);
- Line-ups were presented simultaneously / all photos shown at the same time;
- Each line-up contained 6 colour photographs / head-and-shoulder photographs (in a 2 × 3 array);
- In target-present (TP), the target photo was shown with 5 foils / in target-absent (TA), 6 foils were shown;
- Standardised instructions were read to participants stating that the target may or may not be present in the line-up;
- Participants could select a photograph (by pointing/naming) or choose the 'not there' / rejection option;
- Responses (correct identification, false identification, correct rejection, false rejection) were recorded by the experimenter.

Similarity:
One similarity is that both studies utilized child participants in laboratory experiments to investigate behavioural and cognitive responses to visual stimuli.
In Pozzulo et al., the sample included 59 children aged 4–7 years (from preschools and daycares in Ottawa) who watched short video clips of a target event (either a cartoon character committing an act or a human male) before being presented with photo line-ups to test identification accuracy. Similarly, in Bandura et al., 72 young children aged 37–69 months (from the Stanford University Nursery School) observed either an aggressive or non-aggressive adult human model interact with a Bobo doll in an experimental room before their subsequent imitation was measured. Both studies collected standardized quantitative data on the children's performance (e.g. Pozzulo measured correct identification rates in target-present and target-absent conditions, while Bandura measured frequencies of imitative physical and verbal aggressive acts).

Difference:
One difference is in the types of data collected and recorded by the researchers.
Bandura et al. collected both quantitative and qualitative data; observers recorded numerical counts of imitative physical aggression (e.g. sitting on the Bobo doll, striking it with a mallet) and also transcribed qualitative verbal utterances spoken by the children (e.g. recording specific hostile remarks like "Sock him in the nose" or non-aggressive comments such as "He keeps on coming back for more"). In contrast, Pozzulo et al. collected purely quantitative data by recording nominal responses indicating whether the participant correctly identified the target, made a false identification, or stated that the target was not present ("not here"), without recording qualitative descriptions or unprompted verbal commentary from the children.

Apply the generic 4-mark level-of-response grid separately for the similarity (4 marks) and the difference (4 marks).

Level 4 (4 marks): Full explanation of the similarity/difference with accurate, detailed reference to both core studies.
Level 3 (3 marks): Explanation of the similarity/difference with clear reference to both studies (one detailed, one brief) OR detailed explanation linked explicitly to only one study.
Level 2 (2 marks): Identification of a similarity/difference with brief/basic description from one or both studies.
Level 1 (1 mark): Identification of a similarity/difference with no valid elaboration from either study / purely generic answer.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content — Similarities:
- Both used young children as participants (Pozzulo: 4–7 years old; Bandura: ~3–6 years old).
- Both were conducted in highly controlled laboratory settings using standardized exposure to stimuli (Pozzulo: identical video clips and structured line-ups; Bandura: standardized rooms, toys, and 10-minute model exposure).
- Both used an independent measures design across key experimental conditions.
- Both used visual observation/modelling via video or live demonstration.
- Both raised ethical issues regarding the use of children (e.g. informed consent from parents, potential distress).

Indicative content — Differences:
- Types of data collected (Bandura collected both quantitative frequencies and qualitative quotes of verbal aggression; Pozzulo collected purely quantitative identification scores).
- Pre-experimental matching (Bandura used matched pairs based on prior aggression ratings by the experimenter and nursery school teacher; Pozzulo did not pre-match participants across conditions).
- Arousal manipulation / ethical risk (Bandura deliberately subjected children to mild aggression arousal by stopping play with attractive toys; Pozzulo did not intentionally frustrate participants).
- Target stimuli nature (Pozzulo compared human and familiar cartoon targets; Bandura compared same-sex and opposite-sex live adult models).

Note: Do not credit two similarities or two differences; evaluate the best of each if multiple are provided.

Similarity:
One similarity is that both studies raised significant ethical concerns regarding deception and informed consent.
In Piliavin et al., approximately 4,450 subway passengers travelling on the New York subway (between 59th and 125th street) were deceived because the victim collapsing on the floor was an actor (a confederate) staging an emergency (either holding a cane or smelling of liquor). The passengers were completely unaware that they were taking part in an investigation and could not give informed consent. Similarly, in Milgram, the 40 male participants were deceived about the true aim of the experiment, being told it was a study on 'memory and learning', and were misled into believing the shock generator was real and that Mr Wallace was an actual participant receiving increasingly painful electric shocks. Neither study obtained prior informed consent for the real nature of the task from their participants.

Difference:
One difference is the research method and environment used to investigate social behaviour.
Piliavin et al. conducted a field experiment in a naturalistic real-world setting (a moving New York subway train on the eighth avenue express line). This gave the study high ecological validity as bystanders were responding to a realistic emergency during an uninterrupted 7.5-minute journey without knowing they were being observed. In contrast, Milgram conducted a laboratory experiment in an artificial, highly controlled environment at Yale University. This allowed Milgram to strictly control extraneous variables and standardise the researcher's scripted prods (e.g. 'Please continue', 'The experiment requires that you continue'), but created an artificial situation that lacked ecological validity compared to an everyday social setting.

Apply the generic 4-mark level-of-response grid separately for the similarity (4 marks) and the difference (4 marks).

Level 4 (4 marks): Full explanation of the similarity/difference with accurate, detailed reference to both core studies.
Level 3 (3 marks): Explanation of the similarity/difference with clear reference to both studies (one detailed, one brief) OR detailed explanation linked explicitly to only one study.
Level 2 (2 marks): Identification of a similarity/difference with brief/basic description from one or both studies.
Level 1 (1 mark): Identification of a similarity/difference with no valid elaboration from either study / purely generic answer.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Indicative content — Similarities:
- Both investigated social influence/situational factors on behaviour (bystander intervention vs obedience to authority).
- Both deceived participants regarding the true nature of the experiment / used confederates (actor victim/model in Piliavin; learner/experimenter in Milgram).
- Both collected both quantitative and qualitative data (Piliavin: latency to help/comments made by passengers; Milgram: maximum voltage reached/signs of extreme tension and verbal objections).
- Both failed to gain fully informed consent prior to the procedure.

Indicative content — Differences:
- Methodological setting / Ecological validity (Piliavin was a field experiment on a moving train; Milgram was a laboratory experiment in a Yale University lab).
- Sample characteristics (Piliavin used an opportunistic sample of ~4450 mixed-gender and racially diverse subway riders; Milgram used a self-selecting volunteer sample of 40 males aged 20–50).
- Independent variable (Piliavin manipulated several IVs including victim type [drunk vs ill/cane], victim race [black vs white], and model presence; Milgram's baseline study had no manipulated IV and observed levels of obedience to a single standardized procedure).
- Direct social pressure / presence of authority (Milgram involved direct, overt verbal commands from an authority figure in a lab coat; Piliavin involved passive social presence and emergent situational cues without direct verbal orders to act).

Operationalisation involves defining variables into precise, measurable, and observable terms. For example, operationalising 'aggression' could mean counting the number of physical strikes within a 5-minute period, allowing the research to be replicated and evaluated objectively.

1 mark for stating that it involves defining how a variable is specifically measured / manipulated / quantified.
0.5 mark for elaboration mentioning that this allows objective testing / replication / precision.
Do not accept purely circular definitions such as 'making a variable operational'.

Inter-observer reliability assesses whether different observers watching the same event or behaviour produce consistent recordings. It is typically assessed by comparing their independently gathered data using a correlation to check for high agreement.

1 mark for defining it as the extent of agreement / consistency between two or more observers / raters.
0.5 mark for stating that they are observing / recording the same event / behaviour independently.

The core difference lies in the format and depth of the information collected: quantitative data consists of numbers (e.g. test scores, counts of behaviour) that can be summarized with measures of central tendency, while qualitative data consists of non-numerical descriptions (e.g. interview quotes, written responses) that capture participants' subjective meanings.

1 mark for identifying the basic distinction (numerical/numbers vs non-numerical/words/text).
0.5 mark for elaboration regarding analysis or depth (e.g. quantitative allows statistical comparison/averages; qualitative gives rich detail/context).

An opportunity sample involves approaching people who are present and accessible at a given moment (such as people walking through a university cafeteria) rather than systematically selecting from a target population.

1 mark for identifying that participants are chosen because they are readily available / around at the time / convenient to access.
0.5 mark for mentioning that they are present at the specific time/place or agree/are willing to take part.

In a repeated measures design, order effects like practice or fatigue can confound results. Counterbalancing distributes these effects evenly across conditions, for example using an AB/BA design where half of the participants perform condition A then B, and the other half perform condition B then A.

1 mark for explaining that it is used to control order effects / practice / fatigue in repeated measures designs.
0.5 mark for explaining how it works (e.g. alternating the order of conditions / half do condition A then B, half do B then A).

In a positive correlation, both measured co-variables move in the same direction (an increase in variable X is associated with an increase in variable Y). Correlational data is visually represented using a scatter graph (or scatter plot), where each point represents the paired scores of one participant.

1 mark for defining positive correlation (as one co-variable increases, the other co-variable increases / both variables change in the same direction).
0.5 mark for identifying the scatter graph / scatter plot / scattergram.

To operationalise the independent variable (room temperature) effectively, the researcher must clearly specify at least two contrasting, measurable conditions with specific quantitative values (e.g., 18 °C vs 28 °C) rather than just stating 'hot room vs cold room'.

1 mark for a partial / basic operationalisation (e.g. having a hot room and a cold room / testing at two different temperatures);
2 marks for a fully operationalised IV with two clearly defined, measurable conditions / specific temperatures (e.g. completing the test in a room set to 18 °C versus a room set to 28 °C).

Do not credit responses that operationalise the dependent variable (test score) instead of the IV.

Operationalising a behavioural category requires providing clear, objective, and observable actions so that an observer can reliably count or record them during the observation.

1 mark for a basic / generic operationalisation giving one simple example (e.g. helping someone who falls);
2 marks for a detailed, objective operationalisation providing specific observable criteria / clear behavioural description (e.g. physically assisting another child to stand after a fall or returning a dropped item to another child within 10 seconds).

Do not credit subjective statements (e.g. 'being nice to other children').

An example table layout:

| Condition | Mean word recall score (out of 20) | Standard deviation |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| Bright room | | |
| Dim room | | |

(Alternatively, conditions can be column headers and descriptive measures as row headers).

1 mark per creditworthy point:

- 1 mark for clearly labelled rows or columns identifying both independent variable conditions ('Bright room' and 'Dim room' / lighting conditions);
- 1 mark for clearly labelled rows or columns identifying both descriptive statistics ('Mean' and 'Standard deviation') with reference to the DV (recall score / words recalled).

Guidance:
- Do not credit vague labels such as 'Condition 1 / Condition 2' or 'Score' without naming the statistics.
- No data required; credit is for structure and clear labelling.

An example table layout:

| Age group | Frequency of smiling at peers | Frequency of sharing toys |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 4-year-olds | | |
| 7-year-olds | | |

(Alternatively, behavioural categories can be rows and age groups columns).

1 mark per creditworthy point:

- 1 mark for clearly labelled rows or columns identifying both age groups / participant groups ('4-year-olds' and '7-year-olds');
- 1 mark for clearly labelled rows or columns identifying both target behaviours ('smiling at peers' and 'sharing toys') including indication of frequency / tally / count.

Guidance:
- Do not credit generic labels such as 'Group A / Group B' or 'Behaviour 1 / Behaviour 2'.

An example raw data table layout:

| Participant | Reaction time in Silence (s) | Reaction time in Continuous White Noise (s) |
| :--- | :--- | :--- |
| 1 | | |
| 2 | | |
| 3 | | |
| 4 | | |

1 mark per creditworthy point:

- 1 mark for a row or column identifying individual participants (e.g. Participant 1–4 / P1 to P4 / 4 distinct participant rows);
- 1 mark for clearly labelled columns or rows for both experimental conditions ('Silence' and 'Continuous White Noise') referencing the DV/units (reaction time / seconds).

Guidance:
- If only one condition is labelled, do not award the second mark.
- If participant identifiers are missing, award maximum 1 mark.

(a) Deception / informed consent / valid consent.

(b) Dr Chen could provide participants with a consent form/information sheet prior to the start of the study explaining that sudden loud noises will be played during the task (1 mark). Participants should be given the opportunity to give fully informed written consent or choose not to take part (1 mark).

(c) Debriefing allows Dr Chen to reveal the true purpose of the experiment (the effect of unexpected noise on performance) (1 mark) and check that participants are not suffering from any lasting negative psychological or physical effects/distress from the sudden 90 dB sounds, answering any questions they may have (1 mark).

(a) 1 mark for identifying the correct ethical guideline:
- Informed consent / valid consent / deception / lack of deception.

(b) 1 mark for what Dr Chen should do (practical suggestion) + 1 mark for operational detail in context:
- Inform participants in advance that loud noises/buzzers will be played (1);
- Obtain written/signed consent from participants before testing commences / inform them of their right to withdraw (1).

(c) 1 mark for general purpose of debriefing + 1 mark for linked application to scenario:
- To reveal the true aim of the study / clarify why deception was used (1);
- To assess and minimise any psychological distress/anxiety caused by the loud 90 dB noises / ensure participants leave in the same state as they entered (1).

(a) Researchers must use the smallest number of animals necessary to achieve the scientific objectives/reliable findings (1 mark).

(b) Instead of using aversive stimuli (electric foot shocks) when an incorrect turn is made, the researcher could use positive reinforcement (1 mark), such as placing food pellets at the correct goal box/turns to motivate learning through reward rather than pain/distress (1 mark).

(c) Rats are naturally social animals, so isolating them in individual cages can cause psychological distress/abnormal behaviour/loneliness (1 mark). Ethical guidelines require that animal housing should accommodate the social needs of the species unless isolation is strictly justified (1 mark).

(a) 1 mark for outline of the guideline 'numbers':
- Using the smallest/minimum number of animals required to achieve valid/statistically reliable results (1).

(b) 1 mark for suggesting a suitable alternative procedure + 1 mark for operational link:
- Replace aversive stimuli/punishment/shocks with positive reinforcement / food rewards (1);
- Detailed explanation of how this avoids pain/distress while still allowing spatial learning to be measured (e.g. food placed at the exit/correct path) (1).

(c) 1 mark for identifying the species-specific social need + 1 mark for linking to distress/ethical housing guidelines:
- Rats are social animals and isolation causes distress / boredom / abnormal behaviour (1);
- Housing must provide adequate caging conditions that meet species-specific social needs / prevent unnecessary suffering (1).

An extraneous variable that needs control is the word list characteristics (e.g. word length, frequency, or emotional valence) or the retention interval activity. If the words used in one condition are easier or more memorable than those in the other, any observed difference in recall scores might be due to word difficulty rather than auditory distraction. Standardising the word list (e.g. using 20 two-syllable, neutral nouns of equal frequency) ensures that changes in the dependent variable (number of recalled words) are directly caused by the independent variable (presence vs absence of chatter), thereby increasing internal validity.

1 mark for identifying a plausible extraneous variable relevant to the scenario (e.g. word frequency/difficulty, room temperature, volume of chatter, delay duration activity).
1 mark for explaining how to standardise/control this variable.
1 mark (partial / scaled) for explaining how this control improves the internal validity of the study (isolates the effect of the IV on the DV / rules out confounding).

(a) A strength of covert observation is high ecological validity and the elimination of demand characteristics / social desirability bias. Because students do not know they are being observed, they will not artificially change their waste disposal habits to appear environmentally conscious, meaning their observed behaviour reflects genuine everyday actions.

(b) A practical weakness of the naturalistic setting is the lack of control over extraneous variables. For example, during peak lunch hours, high crowding around the bins might obstruct the observer's view or force students to quickly dump items into whichever bin is accessible, making accurate recording difficult.

Part (a): 1 mark for identifying a strength (e.g. reduces demand characteristics / natural behaviour) + 1 mark for applying it to the cafeteria/recycling context.
Part (b): 1 mark for identifying a practical weakness (e.g. uncontrollable environment / visual obstruction) linked to the naturalistic cafeteria setting.

Tariq could add open-ended questions such as 'Describe any specific workplace events that kept you awake this week' or 'Explain how poor sleep affects your mood at work'. Collecting qualitative data provides detailed, descriptive insights into the participants' subjective experiences, allowing Tariq to understand the specific reasons behind high stress ratings rather than just numeric scores.

1 mark for suggesting appropriate open-ended question(s) / qualitative modification in context.
1 mark for explaining what qualitative data would be gathered (e.g. descriptions, subjective reasons).
1 mark (partial / scaled) for explaining the methodological benefit (richness, depth of understanding, contextualising numeric scores).

(a) In this study, a negative correlation means that as the number of minutes spent on social media increases, self-esteem scores decrease (or participants who spend less time on social media show higher self-esteem scores).

(b) The researcher cannot infer causation because a correlation only demonstrates an association between two co-variables. It is possible that individuals with low self-esteem seek out more social media as a coping strategy (reverse causality), or an unmeasured third variable, such as loneliness or neuroticism, causes both increased social media use and lower self-esteem.

Part (a): 1 mark for defining negative correlation explicitly using both co-variables from the scenario.
Part (b): 1 mark for stating lack of causal relationship / third variable problem + 1 mark for contextualised example (e.g. reverse causality or unmeasured variable like loneliness).

To assess inter-rater reliability, both observers should independently record the frequency of each behavioural category (fidgeting, pacing, sighing) for the same 15 patients simultaneously. The psychologist can then correlate the two sets of tally scores (or calculate percentage agreement). A high positive correlation (e.g. r ≥ +0.80) indicates high reliability.

If reliability is low, the psychologist could operationalise the behavioural categories with clearer, more objective definitions (e.g. specifying exactly what counts as 'fidgeting' vs normal hand movement) or provide a joint training session with pre-recorded practice footage until consensus is achieved.

1 mark for explaining the assessment process (both observers record independently and scores are correlated / compared for consistency).
1 mark for suggesting a concrete method of improvement (clearer operational definitions / observer training).
1 mark (partial / scaled) for linking the improvement directly to the dental anxiety checklist scenario.

(a) The procedure violates informed/valid consent (workers do not know they are part of a study and have not agreed) and privacy/confidentiality (workers are filmed covertly in their workplace without prior permission).

(b) To address informed consent and privacy while protecting validity, the researcher could conduct the covert observation as planned to avoid demand characteristics, but immediately debrief all workers afterwards. During the debrief, she would explain the nature and purpose of the study, assure confidentiality by blurring faces/anonymising data, and provide retrospective consent with an explicit right to have their video data destroyed if they refuse consent.

Part (a): 1 mark for identifying two relevant ethical guidelines (0.5 marks each: informed consent, privacy/confidentiality, right to withdraw, deception).
Part (b): 1 mark for a practical suggestion (e.g. retrospective consent / comprehensive debrief / data anonymisation) + 1 mark (partial / scaled) for explaining how this preserves validity and protects participants.

(a) The sampling technique is volunteer (or self-selecting) sampling.

(b) A limitation is sampling bias / volunteer bias. Placing the advertisement on an online message board means the sample will be biased towards older adults who have internet access and higher digital literacy. Furthermore, those who actively volunteer may be more cognitively intact, physically active, or motivated than the general population of adults aged 70+. This reduces the sample's representativeness and limits the generalisability of the findings regarding cognitive decline.

Part (a): 1 mark for correctly identifying volunteer / self-selecting sampling.
Part (b): 1 mark for identifying a limitation of volunteer sampling (e.g. volunteer bias / lack of representativeness) + 1 mark (partial / scaled) for applying it specifically to older adults / online access in the context of cognitive decline.

A comprehensive response should cover the following core features of experimental design:

1. Operationalisation of the Independent Variable (IV):
- Condition 1: Natural sounds (e.g., a pre-recorded continuous audio track of forest rainfall and bird calls played through noise-cancelling headphones at a fixed volume of 60 dB).
- Condition 2: Ambient indoor noise (e.g., a pre-recorded continuous audio track of busy cafe chatter and tableware sounds played at the identical volume of 60 dB).

2. Operationalisation of the Dependent Variable (DV):
- Visual attention measured using a standardised 15-minute computerised continuous performance task (CPT).
- The score could be operationalised quantitatively as the total number of target shapes correctly identified (hits out of 100 target presentations) or the number of commission/omission errors recorded by the software.

3. Experimental Design:
- An independent measures design could be used where participants are randomly allocated to either the natural sounds condition or the ambient indoor noise condition to prevent order effects (such as practice or fatigue).
- Alternatively, a repeated measures design with counterbalancing (Condition A then B for half; B then A for the other half with an appropriate rest interval) could be chosen.

4. Standardisation and Environmental Controls:
- Identical testing cubicle with controlled ambient lighting, temperature (21°C), and seating distance (50 cm) from the computer screen.
- Standardised briefing instructions displayed on the screen explaining the target stimuli and button-press rules before the trial begins.
- Fixed practice trial (e.g., 1 minute) before the main 15-minute test session to ensure comprehension.

5. Step-by-Step Procedure:
- Participants arrive at the laboratory and are seated in an individual cubicle.
- Noise-cancelling headphones are fitted, and the sound volume is confirmed at 60 dB.
- Standardised on-screen instructions guide the participant through a 1-minute practice trial.
- The 15-minute experimental trial commences with the assigned auditory background playing continuously while stimuli appear at randomised intervals.
- The computer software automatically logs correct detections, false alarms, and reaction times in milliseconds.
- Upon completion, the headphones are removed and the participant is dismissed.

Apply the Levels of Response marking grid:

- Level 5 (9–10 marks):
- Description is clear, comprehensive, and well-structured.
- The operationalisation of both IV and DV is precise and realistic.
- Experimental design, controls, and standardisation are clearly explained.
- The procedure is described in sufficient logical detail to allow direct replication.
- Valid quantitative data collection is fully detailed.

- Level 4 (7–8 marks):
- Description is mostly clear and detailed.
- IV and DV are operationalised, though one may have minor omissions in precision.
- Design and standardisation are appropriate with good procedural detail.
- Minor details are needed for full replication.

- Level 3 (5–6 marks):
- Description is understandable but lacks depth in some areas.
- IV and DV are identified but have basic or incomplete operationalisation.
- Procedural steps are outlined but lack tight experimental controls or standardisation.

- Level 2 (3–4 marks):
- Plan is limited and lacks clarity or structure.
- IV and/or DV are vague; minimal procedural detail provided.
- Many controls are omitted, making replication difficult.

- Level 1 (1–2 marks):
- Plan is muddled, fragmented, or largely incomplete.
- Shows basic awareness of an experiment but lacks essential operational details.

- 0 marks: No creditworthy response.

Indicative content to look for:
- Independent variable (IV): Explicit operationalisation of both conditions (e.g., nature sounds vs ambient cafe sounds, specifying volume/delivery method).
- Dependent variable (DV): Clearly operationalised measure of sustained visual attention (e.g., target detections, errors, or reaction time on a specific task).
- Experimental design: Named and applied design (e.g., independent measures with random allocation or repeated measures with counterbalancing).
- Controls/Standardisation: Equipment, lighting, sound level (dB), task duration, instructions, practice phase.
- Data collection: Type of data collected (quantitative accuracy/error scores).

Note: Exclude sampling techniques and ethical guidelines from credit as specified in the rubric.

1 mark for identifying an appropriate weakness of the operationalised measure (e.g., low construct validity / conflation with mathematical ability / anxiety).
1 mark for explaining the weakness in the context of the study / explaining its effect on findings.

Example:
The operationalisation may lack validity because counting correct arithmetic problems tests a participant's mathematical competence rather than their sustained attention (1 mark). As a result, a participant who is proficient at mathematics might still achieve a high score despite being distracted by the background noise, confounding the dependent variable (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying a clear methodological weakness in the measurement/operationalisation;
1 mark for contextualised explanation showing how it affects the study/data.

Indicative content:
- Lacks construct validity / only measures mathematical skill (1);
- Arithmetic anxiety may lower scores regardless of concentration level (1);
- Task difficulty might create floor or ceiling effects (1);
- Speed of processing differs across individuals regardless of distraction (1).

Do not credit generic answers that do not link to the measure of concentration / arithmetic.

1 mark for identifying an appropriate methodological strength (e.g., high inter-observer reliability / objective quantitative data / standardised recording).
1 mark for contextualised explanation showing how it applies to this study.

Example:
A checklist with clearly operationalised categories standardises what counts as prosocial behaviour (1 mark). This allows two or more independent observers to record behaviours such as toy-sharing identically, increasing the inter-observer reliability of the data collected during free play (1 mark).

1 mark for identifying a valid methodological strength of using an operationalised checklist;
1 mark for explaining how this benefits the study in context.

Indicative content:
- Increases inter-observer reliability (1) because different observers have clear, unambiguous definitions of target actions like sharing toys or offering comfort (1);
- Yields objective quantitative tallies (1) allowing straightforward comparison between different conditions or play sessions (1);
- Reduces observer bias/subjectivity (1) because observers do not need to interpret ambiguous child actions in real time (1).

Do not credit generic statements (e.g. 'it makes the study reliable') without explanation.