2025 Edexcel IAS-Level Psychology (XPS01) 模擬試題連答案詳解

Milgram's agency theory suggests that obedience is a product of social hierarchy. Individuals operate in one of two states: the autonomous state (where they have free will and feel responsible) and the agentic state (where they act on behalf of an authority figure and feel no personal responsibility). The transition between these is called the agentic shift, triggered by a perceived legitimate authority. Binding factors and moral strain explain why they remain in this state despite discomfort.

Award up to 3 marks: 1 mark for defining the autonomous state (free will/personal responsibility) and/or the agentic state (acting as an agent of authority); 1 mark for describing the agentic shift and how it is triggered by a perceived legitimate authority figure; 1 mark for explaining the role of binding factors or moral strain (e.g., individuals feel anxiety but remain obedient because they shift responsibility to the authority figure).

Social Impact Theory (Latané, 1981) distinguishes between source and target impact. When a single speaker tries to influence a large audience, the source's impact is diffused among the many targets. This is the divisional effect, represented mathematically where the impact on each target is inversely proportional to the number of targets. Additionally, the first target added reduces the impact per person more than the hundredth target added (the power law of diminishing returns).

Award up to 4 marks: 1 mark for identifying that the audience acts as targets, resulting in a divisional effect (diffusion of impact); 1 mark for explaining that as the number (N) of targets increases, the social impact experienced by each individual target decreases; 1 mark for referencing the relevant mathematical aspect/formula of the divisional effect (e.g., Impact = f(1/N) or impact is divided by the number of targets); 1 mark for explaining the power law of diminishing returns (e.g., the difference in impact between 1 and 2 targets is much greater than the difference between 99 and 100 targets).

A comparison of SIT and RCT must highlight both similarities (both explain prejudice/discrimination between groups) and differences (the necessity of competition for resources vs mere categorization/self-esteem). SIT emphasizes social categorization, social identification, and social comparison. RCT emphasizes competition over physical or tangible resources (such as land, jobs, or status) and the role of superordinate goals in reducing prejudice.

Award up to 3 marks: 1 mark for explaining that Social Identity Theory (SIT) views group categorization and the need for self-esteem as sufficient to cause prejudice; 1 mark for explaining that Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT) requires active competition for scarce, tangible resources to cause prejudice; 1 mark for providing a clear point of comparison/contrast (e.g., SIT focuses on internal cognitive/motivational processes, whereas RCT focuses on objective, situational resource competition; or comparing their solutions).

Burger (2009) aimed to replicate Milgram's findings while meeting modern ethical standards. Two of the key safeguards were: 1. The 150-volt limit: 150 volts was identified as the 'point of no return' in Milgram's studies (where participants who went past this point almost always went to 450 volts). Stopping here spared participants the extreme distress of the final stages. 2. Intensive pre-screening: Over 30% of potential participants were excluded via clinical interviews and questionnaires to protect vulnerable individuals from psychological harm.

Award up to 4 marks (2 marks per modification described, with 1 mark for identifying the modification and 1 mark for explaining its ethical purpose/protection). For Modification 1: 1 mark for identifying the '150-volt solution' / stopping the experiment at 150 volts; 1 mark for explaining how this protected participants (e.g., prevented the intense moral strain and psychological distress associated with administering the highest voltages up to 450V). For Modification 2: 1 mark for identifying the two-stage clinical screening process (or exclusion of vulnerable individuals / presence of a clinical psychologist acting as an observer); 1 mark for explaining how this protected participants (e.g., screened out individuals with pre-existing anxiety, depression, or vulnerability, ensuring they were not exposed to potentially harmful stress).

The question requires applying situational factors that affect obedience (from Milgram’s variations) to a real-world scenario of encouraging recycling. Key situational factors are: 1. Proximity: Closer physical proximity of the authority figure increases obedience. Delivering the message in person works better than a distant broadcast or print media. 2. Legitimacy of authority: Wearing a uniform or symbol of authority increases perceived legitimacy, which enhances obedience. 3. Location/Status: Prestigious settings (like Yale vs. a run-down office) increase obedience. Hosting the events at formal municipal buildings enhances compliance.

Award up to 4 marks for application of situational factors to the scenario: 1 mark for applying proximity (e.g., suggesting the leader speaks to residents in person/door-to-door rather than via printed mail, as closer proximity increases obedience); 1 mark for applying legitimacy of authority (e.g., suggesting the leader wears a uniform, council badge, or official sash to indicate legitimate authority, increasing compliance); 1 mark for applying location/status (e.g., holding the community meeting at a high-status location like the council chambers or town hall to give the message greater institutional authority); 1 mark for directly linking these situational factors to the target behavior of increasing recycling rates among the residents.

### Indicative Content

#### AO1 (4 marks): Knowledge and Understanding
- **Social Impact Theory** proposes that the amount of influence (social impact) a source has on a target depends on three social forces: **Strength**, **Immediacy**, and **Number**.
- **Strength ($S$):** Refers to the status, authority, or credibility of the source. For example, a person in a uniform has more strength than someone in civilian clothing.
- **Immediacy ($I$):** Refers to the physical or psychological proximity of the source to the target at the time of the pressure (e.g., how close they are in space or time).
- **Number ($N$):** Refers to how many sources are exerting the influence relative to the targets.
- The theory suggests a mathematical relationship: $\text{Impact} = f(S \times I \times N)$. It also incorporates the **law of diminishing returns** (the first source has the most impact, and subsequent sources have progressively less additional impact) and the **divisional effect** (if social impact is directed at many targets, the impact on each individual target is diluted).

#### AO3 (4 marks): Evaluation
- **Strength (Supporting Evidence):** The theory is supported by field research, such as **Sedikides and Jackson (1990)** in a zoo study. They found that visitors were significantly more compliant when the authority figure wore a uniform (Strength), was physically present in the same room (Immediacy), and when the visitors were in smaller groups (divisional effect of Number). This increases the ecological validity of the theory.
- **Strength (Application to Milgram):** Milgram's variation studies support the theory. When the experimenter gave instructions over the phone rather than face-to-face, obedience fell from 65% to 22.5%. This demonstrates the critical role of physical distance/immediacy as predicted by Latané.
- **Weakness (Static/Mechanistic view):** Social Impact Theory is criticized for being too mechanistic and treating targets as passive recipients of social forces. It fails to explain the active cognitive processes involved in deciding whether to obey, unlike Milgram's **Agency Theory**, which describes the cognitive shift between autonomous and agentic states.
- **Weakness (Individual Differences):** The theory acts as a set of mathematical rules but does not account for individual differences, such as personality traits (e.g., locus of control or the authoritarian personality). Some individuals will resist authority regardless of the strength, immediacy, or number of sources, which the theory cannot easily predict or explain.

### Marking Grid

| Level | Marks | Descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| **Level 4** | 7–8 | • Demonstrates precise and detailed psychological knowledge and understanding of Social Impact Theory (AO1).
• Offers a well-developed, highly logical, and balanced evaluation of the theory, drawing a well-supported conclusion based on evidence (AO3). |
| **Level 3** | 5–6 | • Demonstrates mostly accurate psychological knowledge and understanding of Social Impact Theory (AO1).
• Offers an evaluation that is mostly developed, showing some logical structure and referencing relevant evidence (AO3). |
| **Level 2** | 3–4 | • Demonstrates some relevant psychological knowledge and understanding, but with some omissions or inaccuracies (AO1).
• Offers a limited evaluation that may be one-sided or lack detail/focus on the question (AO3). |
| **Level 1** | 1–2 | • Demonstrates basic or isolated knowledge of Social Impact Theory (AO1).
• Offers a superficial or descriptive evaluation with little or no application of evidence (AO3). |
| **Level 0** | 0 | • No rewardable material. |

According to the Working Memory Model, working memory consists of different sub-components with limited capacity that can work independently. The task of listening to and learning spoken foreign words processed through the phonological loop (specifically the phonological store and articulatory control system). Simultaneously, completing a visual jigsaw puzzle is processed by the visuospatial sketchpad (visual cache and inner scribe). Because these two tasks use different slave systems, they do not compete for the same limited attentional resources, allowing Elena to perform both tasks successfully without cognitive interference.

Up to 3 marks are available for the explanation:
- 1 mark for identifying that the tasks use different slave systems/components of the Working Memory Model.
- 1 mark for linking the spoken foreign words task to the Phonological Loop.
- 1 mark for linking the visual puzzle task to the Visuospatial Sketchpad, noting that there is no competition/interference between the systems.

Schemas are mental frameworks of knowledge and expectations developed from prior experience. When the British students are exposed to an unfamiliar Native American folk tale, their existing cultural schemas will influence how they encode and retrieve the information. During recall, they will reconstruct the story (reconstructive memory) to make it make sense within their own cultural framework. This leads to rationalisation, where unusual or unfamiliar details are changed to more familiar ones (e.g., replacing 'hunting seals' with 'fishing'), and levelling, where unfamiliar details are omitted entirely.

Up to 3 marks are available for the description:
- 1 mark for explaining that schemas are pre-existing mental frameworks used to make sense of new information.
- 1 mark for describing how the students will reconstruct or alter details of the story to fit their own cultural expectations (rationalisation).
- 1 mark for giving a specific example of how this occurs (e.g., omitting unfamiliar details/levelling, or substituting unfamiliar words with familiar ones).

The Multi-Store Model (MSM) proposes that memory is divided into distinct, unitary, and sequential stores: Sensory Memory, Short-Term Memory (STM), and Long-Term Memory (LTM). Patient G.R.'s ability to recall childhood memories shows that their existing LTM store is intact. However, their inability to form new LTMs suggests a failure in the transfer mechanism (rehearsal and consolidation) from STM to LTM due to hippocampal damage. This clear separation of functioning provides strong physiological evidence that STM and LTM are separate and independent systems, as predicted by the MSM.

Up to 3 marks are available for the explanation:
- 1 mark for stating that the Multi-Store Model claims STM and LTM are separate, distinct, and independent memory stores.
- 1 mark for explaining that G.R.'s intact past memories alongside an inability to form new ones shows a specific disruption in the transfer process from STM to LTM.
- 1 mark for concluding how this dissociation directly supports the model's structure of distinct cognitive memory stores.

To find the percentage increase: 1. Find the difference between the two means: \(15.4 - 11.2 = 4.2\). 2. Divide the difference by the original value (Group A): \(4.2 / 11.2 = 0.375\). 3. Multiply by 100 to get the percentage: \(0.375 \times 100 = 37.5\%\).

Award 1 mark for showing correct working: \((15.4 - 11.2) / 11.2 \times 100\) (or equivalent). Award 0.67 marks for the correct final answer of 37.5% (accept 37.5).

1. Write the initial ratio of Condition 3 to Condition 2: \(51:78\). 2. Simplify the ratio by dividing both sides by their greatest common divisor, which is 3. \(51 / 3 = 17\) and \(78 / 3 = 26\). This gives \(17:26\).

Award 1 mark for identifying the correct initial ratio of \(51:78\) (or equivalent, e.g. \(51/78\)). Award 0.67 marks for simplifying the ratio to \(17:26\).

1. Put the data in numerical order: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. 2. Since there is an even number of scores (10), find the mean of the two middle scores (the 5th and 6th scores, which are 7 and 8): \((7 + 8) / 2 = 7.5\).

Award 1 mark for ordering the dataset correctly: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. Award 0.67 marks for the correct calculation of the median as 7.5.

AO1 (4 marks): The Working Memory Model (WMM) suggests that short-term memory is an active processor rather than a single unitary store. It consists of the Central Executive, which has a supervisory role, monitors incoming data, makes decisions, and allocates slave systems to cognitive tasks. The Phonological Loop deals with auditory and verbal information and is subdivided into the phonological store (inner ear) and the articulatory control process (inner voice). The Visuo-spatial Sketchpad handles visual and spatial information, split into the visual cache (form and colour) and the inner scribe (spatial relations). The Episodic Buffer, added in 2000, acts as a temporary general store that integrates information from the other components and links working memory to long-term memory. AO3 (4 marks): A key strength of the WMM is the support from dual-task studies (e.g., Baddeley and Hitch, 1976), which demonstrate that participants can perform two tasks simultaneously if they use different slave systems (e.g., verbal and visual), but performance drops when both tasks require the same system. This supports the existence of separate, limited-capacity processors, showing high experimental validity and usefulness. Neuropsychological evidence also supports the model; for instance, patient KF suffered brain damage that impaired his verbal short-term memory but left his visual memory intact, supporting the distinction between the phonological loop and the visuo-spatial sketchpad. However, a major limitation is that the Central Executive is too vague and its exact function is difficult to isolate and test, meaning the most important component of the model is the least understood. Furthermore, the model primarily focuses on temporary processing in short-term memory and does not fully explain how information is transferred to and from long-term memory over extended periods. In conclusion, while the WMM is highly useful for demonstrating that short-term memory is active and multi-component rather than passive and unitary, its overall explanatory power is somewhat limited by the lack of clear detail regarding the central executive.

Levels-based marking scheme: Level 1 (1-2 marks): Demonstrates isolated elements of knowledge and understanding of the WMM (AO1). Evaluation is generic or absent, showing little understanding of its usefulness (AO3). Level 2 (3-4 marks): Demonstrates some accurate knowledge and understanding of the WMM (AO1). Provides limited assessment of its usefulness with some relevant points, but lacks structure (AO3). Level 3 (5-6 marks): Demonstrates mostly accurate and detailed knowledge and understanding of the WMM (AO1). Evaluates the usefulness of the model using relevant evidence (e.g., dual-task studies, KF case study) with logical, developed arguments (AO3). Level 4 (7-8 marks): Demonstrates precise, highly accurate, and comprehensive knowledge of the WMM (AO1). Offers a sophisticated, balanced, and logical assessment of its usefulness, addressing both strengths and limitations, and reaches a coherent conclusion (AO3).

AO1 (6 marks): Baddeley's (1966b) study aimed to investigate if long-term memory (LTM) is encoded acoustically or semantically. The sample consisted of 72 male and female participants from a research unit database. Participants were split into four independent groups and presented with lists of ten words: List A (acoustically similar), List B (acoustically dissimilar), List C (semantically similar), and List D (semantically dissimilar). Words were projected on screen for three seconds each. To ensure that short-term memory (STM) was not used, participants completed an interference task (copying six-digit sequences) after hearing the words, across four learning trials. After a 15-minute delay filled with a distractor task, participants had to recall the word list in the correct order (Trial 5). The results showed that on Trial 5 (measuring LTM), the semantically similar list (List C) was recalled significantly worse than the semantically dissimilar list (List D), whereas acoustic similarity did not significantly affect long-term recall. Baddeley concluded that LTM encodes information semantically. AO3 (6 marks): A strength of Baddeley's study is its high reliability. Because the experiment was conducted in a laboratory with highly standardised procedures (such as exactly three seconds per slide presentation and the same duration for the interference tasks), it is easily replicable. It has been replicated successfully by other researchers, confirming the consistency of its findings regarding LTM encoding. Another strength is its internal validity. Baddeley successfully controlled for the confounding effect of STM by introducing a 15-minute distractor task and digit-copying exercises. This ensures that the final recall test was purely measuring LTM, establishing a clear cause-and-effect relationship. However, a weakness of the study is its low ecological validity. Remembering lists of ten disconnected words is an artificial task that does not represent how memory is used in everyday life, where we typically remember meaningful narratives, schemas, and contexts. Additionally, the generalisability of the sample is limited. The 72 participants were volunteers recruited from a specialised Applied Psychology Research Unit in Cambridge, meaning they might have higher academic motivation or specific cognitive skills compared to the general public. Finally, the study has excellent practical applications. Knowing that LTM relies on semantic encoding helps students improve their revision strategies by focusing on the meaning of information (e.g., using mind maps and elaborative rehearsal) rather than rote acoustic repetition.

Detailed marking criteria for the 12-mark essay: AO1 (6 marks) and AO3 (6 marks). Level 4 (10-12 marks): Precise and comprehensive knowledge of Baddeley (1966b) (aim, procedure, findings, conclusion). Evaluation is sophisticated, balanced, and thoroughly explained, showing an outstanding understanding of methodological issues (validity, reliability, generalisability, applications) leading to a logical conclusion. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Mostly accurate and detailed knowledge of the study. Evaluation is clear and structured, though some points may lack depth or balance. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Basic description of the study with some gaps. Evaluation points are present but may be superficial or lack clear explanation. Level 1 (1-3 marks): Limited or isolated knowledge of the study. Minimal or no evaluation. Reject answers that confuse Baddeley's STM study with his LTM study, or those that focus purely on STM results without addressing the LTM aspects of the 1966b study.

To obtain full marks (2.75 marks):
- **1 mark** for describing the arrival of the action potential and subsequent release of neurotransmitters from synaptic vesicles into the synaptic cleft.
- **1 mark** for describing the diffusion of neurotransmitters across the synaptic gap.
- **0.75 marks** for explaining that these neurotransmitters bind to specific/complementary receptor sites on the postsynaptic membrane.

- **1 mark** for stating that the action potential triggers the release of neurotransmitters from vesicles in the presynaptic neuron.
- **1 mark** for stating that neurotransmitters diffuse across the synaptic cleft (gap).
- **0.75 marks** for stating that they bind to specific receptors on the postsynaptic membrane.

**Accept:** descriptions using terms like 'synaptic gap' or 'postsynaptic dendrite'.
**Reject:** answers that confuse presynaptic and postsynaptic membranes or describe hormone release instead of neurotransmitters.

To obtain full marks (2.75 marks):
- **1 mark** for explaining resource competition/mate acquisition (e.g., aggressive males were better able to defend resources and compete with rivals to secure females).
- **1 mark** for explaining how aggression led to survival/reproductive advantages (e.g., aggressive individuals were more likely to survive and reproduce).
- **0.75 marks** for explaining genetic transmission (e.g., the genes/traits for physical aggression were passed on to offspring over generations).

- **1 mark** for identifying the evolutionary pressure of mate or resource competition (e.g., 'Aggression was necessary for defending mates or territory').
- **1 mark** for linking this behavior to enhanced survival and reproductive success (e.g., 'Those who were successful in fights survived and reproduced').
- **0.75 marks** for describing the inheritance of these aggressive traits (e.g., 'The genes for aggression are passed to the next generation').

**Accept:** references to intrasexual selection and protection of offspring.
**Reject:** general descriptions of learning or environmental reinforcement (must be biological/evolutionary).

To obtain full marks (2.75 marks):
- **1 mark** for explaining physical aggression findings (e.g., Brendgen et al. found a higher concordance/correlation for physical aggression in MZ twins than in DZ twins, pointing to a strong genetic influence).
- **1 mark** for explaining social aggression findings (e.g., correlations for social aggression were similar for both MZ and DZ twins, suggesting it is mostly environmental).
- **0.75 marks** for concluding how this distinguishes the two behaviors (e.g., physical aggression is pre-programmed biologically while social aggression is learned/modeled from the social environment).

- **1 mark** for describing the physical aggression results (MZ correlation was higher than DZ correlation, showing genetic influence).
- **1 mark** for describing the social aggression results (MZ and DZ correlations were similar/overlapping, showing environmental influence).
- **0.75 marks** for synthesizing these findings into a clear contrast (e.g., physical aggression is biologically driven whereas social aggression is shaped by the environment).

**Accept:** references to specific correlation coefficients if accurate, though not strictly required.
**Reject:** descriptions that confuse the results of physical and social aggression or confuse MZ and DZ twins.

To obtain full marks (2.75 marks):
- **1 mark** for defining the regulatory role of the prefrontal cortex (e.g., it is responsible for self-control and inhibiting impulsive/aggressive urges).
- **1 mark** for describing the consequences of prefrontal deficit (e.g., reduced activity leads to a loss of control over amygdala-driven emotions, resulting in outbursts).
- **0.75 marks** for linking this directly to the results of Raine et al. (1997) (e.g., murderers had reduced glucose metabolism/activity in the prefrontal cortex compared to non-murderers).

- **1 mark** for identifying the prefrontal cortex's function in controlling impulses and regulating aggression.
- **1 mark** for explaining how a deficit in this area reduces emotional regulation and increases the likelihood of violence.
- **0.75 marks** for connecting to Raine et al. (1997) finding lower activity/metabolic rates in the prefrontal cortex of murderers.

**Accept:** descriptions of executive dysfunction or lack of fear/empathy regulation if linked to the prefrontal cortex.
**Reject:** descriptions of other brain areas (e.g., amygdala) unless directly linked to how the prefrontal cortex regulates them.

To determine statistical significance for a Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test, the calculated \(T\) value must be less than or equal to the critical table value. In this scenario: 1. Dr. Ivanov's calculated \(T\) value is 7. 2. The critical value for \(N = 10\) at \(p \le 0.05\) (two-tailed) is 8. 3. Since \(7 \le 8\), the calculated value is less than or equal to the critical value. Therefore, the result is statistically significant, meaning the null hypothesis can be rejected and the alternative hypothesis can be accepted.

Award 1 mark for stating that the result is statistically significant because the calculated value is less than the critical value. Award 1 mark for explaining the decision rule for the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test (calculated value must be equal to or less than the critical value).

1. Identify the calculated \(r_s\) value: 0.482. 2. Identify the critical value for a directional (one-tailed) test with \(N=15\) at \(p \le 0.05\): 0.443. 3. Compare the values using the Spearman's rank significance rule (calculated value must be equal to or greater than the critical value). Since \(0.482 \ge 0.443\), the correlation is statistically significant, and the researcher can accept their directional hypothesis.

Award 1 mark for stating that the researcher can accept their directional hypothesis because the calculated value is greater than the critical value. Award 1 mark for explaining the decision rule for a Spearman's rank correlation test (calculated value must be equal to or greater than the critical value).

1. Identify the measure of dispersion: Standard Deviation is explicitly mentioned in the scenario as 1.1 and 0.8 hours. 2. Explain bar chart appropriateness: Bar charts are suitable for plotting discrete categories on the x-axis (such as urban and rural environments) and continuous interval/ratio scale data on the y-axis (such as mean sleep duration in hours). This visual representation allows for a direct comparison of the mean sleep duration across separate groups.

Award 1 mark for correctly identifying the measure of dispersion as standard deviation. Award 1 mark for explaining that the independent variable consists of discrete/nominal categories (urban vs. rural). Award 1 mark for explaining that a bar chart allows for a clear comparison of continuous dependent variable data (mean sleep duration) across independent conditions.

Up to three marks are awarded for explaining the strength. 1 mark for identifying a strength (e.g., high ecological validity/accuracy of peer observations). 1 mark for linking this to Brendgen et al.'s study (e.g., peers are in the classroom and playground daily where these aggressive behaviors naturally occur). 1 mark for explaining why this is a benefit (e.g., results in a more valid measure of aggression than brief laboratory observations or self-reports).

3 marks total. Award 1 mark for identifying the strength of peer rating. Award 1 mark for applying it to the context of Brendgen et al. (2005). Award 1 mark for explaining why this increases validity/reliability. Acceptable answers include: High validity of observation, reduced researcher bias. Do not accept generic answers that do not apply to the context of child aggression or peer ratings.

Up to three marks are awarded for explaining the strength of the CPT. 1 mark for identifying standardisation/control as a strength. 1 mark for explaining the role of the CPT in the study (e.g., both groups completed the same attention task starting before the FDG injection). 1 mark for explaining why this is a benefit (e.g., ensures that differences in brain activity/glucose metabolism are not due to differences in cognitive focus during scanning).

3 marks total. Award 1 mark for identifying the strength (control/standardisation/internal validity). Award 1 mark for linking to the procedure of Raine et al. (1997) (the 32-minute CPT/FDG injection). Award 1 mark for explaining how this improves internal validity by ruling out confounding variables of different cognitive states.

Up to three marks are awarded for explaining the ethical concern. 1 mark for identifying the ethical issue (e.g., protection from harm/negative social impact/labeling). 1 mark for explaining how it occurred in Brendgen et al.'s peer-nomination task (e.g., children had to select peers who 'get into fights' or 'tell mean secrets'). 1 mark for explaining the negative consequence (e.g., this could lead to bullying, damaged friendships, or lower self-esteem, which violates the duty to protect participants from harm).

3 marks total. Award 1 mark for identifying the ethical issue (protection from psychological harm/labeling). Award 1 mark for applying it to the peer-rating task in the study. Award 1 mark for explaining the negative consequence for the participants (e.g., social isolation, lowered self-esteem).

AO1: Testosterone is an androgen hormone associated with competitiveness, dominance, and physical aggression in both animals and humans. The brain's limbic system, particularly the amygdala, is responsible for processing emotional triggers and initiating aggressive, fight-or-flight responses. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is responsible for executive control and regulating these emotional impulses, inhibiting aggressive behavior when functioning normally. AO2: Marcus's new dietary supplement may have artificially elevated his testosterone levels, explaining his sudden increase in physical fights with opponents during hockey matches. This hormonal surge primes Marcus to respond more dominantly and aggressively to challenges on the ice. Additionally, during high-stress matches, Marcus's amygdala may be highly active, triggering aggressive impulses. If his prefrontal cortex is failing to adequately regulate this amygdala activity, he will struggle to control his anger, leading him to lose his temper with teammates and engage in impulsive physical confrontations.

This essay is marked out of 8, split equally between AO1 (4 marks) and AO2 (4 marks). Level 1 (1-2 marks): Demonstrates isolated elements of biological knowledge. Application to Marcus is minimal or absent. Level 2 (3-4 marks): Demonstrates some accurate biological knowledge (e.g., mentions testosterone or brain parts) with basic, superficial application to Marcus's hockey context. Level 3 (5-6 marks): Demonstrates good biological knowledge of hormones and/or brain functioning. Application is clear and consistently applied to Marcus's fights, supplement use, or training. Level 4 (7-8 marks): Demonstrates accurate, comprehensive, and well-structured biological knowledge of both hormones and brain functioning. Application to Marcus is detailed, sophisticated, and fully integrated throughout the response.

Vicarious reinforcement is a key component of Bandura's Social Learning Theory. It refers to a learning process where an individual learns by observing the consequences of another person's (the model's) behaviour. If the model is observed receiving a reward or positive reinforcement for their action, the observer is significantly more likely to reproduce or imitate that specific behaviour in the future.

Award 1 mark for stating that it involves observing a model being rewarded/reinforced for their behaviour. Award 1 mark for explaining that this observation increases the likelihood of the observer reproducing or imitating that behaviour. Do not accept explanations of direct reinforcement where the observer themselves is rewarded.

According to Piaget's theory of cognitive development, egocentrism occurs during the pre-operational stage (around ages 2 to 7). It is the child's cognitive inability to perceive a situation or physical space from any perspective other than their own. The child assumes that other people experience, see, and think about the world in exactly the same way they currently do.

Award 1 mark for identifying that egocentrism is the inability to see, understand, or take another person's perspective or point of view. Award 1 mark for explaining that the child assumes others share their exact viewpoint or perceptions (or for referencing a valid example, such as the child assuming a person on the other side of a mountain model sees the same view they do in the Three Mountains Task). Do not accept definitions of general social selfishness.

In classical conditioning, extinction and spontaneous recovery are related to the strength of the learned association. Extinction occurs when the conditioned stimulus (CS) is repeatedly presented without the unconditioned stimulus (UCS). Without the reinforcement of the UCS, the learned association weakens, and the conditioned response (CR) eventually disappears. Spontaneous recovery occurs after a rest period following extinction. If the conditioned stimulus (CS) is presented again, the previously extinguished conditioned response (CR) can suddenly and temporarily reappear, showing the association was not completely erased.

Award 1 mark for explaining that extinction is caused by presenting the CS without the UCS. Award 1 mark for explaining that extinction results in the reduction or disappearance of the CR. Award 1 mark for explaining spontaneous recovery as the sudden reappearance of the CR after extinction and a delay or rest period has occurred.

One strength of naturalistic observation in this study is that it has high ecological validity. Since the children are being observed during their normal break times, they are in their natural environment and are likely to act naturally, without the demand characteristics of an artificial laboratory setting. This means that any increase in polite behaviors observed is genuine, allowing the researcher to accurately conclude that the token economy is effective in real-life school settings.

Award 1 mark for identifying high ecological validity or natural behavior as a strength. Award 1 mark for applying this to the context of children during break times or polite behavior. Award 1 mark for explaining why this is a strength (e.g., results can be generalized to real-world classroom settings).

To use event sampling, the researcher would first create a clear list of target behaviors, such as hitting a toy, kicking, or shouting. The researcher would then watch the children during the observation period and record a tally on their sheet every single time one of these predefined aggressive behaviors occurs. At the end of the session, the tallies are added up to provide a total frequency score for each aggressive behavior.

Award 1 mark for establishing clear target behaviors/categories of aggression. Award 1 mark for explaining the process of recording/tallying every single time the behavior occurs. Award 1 mark for linking the process to obtaining a final frequency count or applying it specifically to the children's aggressive behavior.

A weakness of using a correlational design for this study is that it cannot establish a cause-and-effect relationship between playing violent video games and school aggression. It only shows that a relationship exists, but does not prove that video games cause aggression. A third variable, such as a child's home environment or natural temperament, could be influencing both variables, making it impossible to determine the true cause of the aggressive behavior.

Award 1 mark for identifying that correlation cannot establish cause-and-effect. Award 1 mark for applying this limitation to the context of violent video games and school aggression. Award 1 mark for explaining the issue of confounding/third variables that could explain the relationship.

One ethical issue is the use of deprivation, such as withholding food to motivate rats to press a lever for food reinforcement. This causes physical distress and hunger to the animals, which potentially violates the ethical guideline of minimizing pain and suffering. Researchers must balance the scientific value of the operant conditioning findings against the level of discomfort caused to the animals, ensuring deprivation is kept to the absolute minimum necessary.

Award 1 mark for identifying an ethical issue (e.g., distress, harm, deprivation). Award 1 mark for explaining how this issue arises in operant conditioning research (e.g., using food deprivation to ensure reinforcement works). Award 1 mark for explaining how the researcher must address this issue in line with ethical guidelines (e.g., minimizing suffering or finding alternative motivators).

To standardize the procedure, the researcher must keep all environmental and stimulus conditions identical for every trial. Firstly, they must use the exact same buzzer sounding at the same frequency, volume, and duration. Secondly, they must ensure the timing of the pairing is completely consistent, such as presenting the food exactly one second after the buzzer begins. Finally, they must conduct all trials in the same controlled room with identical lighting and temperature to prevent extraneous variables from influencing the dogs.

Award 1 mark for describing standardizing the stimulus properties (e.g., buzzer volume, duration). Award 1 mark for describing standardizing the temporal pairing of stimuli (e.g., exact timing between buzzer and food). Award 1 mark for describing standardizing environmental conditions (e.g., keeping the room, lighting, and temperature consistent).

To calculate the percentage increase: 1. Find the absolute increase: \(43 - 18 = 25\). 2. Divide the increase by the original value: \(\frac{25}{18} \approx 1.38888...\). 3. Convert to a percentage by multiplying by 100: \(1.38888... \times 100 = 138.888...\%\). 4. Rounding to two decimal places gives \(138.89\%\).

1.33 marks total: 0.67 marks for the correct working showing the calculation method: \(\frac{43-18}{18} \times 100\) (or equivalent). 0.66 marks for the correct calculation of \(138.89\%\) (accept \(138.89\) with or without the percentage sign).

The 'Three Rs' of ethical animal research are Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement. By completely substituting the use of live animals with a computer simulation, the researcher is adhering to the principle of Replacement.

1.33 marks total: 1.33 marks for identifying 'Replacement' (also accept 'Replace'). Do not accept 'Reduction' or 'Refinement'.

To find the median: 1. Arrange the data in ascending order: \(7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18\). 2. Find the middle value. Since there are 7 data points, the median is the 4th value, which is 12.

1.33 marks total: 0.67 marks for ordering the data correctly: \(7, 9, 11, 12, 14, 15, 18\). 0.66 marks for the correct median value: 12.

Candidates should demonstrate a balanced evaluation of systematic desensitisation (SD) as a treatment for phobias, combining descriptive knowledge (AO1) with evaluative points (AO3).

**Knowledge and Understanding (AO1):**
- Based on classical conditioning / counterconditioning, designed to replace the fear response with a relaxation response.
- Reciprocal inhibition: fear and relaxation cannot coexist.
- Anxiety hierarchy: ordered list of phobic situations from least to most anxiety-provoking.
- Relaxation training: breathing exercises, mental imagery, or progressive muscle relaxation.
- Gradual exposure: client is exposed to the hierarchy levels in vivo (real life) or in vitro (imagined) while maintaining relaxation.

**Evaluation (AO3):**
- **Strength:** Research support (e.g., McGrath et al., 1990; Gilroy et al., 2003) shows significant reduction in phobia symptoms compared to control groups.
- **Strength:** Preferred by patients because it involves lower trauma and anxiety compared to flooding, leading to higher completion rates.
- **Weakness:** It requires motivation and commitment over several sessions, making it less time-efficient than flooding.
- **Weakness:** Does not address underlying cognitive or emotional causes (as argued by psychodynamic theorists), which could result in symptom substitution.

**AO1 (4 marks), AO3 (4 marks)**

- **7–8 marks (Level 4):** Demonstrates accurate and thorough knowledge and understanding of systematic desensitisation (AO1). Demonstrates a logical, well-developed, and balanced evaluation of SD as a treatment, supported by relevant psychological evidence/arguments (AO3).
- **5–6 marks (Level 3):** Demonstrates mostly accurate knowledge and understanding (AO1). Evaluation is developed and shows some balance, with some logical lines of reasoning (AO3).
- **3–4 marks (Level 2):** Demonstrates basic or limited knowledge and understanding of SD (AO1). Evaluation points are present but may be superficial, one-sided, or lack development (AO3).
- **1–2 marks (Level 1):** Demonstrates isolated or minimal knowledge of SD (AO1). Evaluation is absent or highly limited with little to no psychological justification (AO3).
- **0 marks:** No rewardable material.

AO1 Knowledge and Understanding: Brendgen et al. (2005) aimed to investigate the genetic and environmental influences on physical and social aggression using 234 twin pairs (94 MZ and 140 DZ) from the Montreal Twin Study. Data was collected at age 6 using teacher ratings (via questionnaires like the Preschool Social Behaviour Scale) and peer ratings (via a photo-nomination task where classmates selected pictures of children matching specific aggressive descriptions). Results showed physical aggression had a strong genetic component (with higher concordance in MZ twins), whereas social aggression was largely explained by shared environmental factors. AO3 Evaluation: Generalisability: The sample of 234 twin pairs is substantial but restricted to French-Canadian families in Montreal, which may limit generalisability to other cultural contexts or different age groups. Reliability: There was strong inter-rater reliability, with significant agreement between teacher and peer ratings of aggression. Standardised scales and photo-nomination procedures ensure the study can be easily replicated. Validity: Using both teachers and peers reduced potential bias of a single source, increasing concurrent validity. However, the equal environments assumption of twin studies may be violated if MZ twins are treated more similarly by parents than DZ twins. Ethics: Parental consent was obtained, but peer-nomination tasks could potentially cause distress or lead to peer rejection, raising ethical questions regarding protection from harm. Application: Recognising that social aggression is heavily influenced by environmental factors suggests that school-based intervention programmes can successfully reduce bullying by targeting peer dynamics.

Marks are awarded for both AO1 (6 marks) and AO3 (6 marks). Levels-based marking criteria: Level 1 (1-3 marks): Demonstrates isolated elements of knowledge and understanding of Brendgen et al. (2005) with generic evaluation lacking focus. Level 2 (4-6 marks): Demonstrates some accurate knowledge and understanding with partially developed evaluation points. Level 3 (7-9 marks): Demonstrates mostly accurate and detailed knowledge of the study, with well-developed evaluation points and logical structure. Level 4 (10-12 marks): Demonstrates precise and comprehensive knowledge of the study, offering a sophisticated, balanced, and coherent evaluation with a strong conclusion.

**Exemplar Response:**

**Biological Explanations & Treatments:**
Biological psychology suggests Frederik’s phobia may stem from evolutionary preparedness. Seligman (1971) argued that humans are genetically predisposed to rapidly associate fear with ancient survival threats (such as predators or wild dogs). From a physiological perspective, Frederik's immediate responses—his sweating and spiking heart rate—are driven by the activation of the sympathetic division of his autonomic nervous system (ANS) and the release of adrenaline, initiating a fight-or-flight response. To treat his phobia biologically, drug therapies such as beta-blockers could be used. These drugs work by blocking beta-receptors, preventing adrenaline from binding to them. This directly suppresses his physical arousal (slowing his heart rate and stopping sweating), helping him remain physiologically calm in the presence of dogs.

**Learning Theory Explanations & Treatments:**
Learning theories explain Frederik's phobia through Mowrer’s (1960) Two-Process Model. Frederik likely acquired the phobia through classical conditioning, where a neutral stimulus (dogs) was paired with an unconditioned stimulus that caused fear or pain (such as being bitten or startled as a child), turning the dog into a conditioned stimulus that elicits a conditioned response of fear. His phobia is maintained through operant conditioning: when Frederik immediately runs away, he experiences negative reinforcement. By escaping the dog, his unpleasant anxiety is removed, which reinforces his avoidance behaviour and prevents the extinction of his conditioned fear. To treat Frederik, learning theories suggest systematic desensitisation (SD). Frederik would work with a therapist to construct a hierarchy of fear (ranging from looking at a cartoon dog to holding a dog) and learn deep relaxation techniques. Due to reciprocal inhibition, he cannot feel anxious and relaxed simultaneously. Alternatively, flooding could be used, exposing Frederik immediately to a real dog for an extended period until his physical panic response is exhausted and extinction occurs.

**Evaluation of Explanations and Treatments:**
While biological explanations account for the automatic nature of Frederik's physiological responses, they are reductionist as they ignore cognitive appraisals and environmental experiences. Conversely, Mowrer's model provides a clear, testable explanation of both acquisition and maintenance, supported by Watson and Rayner's (1920) 'Little Albert' study. However, learning theory struggles to explain why some individuals develop phobias of dogs without ever having a negative encounter, which highlights the strength of evolutionary theories of preparedness.

In terms of treatments, drug therapy is highly effective for rapid symptom reduction, allowing Frederik to function in the short term. However, drugs do not cure the underlying cause of his fear, leading to high relapse rates once medication ceases, and they carry potential side effects like lethargy. In contrast, systematic desensitisation is a preferred long-term treatment as it addresses the learned association and has lower attrition (dropout) rates than flooding because it is gentler and gives Frederik control. However, SD requires significant time, motivation, and active effort. Flooding is much faster and cheaper, but the intense stress can lead to high dropout rates, which risk worsening Frederik's phobia through spontaneous recovery and sensitization if the session is terminated prematurely.

**Marking Scheme (16 Marks Total: AO1 = 6, AO2 = 4, AO3 = 6)**

| Level | Marks | Descriptor |
|---|---|---|
| **Level 4** | **13–16** | • Demonstrates precise and comprehensive psychological knowledge of both biological and learning explanations/treatments (AO1).
• Applies these theories to Frederik's scenario with sustained accuracy and integration throughout (AO2).
• Evaluation of explanations and treatments is highly critical, well-structured, and leads to a balanced, logical conclusion (AO3). |
| **Level 3** | **9–12** | • Demonstrates mostly accurate and detailed knowledge of biological and learning theories/treatments (AO1).
• Applies concepts to Frederik consistently, though some areas may be more detailed than others (AO2).
• Evaluation is logical and developed, showing an understanding of strengths and limitations of both approaches (AO3). |
| **Level 2** | **5–8** | • Demonstrates some relevant knowledge of biological and/or learning concepts (AO1).
• Makes basic attempts to apply concepts to Frederik, though this may be superficial or disjointed (AO2).
• Evaluation is present but limited, with unbalanced or underdeveloped arguments (AO3). |
| **Level 1** | **1–4** | • Demonstrates isolated elements of knowledge, which may be inaccurate or incomplete (AO1).
• Little or no application to Frederik's scenario (AO2).
• Evaluation is superficial, assertion-based, or absent (AO3). |
| **0** | **0** | No rewardable material. |

**Indicative Content:**

**AO1 (Knowledge and Understanding):**
- Biological explanations include evolutionary preparedness (Seligman) and ANS activation (fight-or-flight response).
- Biological treatments include drug therapy (e.g., beta-blockers) to target physical arousal.
- Learning theory explanations include classical conditioning (acquisition of fear via association) and operant conditioning (maintenance of fear via negative reinforcement/avoidance).
- Learning treatments include systematic desensitisation (SD) (fear hierarchy, relaxation, reciprocal inhibition) and flooding (immediate exposure and extinction).

**AO2 (Application):**
- Frederik's sweating/heart rate spikes are physiological symptoms of fight-or-flight.
- Frederik's avoidance (running away) is a negative reinforcer because it terminates his anxiety, maintaining his phobia.
- Beta-blockers would help Frederik by preventing his physical symptoms when encountering dogs.
- SD would involve Frederik gradually facing dogs, such as looking at a dog in a park from a safe distance while relaxed.

**AO3 (Analysis and Evaluation):**
- Biological explanations are reductionist as they ignore the environmental experiences that cause phobias.
- The Two-Process Model is supported by empirical evidence (e.g., Watson & Rayner) but does not explain why some traumatic experiences do not lead to phobias.
- Drug therapy is fast-acting but only manages symptoms and has a high risk of relapse.
- SD has high success and lower dropout rates than flooding, but is time-consuming. Flooding is quick but highly stressful and carries a risk of symptom reinforcement if the patient drops out early.