2025 OCR AS Level Psychology - H167 模擬試題連答案詳解

The shoppers are unaware (covert), the researcher does not join in (non-participant) and the setting is a real-life one (naturalistic). Only B fits all three features.

1 mark for B. Other options each contradict at least one feature of the scenario. No half marks.

Participants volunteer themselves in response to an advert, which is self-selected sampling. Random sampling would need every member of the population to have an equal chance of selection; opportunity sampling involves the researcher choosing available people; snowball involves participants recruiting others.

1 mark for D. No half marks.

Order the scores: 3, 4, 4, 8, 9, 12. With six scores the median is the mean of the 3rd and 4th values: \( (4 + 8) \div 2 = 6 \). 4 is the mode and 6.67 is the mean.

1 mark for A (6). Distractors: B is the mode, C is the mean (\(40 \div 6\)), D is the 4th value only.

The aim is a test of correlation between two sets of at least ordinal data, so Spearman's Rho is appropriate. Mann-Whitney (independent measures) and Wilcoxon (repeated/matched measures) test for differences; Chi-square needs nominal frequency data.

1 mark for C. No half marks.

A Type 1 error is a false positive: the null hypothesis is rejected although it is true, so a significant result is claimed that is not real. A describes a Type 2 error.

1 mark for B. No half marks.

Milgram recruited 40 men aged about 20 to 50 from a range of occupations, who volunteered in response to a newspaper advertisement and mailed invitations.

1 mark for A. No half marks.

Children were rated for their aggression by observers and teachers and then matched across conditions, so the groups were similar in baseline aggression. This is a matched participants design, in a controlled laboratory setting.

1 mark for D. No half marks.

Casey et al. scanned participants using fMRI while they completed a go/no-go task, to find which brain regions were active when resisting temptation.

1 mark for C. No half marks.

The independent variable (handedness) is a pre-existing characteristic that the researcher cannot manipulate or allocate, so the method is a quasi experiment. It is not a field experiment (the IV is not manipulated), not an observation, and not a correlation because two groups are compared rather than two co-variables.

1 mark for B only. Do not credit multiple answers.

Participants recruit or refer further participants from their own contacts, which is snowball sampling. It is useful for hard-to-reach groups.

1 mark for D only. Do not credit multiple answers.

Order the scores: 3, 4, 6, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12. With eight scores the median is the mean of the 4th and 5th values: \( (6 + 7) / 2 = 6.5 \). The value 7.1 is the mean (57/8 = 7.125) and 6 is the mode.

1 mark for B only. Do not credit multiple answers.

The test of difference is needed, the design is repeated measures (same participants in both conditions) and the data are ordinal ratings. This points to the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks test. Mann-Whitney is for independent measures, Chi-square for nominal frequency data and Spearman's Rho for correlation.

1 mark for B only. Do not credit multiple answers.

Comparing the independent judgements of two observers of the same behaviour is inter-rater reliability.

1 mark for C only. Do not credit multiple answers.

Bandura et al. found boys displayed more physical aggression than girls, while verbal aggression was similar or higher in girls. Rewards were not part of the 1961 procedure, and non-aggressive model groups showed less, not more, aggression than controls.

1 mark for D only. Do not credit multiple answers.

Giving participants a false account of the real purpose of the study (and using a confederate as the 'learner') is deception, covered under Integrity in the BPS Code.

1 mark for D only. Do not credit multiple answers.

Model answer outline.

Aim: to investigate whether there is a difference in the frequency of sharing behaviour shown by girls and boys aged 4-5 years during outdoor free play in a nursery.

Hypothesis (alternative, directional if justified by prior research, otherwise non-directional): Girls will show more sharing behaviours per observation period than boys during outdoor free play. Null: any difference is due to chance.

Method: a naturalistic, structured, overt (or covert from the children's point of view) non-participant observation in the play area, so behaviour is natural (high ecological validity) while the coding frame gives quantitative data that can be compared.

Behavioural categories (operationalised, observable, not overlapping): (1) offers a toy to another child without being asked; (2) hands over a toy when another child asks; (3) takes turns with a shared item (e.g. swaps a bike after a visible exchange); (4) non-sharing (snatching or refusing). A tally chart lists each child by code number (with sex noted) and the categories.

Sampling of behaviour: with 30 children all active at once, continuous recording of everyone is impossible. Use time sampling: observe one target child at a time for 30 seconds, then move to the next in a pre-set order, repeated over several play sessions; tally any category seen in that interval. Event sampling is an alternative (tally each sharing event across the area) but would miss who did it and be hard to count at busy moments. Time sampling gives an even spread across children and sexes.

Participants: target population is nursery children aged 4-5 years. Use an opportunity sample of children at the nursery who attend on observation days and whose parents have given consent; quick and practical, but may not be representative (one nursery, one area). Aim for similar numbers of girls and boys.

Reliability: two trained observers record independently using the same coding frame and time intervals; after a pilot session to refine the categories, their tallies for each child are correlated (inter-rater reliability; e.g. Spearman's rho, a correlation of +.80 or higher is acceptable). If low, categories are clarified and observers retrained. This reduces observer bias.

Ethics: informed consent obtained from parents/guardians (and nursery) in advance, with simple assent from children; right to withdraw for any child at any point, with their data removed; confidentiality by using code numbers rather than names and keeping notes secure; protection from harm by being non-intrusive and not interfering in play and stopping if a child becomes upset; debrief by sharing the findings with the nursery and parents. Deception is minimal as the exact focus (sharing) may be withheld from staff so they do not alter behaviour; this is explained afterwards.

Some responses may argue that observing in public-type settings reduces the need for consent; credit if justified.

AO2 (application to the scenario) and AO3 (justification/evaluation of design decisions) are assessed, with a sustained line of reasoning. Mark holistically using the levels below. Required features: aim/hypothesis; behavioural categories and sampling of behaviour; sample selection; reliability; ethics.

Level 4 (Good) 10-12 marks: A well-planned design that covers all or nearly all of the required features, in detail and consistently in the context of nursery children and sharing. Decisions are justified with clear reasons (e.g. why time sampling suits 30 children; why two observers are needed). Line of reasoning is logical, coherent and well structured. Use of practical experience is evident. 12 marks: all features thorough and justified; 11: minor gaps in justification; 10: one feature thinner.

Level 3 (Reasonable) 7-9 marks: A design covering most required features, with mostly accurate detail and reasonable application to the scenario. Some decisions are justified, but justification may be uneven or partly generic. Line of reasoning is mostly clear.

Level 2 (Limited) 4-6 marks: A partial design covering some features (about two or three), with limited detail or limited application; justification is brief or asserted. Line of reasoning is partially clear.

Level 1 (Basic) 1-3 marks: A basic response with one or two features mentioned, mostly generic and uncontextualised, with little or no justification. Line of reasoning is limited or absent.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Placing a mark within a level: start at the middle mark; move up if the response is at the top of the level descriptors for most strands and down if it is at the bottom or has a notable omission. A response missing a required feature cannot normally reach Level 4.

Indicative content (credit other appropriate suggestions): directional/non-directional hypothesis (accept null hypothesis only with an alternative); operationalised categories; coding frame/tally chart; time or event sampling with reasons; opportunity, random or other sample with strength/weakness; two observers, pilot study, inter-rater reliability correlation; consent from parents, right to withdraw, confidentiality, protection from harm, debrief; naturalistic setting giving ecological validity; observer bias and observer effects (children noticing observers); generalisability limits.

No credit: vague categories such as 'being nice'; stating a method (e.g. questionnaire) that is not an observation; simply naming ethical issues without saying how they are dealt with (limited credit only).

Time sampling means observing at pre-set, regular intervals rather than continuously. In context: decide a break-time observation period (e.g. 15 minutes) split into 30-second intervals; at the end of each interval, record whether categories such as 'shares equipment', 'takes turns' or 'helps another child' occurred; do this separately for teacher-near and teacher-absent conditions on a tally/coding sheet.

3 marks, banded:
3 = clear, detailed outline of time sampling applied to the playground context (e.g. recording cooperative behaviours at fixed intervals such as every 30 seconds, using a coding frame, for both teacher-near and no-teacher conditions).
2 = clear outline of time sampling but not applied to the context, OR an attempt in context that is not fully clear.
1 = brief or partial response (e.g. 'observing at set times').
0 = no creditworthy information.
Likely answers: observe at regular/fixed intervals; record behaviour occurring at that moment (or within the interval); use behavioural categories on a tally chart; decide interval length and total duration; observe in both conditions.
Do not credit a description of event sampling (recording every occurrence of a behaviour) as time sampling. Only the first approach described is marked if two alternatives are given. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Identify an ethical issue (e.g. no informed consent, deception, right to withdraw not offered, confidentiality of recorded behaviour, protection of participants) and link it to the playground scenario. For example: because the pupils and parents are not told, they cannot give informed consent or withdraw, and young children are particularly vulnerable.

2 marks, banded:
2 = a clear ethical issue identified and outlined in the context of the playground observation of young children.
1 = an ethical issue identified or outlined without context, or a brief/partial attempt in context.
0 = no creditworthy information.
Likely answers: informed consent not obtained from children/parents; deception (children unaware of being studied); no right to withdraw; confidentiality (names/identifiable data must be anonymised); no debrief; invasion of privacy.
Only the first issue is marked if more than one is given. Do not credit solutions alone (e.g. 'get consent') without a stated issue. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Behavioural categories must be observable and unambiguous, e.g. 'shares equipment' = a child hands a ball or skipping rope to another child or takes turns with it; 'joins game' = a child enters an existing game and is accepted without the other children leaving. Event sampling is more suitable because cooperative acts are discrete and may be brief, so each occurrence can be tallied in every break; time sampling (e.g. every 30 seconds) could miss short acts among many children. Reliability: two observers watch the same break using the same coding frame and tally independently, then their tallies are correlated or compared; a high agreement shows inter-rater reliability.

Award up to 6 marks as three strands of 2 marks.
Strand 1 (categories, 2 marks): 1 mark for each category that is observable/operationalised and relevant to cooperation. Reject vague labels such as 'plays nicely' with no description.
Strand 2 (sampling, 2 marks): 1 mark for a sampling method chosen; 1 mark for a justification linked to the context (brief discrete acts, many children, tallying). Accept time sampling if justified well (e.g. regular intervals make recording manageable for one observer). Choice without justification = 1 mark.
Strand 3 (reliability, 2 marks): 1 mark for two or more observers recording independently / using the same coding frame; 1 mark for comparing or correlating the records and judging agreement (accept a figure such as 80% or above). Test-retest alone is not credited.
Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Issue 1: The shoppers do not know they are being observed, so they cannot give informed consent and are deceived (Integrity/Respect). This could be dealt with by only recording behaviour in a public place where people expect to be seen, and by using retrospective consent or a debrief sign near the exit explaining the study and allowing data to be withdrawn. Issue 2: Shoppers' confidentiality could be breached if they could be identified. This could be dealt with by recording only tallies and general descriptions (e.g. 'adult, female'), with no names, photographs or video, and by storing the sheets securely.

Mark each issue separately (3 + 3). Only the first two issues are credited.
For each issue: 1 mark for identifying a relevant ethical issue (consent, deception, privacy, confidentiality, protection from harm/embarrassment, right to withdraw); 1 mark for outlining it in the context of the supermarket observation; 1 mark for a suitable way of dealing with it.
A way of dealing with the issue without a clear issue = maximum 1 mark. Answers that only name an issue with no context = 1 mark.
Accept use of BPS headings (Respect, Responsibility, Integrity). Do not credit 'get consent' alone for a covert study unless a workable method is given (e.g. presumptive or retrospective consent).
Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Strength: all 20 teenagers sit in the same room with the same seating, lighting and time period, so differences in phone use are less likely to be due to extraneous variables such as crowding or weather, and the study could be replicated exactly to check the findings. Weakness: the room is artificial and the volunteers know they are being filmed, so they may use their phones more or less than usual (demand characteristics), which lowers ecological validity and means the results may not apply to real bus stations.

Strength (3 marks): 1 mark for a valid strength of controlled observation (control of extraneous variables, standardisation/replicability, easier recording, higher reliability); 1 mark for elaboration; 1 mark for application to the bus station / phone use context. Clear detailed answer in context = 3; clear but not in context, or attempted in context = 2; brief or partial = 1.
Weakness (3 marks): same banding. Valid weaknesses include low ecological validity, demand characteristics/participant awareness, artificial setting, volunteer sample bias, small sample limiting generalisability.
If more than one strength or weakness is given, mark only the first of each. A strength given as a weakness (or the reverse) is not credited. A comparison that only says 'naturalistic is better' with no reasoning gains no marks.
Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Put phone use in bed (hours, 0 to 4 or 5) on the x-axis and time taken to fall asleep (minutes, 0 to 45) on the y-axis. Plot the eight points: (0.5, 12), (1.0, 18), (1.5, 15), (2.0, 25), (2.5, 22), (3.0, 34), (3.5, 30), (4.0, 41). The points rise from bottom left to top right, showing a positive correlation.

Total 4 marks.
- Plotting (2 marks): 2 marks for all 8 points plotted correctly (allow 7 correct with one slip within half a small square); 1 mark for 4 to 6 points plotted correctly; 0 marks for fewer than 4.
- Axis labels (1 mark): both axes labelled with variable name and units (hours; minutes). Accept either variable on either axis. Do not credit if only one axis is labelled or units are missing.
- Title (1 mark): a suitable title that names both variables, e.g. 'Scatter diagram showing phone use in bed and time taken to fall asleep'. Do not credit a vague title such as 'Graph of results'.
- Do not award marks for a bar chart or line graph. Axes must have an even scale. Other appropriate answers should be credited.

The scatter diagram would slope upwards from bottom left to top right with points close together, so the correlation is positive and strong. Participants with the lowest screen time (A, B, C: 20-40 min) took 12-15 minutes to fall asleep, whereas those with the highest (I, J: 120-140 min) took 38-41 minutes. Because the data are correlational, no variable was manipulated, so cause and effect cannot be concluded; the relationship could be due to an intervening variable (e.g. stress or caffeine) or the direction could be reversed (people who struggle to sleep use screens more). The small sample of ten adults also limits how far the conclusion can be generalised.

Two conclusions, each worth up to 3 marks (3+3). Mark the first two conclusions only.

Per conclusion: 3 marks = clear, detailed conclusion that is linked to the data given (e.g. quoting values or a range from the table); 2 marks = clear conclusion but not linked to the data, or attempted use of data with a lack of clarity; 1 mark = brief or partial conclusion; 0 = no creditworthy content.

Likely conclusions:
- There is a positive correlation: longer screen time goes with longer time to fall asleep (accept examples such as A 20 vs 12 min and J 140 vs 41 min).
- The correlation is strong / data points cluster closely around the line of best fit, so screen time is a good predictor of time to fall asleep.
- Correlation does not demonstrate causation; screen time may not cause the delay (third variable or reverse direction), with reference to the data.
- Those with under an hour of screen time (A-C) fell asleep in under 16 minutes; those with over two hours (I, J) took nearly 40 minutes.
- Caution that the sample is only ten adults so conclusions may not generalise.

No credit for a conclusion that states a negative or no correlation. Do not credit a conclusion that simply restates the aim. Do not credit a 'cause' conclusion unless it is stated as a limitation. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Strength: the researcher measures two naturally occurring variables, so it is quick and ethical, and no student has to be told to stop reading to see the effect. It also gives a clear measure of the direction and strength of the link (the data show a positive relationship, from 1 hour and a score of 14 to 12 hours and a score of 33), which can suggest a hypothesis for later experimental research. Weakness: because neither variable is controlled, cause and effect cannot be established. Reading may improve vocabulary, but equally students with a wide vocabulary may find reading easier and so read more, or an untested third variable (e.g. parental education) may explain both. Self-reported reading hours may also be inaccurate.

One strength (up to 3 marks) and one weakness (up to 3 marks). Credit the first strength and the first weakness only; if two strengths are given, mark the first.

Per response: 3 marks = clear, detailed point applied to the context of reading hours and vocabulary scores; 2 marks = clear point but not in context, or an attempt at context with a lack of clarity; 1 mark = brief or partial point; 0 = no creditworthy content.

Likely strengths:
- No manipulation of variables so it is ethical / avoids harm (students need not change how much they read).
- Shows the direction and strength of a relationship between two variables, which can be quantified.
- Can be used when an experiment would be impractical, and can suggest hypotheses for later experiments.
- Uses naturally occurring behaviour so can have high ecological validity.

Likely weaknesses:
- Cannot establish cause and effect (direction of cause unclear).
- Possible third/intervening variables (e.g. home background, intelligence).
- Self-reported reading hours may be inaccurate or affected by social desirability.
- Small sample of eight students limits generalisability.

Context means reference to reading, vocabulary, students or the data. Generic answers such as 'it is a good method' attract no credit. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Three criteria for Spearman's rho apply: (1) the researcher is looking for a relationship (correlation) between two variables, app hours and confidence; (2) the data are paired because each student supplies a score on both variables; (3) the confidence rating is a subjective rating scale, so it is ordinal data and does not meet the interval-level requirement for a parametric test. Spearman's rho is a non-parametric test suited to correlation with at least ordinal data.

Award 1 mark for each point, up to 3, with credit for application to the scenario:
- It is a test of correlation / the researcher is testing for a relationship or association between two variables (hours on app and confidence) [1]
- The data are paired / each participant provides a score for both variables (a repeated pair of scores from the same student) [1]
- The confidence rating is ordinal data / the rating scale is not truly equal-interval, so a parametric test is not appropriate; Spearman's rho is non-parametric and suitable for ordinal data [1]
Accept: data are at least ordinal level. Do not credit 'it is a non-parametric test' on its own, or references to difference tests, or to a one-tailed hypothesis (the hypothesis is two-tailed, and this does not determine the test). If only generic criteria are given with no link to the scenario, a maximum of 2 marks. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

(a) The researcher has retained the null hypothesis. A type 2 error would occur if there really is a relationship between daily walking time and mood, but the study failed to detect it, so the null hypothesis is wrongly retained. (b) The significance level of 0.01 is very strict. Moving to 0.05 makes it easier to obtain a significant result, which lowers the risk of a type 2 error, but increases the risk of a type 1 error (rejecting the null hypothesis when it is true).

(a) 2 marks:
- Clear explanation in context: the null hypothesis is retained / no relationship is concluded between walking time and mood, when in fact a relationship does exist in the population [2]
- Brief or uncontextualised: retaining/accepting the null hypothesis when it is false / failing to detect a real effect [1]
Accept 'false negative'. Do not credit a description of a type 1 error.
(b) 1 mark for: increase (relax) the significance level, e.g. to p ≤ 0.05, and state that this raises the likelihood of a type 1 error (both elements needed for the mark). Only the first change suggested is credited. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Step 1: find d for each pair: A 1-2 = -1, B 1, C -1, D 1, E -1, F 1, G -1, H 1. Every \( d^2 = 1 \).

Step 2: \( \sum d^2 = 8 \), \( n = 8 \).

Step 3: \( r_s = 1 - \dfrac{6 \times 8}{8(64-1)} = 1 - \dfrac{48}{504} = 1 - 0.095238 = 0.904762 \).

Step 4: round to 3 s.f.: \( 0.905 \).

3 marks:
- 1 mark: correct \( \sum d^2 = 8 \) (d or d^2 values calculated correctly).
- 1 mark: correct substitution into the formula, e.g. \( 1 - \dfrac{6 \times 8}{8 \times 63} \) (or \( 1 - 48/504 \)).
- 1 mark: correct answer rounded to 3 s.f., 0.905.

Accept 0.9048 or 0.904762 for the unrounded value, but the final mark requires 0.905. Award the rounding mark only if the value before rounding is correct. If \( \sum d^2 \) is wrong but the formula is applied correctly to it (error carried forward), award the substitution mark. Answer 0.905 with no working gets full marks. Other appropriate follow-through should be credited.

The question asks for two procedural features. Examples: the teacher was told to give increasing shocks in 15 V steps up to 450 V when the learner gave wrong answers; the experimenter used a standard sequence of verbal prods (e.g. 'The experiment requires that you continue') if the teacher hesitated.

1 mark for each correct, different feature of the procedure, up to 2 marks.
Likely answers:
- shock generator with 30 switches from 15 V to 450 V
- learner was a confederate / roles decided by a rigged draw
- experimenter gave standardised verbal prods
- learner's protests were pre-recorded / scripted
- learner mentioned a heart condition
- teacher received a 45 V sample shock
Do not credit results (e.g. 65% went to 450 V) or vague statements such as 'they gave shocks' without detail. Only the first two features are marked. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Bandura rated each child's aggression beforehand and matched them across groups. Strength: this controls for the participant variable of existing aggression. Weakness: other variables (e.g. temperament, home background) were not matched, and it required lengthy pre-observation.

Strength (up to 2 marks): 1 mark for a valid strength (e.g. reduces participant variables / individual differences; groups equivalent in baseline aggression; no order effects as each child is in only one condition); 1 further mark for development or reference to the study (e.g. so any difference in imitation is more likely due to the model).
Weakness (up to 2 marks): 1 mark for a valid weakness (e.g. cannot match on every variable; time-consuming; matching only as good as the rating used; observer judgement in ratings); 1 further mark for development or reference to the study.
Maximum 3 marks overall. Only the first strength and first weakness are credited. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Behaviourism explains behaviour through learning from the environment, e.g. operant conditioning. The Funhaler gives pleasant consequences (toy spinning, whistle) when the child inhales, reinforcing the medication-taking behaviour, so compliance rises.

3 marks: clear, detailed link to behaviourism, in context of the Funhaler (e.g. names operant conditioning/positive reinforcement and explains that the toy/whistle is a reward that makes the child more likely to repeat using the device).
2 marks: clear link to behaviourism but not in context, or an attempt in context that lacks clarity.
1 mark: brief or partial response (e.g. 'children learn through rewards').
0 marks: no creditworthy response.
Credit classical conditioning only if clearly argued. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Participants did a go/no-go task using fMRI. Low delayers had reduced activation in the right inferior frontal gyrus (part of the prefrontal cortex) when they had to withhold responses to happy faces, whereas ventral striatum activity was heightened in low delayers.

2 marks: a difference clearly outlined with the brain region identified and the direction of the difference stated (e.g. low delayers showed less activity in the right inferior frontal gyrus than high delayers when they had to inhibit responses to happy faces).
1 mark: partial response, e.g. region named without direction, or a general statement of difference (e.g. 'low delayers had less prefrontal activity').
0 marks: behavioural differences only (e.g. accuracy) or no creditworthy response.
Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

The test uses photographs showing only the eyes of actors/actresses. For each, participants selected one of two mental-state words that best matched the expression. The number of correct answers was scored and compared across the autism/Asperger group, a control group of adults and a group with Tourette's syndrome.

1 mark each for up to 3 of:
- photographs of the eye region only
- participant judges the mental state/emotion of the person pictured
- choose from two words / forced choice
- series of photographs (e.g. 25)
- correct answers counted to give a score
- a practice item/definitions of the words were provided
Do not credit 'reading minds' without reference to the task. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Participants studied an article either in silence or with background noise, and were then tested either in silence or with noise, giving matching and mismatching context conditions.

1 mark: silence / quiet.
1 mark: noise / background noise.
Accept 'same context' and 'different context' for 1 mark only if the silent/noisy detail is absent. Do not credit 'learning' and 'testing' alone. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

The study required participants to think they were taking part in a genuine procedure involving an unethical request. Because the real aim was hidden, consent was not fully informed, which breaches the BPS Integrity principle on deception.

3 marks: ethical issue identified and clearly explained in the context of the study.
2 marks: issue identified with explanation not in context, or attempt in context lacking clarity.
1 mark: ethical issue identified only, or a brief statement.
0 marks: no creditworthy response.
Likely issues: deception; lack of fully informed consent; psychological distress/stress; right to withdraw; confidentiality of responses. Credit protection from harm only if linked to the study. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

The left visual field projects to the right hemisphere, which has little language ability, so the participant could not verbally report the object; but the right hemisphere controls the left hand, so they could select the object by touch.

1 mark: could not name/verbally describe the object (or reported seeing nothing).
1 mark: could correctly select/identify the object with the left hand (by touch).
Accept 'right hemisphere' explanations as support. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Casey et al. tested participants who had previously been classed as high or low delayers in the childhood marshmallow test. In adulthood they completed a go/no-go task with emotional face stimuli while an fMRI scanner measured brain activity. They pressed a button for 'go' faces and withheld a response for 'no-go' faces, with the happy-face (cue) condition acting as a social/emotional temptation. Errors (false alarms) and brain activation in regions such as the prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum were compared between groups.

3 marks: 1 mark per point, maximum 3.
Likely answers:
- Participants were adults who had been classed as high or low delayers in the childhood delay of gratification test (1)
- They lay in an fMRI scanner while completing the task (1)
- They saw a series of faces (e.g. happy, fearful/neutral) on screen (1)
- They pressed a button for a 'go' target face (1)
- They had to withhold a button press for the 'no-go' face (1)
- Accuracy/false alarms and brain activity were recorded and compared between groups (1)
Other appropriate suggestions should be credited. Do not credit descriptions of the original marshmallow test alone, or results/conclusions only.

Participants were told the study was about learning and memory and that the shocks were real, so they were deceived (Integrity). Many showed extreme distress such as sweating, trembling and nervous laughter, so they were not protected from psychological harm (Responsibility). The prods also discouraged them from leaving, which undermined the right to withdraw (Respect).

2 marks: 1 mark for each ethical issue identified, maximum 2. Only the first two issues are credited.
Likely answers:
- Deception (1)
- Protection of participants / psychological harm or stress (1)
- Right to withdraw undermined by the verbal prods (1)
- Lack of fully informed consent (1)
Other appropriate suggestions should be credited. Do not credit a vague answer such as 'it was unethical' with no named issue. Elaboration is not required.

A strong answer names a strength (e.g. objective, scientific, replicable measurement; real-world applications), explains why it is a strength, and supports it with research such as Casey et al. (2011) fMRI findings or Sperry (1968) split-brain testing under controlled conditions.

3 marks: Strength identified (1). Explanation of why it is a strength (1). Relevant supporting evidence from named research, accurately described (1).

Likely strengths: objective/scientific methods (brain imaging, standardised tasks); lab control and replicability; practical applications (e.g. understanding impulse control or brain function); use of quantitative data allowing comparison.

Award 2 marks maximum if no evidence is given. Evidence alone with no strength identified: maximum 1 mark. Only the first strength is credited. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

The study belongs to the biological area because it explains behaviour in terms of brain regions. Participants completed a go/no-go task while in an fMRI scanner; activity in the right inferior frontal gyrus (prefrontal cortex) differed between high and low delayers, and the ventral striatum responded more strongly to tempting cues in low delayers.

3 marks: Clear, detailed link to the biological area, using specific features of the study (3). Clear link but limited detail, or detailed description with the link only implied (2). Brief or partial link (1). No creditworthy content (0).

Creditable points: use of fMRI/brain scanning; specific regions (right inferior frontal gyrus, ventral striatum); behaviour explained by brain activity; comparison of high and low delayers; study of the regions of the brain key theme.

Description of the procedure with no link to the biological area: maximum 1 mark. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

State the difference (observable learned behaviour versus unconscious internal conflict), then illustrate each side with research: Bandura et al. (1961) for behaviourist ideas, Freud (1909) Little Hans for psychodynamic ideas.

3 marks: Difference clearly stated, covering both perspectives (1). Developed explanation (1). Accurate, relevant research linked to the difference (1).

Likely differences: observable behaviour versus unconscious mind; learning through environment versus childhood conflict and drives; objective, scientific methods versus interpretation of case material; focus on the present and learning versus early psychosexual development.

A description of only one perspective: maximum 2 marks. Only the first difference is credited. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Define both positions, link each to a named study with specific findings, and note that behaviour is usually explained by both influences interacting, which gives an evaluative point.

4 marks: Nature position explained (1). Nurture position explained (1). Accurate evidence from a named study linked to the debate (1). A further developed point, such as the interactionist position, a second study, or a limitation of the evidence (1).

Creditable studies include Bandura et al. (1961), Chaney et al. (2004), Casey et al. (2011), Sperry (1968), Baron-Cohen et al. (1997), Freud (1909) or other appropriate research.

Study described with no link to the debate: maximum 2 marks. Only one position covered: maximum 3 marks. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Indicative content (other appropriate material should be credited).

Definitions: Nature = behaviour is explained by inherited, biological factors such as genes, brain structure and maturation. Nurture = behaviour is explained by environmental influences such as learning, modelling, reinforcement, parenting and culture. Interactionist view = both contribute and influence each other.

Nurture evidence: Bandura et al. (1961) - children who saw an aggressive adult model imitated physical and verbal aggression, with more imitation of the same-sex model, suggesting aggression is learned. Chaney et al. (2004) - a toy-like spacer (Funhaler) improved children's compliance with asthma medication, showing that behaviour changes when the environment and reinforcement change. Strengths: controlled lab design, clear cause and effect, practical applications (media guidance, health devices). Weaknesses: artificial setting and low ecological validity (Bobo doll), short-term effects only, ethical concerns about exposing children to aggression, small samples (Chaney pilot), and children's pre-existing temperament was not fully controlled, so nature is not excluded.

Nature evidence: Casey et al. (2011) - differences in the prefrontal cortex and ventral striatum activity were linked to lifelong differences in delay of gratification, suggesting biological bases for self-control. Sperry (1968) - split-brain patients showed hemispheric specialisation of function, a biologically fixed structure. Baron-Cohen et al. (1997) - adults with autism or Asperger syndrome scored lower on the Eyes Test, suggesting a biological theory-of-mind deficit. Strengths: objective, scientific measures such as fMRI and standardised tests, and replicable procedures. Weaknesses: small, unusual or unrepresentative samples (Sperry's epilepsy patients, Casey's small follow-up groups), correlational evidence cannot show causation, reductionism, and a risk of determinism. Brain scans also cannot rule out the effects of experience on brain development.

Debate/judgement: Most psychologists take an interactionist position - for example, delay of gratification is linked to brain activity but is also affected by upbringing and the environment, and aggression in children may depend on temperament as well as on models. Applications differ: nurture positions suggest that interventions, parenting and education can change behaviour; nature positions suggest screening and biological treatments but may be pessimistic or socially sensitive. A good answer concludes that it is not either/or, with justification.

Relevant practical experience (e.g. the student's own observation or experiment) may be used as evidence of how difficult it is to separate the two influences.

12 marks, levels-based, assessing AO1 (knowledge and understanding of the debate and research), AO2 (application of the research to illustrate the positions) and AO3 (evaluation and a reasoned line of argument).

Level 4 (Good) 10-12 marks: Accurate, detailed knowledge of both the nature and nurture positions; detailed, accurate use of at least two relevant studies or other research as evidence for the positions; a balanced evaluation of strengths and weaknesses (methodology, validity, ethics, applications, reductionism or determinism) that is justified; a reasoned judgement on whether the debate is either/or or interactionist; clear, coherent line of reasoning throughout. Use the top of the level for fully developed evaluation with a clear conclusion.

Level 3 (Reasonable) 7-9 marks: Mostly accurate knowledge of both positions; research used with reasonable accuracy and linked to the debate; evaluation present but may be unbalanced or only partly justified; some line of reasoning, with a judgement that may be limited.

Level 2 (Limited) 4-6 marks: Some knowledge of the debate, possibly covering one position only or with inaccuracies; research is mentioned but is brief, generic or poorly linked; evaluation is limited or assertive; line of reasoning is partial.

Level 1 (Basic) 1-3 marks: Isolated, simple or inaccurate points about nature or nurture; little or no research; evaluation absent or very weak; reasoning lacks coherence.

0 marks: No creditworthy response.

Placing a mark in a level: award the higher mark if all strands are secure and the lower mark if one strand is weak. Candidates are not restricted to the core studies; any relevant research (e.g. twin studies) is creditable if accurate. Studies that are only named with no detail of what was found should not move a response above the lowest mark of Level 2. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Choose one issue and link it to the article. Example: pupils who did not want to be filmed were still included, so the right to withdraw was denied (Respect). This is a problem because pupils could not stop being filmed even though they were uncomfortable, which risks distress and breaks the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct.

3 marks: ethical issue clearly identified (1) + clear explanation of why it is a problem (1) + explanation placed in context of the article (1).

Likely answers:
- Right to withdraw: pupils who did not want to be filmed were still included.
- Informed consent: pupils were not told the true focus, and no consent from pupils or parents is mentioned.
- Deception: pupils were told it was about 'classroom habits' rather than phone use.
- Confidentiality: recordings shown to governors, so pupils can be identified.
- Protection of participants: filming and having phones taken may cause distress.

Only the first issue is credited. An issue named with no explanation or context gets a maximum of 1 mark. Generic answers with no reference to the article get a maximum of 2. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Example: the study has low ecological validity because learning 30 unrelated words in a lab is unlike real revision, so the finding that quiet is always better cannot be applied to real life. Also the conclusion says 'in any situation' although only one task and one setting were tested. Note the difference between the two conditions was also confounded: the field was noisy and the learning and recall places differed in only one group, so context-dependent effects (like Grant et al., 1998) may explain recall rather than noise itself.

3 marks: validity issue identified (1) + explanation of why it reduces validity (1) + linked to the article (1).

Likely answers:
- Ecological validity: unrelated word list and lab task are unlike real revision.
- Population validity: only first-year psychology undergraduates from one course, so the findings may not apply to other students or ages.
- Internal validity: learning was done in the silent room for both groups, so the field group also had a change of context, a confound (accept reference to context-dependent memory).
- Overgeneralised conclusion ('always', 'any situation') from one small sample of 40.

Only the first issue is credited. Answers that give only 'it is not generalisable' with no link to validity type or article get a maximum of 1 mark. Reliability-only answers get no credit. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Suggestion: stop showing the aggressive cartoon and instead use staff and non-aggressive role models, praising children when they share or play gently. This works through social learning: children imitate models they observe (Bandura et al., 1961 found children copied aggressive adult models), and reinforcement makes non-aggressive behaviour more likely. This is a nurture position because it assumes aggression is learned from the environment rather than inherited, which contradicts Mr Reyes's view.

3 marks: a relevant, practical suggestion (1) + explanation of how it would reduce aggression, using psychological knowledge such as imitation, modelling or reinforcement (1) + link to the nature/nurture debate or to the article context (1).

Likely answers:
- Remove or limit aggressive cartoons so there are fewer aggressive models to imitate.
- Provide non-aggressive models and praise or reward gentle play (reinforcement).
- Add quiet play areas so frustration and conflict are reduced.

Accept a nature-based suggestion only if it is practical, explained and clearly linked to the debate. Only the first suggestion is credited. A suggestion with no explanation gets a maximum of 1 mark. Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Each suggestion is worth up to 4 marks: 1 for a clear suggestion, 1-2 for explanation using psychological knowledge, and 1-2 for application to the article.

Suggestion 1 (Bandura et al., 1961 - social learning): Train older pupils, or adult 'playground leaders', to model calm, cooperative games and reward them visibly with praise. Bandura found that children imitated aggressive adult models, particularly same-sex models, and that the behaviour was copied even without reward. The article says younger pupils copy rough games of older pupils, so replacing aggressive models with non-aggressive ones should lead younger children to imitate peaceful play. Praising the younger children when they play gently reinforces the behaviour.

Suggestion 2 (Casey et al., 2011 - delay of gratification): Introduce a turn-taking rota for footballs and skipping ropes and reward children who wait calmly with stickers or house points; teach distraction strategies such as playing a different game while waiting. Casey et al. found that people who found it hard to delay gratification as children showed poorer self-control later and different activity in the prefrontal cortex, suggesting that waiting is a learned skill linked to impulse control. The article says children lash out when made to wait, so practising waiting with rewards should improve self-control and reduce hitting.

Other acceptable suggestions: operant conditioning/token economy, vicarious reinforcement, supervised quiet zones, more equipment (reducing the need to wait) with a link to psychological research.

8 marks: two suggestions marked separately, up to 4 marks each. Only the first two suggestions are credited; ignore any further suggestions.

For each suggestion:
- 4 marks: a clear, detailed suggestion, supported by accurate psychological knowledge or research (e.g. Bandura et al. 1961, Casey et al. 2011, or other appropriate research/theory), applied explicitly to the article (older pupils copied, waiting for equipment, ages 6-9, break times).
- 3 marks: a clear suggestion with an explanation that is accurate but with limited or partial application to the article, OR a good attempt at application with a partly accurate explanation.
- 2 marks: a suggestion with some psychological explanation that is generic and not applied to the article, OR an applied suggestion with no psychological explanation.
- 1 mark: a brief or vague suggestion (e.g. 'teach the children to be nice') with little or no explanation.
- 0 marks: no creditworthy information.

Guidance: Context means reference to the pupils, break times, copying of older children or waiting for equipment; simply repeating the stem is not context. Suggestions about the school's questionnaire, sampling or the trial itself (e.g. low response rate, ethics) do not answer this question and gain no credit. Do not credit punishment-only suggestions unless linked to psychology (e.g. operant conditioning). Both suggestions must be different; if they repeat the same idea, credit it once. Accurate named research is expected for the top mark but a correctly described theory (social learning, operant conditioning) is acceptable.

Likely answers:
- Non-aggressive role models for the children to observe and imitate (Bandura et al., 1961).
- Praise or reward calm behaviour (vicarious and direct reinforcement) so that it is repeated.
- Teach and reward waiting, strengthening self-control (Casey et al., 2011).
- Teach distraction strategies for waiting.

Other appropriate suggestions should be credited.

Possible content for a top-level answer.

Ethics (BPS Code - Respect, Responsibility, Integrity): students were deceived about the purpose ('to help with concentration') and were covertly observed, so they could not give fully informed consent; only parents consented. Students had no stated right to withdraw and no debrief is mentioned. Feeling 'watched all the time' suggests possible psychological distress (protection of participants). Counterpoint: parents were informed, data were about behaviour in a school setting, and the benefit (better concentration) may justify mild deception if followed by a debrief.

Validity: no control group, so the fall from 7.2 to 1.9 incidents could be due to the Hawthorne effect or to novelty, or to other changes in the six weeks (internal validity). Students were selected because they had been reported for phone use (regression to the mean) and only the 36 whose parents consented took part (population validity/generalisability to all 900 students). Some students handed in phones just for vouchers, so the behaviour may not reflect real change in attitude (construct validity). Phone-free lessons are not the same as phone use outside school (ecological validity). Teachers recording 'glanced at, touched or checked' may be subjective and biased since they knew the aim (observer bias; inter-rater reliability not checked). Counterpoint: observation was in natural lessons so ecological validity within school is high, and covert observation reduces demand characteristics.

Debate: the head teacher's claim that behaviour is 'shaped by what happens after it' is the behaviourist/environmental determinist position and links to the nature/nurture debate (nurture) and freewill/determinism (behaviour determined by reinforcement, not choice). It ignores individual differences, intrinsic motivation and free choice, since some students were simply responding to vouchers. Supporting evidence could be Bandura et al. (1961) (learning via observation) or Chaney et al. (2004) (reward stickers increased compliance in children).

Application suggestions (examples): (1) Operant conditioning: continue positive reinforcement but make it intermittent/social (praise, house points) so that behaviour persists after rewards stop. Strength: Chaney et al. (2004) found reward-based design improved compliance; cheap and easy to apply. Weakness: extrinsic rewards may undermine intrinsic motivation, and rewards may be unfair/costly across 900 students. (2) Social learning: use respected older students or popular peers as role models who visibly put phones away, using Bandura et al. (1961) on imitation of models. Strength: no cost, avoids deception. Weakness: depends on identification with the model and may not work for students who see the model as irrelevant; does not tackle the phones' attraction.

A coherent line of reasoning and use of own practical experience (e.g. piloting, debriefing, operationalising categories) should be credited.

AO1 (knowledge), AO2 (application to the article), AO3 (evaluation, judgement). Use best fit. Total 8 marks.

Level 4 (7-8 marks): Good. Accurate, detailed knowledge of ethics, validity, a named debate and a psychological suggestion. Application to the article is consistently and explicitly used (e.g. refers to deception about the purpose, no control group, the vouchers, the 36 consenting students, 7.2 to 1.9 incidents). Evaluation is balanced and reasoned for the suggestion and judgement about the head teacher's conclusion is justified. Line of reasoning is logical, coherent and substantiated. All four bullet points addressed. 8 marks: all four addressed in depth with sustained evaluation; 7 marks: all four addressed but one is less developed.

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Reasonable. Mostly accurate knowledge. Application is clear but not always sustained. Evaluation is present across most bullets but may be one-sided or less developed. Line of reasoning mostly clear. 6 marks: three or four bullets covered with some depth; 5 marks: three bullets covered or four with limited depth.

Level 2 (3-4 marks): Limited. Some relevant knowledge, perhaps with inaccuracies. Application is attempted or is generic. Evaluation is basic or asserted. At least two bullets addressed. 4 marks: two or three points with some development; 3 marks: two points, limited development.

Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic. Isolated, brief or muddled points (e.g. naming 'ethics' or 'validity' without explanation); little or no application; no line of reasoning. 2 marks: two brief relevant points; 1 mark: one.

0 marks: no creditworthy response.

Indicative content (credit other appropriate points):
- Ethics: deception; lack of informed consent from students; covert observation; right to withdraw; protection from harm (felt 'watched'); no debrief; parental consent as a strength.
- Validity: no control group; Hawthorne effect/demand characteristics; selected sample and 36 of 40; regression to the mean; subjective observation/observer bias; vouchers vs genuine change; ecological/population validity.
- Debate: nature/nurture; freewill/determinism; individual/situational; reductionism/holism; usefulness of research; psychology as a science - must be linked to the head teacher's claim.
- Suggestions: reinforcement schedules, praise, role models/social learning, self-monitoring, with evaluation (cost, intrinsic motivation, effectiveness, ethics, generalisability).

Guidance: Credit use of Bandura et al. (1961), Chaney et al. (2004) or other appropriate research as support. Do not credit an unlinked debate for application. If a candidate omits one bullet, the maximum is the top of Level 3 (6 marks). Suggestions must be psychological, not generic common sense (e.g. 'confiscate phones'), which gains at most Level 1 credit for that bullet.