2025 OCR GCSE Psychology - J203 模擬試題連答案詳解

Acquisitive crimes are those committed to gain property or money. Shoplifting is the only option where the aim is to obtain goods. Punching someone is a violent crime, spray-painting a wall is an anti-social offence, and possessing an illegal drug is a drug-related crime.

1 mark for A only. Do not credit B, C or D. No marks for more than one answer.

Vicarious reinforcement happens when a person observes someone else being rewarded for a behaviour and so becomes more likely to imitate it. A describes direct reinforcement, C describes internalisation, and D is a biological or nature-based claim that is not part of the theory.

1 mark for B only. Do not credit A (direct reinforcement), C (internalisation) or D. No marks for more than one answer.

Eysenck linked neuroticism to an overactive autonomic nervous system and the limbic system, so highly neurotic people react strongly to stress. Extraversion is linked to the reticular activating system and cerebral cortex, and psychoticism is linked to an overactive dopamine system.

1 mark for C only. Do not credit A, B or D. No marks for more than one answer.

1. Draw the x-axis for hours of violent video games per week (0 to at least 14) and the y-axis for aggression score (0 to at least 24, up to 30), using even scales that fill most of the grid.
2. Label both axes with the variable names.
3. Plot each child as one cross: A (2,8), B (4,11), C (5,10), D (7,15), E (9,17), F (10,16), G (12,21), H (14,24).
4. The points rise from bottom left to top right, which shows a positive correlation (no line of best fit is required).

Total 4 marks.
- 1 mark: both axes labelled with the correct variables, hours of video games on x and aggression score on y. Units or 'per week' are not needed. Do not credit if the axes are reversed.
- 1 mark: suitable, evenly spaced scales that cover the full range of the data (x to at least 14, y to at least 24) and use more than half of the grid. Do not credit uneven or broken scales.
- 2 marks: points plotted accurately. 2 marks for 7 or 8 points correct, 1 mark for 5 or 6 points correct, 0 marks for 4 or fewer. Accept crosses or small dots. Allow a tolerance of half a small square.

Guidance: Do not credit a bar chart or line graph. A line of best fit is not required and should not be penalised if sensible. Do not credit points plotted as joined-up lines. Accept alternative suitable scales, for example 1 square = 2 hours.

In the Theory of Reconstructive Memory, a schema is a mental framework built from experience and expectation that is used to organise and interpret new information. Confabulation is filling gaps in memory with invented details. Displacement is a type of forgetting in which new information pushes out old information in a limited-capacity store. Encoding is changing information into a form that can be stored.

1 mark for ticking box B (Schema) only. Do not credit if more than one box is ticked. Accept a clear alternative way of indicating B (for example, writing the letter B or the word 'schema' on the answer line) if the candidate's choice is unambiguous.

Points sloping upwards show that both co-variables rise together, which is a positive correlation.

1 mark for naming a positive correlation (1). 1 mark for explaining that as hours of sleep increase, recall score also increases / more sleep goes with higher scores (1). Accept alternative wording. Do not credit an explanation that says sleep causes the higher scores for the development mark. Do not credit the development mark without the correct type of correlation unless the direction of the relationship is clearly described.

Sum: 8 + 11 + 9 + 14 + 10 + 12 + 9 + 13 + 7 + 17 = 110. Mean = 110 / 10 = 11.0 words.

1 mark for the correct total of 110, or for dividing the sum of the scores by 10 (method) (1). 1 mark for the correct answer of 11.0 (accuracy) (1). The correct answer with no working gains both marks. Accept 11. If the total is wrong but is divided by 10 correctly, award the method mark only.

In a repeated measures design each student does both conditions, so performance in the second condition can be changed by practice or fatigue rather than by the music.

1 mark for identifying a weakness, e.g. order effects / practice effects / fatigue / boredom / participants may work out the aim and show demand characteristics (1). 1 mark for development linked to the investigation, e.g. students might remember the first set of information or get tired, so the difference may not be caused by the music (1). Accept alternative wording. Do not credit a weakness of independent measures design (e.g. participant variables).

A schema is stored knowledge about what usually happens. When we recall, we reconstruct the memory using our schemas, which can lead to distortion.

1 mark for a correct description of a schema, e.g. a mental framework / package of knowledge built up from experience and expectations (1). 1 mark for development, e.g. it is used to fill gaps or make sense of information during recall, which can distort memory / lead to confabulation (1). Accept alternative wording.

The study found that exposure to doctored advertising made some participants report childhood experiences that could not have happened. This supports the idea that memory is reconstructive and open to suggestion.

1 mark for a valid conclusion, e.g. advertising can change / distort / create memories of the past; memory is reconstructive and not a perfect record (1). 1 mark for development, e.g. participants who saw the fake advert were more likely to claim a personal experience that did not happen, or reported more positive feelings about it (1). Accept alternative wording. Do not credit a description of the procedure alone.

Latent content is the underlying meaning that a therapist interprets by analysing the manifest content.

1 mark for stating that latent content is the hidden / underlying / true meaning of the dream (1). 1 mark for development, e.g. it consists of repressed unconscious wishes (wish fulfilment) disguised so that the dreamer is not disturbed; it has to be uncovered through analysis of the manifest content (1). Do not credit a description of manifest content only.

The observer does not receive the reward themselves; they see someone else rewarded and so expect the same outcome.

1 mark for stating that it is learning from seeing someone else being rewarded (or punished) for their behaviour (1). 1 mark for development, e.g. the observer is then more (or less) likely to imitate the behaviour, or an example such as a child copying an older sibling who gets praised or gains goods through crime (1). Accept alternative wording.

In the ABC model, A is the activating event (failing the driving test), B is the belief about it, and C is the consequence in feelings or behaviour.

1 mark for identifying the irrational belief from the source: that he is a complete failure / will never be good at anything (1). 1 mark for identifying the consequence: withdrawing from friends / staying in his room (1). Do not credit failing the driving test, which is the activating event. Both answers must be taken from the source.

Link the schema idea to expectation or experience, then show how this alters recall. Example: a person who has a 'classroom' schema may later recall seeing a whiteboard in a room that had none, because their expectations fill in missing details (confabulation). This is the process of distortion described by the Theory of Reconstructive Memory.

2 marks: 1 mark for a basic point about schemas (e.g. a schema is a mental framework/packet of knowledge from past experience; memory is influenced by expectations) plus 1 mark for development showing how this distorts recall (e.g. missing details are filled in with what is expected; details are changed to fit existing knowledge; confabulation). Accept alternative wording. Also credit a relevant worked example, e.g. recalling an object that was not present because it fits the schema. Do not credit a development that only describes forgetting through decay or displacement. Cap at 1 mark if only a definition of schema is given with no link to distortion.

Social Learning Theory says behaviour is learned by observing and imitating role models the learner identifies with. Dev is older and popular, so Marcus identifies with him. Marcus sees Dev's friends praise him (vicarious reinforcement), so he imitates the graffiti. His own friends then praise him (direct reinforcement), making repetition more likely.

3 marks: 1 mark identify a relevant Social Learning Theory concept (identification with a role model, observation/imitation, vicarious reinforcement, direct reinforcement, internalisation); 1 mark develop/explain how the concept works in the theory; 1 mark apply to the source (Dev, friends' praise, Marcus painting the shop wall).

Example full-mark answer: Marcus identifies with Dev because he is popular and older (1). Marcus saw Dev's friends praise him, which is vicarious reinforcement, so he believed he would be rewarded too (1) and he copied Dev by painting the disused shop (1).

Guidance: Accept alternative wording. Also credit direct reinforcement via Marcus's friends laughing and praising him. Do not credit the application mark without a link to the source. Cap at 2 marks if there is no reference to the source. Overlapping points are credited once. Do not credit other theories (e.g. Eysenck).

In Freud's theory, the manifest content is the dream as it is remembered by the dreamer, which is the storyline of climbing the ladder to collect the golden key. The hidden meaning (the wish for a promotion) is the latent content.

1 mark for: manifest content (1).

Accept 'manifest' or 'the manifest dream'.
Do not credit 'latent content' (this is the hidden meaning).
Do not credit 'wish fulfilment' or 'repression' on their own.

Searching for a hidden object shows the child knows it still exists when out of sight. This is object permanence, which develops in the sensori-motor stage. Animism is believing inanimate objects are alive, egocentrism is difficulty seeing another's viewpoint, and reversibility is mentally undoing an action.

1 mark for B (Object permanence). Do not credit any other option.

Neurons are separated by tiny gaps called synapses, across which chemical messengers pass. So statement D is incorrect. A, B and C are all correct.

1 mark for D. Do not credit any other option.

Dweck argues that praise for effort and strategy encourages a growth mindset, the belief that abilities can be developed through hard work. Options A and C describe fixed mindsets, and D is wrong because growth mindset students tend to seek challenges.

1 mark for B. Do not credit any other option.

Piaget proposed that children's thinking develops through four invariant stages, always in the same order. Sensori-motor (about 0-2 years): babies learn through their senses and actions, and develop object permanence, the understanding that an object still exists when it cannot be seen. Pre-operational (about 2-7 years): children use symbols and language but think egocentrically, finding it hard to see a situation from another person's viewpoint, and they fail conservation tasks because they focus on one feature (e.g. the length of a row of counters) rather than the number. Concrete-operational (about 7-11 years): children can think logically about physical objects, understand conservation and reversibility, but struggle with abstract ideas. Formal operational (about 11 years and over): young people can think abstractly and hypothetically and reason systematically. Development happens through assimilation (fitting new information into an existing schema) and accommodation (changing a schema when new information does not fit), which restores balance after a state of disequilibrium.

AO1 (6 marks), level of response. Indicative content (credit accurate points; accept alternative wording):
- Four stages are invariant / in a fixed order (1)
- Sensori-motor, about 0-2 years: learning through senses and movement; object permanence develops (1)
- Pre-operational, about 2-7 years: symbolic thought and language; egocentrism; lack of conservation; animism (1)
- Concrete-operational, about 7-11 years: logical thinking about concrete objects; conservation and reversibility achieved (1)
- Formal operational, about 11+ years: abstract and hypothetical thinking (1)
- Assimilation: new information fitted into an existing schema (1)
- Accommodation: schema changed or a new one created when new information does not fit (1)
- Egocentrism: difficulty seeing another person's viewpoint (1)
- Conservation: understanding that quantity stays the same despite a change in appearance (1)
- Object permanence: knowing an object exists when out of sight (1)

Level 3 (5-6 marks): Thorough description. All four stages are described accurately in the correct order, and at least two of the named ideas are accurately described and linked to the stages. Accurate use of psychological terminology throughout.
Level 2 (3-4 marks): Good description. Some stages (at least two) are described, and at least one named idea is described. Mostly accurate, with some gaps in detail or links.
Level 1 (1-2 marks): Basic description. Limited, partly accurate knowledge, e.g. names some stages or one idea with little or no detail. Terminology may be limited or used incorrectly.
Level 0 (0 marks): No creditworthy response.

Guidance: Do not credit evaluation or criticisms of the theory. Approximate ages may vary slightly; accept reasonable ranges. Overlapping or repeated points are credited once. If no named ideas are described, cap at Level 2.

Add the scores: 12 + 9 + 15 + 11 + 8 + 14 + 10 + 13 = 92. Divide by the number of students: \( 92 \div 8 = 11.5 \).

1 mark for correct method: total of scores (92) divided by 8, or \( 92 \div 8 \). (1)
1 mark for correct answer: 11.5 (1)
Accept 11.5 without working for 2 marks. Award 1 mark for a correct method with an arithmetic slip. Do not credit 12 (rounded to a whole number) for the accuracy mark.

Write the ratio as 48 : 32. The highest common factor of 48 and 32 is 16. Divide both by 16: \( 48 \div 16 = 3 \) and \( 32 \div 16 = 2 \), giving 3 : 2.

1 mark for correct method: ratio 48 : 32 with an attempt to simplify, for example dividing both by a common factor. (1)
1 mark for correct answer in simplest form: 3 : 2 (1)
Accept 3:2 or 3 to 2. Do not credit 48:32 or 6:4 for the accuracy mark, as they are not in simplest form (award the method mark). Accept 1.5 : 1 for 1 mark only.

The ladder is the remembered, surface storyline of the dream, which Freud called manifest content. The hidden desire (wish to be promoted) is the latent content.

1 mark for manifest content (1). Accept 'manifest dream'. Do not credit latent content, wish fulfilment or repression alone.

Tomasz unknowingly fills a gap in his memory with invented detail, based on his schemas about farms, and believes it. This is confabulation.

1 mark for confabulation (1). Accept 'confabulating'. Do not credit 'schema' or 'distortion' alone.

Wren did not receive the reward himself. He saw another person being rewarded and so was more likely to imitate the behaviour. This is vicarious reinforcement.

1 mark for vicarious reinforcement (1). Accept 'indirect reinforcement' or 'learning from the consequences seen in a role model'. Do not credit 'direct reinforcement', 'imitation' or 'observation' alone.

Choose two different criticisms. For each, state the criticism (1 mark) and develop it with an explanation or example (1 mark). Example 1: The theory is reductionist (1) because it explains remembering only in terms of cognitive schemas and leaves out the role of brain structures such as the hippocampus, so it does not give the whole picture of how memories are formed (1). Example 2: Schemas cannot be directly observed or measured (1), so it is difficult to show that a distorted memory was caused by a schema rather than by something else such as a leading question or poor encoding (1).

Maximum 4 marks: 2 marks for each of two different criticisms.
For each criticism: 1 mark for a clear criticism or limitation of the theory, plus 1 mark for development (an explanation, reason or example).
Creditworthy criticisms include: reductionism/holism (ignores biological or neurological explanations, or the whole person, so it over-simplifies); schemas are vague, hard to define or measure and so the theory is hard to test; much supporting evidence comes from lab studies using artificial materials (e.g. stories or word lists), so it may lack ecological validity; the theory does not explain why some memories are accurate and not distorted; it overlooks other explanations of forgetting such as decay or retrieval failure.
Accept alternative wording. Also credit a brief link to a named study (e.g. Braun, Ellis and Loftus (2002)) if used to develop a criticism.
Do not credit a description of the theory with no criticism. Do not credit a bare 'it is wrong' or 'it lacks evidence' with no explanation.
Overlapping or repeated points are credited once. Cap at 3 marks if a criticism is developed but the other is only stated twice in different words.

Dopamine is a neurotransmitter released by dopaminergic neurons into the synapse (1). In schizophrenia too much dopamine is released or the receiving neuron is over-sensitive, so the post-synaptic neuron fires too often (1). This excessive synaptic transmission disrupts brain areas involved in thinking and perception, such as the frontal and temporal lobes (1). This produces symptoms such as hallucinations, delusions or disorganised thinking, e.g. Marcus hearing voices that are not there (1).

4 marks: two points, each with 1 mark for the point and 1 mark for development/link.

Point 1 (mechanism): 1 mark for dopaminergic neurons release dopamine (a neurotransmitter) across the synapse / dopamine levels are too high (1); plus 1 mark for development: the receiving neuron is over-stimulated, so messages are sent too often or too strongly (1).
Point 2 (link to symptoms): 1 mark for the over-activity affecting brain areas such as the frontal lobes or temporal lobes (1); plus 1 mark for linking this to a symptom, e.g. hallucinations, delusions, disorganised speech/thinking (1).

Guidance: Accept alternative wording, e.g. 'chemical messenger' for neurotransmitter. Also credit reference to Marcus's symptoms as the application. Do not credit vague statements such as 'dopamine makes him mad' or 'too much dopamine' with no further detail beyond 1 mark. Do not credit answers about anti-psychotic treatment or social drift. Overlapping or repeated points are credited once. Cap at 3 marks if no symptom of schizophrenia is linked.

In the ABC model the Activating event (A) is failing the test, the Belief (B) is the irrational belief that she must be perfect, and the Consequence (C) is feeling low and withdrawing from friends. Only option B matches this.

1 mark for B. Do not credit any other option. A, C and D each misplace the activating event, belief or consequence.

Social rank theory suggests depressed behaviour (withdrawal, low mood) shows submission after losing rank, so the person avoids conflict with higher-ranked individuals. Option A is the opposite, C is not part of the theory, and D describes the ABC model.

1 mark for B. Do not credit A, C or D.

Anti-depressants alter how neurons interact at the synapse, increasing the availability of mood-related neurotransmitters, which improves mental health by changing brain action. A describes anti-psychotics, B describes psychotherapy, and D is not how the drugs work.

1 mark for C. Do not credit A, B or D.

Step 1: Name an external cue that sets the sleep-wake cycle, e.g. light, temperature, meal times or social routines. Step 2: Say how it changes sleep, e.g. darkness increases melatonin production by the pineal gland, which makes a person feel sleepy, while daylight reduces melatonin and promotes wakefulness.

1 mark for correctly identifying an exogenous zeitgeber (e.g. light/daylight/darkness; temperature; meal times; social cues such as clocks or routines of other people; noise). (1)
1 mark for an outline of how it affects sleep, e.g. light levels influence melatonin release from the pineal gland so darkness makes a person sleepy and daylight wakes them; or a regular mealtime routine signals when to be awake so sleep occurs at consistent times. (1)
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit endogenous pacemakers (e.g. the body clock/suprachiasmatic nucleus) as the zeitgeber. The second mark must link to the zeitgeber named; cap at 1 mark if the effect is only vaguely described (e.g. 'it affects sleep') without detail.

Any two valid criticisms of the theory can be credited. Each needs a clear criticism (1 mark) and a development that explains why it is a weakness (1 mark).

Criticism A (reductionism/holism): the theory is holistic. It explains remembering through schemas and expectations but does not explain the brain structures or neural activity involved, such as the hippocampus in forming memories. Leaving out biological detail means the explanation is incomplete.

Criticism B (ecological validity): many studies supporting reconstruction use artificial tasks, such as recalling a short unfamiliar story in a lab. These tasks lack mundane realism, so the findings may not generalise to remembering real events.

Criticism C (hard to test/vague): the idea of a 'schema' is vague and hard to measure directly, so it is difficult to falsify the theory or predict exactly which details will be distorted.

Criticism D (individual differences/alternative explanation): the theory says all memory is distorted, but people can recall some information accurately, for example well-rehearsed facts, so the theory may overstate how much memory is reconstructed.

4 marks in total: [2 + 2]. For each of the two criticisms: 1 mark for identifying a valid criticism of the theory of reconstructive memory, plus 1 mark for a development that explains why it is a weakness (e.g. 'because...', 'so...', an example, or a link to evidence).

Creditworthy criticisms include: reductionism/holism (holistic, ignores the biological or brain basis of memory, such as the hippocampus); lack of ecological validity in supporting studies (artificial materials or lab tasks); the vague, hard-to-measure concept of schemas (hard to test or falsify); overstating distortion (ignores accurate recall of well-learned or distinctive information); individual differences ignored.

Guidance: Accept alternative wording. Also credit other valid criticisms if they are developed and clearly linked to reconstructive memory. Do not credit criticisms of a different theory, such as the multi-store model. Do not credit a development without a valid criticism. A criticism that is simply described without being linked to a weakness gets 1 mark at most. Overlapping or repeated points are credited once only. Cap at 2 marks if only one criticism is given.

Fraction of the sample: \( \frac{14}{40} \). Divide the top and bottom by 2 to give \( \frac{7}{20} \) in its simplest form. Convert to a decimal: \( 7 \div 20 = 0.35 \).

1 mark for the correct fraction in simplest form: \( \frac{7}{20} \) (1).
1 mark for the correct decimal: 0.35 (1).
Guidance: Accept \( \frac{14}{40} \) for working but only credit the fraction mark if it is simplified. Award the decimal mark for 0.35 if it follows correctly from 14 divided by 40, even if the fraction was not simplified. Working marks are awarded even if the final answer is wrong; if the fraction is wrong, award the decimal mark for a correct conversion of the candidate's own fraction (error carried forward). Do not credit 35% unless 0.35 is also given.

Indicative content (not exhaustive).

AO1 knowledge:
- Tandoc et al. (2015): survey of college students using Facebook; measured amount of Facebook use, surveillance use and Facebook envy, and depressive symptoms; found that Facebook use alone did not directly predict depression, but Facebook envy was linked to higher depressive symptoms; conclusion that how people compare themselves with others online (a social factor) matters.
- ABC model: activating event, irrational belief, emotional consequence; depression arises from irrational beliefs (e.g. "everyone else has a better life").
- Other area (biological): social rank theory (depression as an evolved response to low rank that reduces conflict); or Daniel et al. (1991)/dopamine and brain activity; or the use of anti-depressants altering synaptic activity.

AO3 evaluation:
- For the statement: Tandoc used real-life Facebook habits so has some ecological validity; social comparison and envy offer a clear explanation; psychotherapy (e.g. changing beliefs) can reduce symptoms; supports nurture.
- Against: Tandoc is correlational, so cannot show that envy causes depression (depressed people may feel more envy); self-report is open to social desirability; a student sample limits generalisability. Biological explanations (e.g. social rank theory or neurotransmitter differences) show an internal contribution, and anti-depressants work for many people. Biological explanations can be reductionist, but so can ignoring biology.
- Debate: nature/nurture; the interactionist view that social events and brain/biology both contribute; why individuals exposed to the same social world differ in outcome.

Judgement: e.g. the statement is partly supported because the social world clearly matters, but it is too extreme as it ignores biological factors and individual differences; an interaction explanation is best.

13 marks: AO1 6 marks + AO3 7 marks. Use a best-fit approach, awarding the AO1 and AO3 bands separately.

AO1 (6 marks) - knowledge and understanding of Tandoc et al. (2015) and at least one other study/theory/explanation from a different area
- Level 3 (5-6 marks): thorough, accurate knowledge of Tandoc et al. (2015) and of at least one other idea from a different area, with relevant detail (e.g. method, results, key concepts). Psychological terminology is used well.
- Level 2 (3-4 marks): good knowledge of Tandoc et al. and some knowledge of the other idea; some detail, minor inaccuracy. Cap at 4 if no second idea from a different area is used.
- Level 1 (1-2 marks): basic or limited knowledge; mostly general statements about depression; Tandoc may be only named. Cap at 2 if Tandoc et al. is not addressed.
- 0 marks: no creditworthy material.

AO3 (7 marks) - analysis, evaluation and judgement
- Level 3 (5-7 marks): thorough, balanced evaluation with points for and against the statement, using evidence from the studies (e.g. correlation vs causation, self-report, sample, validity, debates). A clear, supported, reasoned judgement on 'how far'. 7 marks require a well-developed judgement.
- Level 2 (3-4 marks): good evaluation, but may be one-sided or not fully developed; a judgement is stated with some support.
- Level 1 (1-2 marks): basic, undeveloped evaluative comments; assertion; no real judgement.
- 0 marks: no creditworthy material.

Guidance: Accept alternative wording and any valid study from the course for the second area (e.g. Daniel et al. (1991), Eysenck, social rank theory, dopamine hypothesis). Also credit the ABC model as the psychological explanation. Do not credit descriptions of studies not on the specification as the named study. Overlapping or repeated points are credited once. Quality of extended response is assessed through the clarity and logical structure of the argument.

Define target population (the larger group the findings are meant to apply to) and link it to the brief: first-year sixth form students facing mock exams.

1 mark for a correct basic statement that the target population is the group of people the researcher is interested in / wants to generalise findings to (1).
1 mark for applying it to the brief, e.g. all students newly started in sixth form who are about to sit mock exams (1).
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit a description of the sample (the actual students interviewed) unless it is clearly the wider group. Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the brief.

Identify a feature of unstructured interviews (flexible, no fixed questions, follow-up probing) and develop it by linking to the aim of finding detailed experiences of anxiety.

1 mark for a feature of an unstructured interview, e.g. questions are not fixed so the interviewer can follow up answers / participants can talk freely (1).
1 mark for linking this to the brief, e.g. so Priya can gain detailed, qualitative information about each student's feelings and coping methods (1).
Also credit an argument for a structured interview if fully justified in terms of the brief (e.g. comparable answers). Do not credit 'it is better' without reasons. Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the brief.

State a strength of interviews (e.g. rich qualitative data, clarification of misunderstood questions, face-to-face rapport) and develop it in the context of student anxiety.

1 mark for a strength of interviews, e.g. detailed/rich data; the interviewer can clarify questions or probe answers; rapport helps honest answers (1).
1 mark for development linked to the brief, e.g. students can explain their anxiety and coping in their own words so Priya gets a valid picture (1).
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit strengths of questionnaires or experiments. Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the brief.

Describe the procedure: pick students who are easily available at the time and place, asking those present until the sample size is reached. Link to the college setting.

1 mark for a correct description of opportunity sampling, e.g. choosing people who are available/easy to reach at the time (1).
1 mark for applying the procedure to the brief, e.g. asking first-year sixth form students in the common room/library until enough have agreed (1).
Also credit a clear explanation of another named sampling method (random or self-selected) if it is described accurately and applied to the brief, provided the question is answered as a method of selecting a sample. Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the brief.

Identify an ethical issue relevant to the topic (protection from psychological harm, lack of informed consent, confidentiality) and state a way to deal with it that fits the brief.

1 mark for identifying a relevant ethical issue, e.g. protection of participants/psychological harm, informed consent, confidentiality (1).
1 mark for explaining how it applies or how it can be dealt with in this investigation, e.g. students may become upset discussing anxiety, so give a right to withdraw, debrief and signpost support; or use anonymous names in the write-up (1).
Accept reference to the BPS Code of Ethics and Conduct. Do not credit deception unless clearly justified for this brief. Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the brief.

The target population is the whole group of people the researcher wants to study and to whom the findings will be generalised. In the brief, this is students who are currently studying for GCSE exams. The town's secondary schools describe where they are found; the sample would be taken from this larger group.

1 mark for identifying the target population as students currently studying for GCSEs / GCSE students / Year 10 and 11 students in the town (1).

Accept alternative wording, e.g. 'secondary school students taking GCSEs in the town'.
Do not credit 'students' alone, or 'all teenagers', as these are not specific to the brief.
Do not credit a description of a sample (e.g. 'twenty students chosen from one school') or a sampling method.

Identify a strength of structured interviews (standardised questions, easy to replicate/compare, quantitative data easy to analyse), develop why this is a strength, then apply it to the 30 students aged 14 to 16 and the 10 social media questions.

1 mark for identifying a valid strength (e.g. standardised procedure / same questions for all / easy to replicate so reliable / easier to compare and analyse answers / less interviewer variation) (1).
1 mark for development explaining why this is a strength (e.g. another researcher could repeat it and check the results; differences in answers are not caused by different questions) (1).
1 mark for application to the brief (e.g. all 30 students asked the same 10 questions about social media time) (1).
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit a strength that applies only to unstructured interviews (e.g. rich detail, flexibility). Cap at 2 marks if there is no link to the brief.

Identify a weakness of unstructured interviews (hard to replicate, hard to compare, time-consuming to analyse qualitative data, interviewer bias), develop it, and apply it to the 8 new hospital employees and the open follow-up approach.

1 mark for identifying a valid weakness (e.g. not standardised / hard to replicate / difficult to compare answers / qualitative data time-consuming to analyse / interviewer bias or influence / lower reliability) (1).
1 mark for development explaining why this is a weakness (e.g. different questions are asked each time so differences in answers may be due to the questions, not the people) (1).
1 mark for application to the brief (e.g. the researcher follows up on whatever each of the 8 hospital employees says, so the questions differ) (1).
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit a weakness that applies only to structured interviews (e.g. lack of detail). Do not credit small sample alone unless linked to interview method. Cap at 2 marks if there is no link to the brief.

Identify a weakness of face-to-face interviews (social desirability, interviewer effect, embarrassment on sensitive topics, time-consuming, small sample), develop why it reduces validity, and apply it to residents recalling the flood.

1 mark for identifying a valid weakness (e.g. social desirability / interviewer effect / participants may not be honest / small sample hard to generalise / time-consuming) (1).
1 mark for development (e.g. participants want to look good in front of the interviewer so answers are less truthful, reducing validity) (1).
1 mark for application to the brief (e.g. residents may hide upsetting or embarrassing details about the flood, or only 12 residents from one town are interviewed) (1).
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit generic points that are not about interviews. Cap at 2 marks if there is no link to the brief.

The witness has unknowingly filled a gap in her memory with a detail that fits her expectations but did not happen. This is confabulation. Decay and displacement are types of forgetting, and rehearsal is repeating information to keep it in short-term memory.

1 mark for C (confabulation). Do not credit any other option.

Being unable to form new memories after an injury is anterograde amnesia, which is linked to damage to the hippocampus. The cerebellum is linked to procedural memory, and the pineal gland and hypothalamus are linked to sleep rather than memory formation.

1 mark for B (hippocampus). Do not credit any other option.

Long-term memory is described as having a very large (potentially unlimited) capacity and a long duration, which can be a lifetime. Statements A, B and C are all correct features of the model, so D is the incorrect statement.

1 mark for D. Do not credit any other option.

Decay is the fading of the memory trace over time when information is not accessed. The second description (missing cues present at learning) defines retrieval failure.

(i) 1 mark for a description of decay, e.g. the memory trace fades / weakens / is lost over time through lack of use or rehearsal (1). Accept 'information disappears from memory as time passes'. Do not credit 'forgetting' alone or 'new information pushes out old' (that is displacement).
(ii) 1 mark for 'retrieval failure' (1). Also credit 'lack of cues' / 'cue-dependent forgetting'. Do not credit 'displacement' or 'decay'.
Maximum 2 marks.

1 mark for a correct definition of a schema (a mental framework of organised knowledge and expectations based on experience, used to interpret information and to fill gaps in memory). 1 mark for a suitable example of a schema, e.g. expecting a dentist's waiting room to have chairs, magazines and a receptionist.

1 mark for a definition: a mental framework / package of organised knowledge or expectations built up from experience (1).
1 mark for a relevant example of a schema, e.g. a 'school' schema that includes teachers, timetables and uniforms; a 'birthday party' schema including cake, presents and games (1).
Accept alternative wording. Also credit an example that shows how a schema affects memory, e.g. recalling a book on a doctor's desk although none was present.
Do not credit a definition of schema that only says 'memory' or 'a thought' without reference to organised knowledge or expectation.
Cap at 1 mark if the example is given without a definition, or if the example is only a vague topic with no content (e.g. 'a schema about animals' with no detail is acceptable only if linked to what is expected, otherwise 0 for the example).
Overlapping or repeated points are credited once.

The Theory of Reconstructive Memory says memories are not exact copies but are rebuilt at recall using schemas (packages of knowledge built from experience) and expectations. Reason 1: Tariq has a schema for seaside towns (lighthouse by the beach, ice cream van) based on experience of other towns. This expectation shapes his memory, so he recalls the lighthouse next to the beach rather than on the cliff. Reason 2: He has confabulated: gaps in his memory are filled with plausible but false details, so he 'remembers' an ice cream van that did not exist, and he sincerely believes it. Distortion of the lighthouse colour is a further valid point.

Award 2 marks per reason: 1 mark for identifying a relevant feature of reconstructive memory and 1 mark for applying/developing it to the source (Tariq's lighthouse, ice cream van or reasoning).

Credit: schema / expectation / experience shaping recall (1) + link to Tariq expecting a lighthouse by the beach or van because of other seaside towns (1). Confabulation / filling gaps with made-up details (1) + link to the non-existent ice cream van or sincere belief (1). Distortion/reconstruction changing details such as colour or location of the lighthouse (1) + link (1).

Accept alternative wording. Do not credit decay, displacement or lack of cues as the main point. Cap at 1 mark per reason if there is no link to the source. Overlapping or repeated points are credited once, e.g. schema and expectation as the same point. Maximum 4 marks.

Conformity is changing behaviour or beliefs to fit in with the majority. Obedience is following orders from an authority figure, deindividuation is a loss of self-awareness in a crowd, and confabulation is a memory term.

B (1). Do not credit any other option. Award 0 if more than one box is chosen.

A uniform signals authority and is a feature of the situation. The other options are features of the person (dispositional factors).

C (1). Do not credit any other option. Award 0 if more than one box is chosen.

Dispositional factors are features of the individual, such as personality, self-esteem or brain regions linked to morality. Features of the setting are situational factors, so D is the incorrect statement.

D (1). Do not credit any other option. Award 0 if more than one box is chosen.

Reconstructive memory says memories are rebuilt using schemas, not replayed exactly. Mina's experience of markets gives her a schema (stallholders wear red aprons). When recalling, she filled the gap with what she expected, so she recalled a red apron.

1 mark for a correct point about reconstructive memory, e.g. memory is affected by schemas / experience / expectations, or memory is rebuilt rather than recalled exactly (1).
1 mark for applying it to Mina, e.g. her experience of red aprons at other markets led her to expect/recall red, so she distorted the green apron (1).
Accept alternative wording. Also credit confabulation if linked to Mina adding a detail that was not there.
Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the source. Do not credit a point about decay or displacement.

Freud argued that dreams have a manifest content (what is remembered) and a hidden latent content (the real unconscious meaning). The corridor and clock are the manifest content. The latent content could be Omar's repressed anxiety about running out of time before the interview.

1 mark for a correct idea from Freud's theory, e.g. manifest content is a disguised version of latent content / dreams express repressed unconscious thoughts or wishes (1).
1 mark for applying it to Omar, e.g. the long corridor and ticking clock symbolise his unconscious worry about the interview or about time running out (1).
Accept alternative wording. Any sensible interpretation linked to the source is credited.
Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the source. Do not credit points about REM sleep or the pons (Activation Synthesis).

Maya used an opportunity sample (she chose whoever was available nearby). A weakness is that this type of sample is likely to be biased and unrepresentative of the target population. Because every participant was a Year 11 student from the same school, the results may only apply to teenagers of that age and cannot be generalised to other ages or groups. The sample is also small (20), which makes this worse.

3 marks in total.
1 mark for identifying a valid weakness of opportunity sampling, e.g. biased / unrepresentative / not random (1).
1 mark for developing the weakness, e.g. so the results cannot be generalised to the wider population / lacks population validity (1).
1 mark for applying it to the scenario, e.g. all the participants were Year 11 students from one school or were only those who walked past the library at lunchtime (1).
Accept alternative wording. Also credit a small sample size of 20 limiting generalisability, if linked to the scenario.
Do not credit general statements such as 'it is a bad sample' or 'it is unfair'.
Cap at 2 marks if there is no link to the context.

Percentage = (number who remembered ÷ total number of students) × 100.
\( \frac{47}{160} \times 100 = 29.375 \)
To one decimal place this is 29.4%.

1 mark for a correct fraction or division: 47 ÷ 160 (or 0.29375) (1).
1 mark for multiplying by 100 to give 29.375 (1).
1 mark for the correct answer rounded to one decimal place: 29.4% (1).
Full marks for the correct answer of 29.4 (%) with or without working. Accept 29.4 without the % sign.
Award working marks even if the final answer is wrong, e.g. if the rounding is incorrect (29.3 or 29.38 scores 2 marks).
Do not credit 160 ÷ 47 or 47 ÷ 100 as correct method.
Accept alternative forms of working, e.g. 47 ÷ 1.6 = 29.375.

Being unable to form new memories after an injury, while old memories remain, is anterograde amnesia. This is linked to hippocampal damage. Retrograde amnesia is loss of past memories (frontal lobe), and the cerebellum is linked to procedural memory. Displacement is a type of forgetting, not a neurological condition.

1 mark for A only. Do not credit more than one answer. B is wrong because retrograde amnesia affects memories from before the injury. C is wrong because procedural memory is not the problem described. D is wrong because displacement is not a brain-damage condition.

In the multi-store model, rehearsal moves information from short-term memory into long-term memory (and maintains it in short-term memory). Moving information from long-term memory back to short-term memory is retrieval, not rehearsal. So D is the incorrect statement.

1 mark for D only. A, B and C are all correct statements of the model, so they must not be credited. Do not credit more than one answer.

Reconstructive memory says memories are rebuilt using schemas and expectations. The word 'smashed' in the leading question distorted Omar's memory, and he invented a detail (broken glass) to fill a gap, which is confabulation. The other options describe forgetting (decay, displacement, retrieval failure), which does not explain recalling something that never happened.

1 mark for B only. Do not credit more than one answer. A, C and D are types of forgetting or multi-store ideas and do not explain recalling a false detail.

Reconstructive memory proposes that recall is an active rebuilding process. Schemas are packages of knowledge built from experience and expectation. Confabulation is the unintentional filling of memory gaps with invented details. Leading questions suggest an answer and can distort memory. Decay, displacement and rehearsal belong to other explanations of forgetting or to the multi-store model, so they are the unused words.

1 mark for each correct word in the correct gap:
(1) schemas (1)
(2) confabulation (1)
(3) leading questions (1)

Guidance: Accept 'schema' for (1) and 'leading question' for (3). Do not credit a word used in more than one gap, as each word may be used once only. Do not credit decay, displacement or rehearsal in any gap. Each gap is marked independently.

Define confabulation (1) and apply it to Marek's false memory of the band (1).

1 mark for stating that confabulation is the creation or filling in of gaps in memory with details that did not happen / that the person believes to be true (1).
1 mark for applying this to Marek, e.g. he could not remember all of the trip so unconsciously added the brass band to complete the memory (1).
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit deliberate lying. Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to Marek.

Give a valid criticism (1) and develop it with a reason or example (1). Subjectivity is the most likely criticism.

1 mark for a valid criticism, e.g. dream interpretation is subjective / the theory is unfalsifiable / it is based on case studies of a few patients (1).
1 mark for development, e.g. different analysts could interpret the same dream differently so the latent content cannot be checked or proved (1).
Also credit a criticism that the theory is based on a small unrepresentative sample, with development. Do not credit a description of the theory without a criticism.

1 mark for the definition, 1 mark for a correct example.

1 mark for a definition: an external or environmental cue that influences / resets the body clock or sleep-wake cycle (1).
1 mark for a suitable example, e.g. light or dark, temperature, meal times, social cues, alarm clocks (1).
Do not credit melatonin or the pineal gland as an example, as these are internal. Accept alternative wording.

Ravi adds details (a drawbridge and a knight) that did not happen and believes they are true. The Theory of Reconstructive Memory calls this confabulation.

1 mark for confabulation (1). Accept 'confabulating' or a clearly spelled close variant. Do not credit 'distortion', 'schema' or 'false memory' alone.

The story Leila remembers (school, no shoes, exam papers) is the manifest content. The hidden worry about being judged is the latent content.

1 mark for latent content (1). Accept 'latent'. Do not credit 'manifest content'.

The children do not know they are being watched, so the observation is covert.

1 mark for covert (1). Accept 'covert observation'. Do not credit 'naturalistic' or 'non-participant' alone, or 'overt'.

Choose one valid criticism (e.g. reductionism/holism: the theory reduces forgetting and distortion to schemas alone and ignores biological explanations; or the evidence is often from artificial lab tasks, lacking ecological validity). Award 1 mark for identifying the criticism, 1 for developing why it is a weakness, and 1 for applying it to Imani and Tomasz.

3 marks: 1 mark for a criticism identified (e.g. reductionist; ignores biological factors; cannot be easily tested; low ecological validity of evidence) + 1 mark for development explaining why this limits the theory + 1 mark for a link to the source (Imani's red hat/rabbit, Tomasz's parrot or the fair setting).
Accept alternative wording. Also credit the other recognised criticism of the theory, such as the reductionism/holism debate, with a suitable development and context link.
Do not credit a strength of the theory.
Do not credit a description of the theory without evaluation.
Cap at 2 marks if there is no link to the source. Apply the context mark only if it is linked to the criticism given.

Each criticism earns 1 mark for a valid criticism and 1 mark for development or explanation.

Criticism 1 (reductionism/holism): The theory reduces remembering to cognitive schemas alone (1). It ignores biological influences, such as the hippocampus in forming memories, and emotional or social influences, so it gives only a partial explanation of memory (1).

Criticism 2 (lack of testability): Schemas are mental constructs that cannot be observed directly (1). Researchers can only infer them from distorted recall, so it is hard to show that schemas, rather than other factors, caused the errors (1).

Total 4 marks: two criticisms, each worth [2] = 1 mark for a valid criticism + 1 mark for development/explanation.

Creditable criticisms include: reductionist, ignoring biological or other explanations (1) with a developed link, e.g. the role of the hippocampus (1); schemas are vague or untestable and cannot be directly observed (1) so cause and effect cannot be shown (1); reliance on artificial lab tasks or leading-question studies that lack ecological validity (1) so findings may not apply to everyday memory (1); the theory cannot explain why some memories are accurate (1) as it emphasises distortion (1); the theory does not explain how schemas form or differ between individuals (1) and so cannot predict who will distort (1).

Accept alternative wording. Also credit the Braun, Ellis and Loftus (2002) study as supporting evidence for a developed criticism. Do not credit a development without a valid criticism. Do not credit generic evaluation not linked to the theory (e.g. 'small sample' with no link). Overlapping or repeated points are credited once. Cap at 1 mark per criticism if no development.

Reconstructive memory (Bartlett) says memories are not stored as exact copies. They are rebuilt at recall using schemas, which are packages of knowledge built from experience and expectation. Imran's schema of a school hall or stage probably includes a large stage and traditional red curtains. His memory has been distorted to fit it, and he has confabulated details he never actually saw.

2 marks: 1 mark for identifying a relevant reason from the theory (e.g. schemas / expectations / experience / confabulation / distortion) plus 1 mark for developing it by linking to Imran's memory of the stage or curtains.

Example points:
- Imran has a schema for school halls / stages that includes big stages and red curtains (1) so his memory was changed to fit what he expects (1).
- Over time he has confabulated details to fill gaps in his memory (1), so he now 'remembers' a large stage and red curtains that were not there (1).
- His later experiences of theatres/halls have altered his memory (1), so it has been reconstructed to match them (1).

Guidance: Accept alternative wording. The development mark must be linked to the context (stage / curtains / hall); cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the scenario. Do not credit simple 'he forgot' or 'decay' without reference to reconstruction or schemas. Do not credit multi-store model explanations. Repeated or overlapping points are credited once.

Braun et al. (2002) tested whether exposure to a fake advert could lead people to remember a childhood event that had not happened. Option B matches this aim. A concerns capacity of STM, C is unrelated to the study and D concerns neurological damage (a different core study).

B (1 mark). Do not credit any other option.

The fake advert featured Bugs Bunny, a character who would not have been found at a Disney resort. Participants were later asked about their memories of childhood visits, which showed that some now 'remembered' meeting him.

C (1 mark). Do not credit any other option.

Memories were altered by new information from the advert, so recall was rebuilt using schemas, expectation and suggestion. This is the idea behind the theory of reconstructive memory. The other theories explain memory stores, dreaming and learning from role models.

B (1 mark). Do not credit any other option.

Manifest content is the dream as remembered (B). Latent content is the hidden meaning uncovered by analysis (A). Repression is the defence mechanism that keeps disturbing material in the unconscious (C). Wish fulfilment is the idea that dreams disguise the satisfaction of unconscious desires (D).

Correct matches: 1-B, 2-A, 3-C, 4-D.
4 correct matches = 2 marks.
2 or 3 correct matches = 1 mark.
0 or 1 correct match = 0 marks.
Do not credit a term with more than one line drawn from it; if a term has two lines, that match is not credited.
Accept clear alternative methods of showing the match (e.g. letters written next to terms).

Technique 1: Relaxation. Marek could tense and then relax each muscle group in turn, or practise slow breathing, before bed (1). This calms the nervous system and lowers arousal, so Marek could fall asleep more quickly instead of lying awake for an hour (1).

Technique 2: Improved sleep hygiene (physical environment). Make the bedroom dark, quiet and comfortable, for example with blackout curtains and earplugs (1). This would reduce the light and road noise that keep Marek awake, and he should also leave his phone outside the bedroom (1).

Two techniques, each worth up to 2 marks [2+2]: 1 mark for a correct description of the technique, plus 1 mark for a link to Marek's scenario (application/development).

Credit: relaxation techniques (progressive muscle relaxation, breathing exercises, meditation, visualisation); sleep hygiene relating to the physical environment (dark room, blackout curtains, reducing noise, comfortable temperature, comfortable bed, no screens/phone in bedroom). Also credit a regular bedtime routine as sleep hygiene.
Accept alternative wording.
Do not credit medication or sleeping pills.
Do not credit caffeine avoidance alone as a physical-environment technique, but credit it as general sleep hygiene if linked to Marek.
If both techniques are sleep hygiene, they must be clearly different (e.g. noise control and removing the phone) to gain separate credit.
Cap at 2 marks if there is no link to Marek (max 1 mark per technique for description only).
Overlapping or repeated points are credited once.

The key concepts for sleep include its benefits for a healthy brain, physical repair and emotional stability. Two different benefits are stated, 1 mark each.

1 mark for each valid benefit of sleep, up to 2 marks (2 x 1).

Credit any two from:
- Healthy brain functioning, e.g. better memory, concentration or learning (1)
- Physical repair, e.g. the body repairs tissue or muscle, or growth occurs (1)
- Emotional stability, e.g. better mood regulation, less irritability or lower stress (1)

Accept alternative wording. Do not credit vague answers such as 'it is good for you' or 'it gives you energy' without further detail. Do not credit features of sleep (e.g. REM, dreaming, the pineal gland releasing melatonin) as benefits. Overlapping or repeated points are credited once.

A strong answer first describes the theory (AO1): REM sleep; neurons in the pons produce random activity; signals reach the limbic system (emotion) and cerebral cortex; the cortex performs synthesis, building a story from the signals; dreams are therefore often bizarre. It may cite Williams et al. (1992) on bizarreness. It then evaluates (AO3): the theory is reductionist because it explains a complex experience through brain activity alone. Strengths of reductionism: scientific, testable, objective brain data, simple. Weaknesses: ignores emotions, personal experiences and meaning; cannot explain why dream content is linked to a person's concerns; dream reports are subjective. A holistic contrast is Freud's theory (unconscious mind, repression, wish fulfilment, manifest vs latent content), which gives meaning but is unfalsifiable and subjective. Other credited links: the role of the limbic system, melatonin/pineal gland, research methods issues (case studies, self-report, validity of dream diaries). A conclusion judges the claim: the debate is not settled; biology and psychology complement each other.

13 marks: AO1 = 6 marks, AO3 = 7 marks. Use best fit within levels.

AO1 (knowledge and understanding of the Activation Synthesis Theory) - 6 marks:
Level 3 (5-6): thorough, accurate and detailed description including several of: REM sleep, random neuron activity in the pons, limbic system, cerebral cortex, synthesis of signals into a dream story, bizarre content, reference to Williams et al. (1992). Terminology used correctly.
Level 2 (3-4): good description with some detail; two or three accurate points, may lack some detail.
Level 1 (1-2): basic, limited description, e.g. 'dreams are caused by the brain'; may be vague or contain inaccuracies.
0: nothing creditable.

AO3 (analysis and evaluation, judgement about the claim) - 7 marks:
Level 3 (6-7): thorough, balanced evaluation with developed points on the reductionism/holism debate (strengths and weaknesses of a biological-only explanation) AND a link to at least one other theory, study or idea from a different area (e.g. Freud, research methods) used to evaluate; a supported, reasoned judgement or conclusion on the claim.
Level 2 (3-5): good evaluation with some development; may be one-sided or the other area is only briefly used; judgement is present but only partly supported.
Level 1 (1-2): basic evaluation, simple assertions, little development; no or unsupported judgement.
0: nothing creditable.

Guidance: Accept alternative wording. Also credit valid points on the subjectivity of dream reports, scientific/objective brain evidence, nature of generalisability, and the interaction of biology and psychology. Do not credit a description of Freud's theory with no link to evaluating the claim as AO3 (it may be credited only as a developed contrast). Cap AO3 at Level 2 (5 marks) if there is no reference to the reductionism/holism debate, and cap at Level 2 if no other area of the course is used. Do not award AO1 marks for the evaluation points. Overlapping or repeated points are credited once.

The IV is the variable the researcher manipulates. Here the psychologist changes the learning condition: traffic noise (Group B) versus silence (Group A). The number of words recalled is the DV, not the IV.

1 mark for: presence/absence of background noise (traffic noise vs silence) during learning (1).
Accept alternative wording, e.g. 'the type of room/noise condition'.
Do not credit: number of words recalled (this is the DV); 'noise' alone is accepted only if it is clear it is varied between the groups.

The DV is the variable that is measured. The researcher measures how long each pupil takes to complete the puzzle, using a stopwatch. The colour of the worksheet is the IV.

1 mark for: the time taken (in seconds) to complete the puzzle (1).
Accept alternative wording, e.g. 'how quickly pupils finished the puzzle'.
Do not credit: worksheet colour (this is the IV); 'the puzzle' with no reference to time.

Each participant's calmness is recorded as a number on a 1 to 10 scale, so the data is numerical. This makes it quantitative data.

1 mark for: quantitative (1).
Accept 'numerical data' or 'primary data' only if quantitative is also given; 'primary' alone does not answer the question as set.
Do not credit: qualitative.

An extraneous variable is a variable other than the independent variable that could affect the dependent variable (words recalled). Example: students in one condition may be more tired or have different time of day for testing, or the lists could differ in difficulty. The point is identified (1) and its effect on recall in this study is explained (1).

1 mark for identifying a suitable extraneous variable (e.g. time of day, word list difficulty/length, prior knowledge or memory ability of students, tiredness, volume of the recording, room temperature, instructions given). (1)
1 mark for explaining how it could affect the number of words recalled / confound the results, linked to the brief. (1)
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit the independent variable (background noise) or the dependent variable (words recalled). Do not credit vague answers such as 'the students' with no variable named. Cap at 1 mark if no link to the study is made.

Independent measures means different participants in each condition. Strengths: no order effects (practice, boredom, fatigue) and participants are less likely to work out the aim, so demand characteristics are reduced. The same word list can be used in both conditions without students remembering it from a previous attempt.

1 mark for a correct strength of independent measures design (e.g. no order effects; less chance of guessing the aim/demand characteristics; the same materials can be used for both conditions). (1)
1 mark for development applied to the brief, e.g. students would not remember the words from an earlier condition so recall in condition B is not improved by practice. (1)
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit weaknesses (e.g. individual differences) or strengths of repeated measures only. Cap at 1 mark if there is no link to the context.

Total words recalled = (6 x 1) + (7 x 2) + (8 x 3) + (9 x 2) + (10 x 2) = 6 + 14 + 24 + 18 + 20 = 82. Number of students = 10. Mean = 82 / 10 = 8.2 words. Range = highest score - lowest score = 10 - 6 = 4 words.

1 mark for the correct mean: 8.2 (working: 82 / 10). (1)
1 mark for the correct range: 4 (10 - 6). (1)
Accept 8.2 without working for the mean. Allow one mark for the mean if the total (82) and division by 10 are shown but there is an arithmetic slip. Do not credit a range given as '6 to 10' or '6-10' unless 4 is stated. Do not credit a mean of 8.2 reached by dividing by 5 rows (the frequencies must be used).

Random sampling means every member of the target population has an equal chance of selection. Mr Osei needs a list of all 120 students, assigns each a number, then picks 20 numbers by chance (random number generator, names or numbers drawn from a hat). Those 20 students form the sample.

1 mark for obtaining a full list of / numbering all 120 Year 10 students (or putting all names in a container). (1)
1 mark for selecting 20 by a chance method, e.g. random number generator or drawing from a hat, so each student has an equal chance of being chosen. (1)
Accept alternative wording. Do not credit picking students who are available, volunteers, or friends (opportunity or self-selected sampling). Do not credit 'choose randomly' with no method given for the second mark.

An extraneous variable is a variable other than the independent variable that could affect the dependent variable and is not the focus of the study. In this brief, students are tested in groups in a hall, so background noise or distractions from other students could differ between students. A student who is distracted may remember fewer words, so differences in recall might be caused by the distraction and not by the music. This makes it unclear whether the music caused the difference.

1 mark for stating a suitable extraneous variable (e.g. background noise or distraction in the hall; differences in the students' existing memory ability or age/ability between the two groups; tiredness or time of day; volume or type of music; how much each student wanted to try hard; whether students could see each other's answers).
1 mark for explaining how it could affect the dependent variable (number of words recalled).
1 mark for applying the explanation to the context of Ms Okafor's investigation (e.g. music, word list, hall, Year 10 students) and/or saying it could make the results less valid or act as a confounding variable.
Accept alternative wording. Also credit 'participant variables' if a specific example is given, such as some students having better memories.
Do not credit the independent variable (music/silence) or the dependent variable (words recalled) as the extraneous variable. Do not credit vague answers such as 'the students' or 'it is unfair' with no development.
Cap at 2 marks if the answer is not linked to the context.
Cap at 1 mark for a stated variable with no explanation of its effect on the results.

Total words recalled = \( (3 \times 2) + (4 \times 3) + (5 \times 4) + (6 \times 1) = 6 + 12 + 20 + 6 = 44 \).
Number of students = \( 2 + 3 + 4 + 1 = 10 \).
Mean = \( 44 \div 10 = 4.4 \).
Range = highest score - lowest score = \( 6 - 3 = 3 \).

1 mark for the correct mean: 4.4 (1).
1 mark for the correct range: 3 (1).
Working: if the mean is wrong but the working shows the total of 44 divided by 10 (or an attempt at sum of score x frequency divided by number of participants), award the mark for the mean method only where the final answer is incorrect and the range is also correct, capped at 2 marks in total. Accept 4.4 words. Accept range written as 3 or 3 words. Do not credit a range given as '3 to 6' or '3-6' without the subtraction being shown as 3.

Total objects = \( (2 \times 1) + (3 \times 3) + (4 \times 4) + (6 \times 2) = 2 + 9 + 16 + 12 = 39 \).
Number of volunteers = \( 1 + 3 + 4 + 2 = 10 \).
Mean = \( 39 \div 10 = 3.9 \).
Range = \( 6 - 2 = 4 \).

1 mark for the correct mean: 3.9 (1).
1 mark for the correct range: 4 (1).
Working: if the mean is wrong but the working shows the total of 39 divided by 10 (or a correct method of sum of score x frequency divided by number of participants), award credit for the method, capped at 2 marks in total. Accept 3.9 objects. Accept range written as 4 or 4 objects. Do not credit a range given as '2 to 6' or '2-6' without the subtraction giving 4.