Q1.
A head teacher wanted to increase recycling in his school. He arranged for the canteen to have three bins, one for cardboard, one for plastic and one for food waste. A month later, a psychology teacher decided to see if the students were recycling. One lunch break she watched different students going to the bins. Each time, she wrote down which of the three types of waste they recycled. She positioned herself so that the students could not see her but so that she had a clear view of the bins.
(a)     Identify one type of observation being used in this investigation.
Justify your answer.
(2)
(b)     Explain the sampling technique the teacher used to record her observations.
(2)
As the different year groups had lunch at different times, the teacher was able to present her results as three year groups, as shown in the table below.
The number of items each year group recycled
 
Year group	Cardboard	Plastic	Food	
7-9	20	35	10	
10-11	18	25	7	
12-13	12	15	5	
(c)    What do the results in the table suggest about the recycling initiative?
Refer to the data in the table above in your answer.
(4)
(d)    Explain one way in which the design of this observation could have been improved.
(2)
(Total 10 marks)
Q2.
A psychologist was at a concert where someone threw a bottle onto the stage and seriously injured one of the band members. The psychologist decided to use this incident to investigate the accuracy of eye witness testimony. She asked 10 people who saw the bottle being thrown, if they would allow her to interview them about this. A week later she interviewed each witness separately in a quiet room and asked them the same closed questions about what they had seen. She recorded their answers. It took her two and a half hours in total to interview the 10 witnesses.
(a)     Calculate how many hours it would have taken the psychologist to interview all 1000 people who were at the event. Show your workings.
(2)
(b)     Identify one type of data the psychologist collected in this study. Explain your answer.
(2)
(c)    Investigator effects may influence this study. Explain how the investigation might be modified to reduce these effects.
(2)
(d)    The psychologist submitted a report of her investigation to a journal for peer review. What would she expect the process to involve?
(2)
(Total 8 marks)
Q3.
A researcher carried out an overt observation study of social learning. For one week the helping behaviour of children in a playgroup was recorded. All the children then saw a short film in which a child was praised for tidying up toys. For the following week the helping behaviour of the same children in the playgroup was recorded.
(a)    Which of the following statements is the best description of an overt observation study?
 
A	The researcher becomes a member of the group whose behaviour is being observed.		
B	The researcher uses a structured procedure in which behaviour is watched and recorded.		
C	The researcher watches and records behaviour in the setting it would normally occur.		
D	The researcher watches and records behaviour of a group that knows it is being observed.		
(1)
(b)    Briefly discuss one way in which a covert observation of children might be more beneficial than an overt observation.
(3)
(c)     At the end of the observation study the researcher used a sign test to see if the behaviour of the children was more helpful, less helpful or the same after seeing the film than it was before they had seen the film.
Explain why the researcher decided the sign test would be an appropriate statistical test to use on the data from this study.
(4)
(Total 8 marks)
Q4.
A researcher was interested in the relationship between the number of hours a course was taught using a computer program and the satisfaction of the students on the course.
As part of his research he conducted a pilot study as follows. A topic from a business studies course was divided into 10 equal one-hour sessions.
Eleven students who were matched for their high level of interest in business studies took part in the study.
All 11 students completed all 10 hours of the topic. They were taught either completely online, with a combination of online teaching and classroom teaching, or just in a classroom.
Each student was allocated a letter, from A to K randomly. This determined the number of hours they studied online and the number of hours they studied in a classroom. The combinations are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: The numbers of hours each student (labelled A – K) studied the topic online and in a classroom with a teacher
 
 	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	
Number of online hours	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	0	
Number of classroom hours	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	
(a)     Explain why it was important to match the students on their high level of interest in business studies.
(2)
(b)     Suggest one other variable for which the researcher should have matched the students. Explain how this might have affected the satisfaction scores if it was not controlled.
(2)
(c)     Outline one benefit of allocating the students randomly to the different numbers of online hours and classroom hours as seen in Table 1.
(2)
(d)     The sample used in this pilot study was an opportunity sample. Briefly explain how using a stratified sample when the final study is conducted might be an improvement to the design.
(3)
(e)     The researcher designed a questionnaire to collect data from the students about how satisfied they felt when they had completed the course.
Give an example of an appropriate question that the researcher might use to collect qualitative data on the questionnaire.
(1)
(f)   Briefly explain one problem the researcher might have in analysing the qualitative data collected from the questionnaires.
(2)
(g)     Outline one ethical issue that should have been taken into account when carrying out the questionnaire.
(1)
In order to analyse all the responses to the questionnaire, each response was given a score by the researcher. The maximum score on the questionnaire was 20, where a score of 0 meant dissatisfied and a score of 20 meant very satisfied.
The following data was collected by the researcher.
Table 2: The numbers of hours each student (labelled A – K) studied the topic online and the satisfaction scores of each student.
 
 	A	B	C	D	E	F	G	H	I	J	K	
Number of online hours	10	9	8	7	6	5	4	3	2	1	0	
Satisfaction scores	5	6	8	7	10	12	13	15	17	19	19	
(h)    Using the data in Table 2 and the graph paper provided below, draw an appropriate scattergram. Fully label your display.
 
(4)
(i)   What conclusion might the researcher draw, based on the results of the study?
(2)
(j)    The researcher looked at the mode and median satisfaction scores of the students. Calculate these two descriptive statistics.
(2)
(k)     Explain why the median would be more suitable than the mode to represent the average score for satisfaction for the students.
(2)
(l)    Another researcher looked at the data for the satisfaction scores and commented that they suggested a negative skew in the data.
Look at the following sets of descriptive statistics from a different study. Which of the sets (A or B or C) would indicate a negative skew in the distribution of the data?
 
A	Mean: 7.3, median: 7.5, mode: 7.0		
B	Mean: 7.3, median: 10.5, mode: 16		
C	Mean: 7.3, median: 6.5, mode: 5		
(1)
(Total 24 marks)
Q5.
A researcher studying depression wanted to see whether or not there was a relationship between level of self-esteem and negative schema score. She constructed two questionnaires and asked ten people who had been diagnosed with depression to complete them.
One questionnaire measured the participant’s level of self-esteem. A low score (out of 50) indicated low self-esteem.
The other questionnaire measured whether the participant showed evidence of negative schema. A low score (out of 50) indicated evidence of negative schema. The two sets of results for each participant are shown in the table below.
Table 1 - Self-esteem score and negative schema score for each patient
 
Participant	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	
Self-esteem score	8	9	9	11	13	17	18	18	20	22	
Negative schema score	11	15	13	18	12	14	20	16	17	19	
(a)    Is negative schema score best described as measuring a cognitive, emotional or behavioural characteristic of depression?
 
A	Cognitive		
B	Emotional		
C	Behavioural		
(1)
(b)    Draw a suitable graphical display to represent the data in Table 1. Label your graph appropriately.
Title:_______________________________________________________________
 
(4)
The researcher analysed the data in Table 1 using a Spearman’s rho statistical test.
(c)    With reference to level of measurement, explain why Spearman’s rho is an appropriate statistical test for this data.
(2)
(d)    Estimate the correlation coefficient most likely to result from analysis of the data in Table 1.
The correlation coefficient would be approximately
 
+0.95	 		
+0.70	 		
+0.30	 		
+0.15	 		
(1)
(Total 8 marks)
Q6.
A psychologist was reading an article about typical dream themes in adults.
The pie chart below shows the main dream themes identified in the article.
Main dream themes
 
(a)    Using the pie chart above, estimate the percentage of dreams that were reported to be about being chased.
 
A	4%		
B	12%		
C	27%		
D	42%		
(1)
The psychologist was interested in finding out whether dream themes differed between males and females, particularly in terms of social interaction. She decided to conduct a pilot study. Twenty undergraduate students (8 male and 12 female) volunteered for the study. For a six-week period the students were interviewed at 9 am each morning when they arrived at university. Interviewers, who did not know the purpose of the study, carried out and recorded the dream interviews.
(b)    What is meant by a pilot study? Explain one possible reason why the psychologist decided to conduct a pilot study for this investigation.
(3)
(c)    The interviews produced qualitative data.
What is meant by qualitative data? Give one strength of collecting qualitative data in this study.
(2)
(d)    What are investigator effects? Suggest one way in which they could have been minimised during the dream interviews.
(3)
(e)    Another researcher, who did not know the purpose of the study, carried out a content analysis of the interview data.
Explain how this content analysis could have been conducted.
(4)
(f)    The psychologist wanted to assess the reliability of the content analysis.
Explain how the reliability of the content analysis could be assessed.
(4)
When comparing the data for males and females, the psychologist found that there was a difference in the proportion of friendly and aggressive social interactions. This is shown in the table below.
Percentage of friendly and aggressive social interactions in dreams reported by males and females
 
 	Males	Females	
Friendly	40%	56%	
Aggressive	60%	44%	
(g)    A total of 375 dreams reported by males included social interaction. Use the data in the table above to calculate how many of these dreams reported by males were classified as aggressive. Show your workings.
(2)
(h)    Draw a suitable graphical display to represent the data in the table above. Label your graph appropriately.
Title:_______________________________________________________________
 
(4)
(Total 23 marks)
Q7.
A psychologist decided to conduct an experiment to investigate the effect of watching horror films before going to bed.
A volunteer sample of 50 university students consented to take part in the experiment.
The 50 students were randomly split into two groups. Group 1 watched a horror film before going to bed each night for the first week then a romantic comedy before going to bed each night for the second week. Group 2 watched the romantic comedy in the first week and the horror film in the second week.
When the students woke up each morning, each student received a text message that asked if they had had a nightmare during the night. They could respond ‘yes’ or ‘no’.
(a)    Write a brief consent form that would have been suitable for use in this experiment.
The consent form should:
•   include some detail of what participants might expect to happen
•   refer to ethical issues
•   be in an appropriate format / style.
(6)
(b)    The psychologist proposed a directional hypothesis.
Write a directional hypothesis for this experiment.
(3)
(c)    The psychologist used a repeated measures design in this experiment.
Explain why it was important to use a repeated measures design in this case.
(2)
(d)    The psychologist used counterbalancing in this experiment.
Explain why it was appropriate to use counterbalancing in this experiment.
(2)
(e)    Explain how the psychologist could have randomly split the sample of 50 students into the two groups.
(3)
The psychologist collated the responses of all the participants over the two-week period and calculated the mean and standard deviation for each condition.
Mean number of nightmares reported and the standard deviation for each condition
 
 	Mean number of nightmares in 7 days	Standard deviation	
Horror films	2.18	1.48	
Romantic comedies	0.30	0.61	
(f)    What do the mean and standard deviation values in the table above suggest about the effect of the type of film watched on the occurrence of nightmares? Justify your answer.
(4)
(g)    The psychologist found that the difference in the number of nightmares reported in the two conditions was significant at p<0.05.
Explain what is meant by ‘significant at p<0.05’ in the context of this experiment.
(2)
(h)    The psychologist was concerned about the validity of the experiment.
Suggest one possible modification to the design of the experiment and explain how this might improve validity.
(3)
(Total 25 marks)
Q8.
A psychologist investigated cognitive processing in two groups of people with schizophrenia. People in Group A showed positive symptoms of schizophrenia and people in Group B showed negative symptoms of schizophrenia. Each person completed a cognitive task and was given an overall score. The psychologist then calculated average scores for each group. The results are shown in the table below.
 
Measure of central tendency	Group A scores	Group B scores	
Mean	22.4	26	
Median	22.5	22.5	
Mode	22	16	
Using the data in the table above, explain how the distribution of scores in Group A differs from the distribution of scores in Group B.
(Total 4 marks)
Q9.
A psychologist investigated perception of foods in two groups of people. People in Group A were on a calorie-counting diet and people in Group B were on a low-fat diet. Each person completed a perception task and was given an overall score. The psychologist then calculated average scores for each group.The results are shown in the table below.
 
Measure of central tendency	Group A scores	Group B scores	
Mean	22.4	26	
Median	22.5	22.5	
Mode	22	16	
Using the data in the table above, explain how the distribution of scores in Group A differs from the distribution of scores in Group B.
(Total 4 marks)
Q10.
A psychologist investigated workplace stress in two groups of people. People in Group A were employed by a company and people in Group B were self-employed. Each person completed a stress test and was given an overall score. The psychologist then calculated average scores for each group. The results are shown in the table below.
 
Measure of central tendency	Group A scores	Group B scores	
Mean	22.4	26	
Median	22.5	22.5	
Mode	22	16	
Using the data in the table above, explain how the distribution of scores in Group A differs from the distribution of scores in Group B.
(Total 4 marks)
Q11.
A researcher is investigating gender differences in classification of attachment. They conduct a study using Ainsworth’s ‘Strange Situation’. The results are shown in the figure below.
The proportions of boys and girls who are classified as securely attached
 
(a)     Using the information in the figure, estimate the percentage of boys and girls that are securely attached.
Boys =
Girls =
(2)
(b)     In a different study, 150 children were classified as securely attached. Of these, 40% were boys. How many of the 150 children were girls? Show your workings.
(2)
(c)     The researcher collected quantitative data using the ‘Strange Situation’. He then decided to collect qualitative data by conducting interviews with some of the parents of the infants.
Describe two differences between these types of data.
(4)
(Total 8 marks)
Q12.
Students often claim that listening to music helps them to concentrate. A psychologist was not aware of any previous research in this area. She decided to investigate this claim.
Forty students from a nearby sixth form centre volunteered to take part in her study. They each answered the following question:
‘Do you think that you concentrate on your work ‘better’, ‘worse’ or ‘the same’ if you listen to music while working?’
She obtained the results in Table 1.
Table 1: Responses to question - ‘Do you think that you concentrate on your work ‘better’, ‘worse’ or ‘the same’ if you listen to music while working?’
 
Better	Worse	The same	
22	8	10	
(a)     Should the hypothesis for this study be directional? Explain your answer.
(2)
(b)     What percentage of the students reported that they would be able to concentrate ‘better’ if they listened to music while they worked? Show your workings.
(2)
(c)     Explain why using stratified sampling might improve this study.
(2)
(d)     The data collected in this study is primary data.
Explain what is meant by ‘primary data’.
(2)
(e)     In a follow-up study, the psychologist obtained a volunteer sample of 10 students aged 17 years from a different sixth form centre. Using a repeated measures design, participants were asked to complete two puzzle tasks as quickly as possible.
Task A was to find 10 differences in a ‘spot the difference’ puzzle while working in silence.
Task B was to find 10 differences in another ‘spot the difference’ puzzle while listening to music through headphones.
The tasks were counterbalanced and the time taken to complete each task was recorded for each student.
Table 2: Times taken (in seconds) to complete Task A (silence) and Task B (music)
 
Participant	Task A (silence)	Task B (music)	
1	67	82	
2	45	70	
3	58	60	
4	43	59	
5	72	77	
6	90	105	
7	101	90	
8	37	59	
9	54	83	
10	63	89	
Explain one reason why the mean would be the most appropriate measure of central tendency to summarise the data in Table 2.
(2)
(f)     Calculate the mean values for both Task A and Task B. Show your workings.
(4)
(g)     The psychologist used counterbalancing in the follow-up study.
Discuss the purpose of counterbalancing.
(3)
(h)     Identify one possible extraneous variable that the psychologist should have controlled in this follow-up study. Explain how this variable might have affected the results of the study if it was not controlled.
(3)
(i)      Explain how the follow-up study could be said to be an improvement on the original study.
(4)
(Total 24 marks)
Q13.
A researcher wants to investigate the effectiveness of physiotherapy in the recovery of stroke patients with brain damage. Carers of stroke patients will be sent questionnaires to produce quantitative data.
(a)     Explain one disadvantage of obtaining quantitative data in this study.
(2)
(b)     Write one question that could be used in the researcher’s questionnaire to produce quantitative data and one question that could be used in the researcher’s questionnaire to produce qualitative data.
Quantitative question:
Qualitative question:
(2)
(Total 4 marks)
Q14.
A psychologist wanted to test whether listening to music improves running performance.
The psychologist conducted a study using 10 volunteers from a local gym. The psychologist used a repeated measures design. Half of the participants were assigned to condition A (without music) and half to condition B (with music).
All participants were asked to run 400 metres as fast as they could on a treadmill in the psychology department. All participants were given standardised instructions. All participants wore headphones in both conditions. The psychologist recorded their running times in seconds. The participants returned to the psychology department the following week and repeated the test in the other condition.
(a)     Identify the type of experiment used in this study. 
 
A	Laboratory		
B	Natural		
C	Quasi		
D	Research		
(1)
(b)     Identify the operationalised dependent variable in this study.
(2)
(c)     The results of the study are given in Table 1 below.
Table 1: Mean number of seconds taken to complete the 400m run and the standard deviation for both conditions
 
 	Condition A
(without music)	Condition B
(with music)	
Mean 400m time (s)	123	117	
Standard deviation	9.97	14.5	
Explain why a histogram would not be an appropriate way of displaying the means shown in Table 1.
(2)
(d)     Name a more appropriate graph to display the means shown in Table 1. Suggest appropriate X (horizontal) and Y (vertical) axis labels for your graph choice.
Name of graph: ______________________________________________________
X axis label:_________________________________________________________
Y axis label:_________________________________________________________
(3)
(e)     What do the mean and standard deviation values in Table 1 suggest about the participants’ performances with and without music? Justify your answer.
(4)
(f)     Calculate the percentage decrease in the mean time it took participants to run 400 metres when listening to music. Show your workings. Give your answer to three significant figures.
(4)
(g)     The researcher used a directional hypothesis and analysed the data using a related t-test. The calculated value of t where degrees of freedom (df) = 9 was 1.4377. He decided to use the 5% level of significance.
Table 2: Table of critical values of t
 
Level of significance
for a one-tailed test	0.05	0.025	
Level of significance for
a two-tailed test	0.10	0.05	
df =                             1	6.314	12.706	
2	2.920	4.303	
3	2.353	3.182	
4	2.132	2.776	
5	2.015	2.571	
6	1.943	2.447	
7	1.895	2.365	
8	1.860	2.306	
9	1.833	2.262	
10	1.812	2.228	
Calculated value of t must be equal to or greater than the critical value in this table for significance to be shown.
Give three reasons why the researcher used a related t-test in this study and, using Table 2, explain whether or not the results are significant.
(5)
(h)     What is meant by a Type II error? Explain why psychologists normally use the 5% level of significance in their research.
(3)
(i)      Identify one extraneous variable that could have affected the results of this study. Suggest why it would have been important to control this extraneous variable and how it could have been controlled in this study.
(3)
(j)      The report was submitted for peer review and a number of recommendations were advised.
Describe the process and purposes of peer review.
(6)
(Total 33 marks)
Q15.
A psychologist is investigating causes of offending. She interviews offenders who are in prison for violent crime. She asks them to describe their family and early childhood, recording everything that they say. She also looks at information in the offenders’ court and prison reports.
(a)     Referring to this investigation, explain the difference between primary and secondary data.
(4)
(b)     Explain how the psychologist could continue her investigation by carrying out thematic analysis of the interview recordings.
(2)
(Total 6 marks)
Q16.
A psychologist is investigating causes of offending. She interviews offenders who are in prison for violent crime. She asks them to describe their family and early childhood, recording everything that they say. She also looks at information in the offenders’ court and prison reports.
(a)     Referring to this investigation, explain the difference between primary and secondary data.
(4)
(b)     Explain how the psychologist could continue her investigation by carrying out thematic analysis of the interview recordings.
(2)
(Total 6 marks)
Q17.
A psychologist is investigating causes of addiction to gambling. She interviews people attending debt counselling for problem gamblers. She asks them to describe their family and early childhood, recording everything that they say. She also looks at information in the gamblers’ debt counsellor reports.
(a)     Referring to this investigation, explain the difference between primary and secondary data.
(4)
(b)     Explain how the psychologist could continue her investigation by carrying out thematic analysis of the interview recordings.
(2)
(Total 6 marks)
Q18.
Ten A-level students took part in a study of attitudes to Milgram’s research on obedience. They were asked about the value of Milgram's research and about ethical concerns with Milgram's research.
For each student, the researcher recorded two scores out of 10, a 'value of research' score and an 'ethical concern' score.
A high 'value of research' score means the student thinks Milgram’s research was very valuable and a high 'ethical concern' score means that the student thinks that Milgram’s research caused many ethical concerns.
The findings are shown in the table below.
 
Student	Value of research score	Ethical concern score	
1	6	10	
2	8	9	
3	9	7	
4	5	7	
5	2	3	
6	6	8	
7	7	7	
8	9	8	
9	6	10	
10	6	7	
(a)     How many students have a ‘value of research’ score of 6? 
 
A	2 students		
B	3 students		
C	4 students		
D	5 students		
(1)
(b)     Give the mode for both sets of scores in the table above.
(2)
(c)     The mode is one type of descriptive statistic.
Identify two other descriptive statistics that could be used to further analyse the data in the table above. In each case, explain how the descriptive statistics you have identified could be calculated.
(4)
(Total 7 marks)
Q19.
A researcher wanted to compare the effectiveness of two therapies for young offenders who had been identified as having anger management issues. Offenders, who were all sentenced to two years in a Young Offenders’ Institution, were asked to volunteer to take part in an anger management programme. Fifty volunteers were randomly allocated to Group 1 (Therapy A) or Group 2 (Therapy B).
Each participant’s anger was assessed before and after therapy. For the pre-therapy anger score they completed an Anger Scale questionnaire and their responses were scored. A high score indicated extreme anger and a low score indicated mild anger.
For the next eight weeks, participants attended weekly sessions for either Therapy A or Therapy B.
For the post-therapy anger score, at the end of the treatment period, participants completed the same Anger Scale questionnaire.
The data obtained are shown in the figure below.
Median anger scores before and after therapy for Group 1 (Therapy A) and Group 2 (Therapy B)
 
(a)     The researcher used volunteers for this study. Outline one disadvantage of using volunteers to take part in this study.
(2)
(b)     Explain how the researcher could allocate the volunteers randomly to the conditions of the experiment.
(3)
(c)     Write a suitable hypothesis for this study.
(3)
(d)     What do the data in the figure above seem to suggest?
(3)
(e)     Explain how the study might be improved by using a matched pairs design.
(4)
(f)     Outline one ethical issue that might have occurred in this study and explain how the researcher could have dealt with this issue.
(4)
(g)     Give one disadvantage of using median values as seen in the figure above to represent the anger scores of participants.
(1)
(h)     Explain how demand characteristics might have occurred in this study.
(2)
(i)     The researcher used a questionnaire to assess the anger scores of the offenders. Briefly discuss one strength of using questionnaires in research.
(Total 24 marks)
Q20.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
Participants in an experiment were shown a film of a robbery. The participants were then divided into two groups. One group was interviewed using a standard interview technique and the other group was interviewed using the cognitive interview technique. All participants were then given an ‘accuracy score’ (out of 20) based on how closely their recall matched the events in the film (20 = completely accurate, 0 = not at all accurate).
The results of the experiment are shown in the table below.
The median accuracy score for the standard interview and the cognitive interview
 
 	Standard interview	Cognitive interview	
Median	10	15	
(a)     Sketch an appropriate graphical display to show the median accuracy scores in the table above.
 
(6)
(b)     The experiment used an independent groups design.
Explain how this study could have been modified by using a matched pairs design.
(4)
(Total 10 marks)
Q21.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
A psychologist wanted to see if creativity is affected by the presence of other people. To test this he arranged for 30 people to participate in a study that involved generating ideas for raising funds for a local youth club. Participants were randomly allocated to one of two conditions.
Condition A: there were 15 participants in this condition. Each participant was placed separately in a room and was given 40 minutes to think of as many ideas as possible for raising funds for a local youth club. The participant was told to write down his or her ideas and these were collected in by the psychologist at the end of the 40 minutes.
Condition B: there were 15 participants in this condition. The participants were randomly allocated to 5 groups of equal size. Each group was given 40 minutes to think of as many ideas as possible for raising funds for a local youth club. Each group was told to write down their ideas and these were collected by the psychologist at the end of the 40 minutes.
The psychologist counted the number of ideas generated by the participants in both conditions and calculated the total number of ideas for each condition.
Total number of ideas generated in Condition A (when working alone) and in Condition B (when working in a group)
 
	Condition A
Working alone	Condition B
Working in a group	
Total number of 
ideas generated	110	75	
(a)     Identify the experimental design used in this study and outline one advantage of this experimental design.
(3)
(b)     Describe one other experimental design that researchers use in psychology.
(2)
(c)     Apart from using random allocation, suggest one way in which the psychologist might have improved this study by controlling for the effects of extraneous variables. Justify your answer.
(2)
(d)     Write a suitable hypothesis for this study.
(3)
(e)     From the information given in the description, calculate the number of participants in each group in Condition B.
(1)
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
The psychologist noticed that the number of ideas generated by each of the individual participants in Condition A varied enormously whereas there was little variation in performance between the 5 groups in Condition B. He decided to calculate a measure of dispersion for each condition.	
(f)      Name a measure of dispersion the psychologist could use.
(1)
(g)     The psychologist uses the measure of dispersion you have named in your answer to question (f). State how the result for each condition would differ.
(1)
(h)     Explain how the psychologist could have used random allocation to assign the 15 participants in Condition B into the 5 groups.
(3)
(i)      Using the information given in the table above, explain how the psychologist could further analyse the data using percentages.
(2)
(j)      At the end of the study the psychologist debriefed each participant. Write a debriefing that the psychologist could read out to the participants in Condition A.
(6)
(Total 24 marks)
Q22.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
A child psychologist carried out an overt observation of caregiver-infant interaction. She observed a baby boy interacting separately with each of his parents. Using a time sampling technique, she observed the baby with each parent for 10 minutes. Her findings are shown in the table below
Frequency of each behaviour displayed by the infant when interacting with his mother and when interacting with his father
 
 	Gazing at parent	Looking away from parent	Eyes closed
	Total
	
Mother	12	2	6	20	
Father	6	10	4	20	
Total	18	12	10	40	
(a)     Using the data in the table, explain the procedure used for the time sampling technique in this study.
(3)
(b)     In what percentage of the total observations was the baby gazing at his mother? Show your calculations.
(2)
(c)     Which one of the following types of data best describes the data collected in this study?
 
A	Primary data		
B	Qualitative data		
C	Secondary data		
D	Continuous data		
(1)
(Total 6 marks)
Q23.
A cognitive psychologist investigating how memory works gave participants the same word list to recall in one of two conditions. All the words were of equal difficulty.
Condition 1: Ten participants recalled the words in the same room in which they had learned the words.
Condition 2: Ten different participants recalled the words in a room that was not the same room as that in which they had learned the words.
The following results were obtained:
Mean values and standard deviations for Condition 1 and Condition 2 in a memory experiment.
 
 	Condition 1	Condition 2	
Mean	15.9	10.6	
Standard deviation	3.78	1.04	
(a)     Why are the standard deviation values found in the study above useful descriptive statistics for the cognitive psychologist?
(2)
(b)     Outline one problem of studying internal mental processes like memory ability by conducting experiments such as that described in part (a) above.
(2)
(Total 4 marks)
Q24.
Read the text below and then answer the questions that follow.
Two researchers obtained a sample of ten people whose ages ranged from 20-years-old to 60-years-old.
Each participant was asked to take part in a discussion of social care issues. This included discussion about who should pay for social care for elderly people and how to deal with people struggling with mental health problems. A confederate of the researchers was given a script to follow in which a series of discussion points was written for the confederate to introduce.
Each participant then came into a room individually and the discussion with the confederate took place. The maximum time allowed for a discussion was 30 minutes.
The researchers observed the discussions between the confederate and participants and rated the active engagement of the participants in the discussion. The ratings were between 1, (not at all interested) and 20, (extremely interested.) The researchers believed that the rating provided a measurement of the participants’ attitudes towards social care issues.
The following data were obtained in the study:
The relationship between age and attitude to social care.
 
Age of participant	Attitude to social care issues rating	
21	5	
23	3	
34	8	
36	12	
40	10	
47	13	
52	17	
53	15	
58	18	
60	20	
(a)     Use the graph paper below to sketch a display of the data given in the table above. You do not need to give your display a title.
 
(3)
(b)     What does the display you have drawn in your answer in part (a) suggest about the relationship between age and attitude to social care issues? Explain your answer.
(2)
(c)     The researchers rated the active engagement of the participants in the discussion on social care. They used this rating as a measure of each participant’s attitude to social care issues.
Briefly explain how investigator effects might have occurred in this study.
(2)
(d)     Outline how the researchers could have avoided investigator effects having an impact on the study.
(2)
The researchers thought it might be interesting to investigate further the attitudes of the participants in the study. They decided to interview each participant. The researchers devised a questionnaire in order to collect the data they required. The questionnaire included both open and closed questions.
(e)     Briefly discuss the benefits for the researchers of using both closed and open questions on their questionnaire about attitudes to social care.
(4)
(f)     Write one question that you think the researchers might have put on their questionnaire. Explain which type of question you have written and why you think this would be a suitable question for this study.
(3)
The researchers have obtained both qualitative and quantitative data in the observations and interviews they have conducted.
(g)     Identify the qualitative and quantitative data collected in this study. Explain your answer.
(4)
(h)     Explain how the researchers should have addressed two ethical issues in the investigation.
(4)
(Total 24 marks)
Q25.
A psychologist devised a memory test and tested 200 participants. The results are shown in the distribution graph below.
 
The psychologist decides to modify the memory test so that it will produce a more normal distribution. Briefly explain how he might achieve this.
(Total 4 marks)
Q26.
A psychologist thinks that there may be a link between language ability and institutionalisation. She tests the language skills of 8-year-old institutionalised children. A high score on the test indicates good language ability and a low score on the test indicates poor language ability. She also records the number of years that each child has been institutionalised. The findings are shown in the figure below.
The relationship between time spent in institution and language score
 
(a)  Which research method is the psychologist using in this study? Explain your answer.
(2)
(b)  Identify the type of graphical display in the figure. 
 
A	Histogram		
B	Bar graph		
C	Line graph		
D	Scattergram		
(1)
(c)  How many children took part in the study?
(1)
(d)  What does the pattern of data in the figure suggest about language ability and institutionalisation?
(2)
(e)  Calculate the range for the language scores. Show your workings.
(2)
Q27.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
Twenty primary school teachers were sent by their individual head teachers to attend a training course in classroom behaviour management run by educational psychologists at a local university. Before the training course, and again after training, the teachers were asked to say how confident they were in managing difficult classroom behaviour.
The researchers compared the before and after answers to see how many teachers rated their confidence as ‘better’, ‘worse’, or ‘the same’ as it had been at the start of the course.
The results are shown in the table below:
 
 	Confidence Better	Confidence Worse	Confidence
Same	
Number of teachers	16	2	2	
(a)  Which of A, B, C or D best describes this study?
 
A	laboratory experiment		
B	pilot experiment		
C	natural experiment		
D	controlled experiment		
(1)
(b)  What fraction of the teachers thought that their confidence was better after the course? Show your workings.
(2)
(c)  What might the researchers conclude about the training course on the basis of the data in the table? Explain your answer.
(2)
(d)  What is the operationalised dependent variable in this study?
(2)
(e)  Which experimental design is being used in this study and why would it be an appropriate design in this case?
(3)
(f)   The psychologists conducting the training decided to use the Sign Test to see whether there was a significant difference in confidence in managing difficult classroom behaviour before and after the course.
Give the calculated value of S in this study and explain how you arrived at this figure.
(3)
(g)  Explain why statistical testing is used in psychological research.
(2)
(h)  Following the training course, one of the researchers carried out an overt classroom observation of each teacher’s primary school class. The researcher wanted to record the frequency of difficult classroom behaviours shown by the pupils during a normal lesson.
He identified six categories of disruptive behaviour and decided to record the frequency of each of the six behaviours during the first ten minutes and the last ten minutes of the lesson.
Suggest two behavioural categories that the researcher could record during his observation.
(2)
(i)   Design a tally chart/record sheet the researcher could use to record his observations.
Show your tally chart/record in the box below.

(3)
(j)   Identify one problem that might have occurred during this observation and explain how the observation would be improved by addressing this problem.
(4)
(Total 24 marks)
Q28.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
The results of the study are given in the table below.
Mean number of verbal errors and standard deviations for both conditions
 
 	Condition A
(believed audience 
of 5 listeners)	Condition B
(believed audience 
of 100 listeners)	
Mean	11.1	17.2	
Standard 
deviation	1.30	3.54	
(a)     What conclusions might the psychologist draw from the data in the table? Refer to the means and standard deviations in your answer.
(6)
(b)     Read the item and then answer the question that follows.
 
The psychologist had initially intended to use the range as a measure of dispersion in this study but found that one person in Condition A had made an exceptionally low number of verbal errors.	
Explain how using the standard deviation rather than the range in this situation, would improve the study.
(3)
(c)     Name an appropriate statistical test that could be used to analyse the number of verbal errors in the table above. Explain why the test you have chosen would be a suitable test in this case.
(4)
(d)     The psychologist found the results were significant at p<0.05. What is meant by ‘the results were significant at p<0.05’?
(2)
(e)     Briefly explain one method the psychologist could use to check the validity of the data she collected in this study.
(2)
(Total 17 marks)
Q29.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
A psychologist investigating the investment model of relationships, devised a self-report Investment Scale for use with a group of 100 female participants. The scale gave an investment score for each participant on a scale of 0–20, with 0 representing no investment in relationships and 20 representing extreme investment in relationships.

The psychologist calculated measures of central tendency for the investment scores. He found that the mean investment score was 8.6, the median investment score was 9.5 and the mode investment score was 13.	
(a)     Sketch a graph to show the most likely distribution curve for the investment scores in this study. Label the axes of your graph and mark on it the positions of the mean, median and mode
(3)
(b)     What sort of distribution does your graph show?
(1)
(Total 4 marks)
Q30.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
In a study of androgyny, a group of 100 18-year-old students completed a self-report sex-role inventory. The inventory gave two sets of scores: a femininity score and a masculinity score. Each set of scores was on a scale of 0–20, with 0 representing no masculinity or no femininity and 20 representing extreme masculinity or extreme femininity.

The researchers calculated measures of central tendency for the masculinity scores. They found that the mean masculinity score was 10.3, the median masculinity score was 9.5 and the mode masculinity score was 7.	
(a)     Sketch a graph to show the most likely distribution curve for the masculinity scores in this study. Label the axes of your graph and mark on it the positions of the mean, median and mode.
(3)
(b)     What sort of distribution does your graph show?
(1)
(Total 4 marks)
Q31.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
A psychologist investigating egocentrism interviewed 100 parents, each of whom had a four-year-old child. She asked each parent to rate his or her child’s egocentrism on a scale of 0–10, with 0 representing no egocentrism and 10 representing extreme egocentrism.

The psychologist calculated measures of central tendency for the egocentrism scores. They found that the mean egocentrism score was 4.8, the median egocentrism score was 5 and the mode egocentrism score was 6.	
(a)     Sketch a graph to show the most likely distribution curves for the egocentrism scores in this study. Label the axes of your graph and mark on it the positions of the mean, median and mode.
(3)
(b)     What sort of distribution does your graph show?
(1)
(Total 4 marks)
Q32.
Distinguish between a Type I error and a Type II error.
(Total 4 marks)
Q33.
Researchers studying male and female map reading ability calculated the following statistics
 
 	Map reading scores	
 	Males	Females	
Mean	15.4	5.25	
Sd	2.70	2.22	
(a)     What do the mean and standard deviation values suggest about the male and female performances in the investigation?
(4)
(b)     In a replication of the part of the study in which map reading skills were investigated, 20 men and 20 women completed the original map reading task and the researchers obtained the following data:
 
Male map reading scores	17, 20, 13, 12, 13, 11, 8, 17, 12, 15, 14, 18, 20, 17, 17, 15, 13, 10, 5, 9.	
Female map reading scores	12, 8, 10, 11, 4, 2, 11, 18, 17, 12, 13, 10, 3, 15, 11, 9, 10, 11, 16, 10.	
The mean map reading score for both groups together was 12.23.
What percentage of the male group scored above the mean score and what percentage of the female group scored above the mean score? Show your calculations.
(4)
(c)     Using your answers to both question (a) and question (b), comment on the performances of the male and the female participants in this study.
(2)
(Total 10 marks)
Q34.
Read the item and then answer the questions that follow.
 
In a study of antisocial activity and social background, researchers interviewed 100 children aged 14 years. They then classified each child according to their level of antisocial activity. They concluded that 26 were ‘very antisocial’, 40 were ‘mildly antisocial’ and 34 were ‘not antisocial’. The researchers found that the majority of the ‘very antisocial’ children attended Crayford secondary school, whereas most of the other two groups of children attended another local school.	
(a)     The study on the opposite page is an example of socially sensitive research.
Briefly explain how the researchers could have dealt with the issue of social sensitivity in this study.
(4)
(b)     What level of measurement is being used in this study?
(1)
(c)     Explain one limitation of the level of measurement you have identified in your answer to (b).
(2)
(Total 7 marks)
Q35.
A researcher investigated the effectiveness of typical and atypical psychotics in schizophrenia patients with either negative or positive symptoms.
Percentages of patients with either negative or positive symptoms, responding well to typical or atypical antipsychotics.
 
	Number of patients responding well to atypical antipsychotics	Number of patients responding well to typical antipsychotics	
Patients with negative symptoms	30	16	
Patients with positive symptoms	60	60	
What does the data in the table seem to show about the effectiveness of typical and atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia?
(Total 4 marks)

Mark schemes
Q1.
(a)    [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for identifying an appropriate type of observation from the following: naturalistic or covert or nonparticipant.
1 mark for relevant justification in this study.
Possible applications:
•   it was carried out in the school canteen which was the normal environment for the students
•   the teacher did not place the recycle bins in the canteen they had already been placed there
•   the teacher was hidden from view of the students
•   the students didn’t know they were being observed
•   the teacher observed from a distance and did not interact with the students.
2
(b)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for relevant explanation of event sampling applied to the scenario, e.g. the teacher recorded each time one of the three types of item was recycled.
1 mark for naming event sampling or limited / muddled explanation
2
(c)    [AO3 = 4]
Possible content: 
Age
•   it suggests that younger children are likely to recycle more than other children (1 mark). More year 7-9 (than any other age group) recycled for all of the categories (cardboard, plastic and food) (1 mark)
or
•   it suggests that older children are least likely to recycle (1 mark). Fewer year 12-13 students recycled any of the items (cardboard, plastic or food) (1 mark)
Plus
Type of item:
•   it suggests that children are most likely to recycle plastic (1 mark). More children in each age group recycled plastic (than any of the other items) (1 mark)
or
•   it suggests that children are least likely to recycle food (1 mark). Fewer children recycled food (compared to all other items) for all age groups (1 mark)
Accept other possible suggestions / conclusions that apply to the data e.g. children do seem to recycle or that are derived from totalling the data. Credit the implications of these findings.
4
(d)    [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for a clear, coherent explanation of an appropriate improvement with some details e.g. more locations, more lunch times, more observers, further ethical considerations
1 mark for brief / muddled / limited explanation.
Accept other appropriate explanations that are linked to the design.
2
[10]
Q2.
(a)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for 250 hours OR for 1000/10 x 2.5 = 250 hours OR for 100 x 2.5 = 250 hours
1 mark for correct workings but incorrect answer e.g. 15000 minutes.
2
(b)    [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for correct identification
plus
1 mark for correct explanation
Possible content:
•   primary data because the results came directly from the eye witnesses / because the data was collected by the psychologist specifically for the purpose of the investigation
•   quantitative data because the psychologist used closed questions
•   qualitative because the psychologist recorded what they said (in words).
Accept answers referring to levels of measurement with appropriate justification.
2
(c)    [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for relevant modification that would reduce investigator effects in this study.
1 mark for a brief or muddled explanation.
Possible content: 
•   have an interviewer who had not witnessed the event / did not know the aims of the study so that they would not be affected by their own perception of the event
•   use open-ended questions so that the interviewees were able to give a more detailed and accurate version of what they saw
•   use questionnaire (or other means) to collect data without face to face interaction.
Credit other relevant suggestions that would reduce investigator effects in this study.
2
(d)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clear, coherent outline with some detail.
1 mark for a limited / muddled outline, e.g. ‘other psychologists assess / check / review her research report’.
0 marks for ‘other psychologists look at the research’.
Possible content:
•   her report would be sent for independent scrutiny (checked / reviewed) by other psychologists
•   they would consider e.g. validity, ethics, errors, significance, originality and possible improvements
•   to see whether it should be published.
Credit other relevant answers that can be applied to the stem.
2
[8]
Q3.
(a)    [AO1 = 1]
1 mark for D
1
(b)    [AO3 = 3]
3 marks for a clear and coherent discussion of why a covert observation of children might be more beneficial than an overt observation using the detail given below.
2 marks for a discussion of why a covert observation of children might be more beneficial than an overt observation.
1 mark for a muddled or limited discussion, or for an answer with no comparison.
Possible content:
•   compared to an overt observation if the researcher is covert then the children are completely unaware that they are being monitored and this increases the likelihood of the behaviour that is produced being spontaneous and natural
•   the researcher can also be more certain that covertly collected data are more likely to be valid measurements of behaviour and / or that these behaviours might therefore indicate possible cause and effect relationships.
Credit other valid points including discussion of ethical issues.
3
(c)    [AO2 = 4]
 
Level	Mark	Description	
2	3-4	There is clear knowledge of why the sign test would be appropriate in this study, with some accurate detail. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of appropriate terminology.	
1	1-2	There is limited or partial knowledge of why the sign test would be appropriate with some detail. The answer lacks coherence and use of appropriate terminology.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible content:
•   the researcher is looking for a difference in helping behaviour and doing a sign test is one way in which the analysed data would show such a difference
•   the study focused on a single group of children who were tested under both conditions – the sign test can only be used with one group of participants / repeated measures design
•   using a sign test will allow the researcher to decide whether differences in helping behaviour are due to chance factors or a ‘real’ effect
•   this study produces quantitative/numerical data and the sign test is one way of analysing such data
•   there are rules about when a particular test can be used and in this case the design of the study meets the rules for using a sign test.
NOTE: reference to level of measurement is not expected, but can be credited, e.g.: this study produces data in the form of categories / behavioural categories / frequency counts (nominal level of measurement).
4
[8]
Q4.
(a)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clear explanation of why it was important to match the students for this variable.
1 mark for a limited or muddled explanation, or for an answer without application.
Content:
•   level of interest could affect their satisfaction scores so needs to be controlled; matching students’ levels of interest in business studies keeps this participant variable constant.
2
(b)    [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for a suggestion of an appropriate variable – interest in using computers (e.g., for studying), past experience of using computers (e.g., for studying), disability issues, prior knowledge of this business studies topic.
Accept other appropriate suggestions.
1 mark for an explanation of how it might relate to satisfaction scores.
2
(c)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clear outline of one benefit of random allocation in this situation.
1 mark for a limited or muddled explanation, or for an answer without application.
Relevant points:
•   removal of researcher bias in determining which participant has the most to least number of online hours
•   increased validity as the researcher will not be biased in how students are allocated
•   removal of participant bias as each participant has the same chance of having a particular number of online hours as any other participant.
2
(d)    [AO3 = 3]
3 marks for a clear and coherent explanation of how stratified sampling would improve the design.
2 marks for some explanation of how stratified sampling would improve the design.
1 mark for a muddled / limited explanation.
Content:
•   stratified sampling ensures each identified sub group of the whole target population of possible participants is represented in the sample so generalisation of the results to the target population is more valid than if the participants were just available at the time of asking
•   stratified sampling is an improvement because people who are identified by opportunity are likely to be present at same time, doing similar things, possibly of similar personality types etc which may limit representativeness of sample.
Accept other appropriate explanation points.
3
(e)    [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for a question which would generate qualitative data: what did you like / dislike about the online / classroom lessons?
Accept any appropriate question or item that generates qualitative data.
1
(f)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and coherent explanation of a possible problem.
1 mark for a muddled / limited explanation.
Possible problems:
•   analysis of qualitative data relies on interpretation by the researcher which could be inaccurate / biased / subjective
•   qualitative data may not be easy to categorise / collate into a sensible number of answer types
•   the researcher could be left with lots of individual responses that cannot be summarised.
Do not accept answers which simply identify a problem with no further appropriate elaboration e.g. ‘hard to analyse’, ‘time consuming’.
2
(g)    [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for an outline of an appropriate ethical issue that would be relevant when using a questionnaire: issues such as anonymity, protection from harm, treating with respect, parental consent.
Possible issues:
•   the students should be treated with respect by explaining that their answers will be kept confidential
•   the students must be assured that they can withdraw their answers if they want to
•   the students must be told exactly what the researcher was trying to find out about the relationship between satisfaction and the way information was delivered.
Answer must be an outline and not just a name or term.
1
(h)    [AO2 = 4]
Award 1 mark for each of the following points.
Content:
•   appropriate title, including reference to (negative) relationship and the two variables
•   axis 1 – number of online hours and suitable scale 0-10
•   axis 2 – satisfaction score and suitable scale 0-20
•   accurate plotting of 11 points on scattergram.
No penalty for drawing a line of best fit.
If display is not a scattergram award max 1 mark if title is appropriate.

4
(i)    [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for saying there is a negative relationship / correlation (between the number of online hours and satisfaction scores).
1 mark for further detail e.g. the more hours they have online the less they are satisfied with the course (or vice versa), however this does not indicate a cause and effect relationship.
Accept other valid conclusions.
2
(j)    [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for the mode = 19
1 mark for the median = 12
2
(k)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and coherent explanation.
1 mark for a muddled or limited explanation.
•   The median is more representative than the mode because the mode is at the top end of the set of scores, whereas more of the scores are numerically closer to the median.
Accept other explanations, for example, in terms suitability in relation to ordinal data vs nominal data.
2
(l)    [AO1 = 1]
1 mark for B
1
[24]
Q5.
(a)    [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for:
A Cognitive
1
(b)    [AO2 = 4]
1 mark for each of the following:
•   a title that includes both co-variables and reference to correlation / relationship
•   appropriately labelled X axis
•   appropriately labelled Y axis
•   accurately plotted points
Note: co-variables should be operationalised (‘score’) either in the title or on the axes.
Accept: line of best fit.
Do not accept: points connected by lines (e.g. frequency polygon); this is an inappropriate graphical display, so maximum 1 mark for Title (bullet 1 above).
If maximum 1 for Title, Title does not need to include ‘score’. Must include both co-variables and reference to correlation / relationship.

4
(c)    [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for stating that the level of measurement is ordinal data.
PLUS
1 mark for an explanation:
Possible content:
•   the co-variables (self-esteem and negative schema) have been measured using an ‘unsafe’ nonstandardised scale / the researcher constructed the scales herself
•   the co-variables cannot be measured objectively / mathematically / may not be ‘real things’
•   because units of measurement are not of equal size / of unknown size
Accept alternative wording.
2
(d)    [AO2 = 1]
+0.70.
1
[8]
Q6.
(a)    [AO2 = 1 maths]
C 27%
1
(b)    [AO1 = 1 AO2 = 2]
1 mark for a clear and coherent definition of a pilot study.
Pilot studies are small-scale investigations conducted before research.
Plus
2 marks for a clear, elaborated reason for why the psychologist decided to conduct a pilot study for this investigation.
1 mark for a limited / muddled reason for why the psychologist decided to conduct a pilot study for this investigation.
Possible reasons:
•   to identify whether there needed to be any modifications in the design, e.g. whether the interview questions were sufficiently relevant to dream content
•   to identify whether it would be feasible to conduct a study on the differences in dream themes across gender.
Credit other possible reasons.
3
(c)    [AO1 = 1 AO2 = 1 maths]
1 mark for a clear and accurate description of qualitative data.
Qualitative data is non-numerical / descriptive data.
Plus
1 mark for a clear strength of collecting qualitative data in this study.
Possible strengths:
•   enables the students to talk in detail about their dreams to develop deeper understanding of dream content
•   enables the researcher to develop a deep understanding of the content of the dream to improve classification and identification of dream themes.
Credit any other relevant strengths.
Note – zero marks should be awarded for a generic strength (not applied to the stem).
2
(d)    [AO1 = 1 AO3 = 2]
1 mark for a clear description of investigator effects.
Any (unintentional) influence of the researcher’s behaviour / characteristics on participants / data / outcome.
Plus
2 marks for a clear and elaborated way that the psychologist could minimise investigator effects in this study.
1 mark for a limited / muddled way that the psychologist could minimise investigator effects in this study.
Possible ways:
•   provide a standardised script for the interviewers to use so that they all asked the same questions in the same way to avoid any bias in the students’ responses
•   the interviewers could have been trained to greet the students in the same way and ask questions with a neutral tone
•   ensure all interviewers were female or all interviewers were male
•   ensure that the students were interviewed by someone of the same gender as themselves.
Credit any other relevant ways.
Note – Do not credit any answers referring to using a blind procedure (e.g. ‘ensuring the interviewer was not aware of the purpose of the study’) as this is already stated in the stem.
3
(e)    [AO2 = 4]
Award 1 mark for each of the following points:
•   identify / devise important categories / themes (from the interviews)
•   example of possible category / theme (e.g. references to aggressive interactions)
•   work through transcribed conversations / repeatedly listen to segments of the recording
•   count / tally the number of occurrences of each of the categories / themes.
4
(f)    [AO3 = 4]
Test-retest reliability - Award 1 mark for each of the following points:
•   content analysis repeated on a second occasion using the same interview data
•   compare the results of the two separate analysis (number of occurrences of each)
•   researchers could calculate the correlation between the two ratings
•   researchers generally accept 0.8 correlation (accept 0.7-0.9) between the test and the re-test.
Inter-rater reliability - Award 1 mark for each of the following points (up to 4 marks):
•   use a second person to work with the original researcher
•   they could read the interviews (separately) and devise a set of categories (and agree operational definitions)
•   they could tally the occurrences of each of the categories of the interviews (separately)
•   they could compare their tally charts looking for agreement
•   researchers could calculate the correlation between the two ratings
•   researchers generally accept 0.8 correlation (accept 0.7-0.9) between the test and the re-test.
4
(g)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for correct answer: 225 (even if no correct workings are shown).
1 mark if incorrect answer is provided but all workings are correct.
Correct workings:
60/100 = 0.60
0.60*375 = 225 dreams
2
(h)    [AO2 = 4]
1 mark for each of the following:
•   appropriate title with reference to the IV and the DV
•   accurately plotted data, bars must not touch
•   accurate y-axis label, percentage / % is sufficient
•   accurate x-axis label with key, where necessary.
•   
Note – If the graphical display is not suitable candidates can be awarded a maximum of 1 mark for an appropriate title.
Note – Do not credit the title if it explicitly refers to a histogram.
 
4
[23]
Q7.
(a)    [AO2 = 6]
 
Level	Mark	Description	
3	5-6	Consent form is well detailed and practical, showing sound understanding of the requirements of a good consent form. All three elements are appropriately represented. The answer is clear and coherent. Specialist terminology is used effectively. Minor detail and / or explanation sometimes lacking.	
2	3-4	Consent form is mostly detailed and practical, showing some understanding of the requirements of a good consent form. The answer is mostly clear and well organised. Specialist terminology is mostly used effectively.	
1	1-2	Consent form only includes basic details of what participants can expect to happen in the experiment or how they will be protected. Knowledge of the requirements of a good consent form is limited. The whole answer lacks clarity, has many inaccuracies and is poorly organised. Generic consent forms without link to the stem.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible content:
Outline of what the experiment entails:
•   an explanation of the general purpose of the research 
•   they would need to watch an assigned horror film every night before going to bed for 7 nights and would need to watch an assigned romantic comedy every night before going to bed for 7 nights
•   a daily requirement to truthfully respond to a text message asking whether they had experienced a nightmare
•   the two-week duration of the experiment.
Ethical guidelines:
•   no pressure to consent
•   they can withdraw at any time
•   they can withdraw their data from the experiment
•   their data will be kept confidential and anonymous
•   they should feel free to ask the researcher any questions at any time
•   they will receive a full debrief at the end of the programme.
Format and style of consent form:
•   will require the participant’s agreement
•   could be written as a form that participants need to sign
•   could include space for the participant to sign the consent form
•   could include a space for the participant to write the date
•   could include a space for the participant to print their name.
Credit any other relevant information.
6
(b)    [AO2 = 3]
3 marks for an appropriate, clear and coherent directional operationalised hypothesis.
2 marks for a statement with both conditions of the IV and a DV that lacks clarity and coherence or has only one variable operationalised.
1 mark for a muddled statement with both conditions of the IV and DV present or where neither variable is operationalised.
0 marks for expressions of aim / questions / correlational / null / non-directional hypotheses or statements with only one condition of the IV present OR if the IV is incorrectly described as group 1 and group 2.
Possible content:
•   participants will report more nightmares after watching a horror film before bedtime than after watching a romantic comedy film before bedtime. Accept alternative wording
•   participants will report fewer nightmares after watching a horror film before bedtime than after watching a romantic comedy film before bedtime. Accept alternative wording.
3
(c)    [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clear explanation that is linked to the experiment
1 mark for a limited or muddled explanation.
Possible explanations:
•   necessary to avoid the effects of individual differences in frequency of nightmares
•   film viewing habits, gender, hours of sleep, personality, etc, can have a big impact on the number of nightmares recalled.
Credit other relevant explanations.
2
(d)    [AO1 = 1 AO2 = 1]
1 mark for each of the following points:
•   order effects are likely to occur
•   if you saw the horror films in the first week you may still be thinking about them / have higher levels of fear in the second week, resulting in more nightmares.
Accept alternative wording.
2
(e)    [AO2 = 3]
1 mark for each of the following points (up to 3 marks):
•   all 50 participants’ names / numbers are put into a hat / container / computer
•   a name is drawn from the container or a random name is generated by the computer and is assigned to the first group
•   a second name is selected as before but this time goes in to the second group; this process continues until there are 25 in each group.
OR
1 mark for each of the following points (up to 3 marks):
•   use 50 slips of paper, label 25 ‘horror’ and 25 ‘romantic comedy’
•   put / mix the slips of paper in a hat / container
•   each participant draws a group from the container
Note: Credit alternative methods of randomly splitting the sample
3
(f)    [AO2 = 2 AO3 = 2 maths]
Mean:
1 mark – participants who watch horror films before going to bed report more nightmares then those who watch romantic comedies before bed. Accept alternative wording.
Plus
1 mark – mean number of nightmares reported is greater when horror films are watched than when romantic comedies are watched. Accept alternative wording.
Standard deviation:
1 mark – there is greater dispersion / variation in scores / spread of scores in the horror film condition than in the romantic comedy condition. Accept alternative wording.
Plus
1 mark – standard deviation is greater when horror films are watched before going to bed than when romantic comedies are watched before going to bed. Accept alternative wording.
Note - 0 marks for just stating the data from the table.
Note – Justifications are not creditworthy in isolation
4
(g)    [AO2 = 2 maths]
2 marks for a clear and appropriate explanation in the context of this experiment.
1 mark for a limited or muddled explanation.
This means that the difference in the number of nightmares reported after watching horror films compared to romantic comedies is significant at 0.05 level. This means there is less than 5% (1 in 20) likelihood (probability) that the difference was due to chance / due to something other than the IV.
Accept any other valid answer.
2
(h)    [AO2 = 1 AO3 = 2]
1 mark for a modification to the design of the experiment that could improve validity.
Plus
2 marks for clear and coherent explanation for how the suggested modification might improve validity of this study.
1 mark for a limited/muddled explanation for how the suggested modification might improve validity of this study.
Possible content:
•   include more than one question in the text message to the students. This would make the aim of the experiment less obvious to guess which would in turn reduce demand characteristics and improve the validity of the experiment
•   make the conditions less obvious. Rather than having one film the students could be asked to watch an episode from a TV series. The episodes watched in one condition would be those which contained any scary concepts / themes whereas episodes watched in the other condition would not contain any scary themes / concepts
•   guarantee anonymity so people will give honest answers and not feel embarrassed
•   use a broader sample, not just students. Students may be more or less inclined to watch horror films anyway
•   use a different sampling technique to avoid a self-selected sample and thus avoid volunteer bias as that may make them more susceptible to demand characteristics.
Accept alternative answers.
Note: Independent groups design would not be an appropriate modification in this study; however candidates can make the case for a matched pairs design, which could be credit worthy.
3
[25]
Q8.
[AO2 = 4]
1 mark for each of the following points:
•   group A scores indicate a normal distribution
•   because in Group A the mean, median and mode are almost the same (as in a bell-shaped curve)
•   group B scores indicate a (positively) skewed distribution
•   because the mean is higher than the median / mode or to the right hand side of the distribution.
[4]
Q9.
[AO2 = 4]
1 mark for each of the following points:
•   group A scores indicate a normal distribution
•   because in Group A the mean, median and mode are almost the same (as in a bell-shaped curve)
•   group B scores indicate a (positively) skewed distribution
•   because the mean is higher than the median / mode or to the right hand side of the distribution.
[4]
Q10.
[AO2 = 4]
1 mark for each of the following points:
•   group A scores indicate a normal distribution
•   because in Group A the mean, median and mode are almost the same (as in a bell-shaped curve)
•   group B scores indicate a (positively) skewed distribution
•   because the mean is higher than the median / mode or to the right hand side of the distribution.
[4]
Q11.
(a)     [AO2 = 2]
Boys = between 26% and 37% inclusive.
Girls = between 63% and 74% inclusive.
Maximum 1 mark if the two figures do not add up to 100.
(b)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for the correct answer: 90
If the answer is incorrect, can award 1 mark for the correct workings:
150 × 0.6
(c)     [AO2 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	Knowledge of two differences between qualitative and quantitative data is clear and well detailed. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 3	Knowledge of two differences is evident. Specialist terminology is not always used appropriately.
Or one difference at level 2.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible differences (expressed as comparison):
•        Quantitative data involves numbers (number of boys and girls), whereas qualitative data involves words, e.g. quotes from the interview
•        Quantitative data can be measured objectively, whereas qualitative data is based on the subjective interpretation of language
•        Quantitative data is immediately quantifiable, whereas qualitative data has to be transformed and is only quantifiable if the data is put into categories and the frequency is counted.
Credit any other relevant differences e.g. ease of analysis, easier to identify trends/patterns, ease of comparison.
Q12.
(a)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for explanation that a non-directional hypothesis is suitable or ‘it should not be directional,’ (1) as there is no reference to evidence that allows the psychologist to predict the direction of the results (1).
1 mark for a muddled/limited explanation of why the hypothesis should be non-directional or 1 mark for stating non-directional/‘no’.
(b)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for correct answer 55(%)
1 mark for correct workings only 22/40 = 0.55 × 100
(c)     [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for a clear explanation of why stratified sampling might improve the study.
1 mark for a muddled/limited explanation
Relevant points:
•        stratified sampling increases representation/generalisation by sampling many subsets of students
•        stratified sampling reduces research bias as the subsets of students are selected randomly.
Credit other relevant answers, e.g. stratified sampling increases external validity/population validity by sampling many subsets of students, or justification through comparison with volunteer sampling.
Note: No marks for simply stating increases validity/reliability
(d)     [AO1 = 2]
2 marks for a clear explanation of primary data.
1 mark for a muddled or limited explanation (e.g. reference to ‘first hand’ or focus on researcher not data).
Content
•        primary data is original data/first hand response of the participants/source in the research.
•        collected specifically for the research being carried out.
Credit answers that refer to the data in the study described.
Note: do not credit an answer which simply states collected by the researcher
(e)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for identification and a clear explanation of one reason why the mean is the most appropriate measure of central tendency.
1 mark for identification of one reason.
Possible reasons:
•        the mean can be said to be representative of all the data collected as it is calculated using all the individual values.
•        the mean is the most sensitive measure of central tendency as it uses all the values in set of data.
Accept other valid reasons.
(f)      [AO2 = 4]
Task A
2 marks for correct answer 63 (secs)
1 mark for correct workings only 630/10
Task B
2 marks for correct answer 77.4 (secs)
1 mark for correct workings only 774/10
(g)     [AO3 = 3]
3 marks for a clear and coherent discussion of the purpose of counterbalancing.
2 marks for some relevant discussion.
1 mark for a muddled/limited discussion.
Possible content:
•        it controls the impact of order effects (practice, fatigue or boredom)
•        allows order effects to be distributed evenly across both conditions
•        making each condition of the IV occur as the first task and the second task equally
•        counterbalancing does not eliminate order effects which will be present because there are two separate tasks to be completed by each person.
Note: No marks for answers which only state decreasing/reducing/eliminating/preventing order effects without reference to any of the above points.
(h)     [AO2 = 3]
1 mark for identification of one appropriate extraneous variable.
Possible variables: that can be controlled and need to stay constant for all participants or from Task A to Task B to avoid affecting the dependent variable:
•        level of difficulty in the two ‘spot the difference tasks’
•        wearing of headphones
•        the music/tracks
•        instructions for participants
•        characteristics of the psychologist
•        change in environmental conditions.
Accept other relevant variables
Do not accept participant variables
Possible explanations:
1 mark for elaboration of the effect of the EV.
1 mark for how it might have affected the DV (the effect on time).
(i)      [AO3 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	There is a clear and detailed explanation of how the second study improves on the first study. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of appropriate terminology.	
1	1 – 2	There is limited or partial explanation of how the second study improves on the first study. The answer lacks coherence and use of appropriate terminology.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible content:
•        the second study is more objective. In the first study participants self-reported what they believed to be the case and this is refuted by the follow-up study
•        the measurement of time allows for more detailed analysis of data
•        use of experimental method involves manipulation of IV, establishing cause and effect in follow-up study which is not a feature of the self-report method used in the first study
•        possibility of socially desirable answers as a feature of first study which might be unreliable and this is not present in follow-up study where measurements are more direct.
Credit other possible explanations.
Note: no marks for simply stating more valid/reliable.
Q13.
(a)     [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for an accurate, relevant disadvantage of quantitative data eg lacks detail (which may decrease validity of findings) etc.
Plus
1 mark for clear application regarding the negative impact of using quantitative data in this study (such as rating a patient’s improvement).
(b)     [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for an appropriate question which produces quantitative data, eg ‘On average how many hours of physiotherapy does the patient receive per week?’
Plus
1 mark for an appropriate question which produces qualitative data, eg ‘How does physiotherapy help your patients?’
Note: can accept relevant items that are not phrased as questions, eg describe… or rate....
Q14.
(a)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark
A
(b)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for identification of the operationalised dependent variable: running time in seconds/time in seconds taken to run.
1 mark for dependent variable not operationalised: time in seconds; running time.
0 marks for incorrect reference to speed or to the IV.
(c)     [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for explaining either you need to have continuous data or scores for each participant in order to draw a histogram.
Plus
1 mark for identifying that the data represents two separate conditions (with music/without music). Accept categorical/nominal.
Note: credit can be given for two separate conditions if the student explains clearly why this would make a histogram “inappropriate”.
(d)     [AO3 = 3]
1 mark for each bullet point:
•        a bar chart
•        appropriate X-axis label eg ‘With or without music’; ‘Auditory Condition’, etc.
•        appropriate Y-axis label eg ‘Mean/Average (400m) time in seconds’.
Note: these are independently awarded marks, eg candidates can achieve 2 marks for correctly labelled axes despite an incorrect graph type
Note: axis labels are interchangeable.
(e)     [AO2 = 2 AO3 = 2]
Mean:
1 mark for interpreting what the mean times suggest about the effect of music on the participants’ 400m performance – participants run faster with music (take less time to run 400 metres) or participants run more slowly without music (take more time to run 400 metres). Accept alternative wording.
Plus
1 mark for an accurate justification about the difference in the mean scores in each condition – mean time is greater in condition A than condition B (or mean time is lower in condition B than condition A).
Standard deviation:
1 mark for an accurate comment about what the standard deviations suggest about the spread of scores in each condition – performance is more consistent in condition A than condition B (or performance is less consistent in condition B than condition A). Accept alternative wording.
Plus
1 mark for a justification about the difference between the standard deviations in each condition – standard deviation is smaller in condition A than in condition B (or standard deviation is greater in condition B than condition A).
Note: 0 marks for just stating the data from the table, eg the mean time with music is 117 whereas it is 123 without music.
(f)     [AO2 = 4]
Marks are for calculations and/or numerical answer – no need to show unit (%)
4 marks for the correct answer given to three significant figures: 4.88 (even if no correct workings are shown).
3 marks for correct answer not given to three significant figures eg 4.878 or 4.9.
2 marks if incorrect answer is provided even if all working is correct.
1 mark if incorrect answer and workings are partially correct eg one or two of the correct steps.
0 marks if the incorrect answer is given to three significant figures.
Correct workings:
123 − 117 = 6
6 ÷ 123 =0.048780
0.048780 × 100 = 4.878
Answer = 4.88
Note: alternative methods used for working may be creditworthy.
(g)     [AO2 = 5]
1 mark for each bullet point:
A t-test is an appropriate choice of test for this data because
•        a difference between the two sets of data is predicted
•        the data is of interval/ratio level
•        a repeated measures design has been used.
Credit other appropriate reasons e.g. reasons related to possible normal distribution, power of the test.
Plus
1 mark for each bullet point:
•        the result is not significant (at the 5% level)
•        because the calculated value of t (1.4377) is less than the critical/table value of t, which is 1.833 (at 0.05, for a directional hypothesis where df is 9).
(h)     [AO1 = 3]
2 marks for a clear and coherent definition of a Type II error.
A Type II error would occur where a real difference in the data is overlooked as it is wrongly accepted as being not significant, accepting the null hypothesis in error (a false negative).
1 mark for a limited or incomplete definition of a Type II error.
Plus
1 mark for a reason for why the 5% level of significance is used in psychological research.
The 5% level is used as it strikes a balance between the risk of making the Type I and II errors (or similar).
(i)      [AO2 = 2 AO3 = 1]
1 mark for identification of one appropriate extraneous variable eg type/rhythm of music/equipment/environmental variables.
Note – participant variables only acceptable if feasibly could have changed in a week eg illness/hydration level/injury/etc.
Plus
1 mark for an explanation of why it is important to control their chosen variable in the context of this study ie the impact on the DV.
Plus
1 mark for how the stated variable could be controlled.
(j)      [AO1 = 6]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
3	5 – 6	Knowledge of the process and purposes of peer review is clear and generally accurate. Specialist terminology is used appropriately.	
2	3 – 4	Some knowledge of the process and/or purposes of peer review but there may be some omissions/lack of clarity. There is some appropriate use of specialist terminology.	
1	1 – 2	Knowledge of the process and/or purposes of peer review is present but there may be serious omissions and/or inaccuracy. Specialist terminology is either missing or inappropriately used.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible content:
Process
•        other psychologists check the research report before deciding whether it could be published
•        independent scrutiny by other psychologists working in a similar field
•        work is considered in terms of its validity, significance and originality
•        assessment of the appropriateness of the methods and designs used
•        reviewer can accept the manuscript as it is, accept with revisions, suggest the author makes revisions and re-submits or reject without the possibility of re-submission
•        editor makes the final decision whether to accept or reject the research report based on the reviewers’ comments/recommendations
•        research proposals are submitted to panel and assessed for merit.
Purposes
•        to ensure quality and relevance of research, eg methodology, data analysis etc
•        to ensure accuracy of findings
•        to evaluate proposed designs (in terms of aims, quality and value of the research) for research funding.
Credit other relevant material.
Q15.
(a)     [AO2 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	Knowledge of the difference between primary and secondary data is clear and mostly accurate. The knowledge is applied appropriately. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 2	Knowledge of the difference is evident but the answer lacks accuracy and detail. Application is limited, inappropriate or absent. Use of terminology is either absent or inappropriate.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Application:
•        primary data is gathered directly/first-hand from the participants, and is specific to the aim of the study whereas secondary data has previously been collected by a third party (another researcher or an official body), not specifically for the aim of the study, and then used by the researcher
•        in this study, the interview recordings are primary data –gathered specifically for the purpose of investigating causes of aggressive behaviour whereas the school records are secondary data – pre-existing and not gathered for the purpose of investigating causes of aggressive behaviour.
(b)     [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for a clear, coherent explanation of how thematic analysis could be carried out in this study
1 mark for a limited/muddled explanation.
Possible content
•        use the recordings to make a transcription of the interview 
•        use coding to initially analyse the transcripts
•        review the transcriptions/codes looking for emergent themes/ideas that might be linked to later aggressive behaviour, eg family violence, parental argument, alcohol misuse.
No credit for answers referring to pre-determined categories, codes, themes and/or counting frequencies.
Q16.
(a)     [AO2 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	Knowledge of the difference between primary and secondary data is clear and mostly accurate. The knowledge is applied appropriately. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 2	Knowledge of the difference is evident but the answer lacks accuracy and detail. Application is limited, inappropriate or absent. Use of terminology is either absent or inappropriate.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Application:
•        primary data is gathered directly/first-hand from the participants, and is specific to the aim of the study whereas secondary data has previously been collected by a third party (another researcher or an official body), not specifically for the aim of the study, and then used by the researcher
•        in this study, the interview recordings are primary data – gathered specifically for the purpose of investigating causes of offending whereas the court/prison records are secondary data – pre-existing and not gathered for the purpose of investigating causes of offending behaviour.
(b)     AO3 = 2
2 marks for a clear, coherent explanation of how thematic analysis could be carried out.
1 mark for a limited/muddled explanation.
Possible content
•        use the recordings to make a transcription of the interview 
•        use coding to initially analyse the transcripts
•        review the transcriptions/codes looking for emergent themes/ideas that might be linked to violent crime eg family violence, parental argument, alcohol misuse.
No credit for answers referring to pre-determined categories, codes, themes and/or counting frequencies.
Q17.
(a)     [AO2 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	Knowledge of the difference between primary and secondary data is clear and mostly accurate. The knowledge is applied appropriately. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 2	Knowledge of the difference is evident but the answer lacks accuracy and detail. Application is limited, inappropriate or absent. Use of terminology is either absent or inappropriate.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Application:
•        primary data is gathered directly/first-hand from the participants, and is specific to the aim of the study whereas secondary data has previously been collected by a third party (another researcher or an official body), not specifically for the aim of the study, and then used by the researcher
•        in this study, the interview recordings are primary data – gathered specifically for the purpose of investigating causes of addiction to gambling behaviour whereas the debt counsellor reports are secondary data – pre-existing and not gathered for the purpose of investigating causes of addiction to gambling.
(b)     [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for a clear, coherent explanation of how thematic analysis could be carried out.
1 mark for a limited/muddled explanation.
Possible content
•        use the recordings to make a transcription of the interview 
•        use coding to initially analyse the transcripts
•        review the transcriptions/codes looking for emergent themes/ideas that might be linked to later gambling addiction, eg family poverty, sensation-seeking, influence of peer group.
No credit for answers referring to pre-determined categories, codes, themes and/or counting frequencies.
Q18.
(a)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark – A
(b)     [AO2 = 2]
1 mark – value of research score = 6
1 mark – ethical concern score = 7
(c)     [AO3 = 4]
1 mark each for identifying an appropriate descriptive statistic.
Plus
1 mark each for an explanation how it could be calculated.
Possible content:
•        Median could be calculated by arranging the scores in order then choosing the numerical midpoint (between 5th and 6th score).
•        Range could be calculated by taking the lowest score from the highest (and adding 1).
•        Standard deviation could be calculated by using the distance of each score from the mean (credit formula for SD).
If student provides calculations that illustrate ‘how’ then can award the explanation mark.
Can also credit answers based on mean - Mean could be calculated by adding all the scores and dividing by the number of scores (10).
Credit other relevant descriptive statistics with appropriate explanation (eg percentages, graphs, correlation). If no calculation is involved eg with graphs then accept some description of how the representation could be arranged.
Q19.
(a)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clearly outlined disadvantage that is explicitly related to the study – sample is biased, lacking representativeness, more confident/helpful/curious which could affect how they respond to therapy or represent other offenders.
1 mark for knowledge of a disadvantage of using volunteers which could be related to the study but this is not explicitly presented.
Credit other relevant disadvantages.
(b)     [AO2 = 3]
Award 1 mark for each of the following points up to a maximum of 3 marks.
•        All the volunteers are identified either by name or number.
•        The 50 names/numbers are put in a container or computer.
•        Assign alternate names/numbers drawn to Group 1 then Group 2 and so on until there are 25 in each group or alternative system OR set parameters for two groups of 25 to be randomly generated.
Credit alternative descriptions of a practical procedure which would result in the same outcome.
(c)     [AO2 = 3]
3 marks for a clearly stated and appropriate non-directional (or directional) operationalised hypothesis: there is a difference in the reduction in anger scores of offenders who complete Therapy A and those who complete Therapy B.
2 marks for a statement with both conditions of the IV and the DV that lacks the clarity of the 3 mark answer.
1 mark for a muddled statement with both the IV and DV present.
0 marks for expressions of aim/questions/correlational hypotheses or statements with only the IV or DV or one condition of the IV present.
Full credit can be awarded for a null version of the hypothesis.
(d)     [AO3 = 3]
Award 1 mark for any of the following points up to a maximum of 3 marks.
Possible points:
•        Both therapies seem to be effective.
•        The pre-therapy scores for both groups suggest that the offenders in Group 1 were more angry on average than those of Group 2 at the start of study.
•        The post-therapy scores for both groups suggest that the offenders in Group 1 were more angry on average than those of Group 2 at the end of study.
•        Anger scores are lower at the end of the study for both groups suggesting both therapies reduced feelings of anger.
•        The improvement in Group 1 is 50-30, a decrease of 20 and in Group 2 is 40-15, a decrease of 25, which suggests that there was a greater reduction in feelings of anger in Group 2.
Credit other relevant points.
(e)     [AO3 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	The explanation for how matched pairs would have improved the study is clear and the answer identifies the difference in the pre-therapy scores as the issue. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 2	There is limited/partial explanation for how matched pairs would have improved the study. The answer may lack coherence. Use of terminology may be either absent or inappropriate. OR the answer only xplains matched pairs design in the context of this study.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible points:
•        The researcher wants to be sure that the final anger scores are a result of the therapy and not participant differences between the groups.
•        With independent groups participant variables might have caused the lower post-therapy scores for Group 2 rather than the therapy.
•        Matching the anger scores of the participants at the pre-therapy stage would reduce this difference – seen in the Group 1 median of 50 which is ten points higher than the Group 2 median of 40.
•        Other variables could also affect response to therapy e.g. gender, type of offence.
N.B. Answers that only explain a matched pairs design in the context of this study cannot be awarded above level 1.
(f)     AO2 = 2 AO3 = 2
2 marks for a clear outline of an ethical issue that might have occurred in the study.
1 mark for a brief or muddled outline of an ethical issue that might have occurred in the study.
•        In this study the participants are all in custody so despite the suggestion that they are volunteers they may have been coerced in some way to participate, this could relate to issues of consent or stress or right to withdraw.
•        Distress/psychological harm such as: finding out they have high-anger scores; the questionnaire might trigger more anger; finding out there are two therapies and finding out one might be better; therapies might cause more harm than good; the participants might have some expectation that the programme would be effective and this might not be the case.
•        Reducing the anger of the participants may be more beneficial for staff than the participants, manipulation of their behaviour for this reason could be unethical.
Plus
2 marks for a clear explanation of how the issue described above could be dealt with. It is expected that withdrawal of data or debriefing would be appropriate answers but these should be clearly matched with the chosen ethical issue.
1 mark for a brief or muddled explanation of how the issue could be dealt with.
Credit other relevant information.
(g)     AO2 = 1
1 mark for knowledge of an appropriate disadvantage of the median.
Possible answers
•        Any outlier values/extreme values (such as the scores of 50) would be ignored/would not form part of the average measurement.
•        Less sensitive than the mean.
•        It does not represent all the findings.
(h)     AO2 = 2
2 marks for a clear explanation of how demand characteristics might have occurred in the study. The explanation will make clear that participants alter their behaviour in some way because of a belief they have about their participation in the study.
1 mark for a limited or muddled explanation that is linked to the study.
Possible points
•        Participants might respond to the questionnaire with answers giving a reduction in anger as they expect the therapy is to reduce anger/they know this is what the researcher expects.
•        Participants might ‘respond’ with an increase/decrease in anger in order to ‘ruin’ results.
•        When the researcher gives out the questionnaire for the second time, this sets up a demand characteristic that the second answers should be different to the first answers.
Credit other relevant information.
(i)     AO3 = 2
2 marks for a clear discussion of one strength of using questionnaires in research which might include: the ability to collect large amounts of data relatively quickly and conveniently; discussion of how they might be easy to score/collate – when items are closed; reference to standardisation/replication of method.
1 mark for limited or muddled explanation of a possible strength.
N.B If the strength discussed relates to a particular type of questionnaire, the type of questionnaire must be made clear for the second mark.
Credit other relevant strengths.
Q20.
(a)     [AO2 = 6]
1 mark for each of the following:
•        display as a bar chart
•        both axes labelled correctly
•        an informative title with reference to the IV and DV
•        y axis has appropriate scaling
•        bars are separate
•        bars are plotted reasonably correctly.
 
(b)     [AO3 = 4]
Award one mark for each of the following points:
•        the researcher needs to ensure that the two groups are matched for key variables
•        example of at least one key variable – any that might reasonably be expected to affect memory in this situation, eg eyesight, age, intelligence
•        all participants should be pre-tested / assessed for the key variable / variables
•        for each person in one condition, the researcher should assign a ‘matched’ person in the other condition.
Credit other relevant points or this information embedded in the example.
Q21.
(a)     [AO1 = 1 AO3 = 2]
1 mark for identification of the correct experimental design – independent groups / independent measures.
Plus
2 marks for a clear and coherent outline of an advantage using appropriate terminology.
OR
1 mark for a brief / vague / muddled outline of an advantage.
Possible advantages:
•        performances not affected by order effects as people only do one condition
•        demand characteristics less likely as participants only aware of own condition
•        same task / materials can be used in both conditions as participants are always naïve to the task.
Credit other relevant advantages.
(b)     [AO1 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and coherent outline of how participants are used in either a repeated measure or a matched pairs design.
1 mark for a vague, muddled or incomplete outline of a repeated measure or a matched pairs design.
If the answer to (a) is incorrect, credit a different design to that given.
(c)     [AO3 = 2]
1 mark for an appropriate and plausible suggestion.
Plus
1 mark for an appropriate justification.
Likely suggestions:
•        testing all participants in the same room
•        making sure that all participants hear the same instructions
•        ensuring that all participants are tested by the same researcher.
Credit other relevant suggestions.
(d)     [AO2 = 3]
3 marks for an appropriate non-directional (or directional) operationalised hypothesis: ‘There is a difference in the number of ideas generated when participants work alone and when they work in groups.’
2 marks for a statement with both conditions of the IV and DV that lacks the clarity or has only one variable operationalised.
1 mark for a muddled statement with both conditions of the IV and DV where neither variable is operationalised.
0 marks for expressions of aim / questions / correlational hypotheses or statements with only one condition.
Full credit can be awarded for a hypothesis expressed in a null form.
(e)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark: 3 (in each group)
(f)      [AO1 = 1]
1 mark for naming a suitable measure of dispersion (range or standard deviation).
(g)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for stating that the statistic calculated (either the range or the SD) would be greater in Condition A than in Condition B.
or written as
1 mark for stating that the statistic calculated (either the range or the SD) would be less in Condition B than in Condition A.
(h)     [AO2 = 3]
Marks for a clear description of a practical way as follows:
1 mark – all the participants allocated a number from 1 to 15.
1 mark – the 15 numbers are put in a hat.
1 mark – assign first three numbers drawn to a group and repeat process for other 4 groups.
Accept other valid descriptions that would be practical and produce the same outcome.
(i)      [AO3 = 2]
1 mark : for each condition, the overall number of ideas generated should be divided by the overall total of 185.
Plus
1 mark : the result for each condition should then be multiplied by 100 to give the percentage.
(j)      [AO2 = 6]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
3	5 – 6	Both elements of required content are clear and mostly well detailed. The debrief is all in verbatim format.	
2	3 – 4	Both elements of required content are present. The answer lacks detail and / or clarity in places. Some of the answer is in verbatim format.	
1	1 – 2	There is some information about at least one element of required content. The answer lacks clarity. Verbatim format is lacking.
For one mark there must be some relevant content, eg an optional point about ethics.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Required content:
•        explanation of the aim: to see if creativity is affected by the presence or absence of others
•        information about the other condition – in an independent design people need to know about the condition in which they did not take part.
Optional content:
•        specific ethical issues, eg right to withdraw data / be informed of results / check of welfare
•        general ethical considerations, eg respect for participants.
Q22.
(a)     [AO2 = 3]
1 mark for each of the following points:
•        The total observation time for each parent was 10 minutes.
•        The psychologist made 20 observations for each parent.
•        To generate 20 observations for each parent she must therefore have recorded her observation every ½ minute or every 30 seconds.
(b)     [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for the correct answer: 30%.
Plus
1 mark for showing correct workings: 12 divided by 40 multiplied by 100.
(c)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for primary data.
Q23.
(a)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and coherent explanation of the usefulness of the standard deviation in this study.
1 mark for a weak or muddled answer in which the impact of the difference in the SDs is alluded to.
•        Useful to inform about the spread of scores.
•        Indicates participant variables – as a group the people in Condition 1 are quite different / are more variable than those in Condition 2.
Credit answers which suggest that the SDs can be used to look for similarity or differences in variance.
(b)     [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for a clear, coherent outline of a relevant problem.
1 mark for a weak, muddled or very limited outline.
Possible problems:
•        Direct observation of memory is not possible and must be inferred from the results / behaviour of the participants – this inference could be mistaken.
•        The task given is rarely how normal memory functioning occurs because it is specifically designed to make measurement possible – the researcher therefore collects data that is only related to memory processing under experimental conditions.
Credit other valid problems.
Q24.
(a)     [AO2 = 3]

3 marks for the following points:
•        Axes correctly labelled as Age of participant and Attitude to social care rating.
•        Scales are suitable.
•        Points plotted accurately.
(b)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for: there is a positive relationship between age and interest in social care issues / as people get older their interest in social care increases (1) this is because as the values on one co-variable increase, so do the values on the other co-variable (1) OR as age increases so does attitude to social care rating / score.
(c)     [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for knowledge of an investigator effect – this is when the person collecting the data has knowledge of what the research aim is / traits and that knowledge / those traits affect the data obtained.
1 mark for a brief explanation of how investigator effects might have occurred in this study.
If the researchers believed that older people would be more interested in social care they could have just given scores based on the age of the person.
(d)     [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for explaining how investigator effects could have been avoided in the study. The answer needs to explain what could be done and how that would decrease / eliminate the effect.
Possible content:
•        Discussion of separate observation by the two researchers and comparison – inter-rater reliability.
•        Having ‘blind’ rating of the discussion by someone who is unaware of the aim or research hypothesis.
•        Filming the discussions so there is a permanent record that can be checked by peer review of the data to confirm the scores / ratings.
Credit other relevant procedures.
(e)     [AO2 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	Explanation of how closed and open questions are beneficial is clear. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 2	There is limited / partial reference to the benefit(s) of closed and open questions. The answer lacks accuracy and detail. Use of terminology is either absent or inappropriate.
OR answer only refers to either closed or open questions at Level 2.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Possible content:
•        Closed questions would present participants with options for their response so the researchers would be able to collate and display the information collected easily.
•        Closed questions make it easy to compare specific response to questions the researchers wanted answered – they can be sure there will be certain information because they have restricted the options to include that information.
•        Open questions allow respondents to interpret the question as they wish to and develop their response with detail or depth – so there is lots of information received.
•        Open questions allow the researchers to pursue a line of enquiry that they may not have predicted but which comes to light because of a response by an interviewee.
Credit other relevant procedures.
(f)     [AO2 = 3]
•        1 mark for an appropriate open or closed question – requiring information about a social care issue.
•        1 mark for correct identification of this as an open or closed type of question.
•        1 mark for a suitable explanation for why the choice was appropriate – this could relate to producing a type of data (closed – ease of analysis, open – lots of detail or depth to response / allows respondent to elaborate her / his reasoning for the response given) or it could focus on an issue of social care introduced by the candidate and not in the stem.
(g)     [AO1 = 2 AO2 = 2]
AO2
1 mark: the responses to the open questions in the interview constitute qualitative data.
Plus
1 mark: the attitudes ratings AND / OR the collated responses to the closed questions in the interview constitute quantitative data.
AO1
1 mark for an explanation of how the responses to the open questions is qualitative data ie is non-numeric / descriptive / retains detail of actions / thoughts / feelings.
Plus
1 mark for an explanation of how the ratings / collated responses to closed questions is quantitative data ie numerical such as a score / behaviour is represented in the form of a score on a scale.
(h)     [AO3 = 4]
2 marks for each explanation of how the chosen ethical issue could be dealt with.
1 mark for a brief muddled explanation.
2 marks for a clear explanation.
Consent – to be part of what is in essence two studies. Participants should be forewarned – a briefing.
Protection from harm – at the end of participation all will have to be fully aware that they were rated for their social care interest and a low score might indicate they are ‘uncaring’. They may wish to withdraw their data.
Right to withdraw – being made aware that they can at any time stop participating and at the end of their participation they can withdraw detail of their behaviour in the research.
The explanation must demonstrate an appreciation that people should be dealt with, with respect and competence.
Credit other relevant ethical issues.
Q25.
[AO2 = 2 AO3 = 2]
Credit application of knowledge of normal distribution and how to achieve this through modification of test as follows:
1 mark each for any four of the following points:
•   Adjust the difficulty of the test
•   To make the test more demanding/harder
•   So that fewer people get a very high mark
•   Most people get a medium mark (a few people get a very low mark and a few people get a very high mark)
•   So it will achieve a more normal distribution (credit use of diagram to illustrate)
Q26.
(a)  [AO2 = 2]
1 mark – correlation
Plus:
1 mark – she is investigating the (numerical) relationship between two co-variables
(b)  [AO2 = 1]
1 mark – scattergram
(c)  [AO2 = 1]
1 mark – 10 children
(d)  [AO3 = 2]
1 mark – pattern shows a (strong) negative correlation
Plus:
1 mark – suggesting that the more years are spent in an institution, the lower the language ability (or the fewer years spent in an institution), the better the language ability
(e)  [AO2 = 2]
1 mark for correct answer 14 (or 15)
Plus:
1 mark for correct workings (18 − 4) or (18 − 4 + 1)
Q27.
(a)  [AO2 = 1]
1 mark C
(b)  [AO2 = 2]
1 mark 4/5ths
1 mark for workings 16 divided by 4 = 4 and 20 divided by 4 = 5 (so 4/5ths)
(c)  [AO3 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and coherent conclusion, plus relevant explanation based on the data.
1 mark for a vague/muddled conclusion.
Conclusion and explanation:
The training course appears to have a beneficial effect on teacher confidence as the majority of them (16 out of 20) say their confidence has improved.
(d)  [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clearly operationalised dependent variable: the DV is whether the teachers thought their confidence in managing difficult behaviour was better, worse or the same after the course.
1 mark for a dependent variable that is not fully operationalised eg teachers’ confidence/how they felt after doing the course.
(e)  [AO2 = 3]
1 mark repeated measures design
Plus
2 marks for a clear and coherent explanation of why this design is appropriate in this case
1 mark for a vague or muddled explanation of why this design is appropriate in this case
Content:
It is important to ask the same participants to consider their level of confidence before and after taking part in the training in order to see whether their confidence has changed. It would not make sense to ask one group of people before training and another group of people after training because there may be individual differences in their levels of confidence anyway.
(f)   [AO2 = 3]
1 mark calculated value of S = 2
Plus two marks for any two of the following points:
1 mark this is determined by converting the differences or outcomes to signs + or −
1 mark then taking the numerical value for/number of participants with the least common/frequent sign
1 mark any nil differences are ignored
(g)  [AO1 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and coherent explanation
1 mark for a vague/muddled explanation
Content:
researchers use statistical tests to determine the likelihood that the effect/difference/relationship they have found has occurred due to chance.
(h)  [AO3 = 2]
1 mark for each valid behavioural category suggested.
For credit the behaviour should be an observable behaviour that is disruptive or disobedient and would be likely to occur in a primary school classroom eg throwing something, shouting, banging on the desk.
(i)   [AO3 = 3]
Award marks for a suitable record sheet/tally chart in table form.
1 mark for each bullet point addressed
•   Table with spaces for tallies/recordings of instances
•   Separate spaces for first and last 10 minutes
•   Headed correctly with the six category spaces (may include the two used in answer to part (h) but names of categories not essential here)
No marks for drawing a bar chart or graph.
(j)   [AO3 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	A relevant problem is clearly identified. The explanation of how the observation would be improved by addressing this problem is appropriate and effective. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of appropriate terminology.	
1	1 – 2	A relevant problem is identified. There is partial/limited explanation of how the observation would be improved by addressing this problem. The answer lacks coherence and use of appropriate terminology.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Relevant problems:
•   observer effect (as observation is overt) means pupils would behave differently because they are aware that they are being observed – could be addressed by carrying out a covert observation
•   observer bias/lack of objectivity because the researcher is working alone – could be addressed by working as part of a pair for inter-observer reliability
•   limiting observations to first and last 10 minutes means the data may not be a valid representation of disruptive behaviour in lessons. Need to carry out observations at other times during the lesson too.
Q28.
(a)     [AO2 = 2 AO3 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
3	5 – 6	Conclusions in respect of both means and standard deviations are presented with clarity. Understanding of the relevance of each statistic is demonstrated. Justifications for each make good use of the values given.	
2	3 – 4	Conclusions and justification in respect of both means and standard deviations are relevant, but there is some lack of clarity in both.
Or, one is done well and justified appropriately (most usually this will be the mean).	
1	1 – 2	One conclusion is drawn or two are partially correct. Any justification is limited. The answer lacks clarity.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Means
•        Conclusion: when people believe they are presenting to a large audience they are less fluent in their spoken communication than when they believe the audience is small (or vice versa).
•        Justification / Application: this is supported by the difference in the mean fluency scores which show more verbal mistakes (on average 6 more mistakes) when the audience is believed to be large (or vice versa).
Standard deviations
•        Conclusion: performances of participants in Condition A where audience is believed to be small are less varied / dispersed / spread out than in Condition B where audience is believed to be large (or vice versa).
•        Justification / Application: lower SD in Condition A suggests that individual performances in Condition A were more similar to each other and / or all quite close to the mean of 11.1.
(b)     [AO3 = 3]
1 mark – this would be an improvement because the SD is a measure of dispersion that was less easily distorted by a single extreme score.
Plus
1 mark – one that takes account of the distance of all the verbal error scores from the mean.
Plus
1 mark – not just the distance between the highest verbal error score and the lowest verbal error score.
(c)     [AO2 = 4]
1 mark for naming the t-test for independent / unrelated groups or a Mann-Whitney test.
Plus
Up to 3 marks for explanation for unrelated t-test. Credit relevant points as follows:
•        can assume interval data because verbal errors can be assumed to be of equal size (ie one verbal error is equivalent to any other verbal error)
•        the experimental design is independent groups
•        the psychologist is looking for a difference between the two conditions.
OR
Up to 3 marks for explanation for Mann-Whitney test. Credit relevant points as follows:
•        data should be treated as ordinal. Cannot assume interval data because verbal errors cannot be assumed to be of equal size (ie one verbal error is not equivalent to any other verbal error)
•        the experimental design is independent groups
•        the psychologist is looking for a difference between the two conditions
•        SDs are quite different.
(d)     [AO1 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and appropriate definition as follows:
This means that there is a less than 5% likelihood that this difference would occur if there is no real difference between the conditions OR the researchers would have a 95% confidence level.
1 mark for a less clear answer which shows some understanding, eg this means the researcher can conclude that the difference was not due to chance.
Accept any other valid answer.
(e)     [AO2 = 2]
2 marks for a clear and detailed explanation applied to this study.
1 mark for a partial or muddled explanation or one that is only loosely applied to the study.
Credit answers based on any type of validity. Most answers will refer to either face or concurrent as follows:
•        asking other people if verbal errors are a good measure of verbal fluency (face validity)
•        giving participants an alternative / established verbal fluency test and checking to see that the two sets of data are positively correlated (concurrent validity).
Q29.
(a)     [AO2 = 3]
 
Credit a rough sketch of a negatively skewed distribution as follows:
1 mark for shape of curve with tail to the left.
1 mark for axis labels – ‘(Investment) Score’ on horizontal axis, ‘Number (of Participants)’ / ‘Frequency’ on vertical axis.
1 mark for positioning the mean, median and mode appropriately in relation to one another.
(b)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for stating negative skew.
If graph sketched in (a) does not show a negative skew, credit answers that match the sketch given.
Q30.
(a)     [AO2 = 3]
 
Credit a rough sketch of a positively skewed distribution as follows:
1 mark for shape of curve with tail to the right.
1 mark for axis labels – ‘(Masculinity) Score’ on horizontal axis, ‘Number (of Students)’ / ‘Frequency’ on vertical axis.
1 mark for positioning the mean, median and mode appropriately in relation to one another.
(b)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for stating a positive skew.
If the graph sketched in (a) does not show a positive skew, credit answers that match the sketch given.
Q31.
(a)     [AO2 = 3]
 
Credit a rough sketch of a negatively skewed distribution as follows:
1 mark for shape of curve with tail to the left.
1 mark for axis labels – ‘(Egocentrism) Score’ on horizontal axis, ‘Number (Children or Parents)’ / ‘Frequency’ on vertical axis.
1 mark for positioning the mean, median and mode appropriately in relation to one another.
(b)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for stating a negative skew.
If the graph sketched in part (a) does not show a negative skew, credit answers that match the sketch given.
Q32.
[AO1 = 4]
1 mark each for a correct definition of both a Type I and a Type II error
Plus
Up to 2 marks for a clear distinction between these two errors.
Possible content:
•        A Type I error occurs when a researcher claims support for the research hypothesis with a significant result when the results were caused by random variables
•        A Type II error occurs when the effect the researcher was attempting to demonstrate does exist but the researcher claims there was no significance in the results/erroneously accepts the null hypothesis
•        The difference is that in a Type I error the null hypothesis is rejected when it is true and in a Type II error it is retained when it is false.
Q33.
(a)     [AO2 = 2 AO3 = 2]
2 marks for an accurate comment about the means for both males and females
Plus
2 marks for an accurate comment about the standard deviations for both sets of data
Means: the mean score for males is almost 3 times larger than that of the females which suggests they are very much better at map reading than the females
Standard deviations: sds are quite similar to each other suggesting the spread of performances of the male participants and the female participants is similar within each group.
(b)     [AO2 = 4]
Award 2 marks for a correct calculation of the percentage for the male participants and 2 marks for a correct calculation of the percentage for the female participants.
If the calculation for one or both of the groups is incorrect but the procedure used is correct award 1 mark for each time this occurs to a maximum of 2 marks.
Males – 13/20 = 65%
Females 5/20 = 25%
(c)     [AO2 = 2]
Up to 2 marks for a clear comment on the data
Possible content: the difference in the percentages confirms the earlier suggestion that men are much better at map reading than women.
Q34.
(a)     [AO3 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	Clear understanding of the notion of social sensitivity is demonstrated through effective application to the stem. Explanation of how the researchers could have dealt with the issue of social sensitivity in this case is clear. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 2	Some understanding of the notion of social sensitivity is demonstrated through limited application to the stem. There is limited/partial explanation of how the researchers could deal with the issue of social sensitivity in this case. The answer lacks accuracy and detail. Use of terminology is either absent or inappropriate.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
Content:
•        Awareness of issue: Researchers should be aware of the implications of their research: possible negative impact for the children in the sample; possible negative implications of the research for the reputation of Crayford school and the wider community; possible self-fulfilling prophecy
•        Dealing with the issue: Researchers should take adequate steps to counter the above: sensitive briefing/debriefing of participants, parents, teachers etc; care in relation to publication, disclosure of results and confidentiality/anonymity.
(b)     [AO2 = 1]
1 mark for nominal level/categorical level
(c)     [AO3 = 2]
1 mark – categorical data is crude/unsophisticated/does not enable very sensitive analysis
Plus
1 mark – because it does not yield a numerical result for each participant
Q35.
[AO2 = 4]
 
Level	Marks	Description	
2	3 – 4	Knowledge of the effectiveness of atypical and typical antipsychotics on positive and negative symptoms is clear and mostly accurate. The findings in the table are used appropriately. The answer is generally coherent with effective use of terminology.	
1	1 – 2	Some knowledge of the effectiveness of atypical and typical antipsychotics and positive and negative symptoms is evident. Use of findings from the table is not always effective. The answer lacks accuracy and detail. Use of terminology is either absent or inappropriate.	
 	0	No relevant content.	
•        Atypical and typical antipsychotics are equally effective against positive symptoms with more than half of patients responding well
•        The main difference is that negative symptoms respond better to atypical antipsychotics, 30% improve compared with typical antipsychotics 16%
•        Atypical antipsychotics are more effective against negative symptoms
•        These findings support the view that they act on different neurotransmitters

Examiner reports
Q1.
In part (a) Most students scored well and were able to identify the type of observation accurately. In part (b) Very few students could identify the sampling technique as event sampling. It seemed that they interpreted the word "sampling" to refer to the way in which participants were obtained. Those who did correctly identify event sampling were able to give an accurate and detailed explanation. In part (c) It was pleasing to see how well the majority of students performed. Many were able to produce accurate and detailed answers, drawing some sensible conclusions from the data. For example, the school needs to do more to encourage the recycling of food, the initiative seems to work better with younger years, so they need to try harder with the older groups. The pitfall for some students was to go beyond the data in the table and refer to conformity and obedience. For others it was to interpret the table as if it was a correlation. Part (d) asked for one way in which this particular observation could have been improved. This is not the same as asking for a completely different study, which was not creditworthy. Better answers referred to the use of more than one observer, or to carry out the observation over several different days or locations. 
Q2.
Part (a) was an easy part of the question for most students. However, they do need to be very careful with the clarity of their handwriting in questions such as this one. It was sometimes difficult to determine whether the answer was 250 or 230. There were some careless maths errors, such as "losing" a zero, or by giving the answer in minutes rather than hours.
Part (b) was another part of the question students found easy. The most common answer was quantitative data because she used closed questions. Credit was also given to those who chose qualitative data because she recorded what they said; or primary data because she collected the data specifically for this study.
In part (c), while some students were able to provide accurate answers showing good understanding, others merely described what the investigator effect was, rather than how to reduce it. This is yet another example of the need to read the question carefully. Better answers were able to suggest getting someone else who had not been at the concert to ask the questions, or to avoid having the investigator present by using a questionnaire. It was very clear from the answers to part (d) that a large number of students had no idea what the purpose of a peer review is. They seemed to think that a journal was something the psychologist kept herself. However, a small minority of students were able to explain that the process was to determine whether or not the journal should publish her report. This would involve a group of experts in the same field evaluating her report to make this decision.
Q3.
There were many correct answers to part (a) and it was apparent that the majority of students had the knowledge to be able to identify the description of an overt observation.
In part (b) there were many correct answers and it was apparent that the majority of students had the knowledge to be able to identify the description of an overt observation.
In part (c) most students appeared to have a good knowledge of the strengths and limitations of the two types of observation. However, many failed to actually use this knowledge to answer the question on discussing reasons why covert may have been more beneficial than overt. There were many limited responses which either explained limitations of overt observations or strengths of covert observations but without comparison. Equally there were many responses which had implicit discussion of benefits which was not clear and thus not sufficient for full marks.
Q4.
Part (a) was generally answered very well and most students were able to explain why matching the students was important. However, some failed to apply their response to this specific situation as thus were limited to 1 mark.
In part (b) many students were able to identify an appropriate variable to match the students on and then go onto explain how this might affect satisfaction scores. There were many possible accurate responses with the most common being how difficult they may find the topic (often linked to IQ) and prior knowledge of business studies. A significant minority of students identified an appropriate variable but then failed to apply it to this situation and explain how it may have affected satisfaction scores. There was also a significant number of students who failed to engage with the question and simply suggested one of a number of generic variables such as IQ, gender or age. Unless these variables were clearly linked to an appropriate variable (such as linking age to interest/experience of using computers) they would not be appropriate variables to match students on in this study and thus would not receive credit. It is important to remind students to engage with the question posed and tailor their answer to that specific question not to simply produce a response of non-specific rote-learned material.
In part (c) it was clear from student responses that the vast majority of students appeared to have some understanding of the process of random allocation. However, fewer students seem to clearly understand the reasons why random allocation is used and thus failed to answer the question posed. Of those students who did answer the question correctly some failed to apply it to this situation and thus were limited to 1 mark. It is important to note that simply referring to removal of bias without any outline or application is not sufficient to gain any credit. Reference to bias needed to be clearly focused on either removal of researcher bias or removal of participant bias and should be outlined and applied for full credit.
In part (d) most students clearly understood the strengths of stratified sampling and / or the weaknesses of opportunity sampling. However, many failed to tailor this knowledge to the actual question posed and did not explain why stratified sampling might be better than opportunity sampling in this study. Most students produced limited responses where they simply explained the strengths of stratified sampling or the weaknesses of opportunity sampling. Some students did explain why stratified sampling was an improvement in general but failed to apply their reasoning to this specific design. Equally there were many responses which had implicit explanation of improvements which was not clear and so not sufficient for full marks. A significant minority of students either produced responses which had no relevant content or did not attempt the question suggesting that some students did not have the knowledge to enable them to answer this question. There was also some confusion with systematic sampling. This is particularly disappointing considering there was a similar question on the previous examination paper in the June 2017 series which also asked about how stratified sampling could be an improvement (although in comparison to volunteer sampling). It is important to remind students that just because a topic appears on an exam in one series does not mean that the same topic cannot appear on the exam in the following series. It is also important to use previous examination questions with students to ensure they are familiar with the style and type of questions which they may be presented with in their actual examination.
In part (e) the overwhelming majority of students answered correctly and there was a wide range of appropriate questions which would generate qualitative data seen in student responses. Unfortunately, a very small minority of students wrote Likert scale questions which would have generated quantitative data.
In part (f) there were some excellent responses with a range of different appropriate problems with analysing qualitative data seen. Most students who identified an appropriate problem went on to clearly explain it and thus gain full credit. However, some students failed to address the actual question posed and explained problems either with collecting qualitative data (such as ‘it takes time for participants to complete’) or with the validity of the qualitative data (such as ‘participants might lie in their responses’). Responses must be based on analysis to gain credit and the most common error seen was where students were focusing on subjectivity of the participants when answering the questions to produce the qualitative data rather than subjectivity of the researcher when analysing the qualitative data.
In part (g) most students answered correctly and a wide range of outlined ethical issues was seen in responses. Unfortunately, a few students simply named an ethical issue without outlining it.
In part (h) most students were able to draw an accurate scattergram with two appropriately labelled axes on suitable scales. A small minority of these students also produced an accurate and appropriate title which referred to the relationship between the two co-variables. However, many students failed to either provide a title for their graph or produced an inaccurate or vague title which was not sufficient for credit. There were also errors in plotting points in some responses and some students produced very small graphs with inappropriate scaling. Some students failed to read the question correctly and did not draw a scattergram. A variety of incorrect types of graph were seen but the most common was a line graph where students had joined up the plotted points ethical issue without outlining it.
The vast majority of students scored one mark in part (i) as few responses had both components required for two marks. Most responses only included a description of the relationship between online hours and satisfaction but did not identify the relationship as a negative correlation. The description of the relationship was expressed in several different accurate ways but the most common was more online hours the less satisfied they were. A small number of students produced confused conclusions based on causal relationships which were incorrect.
Part (j) was answered very well with the vast majority of students correctly calculating both the mode and median satisfaction scores and thus being awarded full marks. A very small minority made a mistake in their calculations leading them to produce an incorrect median and/or mode. Unfortunately, a very small number of students failed to fully answer the actual question posed and calculated a mean value instead of either the median or mode.
In part (k) there was evidently much confusion amongst students as to why the median would be more representative than the mode in this data set. Most responses simply consisted of statements of how to calculate the median and the mode rather than explaining a reason why the median might be more suitable to represent the average score in this study. Some students were able to explain why the mode was less representative of the average satisfaction scores and thus produced a limited explanation but very few were able to explain why the median was more representative. Only a very small minority of students were able to explain that the median was more representative as it is numerically closer to more of the other scores in the data set compared to the mode and thus few students gained 2 marks. Some students simply repeated the question stating that the median is more representative than the mode without any explanation.
There were a lot of correct answers to part (l) and it was apparent that many students had the knowledge to be able to identify the negative skew in this data. However, when compared to the other MCQ on this paper, more students did not attempt this question and the number of correct responses was lower. This suggests that their knowledge of negative skew was poorer than their knowledge of introspection and overt observations.
Q5.
Part (a) was very straightforward and answered very well. 
In part (b) many students were able to provide appropriate scattergrams, with accurate title, axes, and plotting. Others missed out on one or two marks with vague titles and / or axes. However some students, despite the questions in this section mentioning ‘relationship’, Spearman’s rho and ‘correlation’, provided completely inappropriate graphical displays e.g. histograms and bar charts. A small minority did not attempt this question at all.
Part (c) required reference to ‘level of measurement’. Although the majority of answers could identify ordinal data for 1 mark, very few went on to characterise ordinal data or why this studyproduced ordinal data, which would have fully justified the use of Spearman’s rho.
Part (d) was very straightforward if the scattergram was plotted accurately, but a significant minority of students were clearly unaware that 0.15 is a negligible correlation and 0.95 a virtually perfect correlation (straight line).
Q6.
Part (a) was answered correctly by the vast majority of students.
In (b) most students understood what is meant by a pilot study, with the vast majority of students achieving at least 1 mark but only half of these students were able to provide a reason why a pilot study should be conducted in the context of the investigation, with many giving elaborated generic responses but unable to use their knowledge flexibly to apply it appropriately. Of the approximate one quarter of students achieving full marks, the most common route was to focus on whether participants would be able to recall their dreams by 9am each morning or whether the questions asked by the interviewers were clear and appropriate for gathering the necessary detail regarding dream themes.
In (c) the vast majority of students were able to give an accurate description of qualitative data but less than half of these students were able to apply this to the practical scenario to gain the second mark. Many students wasted time giving generic strengths of collecting qualitative data.
Part (d) was overhall poorly answered. Although over two thirds of students managed to give a description of investigator effects, it was clear that many students do not fully understand the term. Students often failed to distinguish between investigator effects and deliberate fraud with others muddling investigator effects up with demand characteristics or simply stating ‘the effects of the investigators’. Application was poor with less than a third of students achieving marks for their suggestions. Most common errors were to suggest employing a blind procedure despite the stem stating that interviewers ‘did not know the purpose of the study’. Students either did not read the stem material carefully enough or do not actually understand what a blind procedure is and therefore did not spot this in the stem but instead just provided a generic response to deal with issues in research.
When students understood the concept of content analysis, part (e) was well answered; however, over one third of students failed to achieve any marks. A worrying number of students had no idea what content analysis is, with students frequently describing correlational analysis, statistical analysis, concurrent validity, descriptive statistics and even peer review in an attempt to explain how the content (data) from an experiment could be analysed. Those that understood the term generally explained how occurrences of each category could be tallied, with better students able to explain how categories would be identified from the interview data and giving appropriate examples of these. A surprisingly small number of students seemed to have a sound practical understanding of how content analysis should be conducted and teachers should be encouraged to offer further opportunities for students to develop their understanding of content analysis through practical research.
Those students who did not know what content analysis was focussed on how reliability of experiments could be improved more generally, focussing on repeating experiments, peer review or statistically analysing the results. Those who did understand what content analysis was often demonstrated excellent knowledge, although there was some muddle between test-retest and inter-rater reliability. Unfortunately some responses were poorly focussed, concentrating on how reliability can be ensured rather than assessed.
Part (g) was well answered with the vast majority of students achieving full marks. Those students who lost marks generally lost them due to not answering the question posed, with students working out friendly rather than aggressive dreams or trying to calculate the number of males opposed to number of dreams or assuming that 375 dreams were classified as friendly as opposed to including social interactions. There were a small number of students who provided the right workings but gave the wrong answer, wasting valuable time unsuccessfully calculating the answer by hand. Students need to take care when reading questions and data given in tables and should use a calculator to check their answers to avoid losing unnecessary marks.
Part (h) was generally answered well with over three quarters of students achieving at least three marks. Most commonly students lost marks for not giving both conditions of the IV in their titles or referring incorrectly to histograms or for having the bars touching. Teachers should make students aware that with discontinuous/discrete data bars should not be touching on a graph.
Q7.
Part (a) was generally quite poorly answered. Although many students could gain some credit for providing detail from the study and / or giving ethical issues, few were able to demonstrate sound understanding of the requirements of a practical consent form with many not referring to consent at all. Ethical issues were generally covered reasonably well and were the strongest of the three elements, whilst format / style was the weakest and was often inappropriate (eg ‘You will’, or ‘You must’, or ‘You have taken part’). Although there were some excellent responses, generally it appeared that the students had not really thought about the nature of giving informed consent, with sparse experimental detail and the incorrect tone used, often reading more like a brief / debrief from or a legal disclaimer. This is perhaps an area that schools / colleges could look at in more detail.
In part (b) despite many students showing an understanding of directional hypothesis, just less than half failed to achieve any marks, mainly due to a focus on horror films leading to more nightmares with no reference to the romantic comedy condition. Additionally, many students failed to fully operationalise the variables and some struggled to write an appropriate hypothesis for a repeated measures design, employing a writing frame for an independent measures design.
In part (c) most students identified individual differences as a reason to use a repeated measures design but only about half of these students managed to clearly link their reason to the experiment. Surprisingly, there was some confusion over the term ‘repeated measures’, with some students focussing their answers on reliability and others on order effects. Responses to this question again suggest that students need to gain more practical experience of designing and conducting experiments as part of their course, rather than focussing on theoretical learning of these concepts.
Part (d) offered a great opportunity to distinguish genuine understanding of reasoning behind the use of counterbalancing as opposed to whether students had merely rote learned what it is and why it is used. Overall, there appeared very little understanding with approximately half of students failing to achieve any marks and approximately one tenth of students accessing both marks. Most students achieving marks identified the issue of order effects but application to the experiment was limited, with many rote learned, inappropriate responses such as boredom / tiredness given rather than engaging with this study.
Part (e) was generally well answered with over half of the students accessing all 3 marks. Generally, answers referring to a hat / container were more successful than those involving a random number generator / computer, as these responses often failed to fully describe the process.
Overall, students were able to answer part (f) well, although understanding of mean scores was generally better than standard deviation. It appeared that students often understood the data but failed to appropriately justify their suggestions, often simply restating information given in the table. There were also a few costly examples of justifications given without suggestions.
Part (g) was a good differentiator, with some excellent responses by students who clearly explained what ‘significant at p<0.05’ meant and successfully managed to do so in the context of the experiment. Weaker students generally gave a rote learned reason for why psychologists generally use the 5% level or failed to contextualise their response. Unfortunately, many students failed to explain that the ‘<0.05’ sign meant less than 5%. Teachers should ensure that students are familiar with the mathematical symbols required by the new specification.
Part (h) was generally not well answered. A huge range of modifications to the design of the experiment were given but unfortunately a lot of these were inappropriate, such as ‘use a control group’, ‘use a blind procedure’, ‘use a repeated measures design’ or ‘use an independent measures design’, suggesting either a lack of understanding of the reasoning for experimental design or a failure to recall the experimental protocol. Some students suggested using a matched pairs design and went on to explain effectively how this could improve validity by reducing the likelihood of participants guessing the aim of the study which would reduce demand characteristics. More commonly students justified the modified design by inappropriately suggesting that it would avoid individual differences. Changing the sample was a common answer but it was often not clear how this would improve validity, with few being able to give more than a generic explanation. Stronger responses generally focussed on the problem of using a text message to ascertain whether a nightmare had been experienced, suggesting a questionnaire/interview to reduce the chances of participants lying or to help distinguish nightmares from unpleasant dreams.
Q8.
This was without doubt the worst answered question on the whole paper, with a modal mark of 0. Most students failed to address the issue of distribution and instead gave lengthy interpretations of the data in the table, comparing the measures of central tendency for the two groups and attempting to draw conclusions in relation to the study. The poor performance on this question illustrates the importance of reading questions carefully and thinking carefully about what the question means. It is likely that, having seen many examples of data interpretation questions with tables on previous papers, students automatically thought that this was a similar question and responded according. It is also likely that many students left the examination hall believing that 
Q9.
This was without doubt the worst answered question on the whole paper, with a modal mark of 0. Most students failed to address the issue of distribution and instead gave lengthy interpretations of the data in the table, comparing the measures of central tendency for the two groups and attempting to draw conclusions in relation to the study. The poor performance on this question illustrates the importance of reading questions carefully and thinking carefully about what the question means. It is likely that, having seen many examples of data interpretation questions presented in tables on previous papers, students automatically thought that this was a similar question and responded according. It is also likely that many students left the examination hall believing that they had answered this question well. A lucky minority of students who were not actually answering the question at all nevertheless managed to gain 1 mark by incidentally noting that the measures of central tendency for Group A were all about the same. An even smaller minority who understood the point of the question gained 4 marks very swiftly, often in a single sentence. A handful of students illustrated their answers with sketches of a bell-shaped curve and a positive skew. 
Q10.
This was without doubt the worst answered question on the whole paper, with a modal mark of 0. Most students failed to address the issue of distribution and instead gave lengthy interpretations of the data in the table, comparing the measures of central tendency for the two groups and attempting to draw conclusions in relation to the study. The poor performance on this question illustrates the importance of reading questions carefully and thinking carefully about what the question means. It is likely that, having seen many examples of data interpretation questions presented in tables on previous papers, students automatically thought that this was a similar question and responded according. It is also likely that many students left the examination hall believing that they had answered this question well. A lucky minority of students who were not actually answering the question at all nevertheless managed to gain 1 mark by incidentally noting that the measures of central tendency for Group A were all about the same. An even smaller minority who understood the point of the question gained 4 marks very swiftly, often in a single sentence. A handful of students illustrated their answers with sketches of a bell-shaped curve and a positive skew. 
Q11.
(a)     A straightforward question with many students getting both marks (more than 60%). Those that didn’t tended to not appreciate that their two numbers must total 100, while others got the boys and girls the wrong way round.
(b)     The majority of students (more than 90%) gained both marks.
(c)     Most students understood what is meant by quantitative data and what is meant by qualitative data. The difficulty they appeared to have was being able to describe a difference between them. A strategy for answering such questions could be to select an attribute and then describe how it differs. For example, ease of analysis; quantitative data is easily analysed and can be put into graphs, whereas qualitative data is much more difficult to analyse and has to be converted into quantitative data before it can be easily analysed. Reference to methods used to collect the data was not relevant.
Q12.
(a)     There was evidently much confusion amongst students as to when a directional or non-directional hypothesis should be used and many failed to get any marks on this question. Those who did correctly state the hypothesis should be non-directional portrayed this is many ways, ranging from ‘the hypothesis should be non-directional’ or ‘the hypothesis should not be directional’, to simply ‘no’ in response to the question stated. However, only around half of these correct responses went on to accurately explain the reason for this in relation to the fact that there was no previous research. Many students stated that ‘the hypothesis should be directional as it was clearly seen from the data that participants…’. It appears that many have not had sufficient practical experience of selecting an appropriate hypothesis and thus did not understand how to apply their knowledge in order to accurately answer this question.
(b)     The overwhelming majority of students clearly knew how to calculate a percentage and most were awarded two marks. Virtually all also provided their workings to support their answer. Those students who gave an incorrect answer but included correct workings were awarded one mark.
(c)     Most students clearly understood that stratified sampling was more representative or reduces research bias but many did not refer to subsets of students in the correct proportions. A minority confused stratified sampling with systematic sampling. There were also a number of students that didn’t attempt the question, suggesting that they did not have the knowledge.
(d)     The vast majority of students scored one mark for this question with their understanding that primary data is first hand data. Very few referred to it as being ‘original’ data. Even fewer students referred to primary data as data collected specifically for the research being carried out and thus few were awarded two marks. There was significant confusion in responses illustrating a lack of understanding surrounding primary data as many students were incorrectly focusing on who was collecting the data.
(e)     Some good responses were provided by the minority of students who understood why the mean was the most appropriate value and could refer to it as being more representative. Of these correct responses, only around half went on to clearly explain why it was the most appropriate and thus few students achieved full marks. It was evident that the vast majority did not understand why the mean would be the most appropriate measure and stated incorrect reasons, such as ‘the mean is the most appropriate as it shows the overall average’ and so scored no marks.
(f)     This question was answered very well with the vast majority of students producing correct mean values for both tasks and thus being awarded full marks. A small minority were awarded partial credit for stating an incorrect answer but with correct workings.
(g)     It was very clear from responses to this question that most students did not understand the purpose of counterbalancing and so scored zero marks. Most responses incorrectly stated that the purpose was to ‘reduce, eliminate or prevent’ order effects. Students seemed to be unaware that the purpose of counterbalancing is to control or equally distribute the impact of order effects. Other responses were tailored towards an explanation of how you would do counterbalancing rather than discussing the purpose. There were also a significant number of blank spaces suggesting that some students did not have the knowledge to enable them to attempt this question.
(h)     There were some excellent answers to this question with appropriate extraneous variables (EVs) identified and elaborated. However, many students failed to achieve the third mark as they did not explicitly state what effect the EV would have on the time taken to complete the spot the difference task (DV). Many correct responses referred to the type or volume of music being played, or the difficulty of the spot the difference tasks. However, a minority of students failed to achieve any marks as their responses referred to participant variables, such as poor eyesight or IQ, which would have been accounted for through the use of a repeated measures design. Additionally, some answers were vague and referred to ‘environmental conditions’ as an EV without explicitly referring to the change in these conditions between the tasks and thus limited the marks awarded.
(i)      Most students produced some limited explanation of how the follow up study improved upon the first study and thus achieved level 1. However, few went on to give a detailed explanation of this improvement, often only focussing on either why the follow up study was positive or why the original study was negative without comparison. Those students who achieved level 2 tended to focus on the follow-up study being more objective, a more scientific measurement or allowing cause and effect to be established, and then compared this with the relevant opposing weakness of the original study (more subjective, less scientific and only opinion so does not establish cause and effect). A minority of students mistakenly assumed that the first study generated qualitative data as it was self-report and so focused on the limitation of that versus the quantitative element of the follow-up study, and so scored no marks.
Q13.
(a)     Most students were able to give a disadvantage of quantitative data, but some failed to provide appropriate application. Some common incorrect answers included disadvantages of qualitative data, advantages of quantitative data and advantages/disadvantages of questionnaires.
(b)     Nearly all students managed to gain at least one mark and many gained full credit. The quantitative question suggested was generally effective, but the qualitative question suggested could have produced a quantitative response, so did not gain credit. Some students got qualitative and quantitative the wrong way round and consequently gained no marks. The most popular method of answering the quantitative part was either to give a rating scale or to pose a question followed by the words “Yes/No”. Although giving a closed answer response that is not officially quantitative, it was credited for this series. However, schools and colleges should ensure students are able to distinguish between quantitative and closed questions for future series.
Q14.
(a)     This question was well answered with over 90% of students correctly identifying the type of experiment used in the study.
(b)     Almost half of the students gained full credit for this question. Unfortunately, a few gave the independent variable instead of the dependent variable, or got confused with speed or the distance they had to run. Many students failed to state that the running time was measured in seconds.
(c)     This question was generally poorly answered, with 57% of students failing to achieve any marks and 3% not attempting it. There was an occasional reference to ‘“the need for continuous data”’, but very few students gained the second mark. Overall, there was a lack of understanding about what a histogram is or when they should be used and schools/colleges need to address this. A common incorrect answer was to assume a histogram is used for a correlation.
(d)     This question was reasonably well answered. Unfortunately, a number provided a full title instead of naming the type of graph, although when these included reference to a bar chart they received appropriate credit. A number of the axis labels were vague, omitting “seconds” or “mean/average”, or just writing “conditions”. There was also some confusion regarding the type of graph with “scattergram” being the most common incorrect response.
(e)     Although there were some strong responses, generally students found this harder than anticipated. A number failed to receive any credit due to simply defining the mean and the standard deviation. It was also far too common for students not to understand and answer the ‘justify’ component of the question. Many students simply restated information from the table or provided possible explanations or conclusions, as opposed to justifications. Although students generally saw the mean as showing a difference, there was often the claim that music hindered performance, with confusion regarding time being a higher score, meaning slower. Worryingly, some students still have little understanding of standard deviation.
(f)      Despite 36% of students not having the mathematical skills to answer this question appropriately and 3% not even attempting it, those who did have the knowledge answered it well. Some missed or did not understand the requirement for three significant figures.
(g)     This question was generally answered very well, with the majority of students achieving all five marks. Impressively, nearly all students identified the points in mark scheme for choice of test and most could justify why the result was not significant, although a few picked the wrong critical value from the table.
(h)     Many students could correctly define a Type II error, although there was some limited descriptions and some confusion between Type I and Type II errors. Few students managed a coherent response to the second part of question, requiring an explanation as to why the 5% level is normally used in research. Many were not clear about the balance between making Type I and Type II errors, suggesting that a 5% level prevented these errors from occurring. Weaker students did little beyond stating that it is used because of convention.
(i)      From the stem of the question, a clearly uncontrolled variable was the type of music participants listened to in condition B. Surprisingly few students identified this extraneous variable but there were a variety of environmental factors given that received credit, if they could have feasibly changed within one week and affected the running times. Unfortunately, over half of the students appeared not to have read the stem properly and therefore offered inappropriate extraneous variables, thus gaining zero marks. The most common inappropriate variables were participant variables, which would not have feasibly changed within the week, for example running ability, fitness level, age or gender, or issues regarding order effects, which would have been addressed by the design of the study.
(j)      This question was generally quite poorly answered. Although many students could gain some credit by defining what peer review is, very few demonstrated a detailed understanding of theprocesses or the purposes of it, with the majority achieving level 2. Many students made no reference to publication and saw it as a simple checking method, often with the misconception that it involves the reviewer repeating the study. Stronger students gave the process and then proceeded to give its purpose, whereas weaker ones wrote all they knew, including pre-learned evaluative points that did not gain credit. Despite some impressive answers that showed detailed knowledge of both process and purpose, overall students had very limited or no practical understanding of what peer review involves and teachers are encouraged to address this.
Q15.
(a)     Most students could happily identify the primary and secondary data in the stem material and gained marks for doing so. However, very few answers received full credit for properly explaining the difference between primary and secondary data. There was widespread misunderstanding that the distinction hinges on who collects the data, with many answers stating that primary data is that which is ‘collected by the researcher’ whilst secondary data is ‘collected by someone else’. Such answers failed to recognise the proper distinctions, ie that primary data comes directly from the source (the participants) and is collected for the purposes of the study, whereas secondary data does not come directly from the source and is not specific to the purpose of the study. Various ways of making either of these points were accepted, for example, reference to primary as original data and secondary as not original.
(b)     Many students left this question blank and most of those who did attempt an answer based their response on some form of quantitative analysis, referring to categories being established prior to analysis and tallying or counting frequencies. Very rarely did students refer to transcription of the recordings, coding or emergent themes.
Q16.
(a)     Most students could happily identify the primary and secondary data in the stem material and gained marks for doing so. However, very few answers received full credit for properly explaining the difference between primary and secondary data. There was widespread misunderstanding that the distinction hinges on who collects the data, with many answers stating that primary data is that which is ‘collected by the researcher’ whilst secondary data is ‘collected by someone else’. Such answers failed to recognise the proper distinctions, ie that primary data comes directly from the source (the participants) and is collected for the purposes of the study, whereas secondary data does not come directly from the source and is not specific to the purpose of the study. Various ways of making either of these points were accepted, for example, reference to primary as original data and secondary as not original.
(b)     Many students left this question blank and most of those who did attempt an answer based their response on some form of quantitative analysis, referring to categories being established prior to analysis and tallying or counting frequencies. Very rarely did students refer to transcription of the recordings, coding or emergent themes.
Q17.
(a)     Most students could happily identify the primary and secondary data in the stem material and gained marks for doing so. However, very few answers received full credit for properly explaining the difference between primary and secondary data. There was widespread misunderstanding that the distinction hinges on who collects the data, with many answers stating that primary data is that which is ‘collected by the researcher’ whilst secondary data is ‘collected by someone else’. Such answers failed to recognise the proper distinctions, ie that primary data comes directly from the source (the participants) and is collected for the purposes of the study, whereas secondary data does not come directly from the source and is not specific to the purpose of the study. Various ways of making either of these points were accepted, for example, reference to primary as original data and secondary as not original.
(b)     Many students left this question blank and most of those who did attempt an answer based their response on some form of quantitative analysis, referring to categories being established prior to analysis and tallying or counting frequencies. Very rarely did students refer to transcription of the recordings, coding or emergent themes.
Q18.
(a)     Just under a third of the responses were incorrect.
(b)     The majority of answers were correct, but a number of students suggested incorrect modes. A few students calculated means here.
(c)     Many students gained full marks for this question by offering the mean and median as alternatives. Some explanations suggested that it is necessary to arrange scores in chronological (rather than numerical) order to work out the median. Of those using the range, several mistakenly asserted that the range should be calculated by taking the highest number from the lowest. Very few students referred to the standard deviation or graphical representations. Where students showed explicit calculations these were used to credit the mark for explaining how the statistics should be calculated in the absence of any verbal explanation. Those few students who did not answer were presumably confused by the term 'descriptive statistics'.
Q19.
(a)     For full credit students needed to apply their knowledge of a problem associated with volunteers in this particular study. Many only referred to bias or representativeness and did not relate their responses to type of offender/ possible effect on therapy or on anger scores.
(b)     There were many different suggestions given for random allocation and all suggestions that were practical and would result in the required groups were credited. However, many responses never went beyond the idea of putting names in a hat or into a random number generator, meaning that all the researcher would have is names in a hat or in a generator. Students should be able to describe accurately what they would do to reach the final stage of having the required number of people in the required groups. It was very clear that many students had no idea of what they would have to instruct the computer or random number generator to do in order to reach this stage.
(c)     Full marks were rarely achieved as most responses failed to show understanding of what was being measured in this study (the DV) which was a reduction in anger scores not anger scores or anger. Some students thought the study was looking for a difference between the start and end of therapy rather than between two different therapies.
(d)     Many students failed to write enough about the data. Instead, they seemed to be providing answers to a question that required justification of one chosen suggestion, often just referring to the greater reduction in Group 2/Therapy B indicating that it was more effective. There were many points that could have been extrapolated from the data in the figure.
(e)     Many students overlooked the most significant improvement to be derived from using a matched pairs design, ie the matching on pre-therapy anger scores. These students resorted to explaining matched pairs in a generic way without reference to the criteria which could be used for matching. Instead they often suggested IQ, age and sex as the crucial points, rather than pre-therapy anger scores. While credit was available for demonstrating an understanding of matched pairs design these responses did have to be contextualised and unfortunately many answers were generic.
(f)     It was surprising that a number of students missed the second part of this question. An appropriate ethical issue was outlined (often fully) but then there was a failure to explain how this issue could have been dealt with. The importance of keeping the whole question in mind is highlighted in this case. Some responses presented a muddle of possible issues and markers had to try to match an appropriate issue with its appropriate solution. More worrying were the responses where one issue was described and a different issue was dealt with.
(g)     Answers were often disappointing as students seemed unaware that median values are a form of average and stated that a problem was the median is not an average. Others made vague statements about how the median doesn’t use all the values, but it would be difficult to find a median without the other values.
(h)     This was generally answered well by the majority of students. However, there were quite a number of responses where knowledge was evident but marks were not obtained because the answer was not contextualised.
(i)     It was again difficult to give full credit to responses in some cases as they were often vague or undeveloped so the information about the strength of using questionnaires as a technique for data collection often lacked clarity.